[Vision2020] City Council's selective compassion

[g. crabtree]

Miss Opyr, You and Mr. Hansen seem to have overlooked the line in my communiqué that read "What he did with it subsequently..." however it seems clear to me that further discussion would be an intrusion on the little mutual admiration society that you and your chums have going here, and far be it from me to try and disrupt your quaint little notions of "fairness."
Gee Crabtree

P.S. With regard to the business proposal you mentioned, wouldn't this simply be a change in scope as opposed to function?
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joan Opyr 
  To: Tom Hansen 
  Cc: 'g. crabtree' ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] City Council's selective compassion


  On 12 Dec 2005, at 06:51, Tom Hansen wrote:


    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?


  Tom Hansen is right on target, as I suspect Gee Crabtree knows full well. What he doesn't want to address is the clear case of differential treatment accorded David Williams and the other evicted residents of the Renaissance Trailer Park and City Council's attempts to bend over backward to avoid inconveniencing Doug Wilson. One rule for the rich and another for the poor -- this is my complaint.

  About property ownership and doing exactly what one pleases with the property one owns -- my partner and I own ten acres and a ranch house. Now, I don't care for cattle, and sheep are just a damned nuisance, but I've got a great idea. I was just watching a movie starring Dolly Parton and Burt Reynolds called "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." Perhaps you've seen it? I know that Idaho's last bordello, a place up in Wallace, closed in the mid-1980s. There's clearly a business opportunity here, and so I think I'll just add fifteen or twenty red velvet bedrooms onto my little house, and then I'll troll the perfectly adequate Jackson Street parking lot for some likely-looking ladies. I'll offer them the chance to sell themselves not just to one man for shotgun house, a cartload of kids, and the "beauty of submission:" I'll offer them the opportunity to market their wares to many men for big bucks, regular health screenings, and guaranteed respectful and decent treatment. (To ensure this, I'll hire a couple of ginormous bouncers. These bouncers will have to be, like my friend Dan Carscallen, at least five-feet twenty inches tall -- guys who could lift the front end of an F-350 and hold it up while I changed the tires.) 

  You don't approve, Gee Crabtree? Why not? It's my property, and what's more, this is biblically sound stuff. This is the world's oldest profession! I'll take my plan to the county, and if anyone dares to say me nay, I'll claim religious persecution. Hell's bells, what's wrong with this world: can't a gal make a dishonest buck on her own ten-acre ranch? No? Hmm. Looks to me like the county has some power over what I do with my own property after all. In fact, it looks to me like they have a say in terms of zoning, conditional use permits, digging new wells (the Moscow Chicken Ranch would need lots of water for those multiple hot tubs), as well as over the sort of business deemed suitable for operation on the Genesee Troy Road. Remember Daisy May and the Topless Carwash? Those were her boobs, that was her water hose and soap -- wasn't she within her legal rights to flash the one and spray the other without government interference? I said yes; Doug Wilson said no. So what's he bitching about now? He was all for a strict interpretation of city ordinance back then. Bizarre, really, when you think of the positive effect Ms. Daisy's car wash must have had on the downtown parking situation . . . 

  Here, in a nutshell, is the analogy between David Williams, Dan Mack, the Renaissance Trailer Park evictions and Doug Wilson's NSA: Dan Mack lied through his teeth to the County, the City Council, the Palouse Water Conservation folk, and his own tenants. He swore on a stack of Bibles that he wanted to drill a new well so his tenants would have water; he told the City and the County that he would create 26 new low-income housing units; he asked to rent land from the County for pennies so that he could comply with the green zone requirements. Once he got what he wanted, he kicked his poor tenants out to the curb. Was this legal? Yes. Was it fair? No. Did the City and the County have to go along with it? No. They could have insisted on guarantees, proof that he wasn't a complete and utter lying shmuck.

  The residents of Renaissance Trailer Court appealed to the City and the County for relief. That relief was denied. Mack was within his rights as a landlord, and the City and County upheld those rights. Now, Doug Wilson, like David Williams, is asking for relief. He's asking the City to suspend enforcement of its zoning laws in order to avoid inconveniencing himself and New St. Andrews College. And, unlike the residents of Dan Mack's trailer court, Doug is enjoying considerable success. He has Jon Kimberling, Peg Hamlett, and JoAnn Mack bending over backwards to avoid doing to Doug what was done to the 14 families at Renaissance -- forced relocation. My question is why? Why the differential treatment? Why is Doug Wilson more important than those 14 families? The City is well within its legal rights to evict New St. Andrews from the Central Business District.

  But money talks. Doug's got it; the Renaissance Trailer Court residents did not.

  Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
  www.joanopyr.com

  PS: If Peg Hamlett really is a "lifelong Democrat," then I hope she'll wake up and smell the injustice. Siding with the rich and voting against the poor is not a traditional Democratic value. I would also note that it's pretty poor sportsmanship to blame your election opponent for your own political slips. Lie down with Republicans, wake up with G-O-Fleas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051213/c3a429cf/attachment-0001.htm