[Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten

joekc at adelphia.net joekc at adelphia.net
Tue Apr 4 12:51:51 PDT 2006

I've talked with Joan, Rose, et. al. and they are not "bigoted against conservative Christians." They are against bigotry disguised as religion.

Joe Campbell

---- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote: 

 I don't have to speculate it is personal. Just ask  them. Joan, Rose, and her entire household & friends will just tell  you flat out they are bigoted against conservative Christians and have  a personal ax to grind with Wilson. 
  Please keep up your insightful posts, it saves me from writing so much.

"g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:              Donovan,  Since I don't have the ability to peer into the hearts and minds of the  principal players in this overblown imbroglio I am reluctant to ascribe  motive. However on the face of it there is all the appearance of  something other than wanting to be able to park in the two southernmost  rows of the Jackson St. parking lot at play here. If I had to  guess I suspect it has to do with personal animosities and not  some grand liberal, anti Christian agenda as some on this list may have  speculated on our behalf.
  G. Crabtree
      ----- Original Message ----- 
    From:     Donovan Arnold 
    To: g. crabtree ; Saundra Lund ;     vision2020 at moscow.com 
    Cc: DonaldH675 at aol.com 
    Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:11     PM
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Atwood Letter     Rewritten

"To not do so, once again,  makes this look like a personnel 
crusade for you and your commandos."-- Gary Crabtree

But Gary, this is a personal crusade for her and her commandos.
What did you think it was about?


"g.     crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:    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" 
To: "'g. crabtree'"       ; 
Cc: ; "'Ted Moffett'" 
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.*****

List       services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities       of the Palouse since 1994. 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com


    New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call     regular phones from your PC and save big._____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1&cent;/min.

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list