[Vision2020] In Support of Alturas Park
Mike Curley
curley@turbonet.com
Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:36:35 -0800
<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>Barbara:
I think that the city's zoning code trumps the Alturas business plan. Any business (and
its plan) in town must operate within the zoning restrictions applied to it. This zone was
funded publicly and zoned (restricted) publicly to provide space <underline>specifically</underline> for research
and technology businesses. Why? Because those businesses could not, typically, get off
the ground financially at start-up. Does that same difficulty apply to law offices,
accountants, engineers, architects, and day care centers--especially ones that are
already located in town? If we can expand the uses in Alturas to get businesses THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE HERE, then you and i are on the same page. Providing a
space for "start-ups" makes sense for all the reasons you have previously stated.
Expanding to allow existing Moscow businesses to move to Alturas and remove their
taxes from the city income stream is entirely different. You want to change the real
purpose of the park, but you don't really speak to that issue before P&Z or Council.
There was a significant amount of public discussion about the need for and structure of
Alturas when it was created. You are suggesting that we undo that without that same
degree of public discussion and debate now. And you often demonize anyone who asks
a question about the intent or effect by suggesting or saying outright that they are "anti-
business" or "anti-growth." Below you have resorted to the suggestion that a business
that moves from one part of Moscow to Alturas is going to create a higher-paying job for
someone. That's just rhetoric and you know it. No existing business raises employee
wages simply BECAUSE it moved to Alturas. And most of the changes you are
recommending to the zoning of Alturas have to do with allowing EXISTING businesses
to move there, not creating space for new ones.
Your statement "as the economy changes and the University changes, there is a
significant negative impact on the local economy" only applies if the economy and/or UI
change for the WORSE. As UI expands--GOOD for Moscow. As the US economy
recovers/expands--GOOD for Moscow. I don't see much diversity created by allowing
businesses to move out of existing Moscow space into Alturas. Same jobs, same
business, same city. So, I'm with you for creating NEW jobs. That is entirely separate
from the issues that are being discussed though.
Mike Curley
On 12 Nov 03, at 10:43, Barbara Richardson Crouch wrote:
</color>From: "Barbara Richardson Crouch" <<edc@moscow.com>
To: <<curley@turbonet.com>, <<rawoods@moscow.com>, <<vision2020@moscow.com>
Copies to: "JoAnn Mack" <<jmack@turbonet.com>, <<steveb@moscow.com>,
<<jmhill@moscow.com>, <<jon@n-k-ins.com>, <<griedner@ci.moscow.id.us>,
<<mtethoma@moscow.com>, <<peg_hamlett@sbcglobal.net>, <<lpall@moscow.com>,
<<johnd@moscow.com>, <<nchaney@moscow.com>, <<comstock@moscow.com>
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] In Support of Alturas Park
Date sent: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:43:51 -0800
<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> Let's talk in terms that everyone can agree upon. We compete locally,
> regionally, nationally, and internationally for business development.
> Moscow has always focused on the University of Idaho for its financial
> well-being. As the economy changes and the University changes, there is a
> significant negative impact on the local economy. To offset that impact, we
> try to diversify the economy. If you look at our neighbors -
> Lewiston/Clarkston and Pullman. They have public funded Port Districts
> leasing space- long term - for .65 to .80 per square foot per month. The
> higher rate is the beginning lease rate for the Incubator! We must stay
> competitive!
>
> Alturas' business plan is the legal document that states the intent of
> Alturas - not a Zoning Code. RTO is a zoning code and not the business plan
> for Alturas. Please separate the two. Mike please give me the name of
> local business people that state their business has been hurt by Alturas or
> the RTO zone.
>
> Part of the reason many businesses do not locate here is because the fear of
> negative publicity. Orofino is the home to a light manufacturing company
> expected to employee more than 100 people in living wage jobs with benefits
> because of the fear of negative publicity.
>
> We constantly talk about "quality of life" but ask the people who are making
> less now than they did 4 years ago or the people working 2 jobs to afford a
> home in Moscow if their "quality of life" could be enhanced by better jobs.
>
> Barbara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
> Behalf Of Mike Curley
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:07 AM
> To: rawoods@moscow.com; vision2020@moscow.com; Robin Woods
> Cc: JoAnn Mack; steveb@moscow.com; jmhill@moscow.com; jon@n-k-ins.com;
> griedner@ci.moscow.id.us; mtethoma@moscow.com; peg_hamlett@sbcglobal.net;
> lpall@moscow.com; johnd@moscow.com; nchaney@moscow.com; comstock@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] In Support of Alturas Park
>
>
> Robin Woods, BJ Swanson, and Greg Mann have written notes to which I
> respond:
> Greg: i didn't even know your business was in Alturas. Guess I wasn't
> specifically referring to you in any prior post.
> BJ: you chastised Bill London for misstating the purpose of Alturas. You
> said it was designed to provide jobs and make the economy less dependent on
> the U of I. Maybe you have a different document than I have used for my
> reference. The Zoning Code says the RTO zone (Alturas being the only area so
> zoned) is "created to take advantage of technology developed and expertise
> available at the University of Idaho and the transfer of technology to the
> private sector... Permitted uses include but are not limited to those
> directly involved in research and development, manufacture [or tech
> products], and a limited range of office uses that could provide services to
> the research and development functions or could be converted to research and
> development uses as the market for such space warrants."
>
> Among the permitted uses are "Professional, executive and clerical offices
> intended to support the research and technology purposes of the zoning
> district."
>
> So, I'm not sure BJ that judged by that language you can properly accuse
> Bill London of misstating the facts when he talked about "failure of the
> initial idea of the business park." Clearly from those statements, the
> initial idea was a research and technology park with supporting businesses
> allowed.
>
> Robin, and others: The question that I raised in this iteration of
> "Alturas--the Saga Continues" was very simply whether the city was doing the
> right thing to expand the types of businesses that could locate in
> Alturas--a publicly-funded technology park. It did not raise any issue with
> Anatek or any other tech/research business currently located in the park or
> that may want to locate there in the future. And frankly, there is only one
> issue that makes me care about what businesses can locate there--the public
> bonds, and diversion of taxes to pay for them, from non-tech businesses.
> There is one lot remaining in Phase 1 of Alturas. Will there be are request
> of the Urban Renewal Agency for another bond for Phase 2 or will all the
> financing be private? If the latter, then I don't really care who we let
> into the RTO Zone. We can call phase 2 the Moscow Business Park and expand
> significantly the permitted uses and ease restrictions so that businesses do
> not need to have a tech-supportive function. That way, if lawyers,
> accountants, and engineers move there, the property taxes they pay will
> (continue to) go to the city rather than to retirement of bonded
> indebtedness. THAT is the issue. It isn't about downtown. As someone has
> pointed out, it's about the entire community. If an existing Moscow business
> moves to phase 1 of Alturas (and I think there is no disagreement that this
> has happened), the taxes that business previously paid to the city are now
> going to retirement of the bonded debt. I have NO PROBLEM with Anatek doing
> that; no problem with businesses that could otherwise not have gotten a
> start without that public bonding of the park, but I do have a problem with
> an expansion of non-tech/research businesses locating in Alturas UNTIL after
> the bond is paid or Phase 1 is full and Phase 2 is opened without a public
> bond.
>
> And while it seems fashionable to demonize everyone who even asks a question
> about Alturas and the RTO zone as "anti-business" and/or "anti-growth," the
> truth is that by trying to maintain the original intent of the zone (as
> stated in the zoning code rather than from BJ's memory), one may actually
> consider that s/he is keeping the rest of the city a viable place to
> locate/continue a business. And is giving other landowners an incentive to
> develop their commercial property privately.
>
> In the not-too-distant future the bond on Phase 1 will be paid. Let someone
> tell us there will be no need for the URA because we are expanding Alturas
> to a business park and won't use publicly-funded bonds to develop it, and
> the opposition to expanded uses will go away so long as the park is not
> disadvantaging other economic interests, businesses, and landowners in town.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Mike Curley
>
>
> _____________________________________________________ List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/10/2003
>