[Vision2020] Sprawl!
roger hayes
rhayes at turbonet.com
Sun Nov 6 10:55:03 PST 2005
Moscovites:
Having been a member of this community for over 35 years, I feel the
need to weigh in on the 3rd street bridge and widening project proposed
for the near future. I am sincerely NOT pleased with the direction our
town is heading, and specifically what the city planners propose. Just
because some developments have been flopped on the edges of our quaint
and livable city does not mean we must destroy the quality of life for
the people living within the older sections of town. I am NOT pleased
with the lack of planning for where traffic will flow, how much traffic
existing streets will endure, and the resulting cost, both in dollars
and in quality of life. to current residents those developments will
ensue.
It is inevitable that growth will occur, but we should think of ways to
ease the impacts, maintain our quality of city life, provide for
pedestrian, bicycle, and school aged children pathways, consider the
plight of current residents when approving developments, and foremost,
be cautious of allowing profit taking to sway our decisions.
I sincerely hope that all of you vote on Tuesday, and vote for
candidates who have expressed candid and forthright opinions concerning
Moscow's future and the quality of life we all enjoy here.
To this extent, I hope all voters refer to the position statements of
the various candidates for city council and the mayoral position. The
decision is quite clear who will represent Moscow's citizens:
Cheny, Ament, Craine, Stout, Holmes
Thank you,
Roger Hayes
Moscow
On Sunday, November 6, 2005, at 10:17 AM, vision2020-request at moscow.com
wrote:
> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
> vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vision2020-request at moscow.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vision2020-owner at moscow.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Homosexuality (josephc at mail.wsu.edu)
> 2. Re: Homosexuality (keely emerinemix)
> 3. Homosexuality (josephc at mail.wsu.edu)
> 4. Re: Letters of Opinions (Art Deco)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:37:44 -0800 (PST)
> From: josephc at mail.wsu.edu
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Homosexuality
> To: "Chasuk" <chasuk at gmail.com>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Message-ID: <49580.70.36.26.118.1131287864.squirrel at www.mail.wsu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I found it useful, Chas! Thanks for your candor!
>
> Joe
>
>> I generally refuse to defend my sexuality, but this discussion has
>> lingered, so right now I'm experiencing the emotion that grips me
>> after listening to teenagers debate the best films of the last 50
>> years. They start with Titanic and end with Dodgeball. They don't
>> recognize the names Billy Wilder or Stanley Kubrick. Don't
>> misinterpret; I'm not denigrating the opinions of anyone on this
>> forum. On the contrary, I'm sincerely thankful for the many examples
>> of thoughtfulness and eloquence I've recently encountered here,
>> especially considering the controversial nature of the topic. Still,
>> my typing-fingers are turning blue -- I've sat on them long enough.
>>
>> I've been a sexual being since before kindergarten. By the time I was
>> six, I'd played Doctor with nearly all of the kids in a a several
>> block radius. This wasn't because I'd been molested, or exposed to
>> heinous pornography. I was just horny, for girls and for boys. I
>> didn't care then, and I don't care now, whether the cause was nurture
>> or nature. Yes, I honestly was introspective enough -- by the time I
>> was eight, anyway -- to wonder what made me different from the
>> majority of my friends. However, I concluded that everything was
>> okay. Sex was fun. I hadn't hurt anyone. I still feel that way
>> today.
>>
>> Things grew more complicated when I began to grapple with labels. I
>> guess I was about sixteen. Was I straight? Was I bisexual? Was I
>> queer? Bisexual seemed to be the label that fit best, but by that
>> time I'd realized that I didn't like being a boy, so what did that
>> mean? If I was really a girl -- and this is indeed how I felt -- did
>> that make me a lesbian, when I was sexually attracted to girls? Queer
>> and lesbian seemed entirely different creatures. I hadn't figured out
>> yet that sexuality and gender were so fluid.
>>
>> I had experimental sex with males and females, but not any "serious"
>> sex until I got married. I didn't have any preferences, but sex with
>> girls was certainly easier in a social sense. My life as as public
>> heterosexual was thus ensured, as I've always been inclined to choose
>> the easier option. I don't have any regrets. I've been with a
>> partner that I love for 24 years, which is a good thing by any
>> measure.
>>
>> To backtrack a bit: a few years outside of adolescence (all right,
>> nearly two decades outside of adolescence!), I finally came out of the
>> closet. A person that I love and respect came out to me, and I felt
>> like reciprocating. I then became involved in various GLBT
>> activities, but that tapered off after a few unfortunate incidents
>> involving battling egos. I don't normally share this information, but
>> I've come to trust (most of) the members of Vision2020 as
>> non-judgemental and caring: yes, this is possibly naive on my part,
>> but I don't know how to be anyone else but me.
>>
>> I do go to the Unitarian Universalist Church of the Palouse when I
>> feel the need for spiritual edification. I feel an odd kinship for
>> Catholics, maybe because I've known a few gay Catholic priests, and a
>> few atheist Catholic priests, and even a few gay atheist Catholic
>> priests. However, essentially, if the sanctified hierarchy of a given
>> faith doesn't accept me for who I am, then I vote by not setting my
>> butt in their pews.
>>
>> Was this rambling contribution useful to anybody?
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 06:43:59 -0800
> From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Homosexuality
> To: chasuk at gmail.com, josephc at mail.wsu.edu
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Message-ID: <BAY106-F126E7367D3BDEA93003CC882620 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Good morning, Chas --
>
> I appreciate your eloquence, honesty, irenic spirit and your trust. I
> hope
> it's reciprocated, both on-list and off. You've taken a real risk,
> and I
> think you probably touched a few hearts. Mine, for one.
>
> May you also be spared further teenage-boy discussions of film. I
> have been
> driven to a most uncharitable fit of craziness by my 16-year-old
> nephew, who
> will probably go to the grave uttering the phrase, "Duhhhh . . . 'Star
> Wars'
> isn't science fiction, it's FANTASY!"
>
> If I were his mother, I'd sentence him to thrice-weekly screenings of
> the
> entire Steven Seagal catalog until he repents . . .
>
> Hope you're feeling better these days,
>
> keely
>
>
> From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
> To: "josephc at mail.wsu.edu" <josephc at mail.wsu.edu>
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Homosexuality
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 01:33:11 -0800
>
> I generally refuse to defend my sexuality, but this discussion has
> lingered, so right now I'm experiencing the emotion that grips me
> after listening to teenagers debate the best films of the last 50
> years. They start with Titanic and end with Dodgeball. They don't
> recognize the names Billy Wilder or Stanley Kubrick. Don't
> misinterpret; I'm not denigrating the opinions of anyone on this
> forum. On the contrary, I'm sincerely thankful for the many examples
> of thoughtfulness and eloquence I've recently encountered here,
> especially considering the controversial nature of the topic. Still,
> my typing-fingers are turning blue -- I've sat on them long enough.
>
> I've been a sexual being since before kindergarten. By the time I was
> six, I'd played Doctor with nearly all of the kids in a a several
> block radius. This wasn't because I'd been molested, or exposed to
> heinous pornography. I was just horny, for girls and for boys. I
> didn't care then, and I don't care now, whether the cause was nurture
> or nature. Yes, I honestly was introspective enough -- by the time I
> was eight, anyway -- to wonder what made me different from the
> majority of my friends. However, I concluded that everything was
> okay. Sex was fun. I hadn't hurt anyone. I still feel that way
> today.
>
> Things grew more complicated when I began to grapple with labels. I
> guess I was about sixteen. Was I straight? Was I bisexual? Was I
> queer? Bisexual seemed to be the label that fit best, but by that
> time I'd realized that I didn't like being a boy, so what did that
> mean? If I was really a girl -- and this is indeed how I felt -- did
> that make me a lesbian, when I was sexually attracted to girls? Queer
> and lesbian seemed entirely different creatures. I hadn't figured out
> yet that sexuality and gender were so fluid.
>
> I had experimental sex with males and females, but not any "serious"
> sex until I got married. I didn't have any preferences, but sex with
> girls was certainly easier in a social sense. My life as as public
> heterosexual was thus ensured, as I've always been inclined to choose
> the easier option. I don't have any regrets. I've been with a
> partner that I love for 24 years, which is a good thing by any
> measure.
>
> To backtrack a bit: a few years outside of adolescence (all right,
> nearly two decades outside of adolescence!), I finally came out of the
> closet. A person that I love and respect came out to me, and I felt
> like reciprocating. I then became involved in various GLBT
> activities, but that tapered off after a few unfortunate incidents
> involving battling egos. I don't normally share this information, but
> I've come to trust (most of) the members of Vision2020 as
> non-judgemental and caring: yes, this is possibly naive on my part,
> but I don't know how to be anyone else but me.
>
> I do go to the Unitarian Universalist Church of the Palouse when I
> feel the need for spiritual edification. I feel an odd kinship for
> Catholics, maybe because I've known a few gay Catholic priests, and a
> few atheist Catholic priests, and even a few gay atheist Catholic
> priests. However, essentially, if the sanctified hierarchy of a given
> faith doesn't accept me for who I am, then I vote by not setting my
> butt in their pews.
>
> Was this rambling contribution useful to anybody?
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:16:54 -0800 (PST)
> From: josephc at mail.wsu.edu
> Subject: [Vision2020] Homosexuality
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Message-ID: <49622.70.36.26.118.1131293814.squirrel at www.mail.wsu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> Michael,
>
> My comments follow your comments.
>
> “Some do argue that this is a Christian view, but I'd have to think it
> is
> a Christian view that has been somewhat secularized. Deism,
> 'enlightenment' categories, and the like, would seem to play a role in
> this choice of language.”
>
> So the Founding Fathers were not Christians? And, since this is the
> view
> that I believe, I am not a Christian either?
>
> “And what of the epistemological issue: Dan Barker (Wilson debate) was
> confident that a baby has rights once it received a social security
> number. Until then, butcher the thing if you want. Do we have the
> ability
> to determine where our rights begin or end? Ok, God gives people
> rights;
> but, ummm, errr, that baby there isn't a person yet, so kill it.
> Reasonable argument to me actually; assume that secularists have the
> ability to determine the boundaries of human rights, and you get
> wonderfully valid arguments, but valid arguments that have tyranny and
> slaughter waiting at the end of a few more successful deductions. The
> French Revolution should be enough history on this point. However, we
> do
> agree completely that this is a religious view about morality and not a
> purely secular view.”
>
> All of this is nonsense. The so-called “epistemological issue” crops up
> with any moral system -- yours as well as mine. I would argue that Doug
> Wilson’s insistence (and apparently yours) that slavery in the US was
> not
> as bad as earlier reports is absurd. But just because he reasons to
> this
> absurd view on the basis of his (supposedly) Christian views does not
> mean
> that Christianity is a corrupt moral system. Similarly, I am not Dan
> Barker. Nor do I have a purely secular view of human rights. The slope
> is
> not as slippery as you suggest.
>
> “Joan and I are against bestiality for similar reasons I would think; I
> doubt Joan is worried about the wrong done to a donkey when a man gets
> on
> with it. But it is 'wrong.' Why is that? It is a perversion of
> something
> holy. It is to make ugly that which is supposed to be beautiful. It is
> objectively aesthetically grotesque. There is not ultimately a
> separation
> from creational perversion and wrong doing, but I think there are
> important nuances between the two.”
>
> Joan made this point but it is worth repeating. Donkeys cannot consent
> to
> sex and that is why it is wrong to have sex with donkeys. Every
> instance
> of human-animal sex is analogous to rape, I would argue. So there is an
> explanation for why donkey-sex is wrong that cannot be used to support
> a
> similar claim about “homosexuality.” Your overly generalized conclusion
> does not follow.
>
> “Christianity is not a theory, or an answer to an ethical dilemma, or a
> system of morality. It is not something to be put in the same
> category as
> utilitarianism or whatever other theory of ethics is out there. The
> Christian Faith is a experiential, doctrinal, and liturgical communion
> with a world of creation and recreation, death and resurrection,
> eternal
> judgment and eternal glory. It is a relationship with the eternal
> Trinity;
> it is a process of being renewed into the very image of the Son. But
> this
> does not mean that Christianity does not therefore address things
> spoken
> about in ethics class; it does, and it does so far more successfully
> and
> far more profoundly than any current reductionistic ethical theory. I
> think there are answers to all the questions you raise here.”
>
> I agree with most of this. But I don't see any answer to my initial
> questions: “Why not speak out, for instance, passionately about the
> evils
> of masturbation? Why withhold the right to marriage from same-sex
> couples
> yet allow couples like my wife and I, who are either unable or
> unwilling
> to have children, to partake in this right?”
>
> Let me rephrase the questions in another way. Count up the number of
> sexual acts that you find “objectively aesthetically grotesque.” Of
> these,
> I would venture to guess, “homosexual” acts are a relative minority.
> (Some
> conservatives say that the “homosexual” population is as little as
> 1-2%.)
> So there are all these other sexual acts -- masturbation, oral sex,
> etc.
> (I’ll save the details) -- that are left unaddressed. Why not address
> them? Clearly they constitute a much greater moral problem. While you
> are
> up on your high horse of condemnation, why not cast the moral net more
> widely, and offend a larger class of individuals?
>
> Until I can get some satisfactory answers to these questions, it is
> difficult for me to interpret the attack on gays and lesbians as
> anything
> other than the mean-spirited act of a cowardly bully. That it is done
> in
> the supposed name of the Christian God offends me to no end.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:17:09 -0800
> From: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Letters of Opinions
> To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Message-ID: <00db01c5e2fe$4d166110$6401a8c0 at opalpeakkiosk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Tom,
>
> I have already commented on V 2020 upon the proposed Third Street
> bridge from the standpoint of a systems engineer. I understand that
> completely independent of those remarks at least one other engineer
> has said the same things in a Moscow public forum.
>
> For the big picture, here is what I opine:
>
> The main issue for Muscovites (and those who frequent Moscow) to
> decide is the importance of neighborhood continuity, connection, and
> safety.
>
> If neighborhood continuity, connection, and safety are not as
> important as changing traffic flow so that two or three minutes can be
> shaved off someone's commute, then the Third Street bridge and other
> neighborhood transecting routes should be built.
>
> If continuity, connection, and safety are more important than changing
> traffic flow so that two or three minutes can be shaved off someone's
> commute, then through traffic should be routed around neighborhoods
> rather than through them.
>
> This is not a new concept! Creating/maintaining neighborhood
> integrity (= continuity, connection, and safety) has long been a goal
> of many quality communities, who, for example, require the design of
> new developments/subdivisions to be like enclaves, not internally
> affected by the flow of traffic in general or that from adjacent
> neighborhoods.
>
>
> The problem of process in the bridge dispute is the same as the
> problem of process in the downtown zoning dispute: There is a clear,
> statutorily mandated process for making these decisions which has not
> been followed. Part, perhaps the most important part, of that process
> is to have clearly stated, achievable goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
>
> The goals of the Comprehensive Plan should be in place before
> decisions about the Third Street bridge or the downtown zoning
> revisions should be attempted. To do otherwise may be in
> contravention of state law and may make the decisions in these matters
> ripe for successful appeals in court.
>
> The creation/maintenance of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan should
> involve more community input than just posting a hearing notice in the
> legals in the newspaper and then listening to the few people who show
> up for the formal public hearings.
>
> This is my opinion, based not only on years of participating in these
> kinds of processes, but as someone who was a planning and zoning
> coordinator/director for three years is what should occur:
>
> Elected public leaders like the Mayor and City Council and relevant
> city employees like the City Manager and the Director of Community
> Development should expend much energy in creating/maintaining viable,
> lively mechanisms to encourage broad community input. For example,
> they should help to create and then nurture neighborhood
> groups/associations whose purpose is discuss the issues which affect
> their neighborhood and the city as a whole.
>
> These leaders/employees should make continual efforts to keep these
> groups/associations healthy and also encourage by as much direct
> contact as practical all people affected to participate by giving
> input in planning and zoning processes, and indeed all important
> policy aspects of the city administration. A very important part of
> this effort is for the city to hire competent, energetic, people
> oriented personnel whose attitude includes this community based input
> approach and whose actions demonstrate it.
>
> In my opinion, Moscow has been far from successful for the most part
> in implementing this kind of outreach. I hope this can change.
>
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> deco at moscow.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Ivie
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 2:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Letters of Opinions
>
>
> Oh No, not change (read the sarcasm). How misguided! Your brother
> doesn't live at the creek. My reference was to the four houses at the
> Creek. Last time I noticed, your brother wasn't elderly or a widow
> either (more sarcasm). As far as response time is concerned, your
> fair guess is wrong as far as the the owners of those four houses are
> concerned, none of them have complained yet. Quite the contrary, I
> know these neighbors very well and I know that they would rather die
> in their houses than have that street go through. In fact, two houses
> down is the fire captain and around the corner on Roosevelt are two
> EMT's who have always managed to be the first on the scene, and in
> quite a quick fashion. Plus, I am not positive of this, but I think
> your sister-in-law is also an EMT around the other corner on >
> Cleveland.
>
> The 1912 building is a whole other topic, one of which I am not well
> versed on. I simply stated my neighbor's concerns and the fact that
> Steed didn't like her opinion. Does that mean I fear change? I don't
> think so. It might mean that my neighbor fears changes that could
> happen at the 1912 building. You would have to ask her though. -Tom
>
> Julie Crumley <joodge at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Tom Ivie wrote:
>
> "...All the people that live in the houses surrounding the creek
> are elderly and on fixed incomes..."
>
> I don't know what "surrounding" entails exactly in this context,
> but a certain sibling of mine lives quite near this proposed bridge
> and I'm sure he has no plans of moving. I think it'd be a fair guess
> to say that the citizens living at the end of 3rd street near the
> proposed bridge would appreciate a quicker response from fire and
> police over their new bridge that creates an easier flow of
> transportation! Change happens. Long-term homeowners see many changes
> in the neighborhood around them. It's the nature of things. I grew up
> in a house in east Moscow bordered on two sides by farm fields as far
> as the eye could see, that is now smack dab in the middle of quite a
> large dubdivision. Things happen.
>
> As far as senior programs, they have been moved already from the
> Old Post Office to the 1912 building, and may be moved again sometime
> in the near or distant future. Again, change happens. I would venture
> to say most people in this community values these programs, but the
> exact location of them is not that big of a part of the equation.
>
> An underlying theme I noticed in Mr. Ivie's post is that he fears
> change. He expresses the fear of change of his neighbors and friends.
> I DO NOT fear change, as change brings about new and exciting things.
> If we never let anything change in our town, we'd have no new track
> and football field at the high school, we'd have no Kibbie Dome, we'd
> be swimming in the old, cracked pool I swam in as a child....see the
> pattern? I'm all for positive, forward change, and I don't think I'm
> alone.
>
> JC
>
> *****VOTE*****
> DAN CARSCALLEN
> FOR
> *CITY COUNCIL*
> NOVEMBER 8th
>
>
>
> COPYRIGHT 2005 JULIE CRUMLEY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SO THERE.
>
>
>
> *~*The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new
> landscapes, but in having new eyes.*~*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051106/
> ee5cec7f/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 18, Issue 41
> ******************************************
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list