[Vision2020] City Council's selective compassion

[Tom Hansen]

Mr. Crabtree -

Yes, Dan Mack could have done whatever he wanted with his property (and
here's the point you missed), as long as he received formal governmental
approval. In this case, he needed both P&Z and City Council to grant him a
variance and approve his blueprint, which they did. However, both bodies
could have said "no deal." They had no obligation to grant his variance or
to approve his blueprint.
 
Similarly, City Council has no obligation to remedy NSA's third zoning
violation. They could serve notice and evict them, just as Dan Mack did to
his tenants. City Council could say to NSA, "Your students impinge on your
neighbors' parking, and this cuts into their ability to make an honest buck.
Get lost."

But as noted, two out of three councilpersons who granted Dan Mack approval
to demolish low-income family homes are now crying "equity" and "fairness"
for NSA. Worse yet, they intend to penalize NSA's neighbors by depleting
their parking supply at the expense of their customer base, which cuts into
their ability to make an honest buck, just so they can be fair and equitable
to NSA. Now, does that sound fair to you?

Merry Christmas, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

 "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body thoroughly used
up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"

-----Original Message-----

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of g. crabtree
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:47 PM
To: Tom Hansen; vision2020 at moscow.com; 'Joan Opyr'
Subject: Re: Re: [Vision2020] City Council's selective compassion

This seems wrong on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin. Once 
Mr. Mack became the owner of that property it was within his rights to evict

the people on it, as he saw fit. It would not have been a matter for P&Z, 
city council, the commissioners, or the justice league of America. What he 
did with it subsequently may have been. It is not up to the first three of 
the aforementioned list to "rubberstamp fairness or equity" (and the last 
doesn't really exist; hate to be the guy that spills the beans.) I do not 
believe that Mr. Mack was looking to design hardship for his tenants, just 
improve his property and perhaps, horror of horrors, make an honest buck. 
The N.S.A. situation is completely a horse of a different color. They own 
their property. They thought they could put it to their intended use. This 
all by itself makes it an apple-orange situation with the trailer court.

I'll stop here as I feel sure that my argument is falling on deaf ears,  but

will conclude by wondering why so much emotion is spent on the N.S.A. issue.

It's Christmas, lighten up! Or maybe that's a big part of the problem, also.

(Your a mean one, Mr...)

G. Crabtree