[Vision2020] Alturas

[bill london]

B-
And I'll respond to your clarifications....
1. The suggested rule change would encourage the companies now at 
Alturas, or considering Alturas, to sell directly to the public (retail 
sales).  That would change Alturas from a office mall to a retail 
center--in this case, a mini-mall with a cute fountain park at the 
entrance.  Not that I have anything against retail--it's just that the 
taxpayers of Moscow paid for this with the understanding that Alturas 
was going to be a haven for job-creating high-tech industries.  Not a 
competitor to downtown and mall retail.  Besides, don't you really think 
that having customers driving in, etc, would change the nature of Alturas?
2. OK, how about one-third of the jobs at Alturas are in the day care, 
attorneys', accountants' offices, etc? 
My basic point is that PacSim (your business) is a perfect example of 
what Alturas should be about...a high-tech company retained in Moscow by 
the amenities of Alturas.  The day care center and attorneys etc are 
not.  The rules should be changed to encourage more PacSim's and not 
allow any more of the attorneys and day cares in.  Let's focus growth in 
town, not sprawling into the wheatfields.  Let's not spend more tax 
money giving plush office space to attorneys moving from downtown offices.
BL

Bill Strand wrote:

>Bill,
>
>Thank you for your response. A couple of clarifications:
>
>1. In your definition of retail sales, you just ruled out Pacific
>Simulation as a potential Alturas tenant as we do indeed sell software
>for public use. However, I don't understand how selling statistical
>analysis software to the public changes the intent of the park.
>
>2. The number of people working in offices that moved from the downtown
>(i.e. the attorney and accounting offices) do not even come close to the
>"about half the jobs" you quoted. This is a gross overstatement.
>
>I believe that the discussion of Alturas is an important aspect of the
>business development in the community. I only hope that when that
>discussion is presented, the facts are correctly represented.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Bill Strand
>
>.
>
>  
>