[Vision2020] Fwd: [Bulk] Hawkins Mega-Mall

[roger hayes]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: roger hayes <rhayes at turbonet.com>
> Date: Sun Jan 13, 2008  10:18:10 AM US/Pacific
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] [Vision2020] Hawkins Mega-Mall
>
> Paul,
> Thank you for the reply. However, I reiterate that this is a deal that 
> will create much more economic, esthetic, and environmental harm than 
> it ever will produce benefit for Moscow. I smell a foul smell here. 
> Maybe we should look at places like Hayden, Post Falls, Newport, Wa. 
> and Priest River to see what has been done. However, there is little 
> in common there. Our "neighbor city" is not a few hundred yards away. 
> It is more than 6 miles. And Pullman does not want this to happen 
> either. Again, I smell a bad smell. It is the smell of agreements 
> being made behind closed doors to benefit some to the detriment of the 
> city as a whole. Also, the argument that "it is going to happen 
> anyway" is a fallacy and is contrived to pull the wool over our eyes. 
> That is a foul way to conduct city business, and I suggest we look 
> very closely at our elected officials for conflict of interests.
> Roger
> On Sunday, January 13, 2008, at 09:58 AM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>> Like you stated in your first paragraph, we are in a good bargaining 
>> position.  They don't want to put the mall there simply as a random 
>> choice.  They want to tap our population as customers.  Pullman 
>> doesn't wan to have to extend it's utilities out eight miles to this 
>> mall, and I'm sure Hawkins doesn't want to pay for it.  So we should 
>> make the most of our bargaining position.  If they don't want to 
>> play, they can put the mall on the other side of Pullman and lose 
>> some of their potential customer base.
>>
>> So the big question is: what do we want?  Do we want to protect our 
>> aquifer?  Then maybe we should work out some kind of a deal where 
>> they pay us for the extra water usage.  We could then use that money 
>> to build our water infrastructure, however that is done.  Do we want 
>> to lessen it's impact aesthetically?  Contract with them to plant 
>> some trees or do some landscaping.  Do we want to lessen it's affect 
>> on the carbon chain, like Ted suggested?  Force them to take some 
>> steps to balance that.  We can't make any of this happen through laws 
>> normally because they are not in our state, but we can make a binding 
>> contract if they will agree to one.  The question for them will be: 
>> should we move this elsewhere and lose the easy revenue stream?  
>> Should we deal only with Pullman for everything, eight miles away?  
>> Or should we play ball and help to benefit our neighbor city that's a 
>> few hundred yards away?
>>
>> We can't be the only city ever to exist on the border between two 
>> states with the other town close by.  What has been done elsewhere?
>> Paul
>>
>> roger hayes wrote:
>>> Hawkins is pretty desperate to tap into the Moscow market or else 
>>> they would be looking for a location closer to Pullman. The Whitman 
>>> county commissioners would be happy to infuse their county with the 
>>> tax dollars sucked out of Moscow citizens. I do not think the city 
>>> of Pullman is very interested in running sewer and water all the way 
>>> to the Idaho border.  Why would they want to encourage business 
>>> development that would be detrimental to their local businesses and 
>>> tax base?
>>>
>>> That brings us to the question of why the Moscow city council seems 
>>> interested in negotiating with Whitman county and Hawkins. Last week 
>>> Hawkins proposed that Whitman county float a bond for around 10.5 
>>> million dollars to lay infrastructure to their development. It 
>>> doesn't look like that is going to happen. Probably the 
>>> commissioners see that Whitman county voters are not dumb enough to 
>>> fall for that. And as I said earlier, Pullman does not seem dumb 
>>> enough to allow injury to their growing economy.  So now, who is 
>>> dumb enough? Eyes turn to the Moscow city council.
>>>
>>> There's gonna be some explaining to do if our city council falls for 
>>> this scheme. I already can see the hoards of angry tax payers with 
>>> pitchforks and torches surrounding the chamber council demanding an 
>>> explanation.
>>>
>>> Who will profit? Moscow? Hardly. Sprawl without even the benefit of 
>>> taxes. No legal control over the development. Continued depletion of 
>>> our water resources. Improvements to Moscow's water and sewer, 
>>> police and fire departments will fall on already overburdened 
>>> residential tax payers.
>>>
>>> Who stands to profit? That some members of our council seem 
>>> interested in this is very suspicious.
>>>
>>> Roger Hayes
>>> Moscow
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the 
>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                  
>>> http://www.fsr.net                                 
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>