[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

[a]

Point 3 is wrong in only the most insignifigant way, if that. The City of 
Troy, population 798, does get its water via surface capture reservoir 
(although it's a matter of serious consideration whether some of the water 
captured would be going to recharge ground water sources) Rural Troy draws 
water from the same shallow aquaifer that is part of Moscow/Pullman's (and 
the wells Hawkin's would sink if they do not purchase water from us) water 
supply.

I did not discuss water "cost" to build so I'm hard pressed to see where I 
might have been wrong. If that is going to be part of the argument then we 
better place a moratorium on all construction as building Hawkins will be no 
more consumptive than any other building project of similar scope. (I'm not 
even sure what this "cost" you refer to would be. Intake and discharge by 
the construction workers?)

Finally you claim "100 people would not use as much water eating at home, 
easing there own dishes, as they would eating in a restaurant." Lets fudge 
the numbers in your favor and call those 100 people 20 households. 20 
households use far more water than one large restaurant. New commercial 
dishwashers are quite water efficient.

Seems to me there's more error in your post then mine.

g


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work


> Point 3 is wrong. First, the point of the mall would be to bring SOME
> people from the outside area into the our area. If someone comes from
> Troy to the Moscow area the water they use comes from a different
> source than it would have otherwise. Second, it will "cost" a lot of
> water just to build the mall. Third, if there are restaurants that
> will be an addition use. 100 people would not use as much water eating
> at home, easing there own dishes, as they would eating in a
> restaurant. Have you ever seen a restaurant dish washer? I washed
> dishes for a time, so I have!
>
> Joe Campbell
>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 10:59 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 1. My business is not located in Whitman county.
>>
>> 2. Predatory? All business competes with other business. This is the
>> nature
>> of the game. Will Idaho lose some tax revenue? Some, but probably
>> not as
>> much as you think. Those same tax dollars are lost when Idaho
>> residents go
>> to Spokane to shop or make purchases through the intertubes because
>> what
>> they seek is unavailable in Moscow.
>>
>> 3. Water. We've been over this one repeatedly. Whether it is
>> delivered by
>> the City of Moscow, pumped from private wells, or provided by the
>> City of
>> Pullman, it's all the same water. The folks who are working and
>> shopping at
>> the new mall would be using the same amount of water if they were
>> working in
>> Moscow, Pullman, Troy, or Colton. You don't uptake or download any
>> more just
>> because you're at the Hawkins development. I suspect that your
>> vegetable
>> production facility uses far more water than any individual business
>> will
>> and provides far fewer jobs. If the Hawkins property were to be
>> turned into
>> a truck farm the same argument you attempt to use applies.
>> Competition with
>> Moscow business. (you) No tax dollars for Idaho. Far higher water
>> consumption. Perhaps you would prefer the land lay fallow?
>>
>> 4. I am willing to accept any legal, legitimate business operation
>> located
>> on private property in Latah or Whitman Co. Pullman or Moscow, miles
>> away or
>> right next door to my shop. Period.
>>
>> 5. I think that my answer regarding your questions concerning FOCA
>> were to
>> the point. One third of all hospitals in America are Catholic. If a
>> doctor
>> or nurse hired on with one of these facilities they would have a
>> reasonable
>> expectation of working in an environment that did not promote a
>> culture of
>> death. Forcing institutions such as these to provide a service that
>> they did
>> not originally is to force every person employed there to do
>> something that
>> was not in their original job description. I am not talking about the
>> mythical minority that might have hired on at an abortion mill that
>> suddenly
>> don't want to perform their  job. In my example I'm talking about
>> thousands
>> of real health care professionals, in yours you talking about a tiny
>> handful
>> (if that) of hypothetical employees. I stand by my red herring
>> assertion.
>>
>> It seems that you are arguing in favor of an employers right to can a
>> hypothetical fraction of his work force rather than the rights of
>> the very
>> real thousands of doctors and nurses who will be adversely impacted
>> by BHO's
>> very bad decision.
>>
>> g
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
>>
>>
>>>
>>> g writes:
>>>
>>> "I'm confused. I thought you said you were a Moscow resident... I
>>> like our
>>> neighbors to the west, I don't feel a need to meddle in their
>>> affairs, and
>>> I'm willing to let them purchase "our" water at reasonable rates."
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why you're confused. I live in Moscow. I try to support
>>> locally-owned stores, even ones in Whitman County. Like you, I have
>>> nothing against Whitman County, or the employers and people there
>>> in a
>>> general sense. I want their lives to prosper as much as anyb
>> ody's. But when they are doing so by competing with Moscow's
>> interests, it
>> only seems natural to want to defend Moscow.
>>>
>>> You are free to feel the way you state. The fact is, a Boise
>>> developer
>>> plans to build a predatory mall next to Moscow. Their intent is to
>>> compete
>>> with Moscow businesses. To me, I'm not thrilled at that prospect,
>>> and I
>>> consider it meddling with Moscow in that they aren't in this to help
>>> Moscow. More than likely, some businesses in Moscow will suffer,
>>> and thus
>>> Idaho sales tax revenue will decrease. So in some sense, they are
>>> meddling
>>> with Moscow by intently wanting Moscow business, thus reducing state
>>> coffers. I see nothing wrong with defending Moscow's interests from
>>> private developers who don't care if they hurt Moscow.
>>>
>>> We aren't talking about one store, but a mall twice the size as
>>> Moscow's
>>> largest mall. That isn't minor as you stated earlier. The fact that
>>> they
>>> want to draw from the same aquifer as Moscow is another way they are
>>> meddling with Moscow.
>>>
>>> Moscow shouldn't be in the business of facilitating out of state
>>> mega-malls that don't have Moscow's best interest at heart, meaning
>>> Moscow
>>> shouldn't sell them water, and should not have offered to provide
>>> them
>>> sewer services, as well. That isn't meddling, that just making sure
>>> we
>>> aren't letting Moscow be ill-served.
>>>
>>> Should I take from your position, g, that you are willing to accept
>>> anything that may come to Whitman County, or even to Moscow?
>>>
>>> How about a nuclear waste depository? A chemical company with a known
>>> history of polluting and leaving the waste to be cleaned up by
>>> taxpayers?
>>> A strip club a block down from your lock shop, perhaps with a topless
>>> car-wash (out of public view, of course)?
>>>
>>> Do you have limits, or is it an anything goes kind of growth?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the conscience rule questions I asked. I understand the
>>> specific
>>> cases you are defending. I had in previous replies to the thread
>>> taken a
>>> similar position. From what I remember, Sunil asked you to document
>>> cases
>>> where someone was forced to perform an abortion, and you wrote, "To
>>> the
>>> best of my knowlage they have not." Meaning to me, no one has been
>>> forced
>>> to perform an abortion against their will. So it seems that to
>>> bring up
>>> something that is not an issue as an answer to my question is a red
>>> herring.
>>>
>>> I wasn't answering a question with a question. The question you
>>> asked was
>>> addressed to someone else, and it was answered. I thought of the
>>> questions
>>> I asked you to further the discussion on the issue, and since you
>>> were the
>>> person supporting the conscience rule as is, I merely was hoping
>>> you'd
>>> answer them.
>>>
>>> My questions were about the overall implications of the law, not
>>> specific
>>> parts. Since the original article was about modifying the order, not
>>> repealing it, I was trying to get to the meat of the issue. I'm
>>> sorry you
>>> interpreted them as red herrings, but that was not my intent. I
>>> think they
>>> are questions that supporters of the rule should think about.
>>>
>>> If I were to call anything a red herring, it is the answer you just
>>> gave
>>> to my questions. If you want me to consider that your "neglected
>>> reply,"
>>> then I'll just assume you don't have a reasonable answer those
>>> questions,
>>> copied here for references sake:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should a business be obligated to pay an employee who doesn't
>>> do their
>>> job?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the business have the right to not spend its money on an
>>> employee who won't perform their job? If not, then how could a
>>> business
>>> continue to function if there doesn't seem to be a way to prevent
>>> employees from over-enjoying their supposed right to not do their job
>>> because of such a broad excuse as it goes against their religion?
>>> Are we
>>> talking about every single religion?
>>>
>>> Does the government have the right to force a business to pay an
>>> employee
>>> who doesn't do their job? If so, why should government intervene in
>>> such
>>> an intimate way since that seems rather socialistic?
>>>
>>> Doesn't passing a law requiring businesses to pay an employee who
>>> doesn't
>>> do their job because of religion violate the 1st Amendment? If not,
>>> how
>>> can a law which essentially is regarding the establishment of
>>> religion not
>>> be illegal, particularly when it also seems rather anti-capitalistic?
>>>
>>> g's answer:
>>>
>>>> 1. If you reply to my question with a question (and no
>>>> actual response) am I honor bond to reply? If so, should it
>>>> be in the form of another question?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Your questions were specious in that we were not talking
>>>> about the nurse at a planned parenthood clinic suddenly
>>>> deciding that she didn't want to be involved in the
>>>> tgaking of a life or anyone who contrived to be hired,
>>>> knowing full well what their job would entail, and suddenly
>>>> opting to not perform their duties. We are talking about
>>>> personnel hired at private facilities that had no
>>>> involvement with abortion suddenly being forced to perform a
>>>> procedure they never hired on for. We are talking about
>>>> private sector pharmacists being forced to sell products
>>>> they in good conscience find abhorrent.
>>>>
>>>> This, and Donovan's "emergency save the
>>>> mother" arguments are red herrings tossed out to cover
>>>> the stench of forcing private individuals to bow to the whim
>>>> of others against their will and conscience.
>>>>
>>>> Please consider this my neglected reply. Sorry for my lack
>>>> of alacrity.
>>>>
>>>> g
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date: 
> 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
>