[Vision2020] No More Parking Downtown Needed

Wed Jun 28 01:02:16 PDT 2006

I am hoping someone can explain to me a few things here;

 1)  Why do we want MORE parking downtown? If we already have traffic  congestion downtown why should we encourage more traffic, more cars,  and more congestion? Shouldn't the solution be to get people to use  alternative methods to getting to work and going downtown, not  encouraging people to bring more vehicles downtown making the problem  worse? Why not make people park OUTSIDE of downtown and walk in--like a  giant outdoor mall, it is only two miles or less to downtown anyway  from any other point in town. 

 2) Why should businesses that  locate downtown get all free parking paid for them, maintained, and  enforced at tax payer expense while all other businesses in Moscow must  make the investment for parking themselves? That doesn't sound fair  does it? If I pay for Book People to have parking spaces, should I not  also pay Subway for parking spaces too? Why does one get my tax dollars  and not the other? 

 3) If a business is so dumb to locate in  a location where their patrons are unable to access their building,  isn't that a problem self induced and to be fixed by the business, not  the taxpayer? Many businesses that use to be in downtown locations  moved out because they wanted to provide parking to their patrons  rather then requiring the government to do it for them. 

 4)  Isn't a business better qualified to know their parking needs and  issues, and have more at risk, than a group of self appointed liberals  that think everything under the Sun would be better off if established,  regulated and determined by them?

  Best,

  _DJA

Bruce and Jean Livingston <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com> wrote:  Nils, I will not be there, as I have other commitments, but I agree 
wholeheartedly that the Davis/Von Wandruszka PUD plan is a fine one and an 
example of Smart Growth principles being applied wisely.   I hope that many 
people will be there to support the project with you.  I have yet to find 
one MCA member or board member that is not in favor of the project. The City 
has been wrong to delay this project, and it ought to move forward.

The Davis/Von Wandruszka project preserves open space and creatively places 
the residences in ways that do not lead to greater density than would 
otherwise be allowed under the existing zoning code, while fitting in well 
with its neighbors, and indeed having obtained the support of the neighbors, 
including PCEI and others.

To cross reference this to our earlier discussion, many, probably most, 
myself included, would support the redevelopment of the grain elevators on 
the edge of downtown.  Simply asking questions about "where's the parking" 
is wise planning, rather than blindly re-zoning the property and eliminating 
parking requirements, only to discover parking problems later.  Asking these 
questions need not be divisive, and the questions ought not be thought to be 
out-of-place or irrelevant.  Other experiences have demonstrated that 
parking is an issue downtown, and it is an issue from there to the 
University.  Ignoring real parking concerns so that we can be "pro growth no 
matter the costs" by giving the developer everything he or she requests is 
unwise and foolish.

Suggesting that the profit motive of a developer occasionally leads to 
re-zoning requests that are not good planning is not akin to suggesting that 
all developers are evil or that all growth is bad.  Personally, I support 
more, not less industrial land, for light manufacturing industry and the 
jobs they bring.  And I support connected, well planned subdivisions that 
maintain a grid that connects walkable neighborhoods.  A developer might 
want to save money by  eliminating sidewalks; I think that is generally a 
bad idea.  Does that make the developer evil for proposing the idea? 
Clearly not.  But it is stupid to give the developer everything they ask, if 
some of what is requested is not good planning and is not in line with the 
requirements of the City Code or Land Use Ordinance.

Nobody has said all developers are evil, or that all growth is bad.  Is 
there some insight that can be gained from your sarcastic "evil developer" 
comments?  You wouldn't be "polarizing" Vision2020 now, would you?

Bruce Livingston

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nils Peterson" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:03 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Another short-sighted, developer-pushed project to 
maximize short-term profits notwithstanding the existing plan

| Continue this parking discussion tomorrow evening at P&Z 7:30 where evil
| developers Rob Davis and Brenda VonWondruska will be pushing their plan
| (called 'ahead of its time' by City staff) to develop a PUD adjacent to
| PCEI's new campus. The plan skimps on parking and avoids building a road 
to
| access the whole site.
|
| I'll be there in support of what I see is smart growth principles.
|
| =====================================================
| 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
====================================================

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060628/dde5d017/attachment.htm