[Vision2020] Gravel Pitt decision Justified.

[Tom Hansen]

And so sayeth the Commission from the County of Latah.

Sounds almost fair. I'm imnpressed.  To think that Kimmel can say something
with His-Whineyness in Pennsulvania?

WOW!

You go, girl.

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
> Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:41 PM
> To: deco@moscow.com; vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Gravel Pitt decision Justified.
>
>
> Tim, Wayne, all,
>
> After seeing this issue was of concern for many people, and not
> wanting to
> believe that every liberal in Latah County was for the burying of
> children
> in gravel pitts, I checked into the facts of this decision. It
> was correctly
> made by the board of commissioners, here is why;
>
> 1) There was already a gravel pitt there. Therefore, any argument that it
> disruptive seems mute when there was a gravel pitt there already.
>
> 2) It is not running 24/7. The hours were negotiated with the city of
> Potlatch and they were limited to normal hours.
>
> 3) Increased safety standards were put into the project. Children
> not being
> watched by their parents, pets, and the curious are safer with this new
> gravel pitt then they are with the old one right next door.
>
> 4) The roads will not be dusty, because of modern methods used
>
> 5) Putting the gravel pit next to the old one saves the taxpayers money.
>
> 6) The gravel used is in fact used by the residents of Latah County.
>
> You can verify these facts with the Court House.
>
> Overall, this is better for the environment, better for the taxpayer, and
> safer for the residents.
>
> Granted, it sucks for the 100 people that live next door. However, they
> should have thought about that before they moved next a gravel
> pitt that has
> been there longer then them.
>
> So if you are willing to go without roads, or against the environment, or
> want to raise taxes on the already over taxed, you are justified
> in opposing
> the decision of putting the new gravel pitt next to the old one.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
> >From: "Art Deco aka W. Fox" <deco@moscow.com>
> >To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Can you follow this?-Stroschein
> >Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:41:50 -0700
> >
> >Donovan,
> >
> >Thank you for your response.
> >
> >Three points:
> >
> >1.    There are great sources of rock and similar material in
> Latah County
> >not
> >located in a heavily populated Ag/Suburban area.  [You might
> take a drive
> >out to
> >the 4 Mile/Flannigan Creek Road area to see what the issues of
> impact are
> >and
> >the number of people living in that area.]  The more remote
> places should
> >be
> >considered first for such potentially adverse uses.  Residents
> in the area
> >of
> >the now approved pit have millions of dollars invested in their lands,
> >homes,
> >and lifestyles.  Why seriously and adversely impact these people
> when there
> >are
> >other viable solutions?
> >
> >2.    Have the commissioners really thought the safety issues
> through with
> >care?
> >I know of several gravel pits in Latah County which are unfenced.  This
> >creates
> >a real hazard for children, for people unfamiliar with the
> terrain hiking
> >in the
> >dark, and for the forgetful or intoxicated.  News articles from
> across the
> >country sometimes tell of tragic accidents occurring in unfenced pits.
> >
> >3.    This particular gravel pit demonstrates in part the
> conflict between
> >Paul
> >Kimmell as Commissioner and Paul Kimmell as Director of the
> Moscow Chamber
> >of
> >Commerce.  In the first role, he should be development neutral, weighing
> >the
> >impact in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance on
> >all
> >affected by any development proposal.  In the second role, he is
> pro-growth
> >and
> >pro-development by the very nature of his job.  I think that having the
> >same
> >person in both positions is not beneficial to Latah County citizens.
> >Gravel
> >pits are necessary for growth.  In his zeal to approve this one, Kimmell
> >ignored
> >the adverse impacts on many in neighborhood and district.  The commission
> >ignored the possibility of other viable proposals.  I suspect those
> >impacted
> >will let him know, if he stands for re-election.
> >
> >The major reason for having Planning and Zoning is to mediate and to
> >mitigate
> >land proposed land use problems.  The goal is to design plans,
> regulations,
> >and
> >decisions based on those to protect the property and lifestyle
> investments
> >of
> >those affected.  I think the commissioners did not make prudent use of
> >their
> >discretion in this matter.
> >
> >Wayne
> >
> >Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
> >deco@moscow.com
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>