[Vision2020] Fact or Fiction2--or,
different views from different parts of the elephant
Michael Curley
curley at turbonet.com
Tue May 3 18:09:31 PDT 2005
Phil:
Okay, one at a time.
1. Minutes. Keely says "notes," not "minutes," were usually posted
prompty, but it didn't happen that time, she doesn't know why. I
suggested maybe simple human error--and pointed to my own. You think
intentional--ie, conspiracy. I guess we could try to track down the
designated note-taker and ask him/her but then we'd only be left with
his/her word and that wouldn't be proof for you. So, we'll just have
to let that one lie. I will say this--if it was a public meeting and
you have witnesses, why do you need the minutes--better yet, why did
you need them with regard to the bond issue?
2. The Trail Property--Part I. I don't know Dave Trail, never met
him to my knowledge, so I hope he will forgive me for playing along
with you and hypothesizing with your comments. Let's suppose that
the Trails were really all along intending to develop their land
around the HS site. Now it would have been misleading or maybe a
flat out lie to say they intended to keep farming wouldn't it?
That's what I think you are alleging. But, consider this for a
second: would it have been a BAD thing for them to say, "of course
we think we'll open up other parts of our property to development so
that the school will actually be in a NEIGHBORHOOD"? As a tax payer
do I really care if the Trails (substitute the name of any other
donor here, including Phil Roderick) make money by DONATING property
to me and saving me money too? Look at it this way. IF a HS is
going to be built anywhere but on the existing facility, SOMEBODY
will make money on the surrounding ground--the only question is when,
now or sometime later. Wouldn't we taxpayers like to get as much out
of the deal as possible?
3. The Trail Property--Part II. Hold it, you'll say, the taxpayers
will be developing the infrastructure for the Trails--roads, sewers,
etc. Hmmm. Great point! We definitely need to review that before
we accept the gift (yes, don't quibble, there was a GIFT and there
was also a piece to purchase, i agree) and decide to locate the HS
there. But that leads to:
4. The Trail Property--Part III. The bond was NOT tied to the Trail
property. Yes, SOME people who supported the bond would have
supported building on the Trail site if the bond had passed. I would
NOT have been one of them without further study. I think there are
BETTER places IF they can be purchased or, better yet, be given in
whole or part to the District. But, I have an open mind about the
issue. All the questions you raise about the Trail property should
be examined if the community ever gets to "step 2." I can guarantee
you that if the bond had passed, and the "District" had tried to then
say the Trail property was tied to it, I'd have been there to sign
the legal Complaint as your attorney--and probably on behalf of
thousands of other citizens who would have also cried "foul."
5. The Trail Agenda. Now you have switched from the District's
malfeasance to the Trails. Again, for the sake of argument, let's
say you are right. Let's hypothesize there was only self-interest
and greed motivating the Trails. Re-read my other posts. I'm right
there with you IF there is a place that makes better sense
economically, as good sense educationally, and works for the
community as a whole (you know, it's a little closer than, say,
Genesee and doesn't cause a huge traffic problem in residential
neighborhoods (as incidentally I'm aware the Trail property MIGHT),
then I'll argue vehemently along with you for that location if a bond
passes (and still assuming that we aren't building on the existing
site).
One final note. If you re-read point 5 above you will notice that,
in fact, the Trails' MOTIVES don't mean squat. Because if we turn
the hypothesis around and the Trails are the nicest, best-intentioned
people ever and will never develop their farmland, it doesn't change
the economic equation one bit. you and I have the same questions
that need answering and the same comparisons (with other sites to
make) regarding infrastructure, safety, neighborhood compatibility,
community accessibility, etc. So, if there was some nefarious scheme
to benefit the Trails, it doesn't matter, because you and I are going
to take the very same hard look at the issue if, as, and when it
arises.
Now, doggone it, will someone get Phil a copy of the minutes or notes
or both of the meeting so we can move on to more important issues.
And please be sure his name is spelled right if you talked about him.
Yeah, Phil, I don't know for sure, but I'm betting other folks would
like us to go offlist with THIS convesation. If there is something
new, hey, I don't know if anyone is picking up useful information or
not. Anyone who's read this far (what's wrong with you!) and would
like, send Phil and me a private note politely (or not) asking us to
take our arses outside and we will promptly do so--or carry on this
discussion over (table--the only real kind) shuffleboard and a beer
at his watering hole.
Thanks for indulging us thus far.
Mike
On 3 May 2005 at 16:29, cjs wrote:
> Mike - I was referring to the minutes being posted. You said it is not
> unusual for 60 days to lapse. Keely says usually right after the
> meeting the minutes are posted. My response is, so Mike which is it?
> 60 days or right after? Isn't Keely on the FPC? Where the minutes in
> question were asked for? I have asked her numerous times for these
> minutes. You can't bail her out Mike. I understand this meeting was a
> big libel session against me. I was the star conversation of the
> meeting. Yup - people that were there told me.
>
> How can you not smell conspiracy Mike? You have the Trails stating in
> a public forum "we love farming." "We intend to keep farming." I asked
> Dave Trail to put it in writing that he would not change the zoning to
> residential for the next 30 years. He turned beat red and sat down.
> This was at the open house where many people were present. So if the
> Trails try to rezone their acreage they will be forced depending on
> the density to cough up and set aside land for schools and parks
> anyway. They will have to have dragged the main utility lines over to
> their dirt instead of having us,the public, pay for it. Can't you see
> the game Mike? Let the Trails develop their land. It would probably
> cause a need for two high schools. And maybe even another elementary
> school. And then a jr. high. Then a park. It's gonna cost them more
> than 40 acres. There is a game here.There is definitely an agenda. Why
> would they spend so many $$$ in advertising the passage of the bond?
> Because they love children? Come on Mike. If they love children so
> much, why don't they donate all the land. No strings attached. Why?
> Because they need the cash to get the remaining land rezoned.
> HHHHHEEEELLLLLOOOOOOOO!!!! Agenda? You bet. I have seen this happen
> before.
>
> Mike - if you want to continue this off list - I am listening.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Michael Curley" curley at turbonet.com
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:23:14 -0700
> To: VISION2020 at MOSCOW.COM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fact or Fiction2
>
> > phil:
> > again, not sure i understand the question, but it was an open
> > meeting- -the public could attend. guess i just don't smell
> > conspiracy here, but then i knew how much open disagreement there
> > was on the committee and how no one there ever suggested holding
> > anything back. the last two chairs of the committee were, I think,
> > let's see, me and Bill Goesling. Now, i ain't asking you to "trust
> > me" but i can say that Bill is a retired navy commander (i believe
> > was his rank) and i'm pretty willing to trust that he wasn't trying
> > to hide anything--and that no one on the committee would have let
> > him--because i know a lot of them too, and as much as i disagree
> > with each of them on one issue or another, i trust their integrity.
> > i happen to be chair of the local hospice advisory board this year.
> > know what's sitting in my email inbox now for about 10 days--the
> > "minutes" of the last meeting. i'm really not trying to hide them
> > from committee members. i just haven't had time to circulate them--
> > oh, hell, you'll call me on that lie--if i'd responded to fewer of
> > these posts, i could have done it couldn't i. if i didn't answer the
> > right question try me again--maybe off list, i doubt this is a big
> > one in the grand scheme of things and if we figure out it is, we can
> > always post it--and believe me, if we find there was a conspiracy,
> > i'll sign right on with you. mike
> >
> > ps responding to someone's post today, i promise that i use capital
> > letters only for emphasis because i think my underline does not
> > work. i'm not "yelling" ...
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 May 2005 at 21:27, cjs wrote:
> >
> > > SO WHICH IS IT MIKE?
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: "keely emerinemix" kjajmix1 at msn.com
> > > Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:09:31 -0700
> > > To: cjs at turbonet.com
> > > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] SO SORRY......
> > >
> > > > I don't know --
> > > >
> > > > The facilities committee meeting notes generally are posted
> > > > right after the meeting. Last meeting, April 11, was just a
> > > > time for discussing how we all felt about the campaign thus far.
> > > > No action taken, proposed, acted on, tabled, or discussed,
> > > > other than the need for all of us to keep getting the word out.
> > > >
> > > > keely
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯> ¯¯¯¯
> >
> >
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list