[Vision2020] RE: Tribune uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro

Fri Jun 2 23:33:21 PDT 2006

Bruce,

  You wrote:

  "Gary, I believe that what you were saying is that the community ought not   have input into re-zoning decisions."  

  I don't view Gary's comments that way at all. The community does have  lots of say, almost 100% on the zoning laws, through elections and  appointments.

 What is not fair, is to change or bend the  rules of the game after someone or group applies later on and ask for  public comment about that group. The rules for building a fence need to  be the same regardless of if you like your neighbor or not. Fairness in  law and its enforcement does not seem to be a rule of justice to some  members of this community. 

 People should not be voting on  the rights of a particular people or organization. They should set the  rules, and then allow an unbiased group to decide unbiasedly based on  those rules and as far from the politics as possible. Divide the cake  fairly now to hand out the slices later. 

  Best,

  _DJA

Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com> wrote:              Gary,  I believe that what you were saying is that the community ought not  have input into re-zoning decisions.  That is where we  disagree.  I think the community should have a voice in those  decisions.  Bruce
      ----- Original Message ----- 
    From:     g. crabtree     
    To: Bruce and Jean Livingston ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 5:22 PM
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune     uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro

    Greetings  Bruce, You can't imagine my shock that you find yourself in  disagreement with my point of view. This has never happened before on  this forum. Please allow me a moment to clarify my position so that you  can join all the other happy and harmonious people on the V that  love me and dote upon my every word.

    Its  one thing to move into an R-1 or R-2 area surrounded by other single  family homes and have an expectation of limited change. (protected by  zoning) However ,if you live on the edge of an area which the  comprehensive plan suggests future development might best serve the  community as industrial/commercial area you should have no such  expectation. It's lovely to have rolling farm land for you back yard  but, to assume it will always be such is short sighted in the  extreme. You move in and gamble. Heads, pastoral beauty, tails,  Wal-Mart. You shouldn't have the option of modifying the bets final  outcome at the end. If I can't have my farm view, I'll take a ball  field. No? How about "mixed use" instead? Sorry, pal. If you want  total control of your immediate environment, move someplace that's  already the way you like it, or purchase a large enough buffer to  insulate yourself from unpleasant potentialities.

    As  I have said before, I do not think that it's a pro-growth position to  say 'We're in favor of growth as long as it's small and cute and fuzzy.  As long as it sells the kinds of things us progressive people like.  ("no cheap plastic crap") As long as they compensate their employees  the way we and the union thinks is right and proper. As long as it's  aesthetically pleasing to those of refined sensibilities.  As long  as you can tuck it someplace that's at least half a mile from  everywhere. And above all, doesn't change the "unique character of the  community" whatever the heck that is. Where did the notion that  everyone should have equal input into everyone elses business  dealings come from?

    In  closing, I would have to say that I would agree with you, that my  mantra was BUNK if what I, the GMA, the property owners and developers  (three groups for which I do not speak) were, in fact, proposing  rendering plants next to old folks homes. Toxic waste dumps next to  orphanages. Rack next to ruin. I disagree because the sorts of things  that I see causing the most knickers waddage for the fellowship that is  V2020 and for the most part, the MCA, is sub-divisions in the  proximity of other sub-divisions, retail having a close personal  relationship with retail, commercial development cheek by jowl  with other commercial/industrial development. And the ever present  droning of 'not enough goodies (parks, paths, pavilions, pork, pie in  the sky, etc.) for me but paid for by others.'  I will find  your arguments much more persuasive when the horrors that you claim to  be steadfast in your opposition to are, in fact, the sorts of things  that are being put foward.

    G. Crabtree

          ----- Original Message -----  
      From:       Bruce and Jean Livingston       
      To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; gary       crabtree 
      Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:03       PM
      Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune       uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro

                  Gary,  

      I  am not sure why you suggest that it is equally clear that the MCA is "a  long way from being pro-growth."  You seem to imply that all  growth is good, and that opposing any particular project makes the  opponent of the project "not pro-growth."  If I understand you  correctly, I disagree with you on both counts.

      You  assert that those who object to a re-zone of property, that is owned  and sought to be developed by others, are trying to dictate  to those others how to develop their property.  In some  instances, I think you are close to correct, and I find it a little  presumptuous for others to be so "helpful" in coming up with  alternative proposals for the property owner, (though those "helpful  'here's an alternative development possibility' sorts" are really  only suggesting, not dictating).  But in reality, the multitude of  complaining citizens are voicing their opinions on how the re-zone will  affect their own property and community, not telling the  developers how to develop their land.  The zoning ordinance,  itself, (upon which we all relied when we bought our land) is what  limits the development rights of everyone who owns land within its  bounds.  

      The  nub of this argument is over what is a "straight forward and not overly  restrictive set of guidelines" for development.  That is an  easy question to answer for me: the zoning code.  

      You  seem to suggest that if a developer wants to change the rules of the  game by re-zoning property and allowing a  heretofore dis-allowed use in a neighborhood, that the developer  should be permitted to do so as a matter of right.  Your test  for whether the growth was appropriate or not is an after the fact  assessment: whether the development succeeds or fails in the  market.         
            Both  the MCA and I understand that re-zoning is sometimes necessary to allow  for growth.  Where we seem to disagree with you is on whether  the community, whose collective property may be affected by a proposed  re-zone, has a right to provide input on the re-zone when the  re-zone will effect not only the land subject to the re-zone request,  but the surrounding property and community, too.  In those  circumstances, I think the community should have input on whether  and how to allow re-zone proposals without being automatically labeled  as "anti-growth." 

      I  think that if a developer can't sell the community on the value of its  proposed "new rules," changed game, and re-zoned property, the  community has no obligation to the developer and ought not  automatically re-zone the property.  The developer DOES have the  unfettered right to develop his or her land within the  restrictions imposed by the zoning ordinance.  However, the  developer DOES NOT have the automatic right to more intensive uses of  property than are allowed in a particular neighborhood.  Such  uses ought to go where they are planned and prescribed under the  existing zoning ordinance, not wherever a particular property owner  wishes to site them -- most especially when those uses are  prohibited under the existing zoning code at the developer's proposed  site.  

      Many  citizens, especially nearby neighbors to a proposed development, think  that the current zoning should mean something -- it is, after  all, a law upon which we relied when we bought our land in the first  place.  While the scope and intensity of any particular re-zone  proposal may be acceptable to the community, not all developments that  require a change in  zoning are an appropriate fit in the  existing neighborhood or the town.  You seem to label as  anti-growth any group that raises objections to any  development proposal.  But the MCA and most citizens do  not object to all growth.  We object to growth that is so  significantly different from that already allowed that it not only  would require zoning amendments but also would detrimentally  change the character of our neighborhood and community.  You seem  to gloss over the fact that in purchasing our land in the first  place we relied upon the governing limitations of the  zoning ordinance and its
 protection of OUR private property  rights.  

      What  we are trying to do is encourage growth that is consistent with  our laws and best accounts for effects beyond the development --  effects the community at-large needs to absorb and finance as best we  can, whether those effects involve transportation, infrastructure,  water or increased demands on police or fire protection.   Generally speaking, I don't hear people objecting to growth that fits  within the parameters of the existing zoning category, (with the  possible exception of water issues not covered by the zoning  ordinance).  People are objecting most strenuously to proposals  that require a change in zoning to a more intensive use that many  think will have the effect of imposing a quantum change in our  community and neighborhood, thereby affecting the property rights of us  all.  

      What  people find most objectionable is changing the rules of the  game after they bought property and relied upon the zoning code for a  semblance of reliability and stability in their neighborhood.  In  buying land in a place like Moscow that is governed by a zoning  ordinance, we all gave up our unfettered right to develop land without  any regulation and instead acceded to the restrictions of the zoning  ordinance.  The trade-off is obvious: we don't get to do anything  we want to our land, but neither do other landowners.  The zoning  ordinance controls what is allowed.

      The  fundamentally wrong part of your premise, as I see it, Gary, is the  notion that we, MCA, or any other citizen for that matter, are  not pro-growth because we object to a particular proposal that a  developer wishes to see imposed here.  But the fact is that  in the few development proposals that a mass of citizens find  objectionable, the developer is seeking ACCOMMODATIONS and CONCESSIONS  from the City, in the way of re-zoning, variances, etc.  What  I understand  you and the Greater Moscow Alliance ("GMA") to  be saying is that those who object to ANY re-zone  proposal are "anti-growth" and improperly limiting the  developer's property rights.  That mantra is BUNK, and an  occasional objection to a mis-placed and ill-conceived development does  not make the objector "anti-growth."  To  suggest that everyone has a right to do with their land as they wish,  in a community that has adopted a zoning ordinance, is to ignore the  covenant that a zoning ordinance
 provides -- some surety for each of us  that the land next door in a particular use category will not be  changed to some other more intensive use without our consent as a  community, as decided by the P&Z and then Council, after community  hearings.

      If  you bought a house in an R-2 neighborhood, you would have every right  to object to your neighbor seeking to put a rendering factory, oil  refinery or large scale retail development next-door.   Objecting to that inappropriate use does not make you  anti-growth.  Likewise, to suggest that a re-zone is an  entitlement in a community that has a zoning ordinance may be  "pro-growth at all costs" but it also ignores the purpose of adopting a  zoning ordinance -- the dependability of clearly stated, allowable uses  for land in a particularly zoned neighborhood.  

      In  my opinion, this town has been entirely too loose with rezoning any  property at any developer's request.  The prior councils  and city staff have been all too willing to ignore the zoning  ordinance by haphazardly amending it on an ad hoc, project-by-project  basis, crafting whatever exceptions into the zoning ordinance that a  developer requests.  Instead, we have endured a hodge-podge  of re-zones, a parcel at a time, all the while diminishing the  justified expectations of the neighbors in the use of their  nearby land.  Most of us relied upon the zoning in  this town when we bought our land.  We did not intend to  develop or change the allowed uses in our neighborhoods, but instead  anticipated that the existing zoning would limit not just ourselves  but our neighbors, too, to the allowed uses under the code.   What about our property rights and reliance  interests?  Preserving property values and quality of life in  our community while supporting sustainable
 growth under the Smart  Growth principles is pro-growth and a long, long way from "anti-growth."

      You  also seem to suggest that we should buy any land that we don't want  changed.  I agree with you, in part.  When the developer  merely seeks to develop his or her land within the limits of the  current zoning category and does not seek special treatment,  allowances, and a change in the governing zoning regulations, the  developer has a right to proceed.  We might not like the  transformation of a nearby pastoral setting to a passel of  houses, but we would seem to have little or no basis for objecting  to the developer's right to build those houses if the property  were already zoned residential and for the requested  density.  

      However,  when the developer seeks special accommodations and re-zoning to a more  intensive use, that is another story.  That developer may be  affecting my property rights adversely, because the effects of the new,  unforeseen and previously unallowed uses may leak beyond the  developer's property to my own and diminish my property value or  enjoyment.  Because I relied upon the existing zoning of the  neighborhood when I bought my land, I have a right to object to zoning  changes that I perceive will adversely effect my property without being  labeled anti-growth.  

      Growth  in highly intensive uses, especially, is best placed where it is  allowed, and not wherever the developer-of-the-month asks to put it  after a re-zone.   

      Bruce Livingston

              ----- Original Message ----- 
        From:         g. crabtree 
        To: Bruce and Jean Livingston ;         Matt Decker ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
        Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:33         AM
        Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune         uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro

        Bruce,  It's clear from your post that you do not feel that the MCA is a "no  growth" organization. But it's equally clear that it's a long way from  being pro growth. What it appears to me to be is a growth by strangling  committee group. A here is our vision of how property that is not ours  should look and be used club. If you stand in the way of the kinds of  development that developer's actually are willing to put their money on  the line for, can you honestly say you're in favor of growth? To  proclaim yourselves as "smart growth" advocates is to say that you're  in favor of a set of confused and contradictory goals design to leave  everyone dissatisfied. It would seem to me that pro growth is to  let the people with a real vested interest in any given project move  ahead under a straight forward and not overly restrictive set of  guidelines and let the community vote with its patronage. In a  society where failure is seldom rewarded, mistakes will likely not
 be  repeated. To try and make everybody happy on the front end of every  project is to create needless road blocks and stagnation.

        Gary Crabtree
                  ----- Original Message ----- 
          From:           Bruce and Jean           Livingston 
          To: Matt Decker ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
          Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:45           AM
          Subject: RE: [Vision2020] RE:           Tribune uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro

          Whoa Nellie!

          Matt,  I think you need to stop buying what certain "growth at all costs"  types are selling in their inaccurate smear of the MCA as an  organization favoring no-growth.  We are by no means a  "no-growth"-seeking organization.  

          We  seek to bring open public discussion and planning -- long range  planning especially -- back into the process.  We seek to  incorporate into our City better pedestrian and bicycle corridors,  sidewalks, mixed uses and cluster developments that use forward  thinking combinations of higher densities, and more shared, open  space.   We seek sustainable community development, not  stagnation.  There is a continuum of positions on the growth  spectrum, from no growth on the one hand to unregulated, absolute power  to develop one's land without regard to the effect on one's neighbors  on the other.  MCA is not for the former;  I would hazard a  guess that GMA is not for the latter.  Time will tell.

          Up  until recently, this City has operated on a basis that had relegated  the zoning code to an advisory document, spot-zoning and re-zoning  property willy-nilly at the request of any developer -- regardless  of the conflict any particular proposal may have had with the  Comprehensive Plan.  Evidence of that sad pattern can be  found with the prior council's frittering away of the West A  street commercial property that has been turned into one apartment  complex after another.  The "pro-growth at all costs" crowd  decries the current "lack" of motor business land in the City and uses  that alleged "lack" as a basis for asserting the necessity of re-zoning  the Thompson property.  Those same "pro-growth regardless of the  costs" folks include those who spent much of our best motor  business land on short term, short-sighted, frenzies of granting  every request to turn A Street into apartments  -- in an  area that has no adequate pedestrian crossing of the largest
 road in  our City for the numerous pedestrian students who were locating in  those apartments.  

          Smart Growth we advocate, not "no growth."            http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/

          The  best place for heavy commercial growth was always along the Pullman  Highway and behind Third Street on A, as was set forth in the  Comprehensive Plan.  The recently annexed university-owned land  north of the Palouse Mall is an obvious motor business area, and it  serves far wiser planning and strategic needs by its location as close  to Pullman as we can place it, while retaining a Latah County  location.   The good folks of Troy will drive through Moscow  and past our downtown to get to the Moscow motor business developments  near the state line.  The Pullmanites and WSU students,  particularly those using the bus, seem much less likely to drive or  hitch a ride to the far side of eastern Moscow, especially as their  choices expand in Whitman County.  

          Being  opposed to a misguided and ill-conceived, 77 acre motor business  re-zone on the east side of town does not make one anti-growth.   It makes one opposed to that particular development.

          Likewise,  as evidenced by prior discussion on this list, expressing concern and  seeking solutions about water usage on the Palouse is not  anti-growth.  In fact, it is pro-growth.  The Seattle  model, referenced by Nils Peterson and Mark Solomon on V2020  discussions, is worthy of pursuit here.  Seattle was able to grow  -- substantially -- while actually cutting its water usage  through thoughtful, long-term conservation policies.  We, too, can  do the same.  Given our scarce and declining water supply, why not  seek to implement water conserving policies that will enable future  growth, rather than blindly play a game of chicken with an aquifer of  unknown size and dimensions?  Preserving our water through  thoughtful and proven conservation methods preserves our ability to  grow for the long term.  Our County Commissioners, two of whom are  Republicans, have listened and learned from Diane French, Mark Solomon  and others on the water issue, so don't be so
 quick to dismiss Diane  and Mark as having ideas that take root only on the left, when the  evidence is to the contrary and their hard work on  water management benefits us all.

          Personally,  I also welcome discussion of a reservoir.  I oppose injection of  the pristine waters of the Grand Ronde aquifer with relatively filthy  runoff from muddy fields laden with various herbicides,  pesticides, fertilizers, and assorted other pollutants.  But  opposing injection of the Grand Ronde does not make me anti-growth,  Matt, it makes me opposed to that particular water management option  among a myriad of choices that enhance the possibility of  and favor long-term growth.

          I  am pro-growth.  Most in the MCA are as well.  Several years  ago the MCA Board took a position favoring growth.   We accepted the Smart Growth model, and rejected a no  growth alternative.  That position has not changed.

          We  in the MCA welcome the GMA to the discussion; undoubtedly the community  at large does, too.  Informed and open discussion is enlightening  and useful to all.  Overall, my sense is that the Moscow community  is glad that the MCA arrived and changed the discussion from private  conversations of a few policymakers, movers and shakers to a much  larger group of people throughout the community who are all  engaged in the discussion.  The GMA will undoubtedly add its  voice to the discussion, which can only be a good thing.  Let the  marketplace of ideas percolate and see what happens.  But don't  mis-apprehend the MCA as being anti-growth, for we are not.

          Bruce Livingston

          Matt Decker said:

| Remember this(GMA) group was established because of the           Mark Solomans, Diane 
| Frenchs, and the MCA groups that back up           their no growth attitudes. Smart 
| Growth, Please. Disguise it           however you like, but it just adds up to little 
| or nil growth. The           attitudes of these people are just to aggressive for 
| Moscow. Yes           some of the people in the group have lives outside of the 
|           computer, that depend on growth, including myself.
| 
| See what           we can do first before belittling us to a bunch of money crazed 
|           good ol boy. This group also wants what is best for Moscow.
| 
|           MD
| 
| Matt

---------------------------------

_____________________________________________________
 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
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

_____________________________________________________
 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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060602/3116f5d3/attachment-0001.htm