[Vision2020] Editor Kai -- not getting it.

J Ford privatejf32 at hotmail.com
Fri May 20 14:38:34 PDT 2005

Ok, so by your own words, this means that NSA and Atals should know and 
probably DO know that their using a building that was NEVER intended to be 
used as a school is their responsibility.  Great!  When do can we then 
expect the City of Moscow to do their jobs and get them out of those 

And what happens when, as in the one and only instance involved in this 
whole thing, the City makes a "mistake" and permits a school to be where it 
is because he didn't realize it was going to be a school? (Come on...now who 
is fooling who here?)  And what should the City's responsibility be when 
they don't even have the gumption, shall we say, to call and let the school 
know they are in violation of a code?  What happens when you have a City 
offical saying "we made a mistake" vs. "we interperted the code and that is 
why they are there"?  What should happen to that offical?  Could we look 
forward to having a new person in his position?

Sounds like a plan to me.

>From: "Barbara Richardson Crouch" <edc at moscow.com>
>To: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>,        "'Kai Eiselein'" 
><editor at lataheagle.com>, <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Editor Kai -- not getting it.
>Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:25:53 -0700
>Because of limited time and staff, the process is complaint driven.
>Occassionally, a building permit might trigger a review.  Technically it is
>the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure that the property can be
>utlized for his/her/their intended business function.  Most of these issues
>are clarified by the buyer's realtor before the sale is finalized.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Saundra Lund
>Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:16 AM
>To: 'Kai Eiselein'; vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Editor Kai -- not getting it.
>Hi Kai,
>You wrote:
>"That brings up the question of how NSA was able to occupy the building in
>the first place. Was it an oversight by the city? Was it a backroom deal?
>Why wasn't this brought up when, NSA first moved in or started to move in?"
>Well, Kai, I think those *were* valid questions.  In fact, I asked pretty
>much the same things back in January after the zoning complaint was filed.
>At the time, I was trying to think about what a fair resolution would be
>*if* it was determined NSA's current location violated the zoning code.  
>complaint prompted me to try to learn about how zoning works because I was
>completely ignorant about the whole zoning picture.
>To be honest, given my own ignorance about zoning and even though ignorance
>isn't an excuse, it was conceivable to me that someone could purchase a
>piece of property in the CB zone and not be aware of the restrictions.  
>if that was the case, then not only was I thinking about a fair resolution
>but also how to prevent it from happening again.  After all, property
>purchases generally aren't insubstantial amounts of money.
>You asked, "Was it an oversight by the city?"
>That was one of the first questions I had as well.  If there was some
>breakdown in oversight by the City, then it would hardly be fair, I 
>for NSA to be held solely responsible and to have to shoulder the financial
>burden of resolution.  Maybe an exception to the rules everyone else has to
>abide by would be in order?
>But, let's think about that for a minute.  Certainly, the City can't be
>clairvoyant:  it can't *possibly* know what each & every person or group
>contemplating purchasing property somewhere in the city intends to do with
>that property.  Heck, I don't think the city can even know the intentions 
>every individual or group who actually *purchases* property!
>So, the burden *has* to fall on the potential or actual buyer, doesn't it?
>Otherwise, what good does it do to have a zoning code if one can "get
>around" it by claiming ignorance?  Presumably, we have zoning regs for a
>reason that relates to the common good of our community, and those regs, it
>seems to me, would be meaningless if alleged ignorance was enough to allow
>those not following the regs to get around the rules the rest of us follow.
>Unless, of course, you want to make a rule that each & every property
>transfer within the city must be approved by the city *before* the money is
>spent and the deal is done.  That seems awfully intrusive to me, and I
>personally am not interested in paying more property tax to hire the
>additional city staff needed for such a rule to work.
>With that resolved in my mind, I started thinking about all kinds of other
>scenarios:  was the former owner (GTE/Verizon) responsible for not
>disclosing the zoning restrictions?  How about the realtor?  The lender (if
>there was one)?  Bad legal advice?  What about trusted friends and board
>members who, unlike the City, were privy to the plans before the money was
>spent *and* understood the importance of zoning regs?  My head was swimming
>with all the possibilities!
>HOWEVER, all of my wonderings ceased when I learned NSA had run afoul of
>Moscow's zoning code -- and had been caught -- before.  Because of that
>experience, I don't think it too plausible *or* reasonable to think NSA was
>ignorant about the importance of zoning.
>What was the resolution of the *prior* zoning complaint?  NSA was given
>plenty of time to apply for a CUP but decided instead to cease operations 
>the residential neighborhood . . . and moved to a different location:  into
>their *first* location in the CB zone.  *Without* regard to the zoning code
>-- *again.*  They got away with that move:  at the time, as far as I can
>tell, no one knew NSA was operating in the CB zone, so no complaint was
>filed and no enforcement action was taken.
>NSA *then* purchased the old Verizon building, also in the CB zone, *again*
>without regard to zoning regs.
>What's that old saying?  "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame
>on *me*."  Or, maybe "three strikes and you're OUT."
>Slam dunk:  perhaps there *was* ignorance the first time, but that excuse
>holds no water for me with NSA's continued blatant disregard of the zoning
>IMHO, when one knowingly chooses to *repeatedly* ignore the law, one must 
>willing to accept the penalty.  Period.
>*Our community* is wronged when individuals blatantly and repeatedly choose
>not to follow *our* rules, and I'm frankly puzzled why you and a few others
>want to attack those who try to correct the situation?  It seems to me it's
>those responsible for the harm, rather than those who bring the wrongs to
>your attention, who deserve your scrutiny & ire.
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>Edmund Burke
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>On Behalf Of Kai Eiselein
>Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2005 4:21 PM
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Editor Kai -- not getting it.
>Mr. Hansen,
>In posts that I have read over the course of the past few months, that is
>the only conclusion I could make.
>Time and again, I've seen some rather venemous attacks on Wilson and his
>church. People have asked if there was some way to get them out of town,
>have have hammered on his beliefs etc. etc. etc.
>A good portion of the posts here have had nothing to do with zoning and
>everything to do with crusading against CC, NSA and Wilson. I am not going
>to go back and glean every post to prove my point.
>However, if zoning is the issue, then stick to it. That brings up the
>question of how NSA was able to occupy the building in the first place. Was
>it an oversight by the city? Was it a backroom deal? Why wasn't this 
>up when, NSA first moved in or started to move in?
>I'll tell you why, because people thought "Oh a private college, cool."
>Then, when they found out that CC and NSA espoused a view diametricaly
>opposed to their own ie: The male is the head of the household, one man one
>woman marriage ideals, a viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong.
>Then, and only then, did a few people get up in arms. Some even vandalized 
>coffee shop.
> >From what I've read, I've concluded that the zoning issue is merely the
>legal means to push them out. If they broke the zoning laws, they broke the
>zoning laws and it will have to be rectified one way or another. And I have
>no problem with that.
>Apparently, I've hit a nerve. But I'll stand by my conclusion.
>Kai T. Eiselein
>Latah Eagle
>521 S. Jackson St.
>Moscow, ID 83843
>(208) 882-0666 Fax (208) 882-0130
>editor at lataheagle.com
>  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
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.853 / Virus Database: 581 - Release Date: 2/1/2005
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.853 / Virus Database: 581 - Release Date: 2/1/2005
>  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

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list