RE#1: [Vision2020] NSA downtown debate

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Tom, et. al.

Joan already posted to V2020 this same letter she wrote to the Tribune!  We 
already read this before the Trib. printed it.

Oh well, I guess we can read it again!  And again and again and again... It 
makes good reading.

See below.

Ted

Subj: [Vision2020] Wayne's thoughts, Jim Fisher, andletter to the LMT  
Date: 1/27/2005 12:26:06 PM Pacific Standard Time 
From: auntiestablishment at hotmail.com 
To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent from the Internet (Details) 

Wayne writes:
 
"First, I would like to state unequivocally and as strongly as possible that 
I believe that NSA has right to exist and to operate.  Like all of us living 
under the great constitution in this great country, the persons behind and in 
support of NSA and its parent cult have a legal right to express their points 
of view and to construct institutions to promulgate those points of view . . . 
But like many of the others on this list who think the cult is excrementitious 
blot on humankind, I cherish the freedom of expression we all enjoy and would 
absolutely disagree with anyone who would seek to abridge the cult's legal 
rights to express their points of view.
 
The legal issue being debated is not whether NSA has a right to exist/operate 
but whether they have legal right to operate in Moscow's downtown commercial 
district."
 
I'd like to add a hearty "Amen" to all of the above and to append a letter to 
the editor that I sent to The Lewiston Morning Tribune on Monday night, 
objecting to Jim Fisher's egregious January 25th opinion column, which not only 
missed the legal at stake but went on to tar the citizens of Moscow 
with Doug's ridiculous and misleading coinage, "Intolerista," a word he uses to describe 
anyone who stands up to him and/or refuses to act as his yes man, bobble-head 
doll, or doormat.
 
Recognizing NSA's right to exist does not extend to recognizing their right 
to operate in Moscow's Central Business District.  Similarly, recognizing 
Doug's right to believe and say whatever he likes does not mean that we must let 
him write, speak, and act without objection or criticism.  What, in this 
argument, is so difficult to follow?  Yes, the NSA-renovated Verizon building is 
lovely; unfortunately, the business operating inside is not allowed by ordinance.  
Doug might have saved us all a lot of bother if he'd checked on allowed 
usages before he put in the windows and repointed the bricks.
 
Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
 
PS: I'd like to add that I much prefer Wayne's new word, "excrementitious," 
to Doug's word, "Intolerista."  No doubt I will soon be trying to find ways to 
work it into a sentence or two, along with my other new favorite, "ignoranus," 
meaning "stupid sphincter."  But first, my letter to Jim Fisher . . .
 
January 25, 2005

The Lewiston Morning Tribune

Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

It doesn’t surprise me to find Jim Fisher once again acting as apologist for 
Doug Wilson.  In past columns, Fisher has frequently adopted Wilson’s skewed 
and misleading vocabulary, referring to Wilson’s many critics as “Intoleristas.
”  Intoleristas is a very silly word—one that Wilson concocted to avoid any 
serious discussion about his plans for a “take over” of downtown Moscow.  He 
has written openly and extensively in his magazine, <I 
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Credenda Agenda, about his various plans and schemes, which 
include an end to public education; the systematic disenfranchisement of women and 
non-Christians; and the slow but certain imposition of his theocratic vision 
on the democratic residents of this city, this county, this state and this 
nation.  

But all of this is beside the point.  It doesn’t really matter if Doug is a 
crackpot or if his ideas are offensive, bizarre, and often troglodytic.  In 
adopting Wilson’s language, Jim Fisher deafens himself to the real issue at stake 
in the legal challenge to New St. Andrews’ location in downtown Moscow: Doug 
Wilson believes that he is above the law.  As with the unwarranted property 
tax exemptions Wilson filed for and received from Latah County, it is clear that 
he did not bother to check with the appropriate city authorities before 
opening his private college in the middle of Moscow’s Central Business District.  

The Central Business District, or CBD, was expressly created to encourage the 
operation of retail businesses in the heart of Moscow.  The reason for this 
is that the core of the city has traditionally been reserved for retail 
operations.  It is a matter of common sense as well as of sound city planning that 
the bulk of the downtown area should be reserved for retail businesses.  Having 
a centralized business zone makes sense for shoppers, diners, and other 
consumers of goods and services in Moscow.  The University of Idaho is not allowed 
educational space in the CBD; neither are there any public schools on Main 
Street, Washington, or Jackson.  It makes no sense whatsoever to have a private 
college in the CBD, sandwiched between the Garden Lounge bar and a bicycle shop, 
nor yet sitting across the street from a gem store.  That’s not city 
planning; that’s city plopping.      

No one, Mr. Fisher, is persecuting Doug Wilson, and I for one have grown sick 
and tired of hearing him cry “poor little me” every time someone calls him 
on his bad behavior.  If you run a stop sign, the cop who gives you the ticket 
is not intolerant; he’s calling you on your failure to observe the law.  If 
you open a college in the Central Business District without first checking that 
that’s a permitted use for your building, then whose fault is it when the city 
planners come knocking?  

It’s all about personal responsibility, Mr. Fisher—something both you and 
Doug Wilson, in your rush to tar the good citizens of Moscow as “Intoleristas,” 
seem to have forgotten.

Sincerely,

Joan Opyr


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050130/e3aab430/attachment.htm