[Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was Recall the city council

[Garrett Clevenger]

Ted asks:

"Do you really think the mall owner would want to
deliberately undermine the business interests of his
tenants?"


That's a good question, as it seems the decision
regarding the bus, and the reason given for doing so,
indicate the owner undermined his tenants.  You'd have
to ask him, though, if he really thinks his decision
is worth the business the mall is obviously losing as
a result.

It is quite possible that the council sincerely thinks
the Hawkins decision is best for Moscow.  I have no
idea how "corrupt" these people really are.  It could
be (at least Bill Lambert and Wayne Krauss admitted
such) that they are merely amateurs.  It could be they
just do not think on a bigger scale than their limited
sphere.  Which is why they should not be making big
decisions without adequate public input.

I do know that Walter Steed and Dan Carscallen misled
me when they said they did not support the noise
ordinance proposal, but then went ahead and voted for
it when they had a better alternative compromise.  So
either they didn't think through their vote, changed
their mind, or all along were lying to me.  Whatever
the case, I question how reasonable these people are
considering even the Chief of Police agreed with the
noise ordinance compromise. Yet the council
unreasonably decided to thwart our First Amendment
right, without adequately addressing concerns the new
NO raises.

So I don't trust the judgment of the council.  I agree
they are amateurs.  They more than likely will make
other bad decision we will have to live with.  Perhaps
they will start being more reasonable, but as G W Bush
said, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice,
won't get fooled again."  Or was that The Who?

gclev

--- Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Garrett et. al.
> 
> Thanks for your continued reasonable engagement on
> these issues, and not
> from an ad hominem approach, very common on
> Vision2020, even from those who
> pose as reasonable...
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> I'd say the owner of the mall isn't really concerned
> about building
> community, on top of not caring if his tenants are
> losing business.
> ------------
> Do you really think the mall owner would want to
> deliberately undermine the
> business interests of his tenants?  Perhaps there
> are reasons for the
> Wheatland bus stop denial at the Palouse Mall that
> are unexplored, perhaps
> the decision was unintentionally bad for business,
> if you are correct.
> 
> I agree with much of what you present on these
> issues, but perhaps the
> intentions of those on the Moscow City Council, and
> other business
> interests, are not as sinister as you imply?  I do
> not want to discount the
> selfish, secretive and profit oriented motivations
> of business concerns, or
> politicians who may be inclined to make deals with
> the rich and powerful,
> for whatever motives, but good well intentioned
> people sometimes just make
> bad decisions, believing they are doing the right
> thing, even at the top of
> multinational corporations.
> 
> Consider this 2008 discussion with Jeroen van der
> Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch
> Shell, a giant in the oil industry.  He is facing
> the science indicating the
> dangers of anthropogenic climate change, even
> speaking positively about Al
> Gore's efforts on this issue, as he continues to
> head a corporation in large
> measure responsible for an energy economy loading
> the atmosphere with CO2.
> As I unpacked his comments, I surmised he sincerely
> wants to ensure a
> healthy planet for the future (I'm trying to be
> positive), but the realities
> of his business and the demands of the marketplace
> are what they are...
> 
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/19interview.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> 
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as
> it has been said.
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> On 3/23/08, Garrett Clevenger
> <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > g writes:
> >
> > "I know the tactic is to repeat the lie so often
> it
> > becomes accepted fact but, Moscow is, in fact,
> > subsidizing nothing."
> >
> >
> > I would say g is perpetuating a lie, or at least
> > misinformation as I think in order to lie you have
> to
> > be aware you are wrong, because, in fact, Moscow
> is
> > subsidizing something.
> >
> > By providing water and sewer services, Moscow is
> > saving Hawkins $4 million in development costs
> that
> > would be needed to build infrastructure to receive
> > water and dispose of sewer.  Whitman County agreed
> to
> > fund a $10 million dollar bond to build that
> > infrastructure and more.  Now Whitman County will
> save
> > $4 million by not having to pay to build the water
> and
> > sewer infrastructure.  I would say Moscow is
> > subsidizing Whitman County's growth, if not
> > necessarily Hawkins itself, because our
> > infrastructure, something paid for by Moscow tax
> and
> > rate payers, will now be stretched further, and
> > perhaps need upgrades sooner, if Hawkins uses
> Moscow's
> > water and sewer services.
> >
> > Whitman County, as far as I can tell, is not
> agreeing
> > to give Moscow anything.  Usually subsidies expect
> > something in return, so perhaps this isn't a
> strict
> > subsidy, but a give away.
> >
> > Am I wrong in thinking the new city council could
> have
> > rezoned an area in Moscow for Hawkins, or a Super
> > Walmart?  Not that I'd want them to do it, but in
> > their negotiation with Hawkins, could that not
> have
> > been part of the negotiation, offering instead of
> > selling water and sewer, the ability to build in
> > Moscow?  If the new council really had Moscow's
> future
> > at heart, instead of merely development for
> > development's sake, regardless if that development
> > will directly compete with Moscow, it seems the
> > council had another alternative: rezone somewhere
> in
> > Moscow to suit what seems to be a need for more
> > shopping areas.
> >
> > Keep in mind, though, that considering Walmart is
> the
> > kind of store that will close a smaller, older one
> to
> > build a Super Center, their intent is to garner
> more
> > market share.  They don't necessarily have the
> > community's interest at heart.  I think many
> owners of
> > these types of developments who live in another
> > community really are mostly interested in their
> bottom
> > line, not building community.
> >
> > Case in point: the owner of the Palouse Empire
> Mall,
> > who does not live in Moscow, kicked Wheatland
> Express,
> > the bus from Pullman to Moscow, out of the mall. 
> They
> > no longer wanted the bus to stop at the mall
> because
> > they thought too many people were parking at the
> mall
> > to catch the bus there, regardless that their huge
> > parking lot is very rarely full.  I take the bus
> daily
> > and saw many people get off the bus at the mall,
> and
> > come back with full bags of groceries from Winco,
> and
> > other items.  I'm sure the owners of stores at the
> > mall are losing thousands of dollars of business a
> > year since the bus no longer stops there.  I'd say
> the
> > owner of mall isn't really concerned about
> building
> > community, on top of not caring if his tenants are
> > losing business.
> >
> > Now the bus stops at Walmart, and most of those
> people
> > who get off there are shopping at Walmart.  If
> that
> > Walmart closes, I wonder if the bus will change
> its
> > stop to Hawkins, denying Moscow the business of
> > hundreds of people who come from Pullman.  I doubt
> the
> > bus would stop at both Hawkins and the PEM or
> another
> > store near there.
> >
> > My point is, instead of subsidizing Whitman
> County's
> > growth by allowing another state to use our
> > infrastructure, the council should have had the
> smarts
> > to take public input on such a crucial issue to
> insure
> > that our resources are being put towards those who
> > really care about Moscow's future, rather than
> just
> > making a buck.
> >
> > gclev
> >
> >
>