[Vision2020] Gravel Pitt decision Justified.

[Art Deco aka W. Fox]

Donovan,

That the gravel pit was already there is misleading.  It was unused or hardly
used for many years.  Apparently there was little or no crushing or blasting
during this time.

It was not a grandfathered use, hence the need for a new permit.  This means the
P&Z board and Commissioners could not consider it as a continuing use, but only
as a new use.

The 100 or so home owners brought with the understanding that the pit was a
discontinued use.

There are other factors also.  I have an interesting email from someone on the
subject.  If I can get permission, I will post it.


Wayne

Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
deco@moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
To: <deco@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:41 PM
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
| ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
|