[Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten

g. crabtree jampot at adelphia.net
Sun Apr 2 21:07:50 PDT 2006

Ms. Lund,

  What ever in the world are you talking about?

"Simply put, when one church is
> rightly denied exemption because it's competing with commercial businesses
> and another is given a pass, that's discriminatory."

What "churches" are you referring to? My point with regard to tax exemption 
was that NSA like ALL schools is tax exempt no matter where they are 
located. This being the case, NSA's tax status was irrelevant to the BOA. If 
you believe that NSA should NOT be tax exempt, I would be able to respect 
your argument IF you were to apply the revocation to all educational 
institutions. (or even only religiously affiliated ones) When you only 
complain about NSA in this manner it makes it hard for me to believe that 
this isn't a personal matter and that all the posturing with regard to 
taxes, commercial frontage, and parking aren't just means to an end.

With regard to Mr. Reed selling his restaurant to the U of I, my only 
objection would be that the university was wasting tax dollars on an 
unprofitable operation. If they want to lease the space from the brothers 
Bode, I couldn't care less. I seriously doubt the U of I would be interested 
in such a proposition.

As to your parking space breakdown, it still appears to me that you are 
massaging the numbers to make your case. With NSA at current enrollment and 
the commercial space unoccupied, parking is fairly commensurate with other 
spaces downtown and far better then when GTE was the occupant. I am certain 
that as GTE started to underutilize the building and finally left 
altogether, surrounding properties/businesses came to see those newly 
available slots as theirs. Sadly this is not the case. No space in that lot 
"belongs" to any business. The fact that plenty of U of I students park 
there and walk to school proves this contention. As I said before, if you 
are serious about the parking problem explore the option of meters, permits 
or LID's. To not do so, once again,  makes this look like a personnel 
crusade for you and your commandos.

G. Crabtree

P.S. Speaking of the commandos, what kind of mission do you suppose "J. 
Ford" was on today? Was it part of the even handed civic mindedness that 
typifies this whole debate?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
To: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at adelphia.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Cc: <DonaldH675 at aol.com>; "'Ted Moffett'" <starbliss at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten

> Hi Again Mr. Crabtree,
> You wrote:
> "Ms. Lund, I'm not sure what the asterisks on either side of *you* implies
> but I would have been happy to have made your acquaintance. Perhaps next
> time. Look for a middle aged, blue collar Neanderthal who sits close to 
> the
> door in case a hasty exit is required. (crowds make me a bit edgy)"
> Ah-HA!!!  So, you took one of my favorite seats!  Save me one by the door
> next time, if possible, because I'm not a huge fan of crowds, either.
> The asterisks meant nothing more than I would have appreciated meeting you
> to put a face with the name  :-)
> And, I honestly mean no offense, but have you looked around?  I think a
> pretty fair number of men would fit the description you provided, at least
> to my eyes  ;-)  Perhaps name tags would be a good idea  ;-)
> You wrote:
> "From the top. Yes you are right. I was making broad generalizations in my
> communication with Ms.Woolf . . . "
> Good, I'm glad we got that cleared up.  FWIW, I'm glad you're willing to
> accept my notes and the Trib article as accurate reflections of what was
> actually said at the meeting.
> You also wrote:
> "If you would like to make a less discriminatory argument for revoking tax
> exemptions for all schools and churches have at it."
> Sorry, I don't think there's anything at all discriminatory about 
> expecting
> our laws to be followed -- quite the contrary:  it's discriminatory for 
> our
> laws not to be fairly and equitably applied.  Simply put, when one church 
> is
> rightly denied exemption because it's competing with commercial businesses
> and another is given a pass, that's discriminatory.
> You also wrote:
> "Zoning allows for educational institutions downtown with a CUP."
> Yes, that's what's allowed *now*, but that's *not* what was allowed in
> February, 2003 when NSA opened for classes on Main Street.
> You also wrote:
> "I'll worry about BSU hogging up Main St. with a satellite campus when the
> danger is a trifle more immanent. "
> What about the UI?  I'll admit I found the whole "we were never concerned
> about the UI expanding downtown" nonsense to be amusing . . . remember 
> City
> staff and some (former) Council members blathering on & on about how they
> had searched & searched unsuccessfully for proof that had ever been an 
> issue
> or concern, all the while ignoring the testimony of those with first-hand
> knowledge?  What a pathetic joke!  It took lil' ol' me no more than 5-10
> minutes of searching the Lewiston Tribune archives to find the articles,
> something the City in its "exhaustive" searches failed to find.  Why do 
> you
> suppose that is???  Could it possibly be the City was practicing CYA for 
> its
> role in the whole NSA mess?
> So, if Mr. Reed sells Basillio's to the UI, you'd have no objection to it
> being removed from the tax rolls and classes being held there, right?
> You also wrote:
> "I must admit I was shocked to hear Ms. Husky's seemingly contradictory 
> turn
> about of opinion with regard to the school and it's students."
> Huh?  I think you must be confused.  I don't want to speak for Rose, but I
> think we have always been consistent in our position that while neither of
> us would ever send our kids to NSA, we absolutely don't have a problem 
> with
> NSA in Moscow as long as it operates within the law and in an appropriate
> location, which we don't believe is in the CBD.
> You also wrote:
> "As to the parking, forgive me if I do this from memory. I don't have the
> stats or the meeting minutes available. My understanding is that with the
> collage at its current enrollment, it is using parking at the same level 
> as
> any other commercial use. "
> Mr. Crabtree, in my last response to you I gave you the facts that show 
> your
> understanding is flatly incorrect.  The facts I gave you (which I'm
> including again) came from my notes:
> "No, sorry, wrong again.  City staff made the point that NSA *alone*
> accounts for about 7% of all auto trips on Main Street:  the average daily
> trip count is 4806 with NSA accounting for 332.2 of those trips.  One
> educational institution *alone* accounts for 7%, which is clearly out of
> proportion and a higher use than other Main St. establishments.  Also, 
> based
> on NSA's current enrollment and staffing, it requires 43 parking stalls 
> with
> an additional 11 required for the retail space.  At NSA's maximum 
> allowable
> enrollment and staffing, they will require 65 parking stalls (plus 11 for
> the retail space).  City staff stated that NSA requires 12-34 more parking
> stalls that other commercial uses of similar size."
> That is the information presented by City staff, and should you think
> perhaps my notes are wrong, the following comes from the Daily News'
> article:
> "A Community Development Department staff report shared at the meeting
> stated NSA creates a need for 43-65 parking stalls, which is 12-34 more
> stalls than other commercial uses of the same size in downtown. "
> My notes are more detailed than what appeared in the Daily News, but the
> facts are the same and contrary to your understanding.  Even at its 
> current
> enrollment, NSA uses *more* parking that other commercial uses of the same
> size.
> Now, if you want to prove that City staff's numbers are wrong, knock
> yourself out -- I'd be interested.  Otherwise, your understanding just 
> isn't
> supported by the available facts.
> Finally, you also wrote:
> "As I have said before, this really isn't about parking (much less the
> slippery slope of educational orgs.)"
> I would say the real issue is about the fair and equal application of the
> law.  I agree with Ted Moffett who wrote, "Selective enforcement of the 
> law
> is a cornerstone of bigotry and intolerance, with favors and a "wink" 
> handed
> out to those who conform to the values and ideology of those in power." 
> For
> whatever reason, the zoning laws where changed to prevent non-commercial
> schools & educational institutions from locating in the CBD.  Then, when 
> steamrolls over the rules the rest of us have followed -- and mind you, 
> they
> made NO ATTEMPT to change the law first -- they get the wink & a nod . . .
> and a blind eye turned to their lawbreaking not once, but twice.  When the
> illegality of that conduct is challenged, the rules are changed solely for
> NSA's benefit.  Talk about bigotry & intolerance . . .and it's not coming
> from those you apparently would like to blame.
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> - Edmund Burke
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2005, Saundra Lund.
> Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
> without the express written permission of the author.*****

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list