[Vision2020] Unstable, Doomed Model Cannot Protect Our
Quality of Life
Jeff Harkins
jeffh at moscow.com
Thu Mar 2 23:55:08 PST 2006
Joe and others,
Thank you for your thoughtful and deliberate
comments. But I think you miss the points.
I implied no strategy with the mathematics. I
simply reported the results - the results refute
the exaggerated conclusions reached by Mr. Holmquist.
You are quite right that the numbers I reported
are not predestined - and that is the dilemma. I
look at the growth in Moscow and Latah and see
that in order to provide for a very minimal
growth of .7%, we must find a way to attract
about 130 new residents to Moscow (or about 210
in the county) each and every year (with the
yearly increase adjusted for the compounding
effect). If we are to afford the amenities and
infrastructure required to create green spaces
and parks and bikeways and streets and bus
facilities and new schools and markets and all
the other bells and whistles called for in the
New Cities program, we are going to need a boat
load of money. That can only come from an
economy robust enough to carry the load. Despite
years of trying to foster growth, we have been
unsuccessful. Latah and Nez Perce were among the
only counties in Idaho that did not achieve real
economic growth in the past two years. So again,
since you seemed interested in my interpretation
of the numbers, bottom line is we grow (and build
a reasonable tax base to provide resources for
public infrastructure) or we contract and
ultimately die. There is no middle turf.
Now comes the economics part. The literature in
economics is well-founded and clear. When you
fetter markets, you increase cost. When you
increase costs, you make your community less
desirable for attracting the investment capital
necessary to fuel growth. Creating barriers to
entry is a very slippery slope to navigate - it
usually results in enormous unintended consequences.
I think we can agree on the fact that we don't
want a steel mill here. But in past few weeks, I
have observed the Moscow City Council pass an
ordinance that would restrict existing business
to a 10% or 5% growth (depending on size) or face
a costly Conditional Permitting process. As I
recall, MCA endorsed this action. There will be
few entrepreneurs that are going to be willing to
put up with that sort of model. And this action
has not been received well at all by the local
business community. I am rather confident that
the restriction ordinance will produce significant unintended consequences.
I attended the New Cities forum tonight and I was
encouraged. The majority of those who spoke,
spoke overwhelmingly in favor of economic
growth. The folks seem to acknowledge that
without a robust economic engine (one that
generates new capital in the community through
exported goods and services) to fuel the public
sector coffers, your dreams will be just that - dreams.
For several decades, Moscow has lived on transfer
payments funded by other government agencies
(state subsidy for higher ed and public ed,
medicare and medicaid supplements for health
care, grants to support urban and rural
development, grants to build bike trials,
subsidies to fund acquisition of cedar groves,
entitlements for retirement, subsidies for
agriculture through CRP and price support,
subsidies to support police and fire services and
on and on and on. I am also confident that were
we to adopt additional restrictions to economic
growth (such that we are not able or willing to
optimize our economic potential) I predict that
those agencies that we have relied upon for
supporting our style of life will constrain their
subsidy support. We can expect those subsidies
to decline over the coming years.
Just consider one element - funding for higher
ed. UI will see declining support in
Moscow. Demands for educational facilities in
the growth areas (e.g. CdA, Twin Falls) are
already pressuring the legislature for resources
to enhance the educational infrastructure in
those communities. While the UI will be getting
some of those dollars, the dollars will be spent
in those communities, not Moscow.
Finally, I have no doubt about your
sincerity. But I also see that MCA is
predisposed to an anti business posture. And the
group seems to reflect a complete insensitivity
to the fact that any cost you impose on business
is going to be passed right back to
consumers. And as those costs increase, well
....that is a model destined to fail.
At 01:37 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>I respect your expertise in economics. But I
>majored in mathematics as an undergraduate and I
>have a huge problem with the numbers-in-a-box reasoning that you use below.
>
>You seem to think that folks will keep on coming
>to Moscow whether or not there are houses for
>them to purchase. I bet that if we were to stop
>building houses as of this moment, eventually
>the folks would stop coming. The numbers you
>note are not predestined. We have some control
>over growth in spite of those statistics.
>
>Furthermore, you keep sticking to the same old
>false dilemma: either we have growth without
>reflection or we have no growth at all. Of
>course, Moscow and Latah County are growing. Of
>course, we need to find ways to deal with that
>growth. Among the MCA board, to use one example,
>are plenty of folks who work in real estate, own
>private businesses, and are otherwise aware of
>the growth considerations to which you speak.
>The MCA, for instance, is not anti-growth. We
>are just
>anti-growth-at-any-cost-and-without-reflection-on-the-consequences.
>There is a difference.
>
>Much of the points that you make are persuasive
>only if you reject the sincerity of the comments
>above. This makes any dialogue between us very
>difficult. I believe that what you say is what
>you believe. I ask for the same level of
>consideration from you. There are no hidden agendas.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>The hysteria and hyperbole (and/or lack of
>knowledge) that some folks use to advance their
>arguments is quite interesting - and indicative
>of how folks would carry out their
>responsibilities as a decision maker for the
>local area. Consider the quote from Antone
>Holmquist below (highlighled in italics) and
>apparently published in the Lewiston Morning Tribune a few days ago.
>
>Basic mathematics implies a result quite
>different from the conclusion reached by Mr.
>Holmquist. According to the Moscow Chamber of
>Commerce, the population demographics for Latah County and Moscow are:
>
>Population Growth
>
> City County
>1980 16,513 28,749
>1990 18,422 31,314
>1995 20,555 33,050
>1998 21,500 32,051
>2000 21,291 34,935
>2005 21,700 35,218
>
>The average annual growth rate for Moscow is .7%
>The average annual growth rate for Latah is .6%
>
>If we were fortunate enough to grow by 1% for the
>next 100 years, the population for the City and the County would be:
>
>City 58,695
>County 95,258
>
>If we use the historical growth rate of .7% and
>.6%, our population in 100 years would be:
>
>City 43,592
>County 64,056
>
>It just seems irresponsible to argue that if our
>population doubles in the next 100 years, that we
>are doomed here. The fact is, if we maintain our
>current growth rate, we are faced with the
>challenge of finding homes for about 350 folks
>(say about 150 families) each year for the
>foreseeable future. Of course, about a third of
>those would presumably settle in the rural towns
>of the County. Some are arguing that finding
>homes for about 100 or so families each year in Moscow is "too much" growth?
>
>I hope those attending the Moscow New Cities
>forum will keep these numbers in mind. As a
>benchmark for comparison, you might consider the
>State of Rhode Island. RI enjoys a land area of
>1,045 sq miles (they also have about 500 sq miles
>in water). The population is about
>1,048,319. If you have visited Rhode Island, you
>know that they have managed to preserve their
>growth, their green spaces, and their rural area quite nicely.
>
>Latah County has a land area of approx. 1,077 square miles.
>
>The panic, fear, disdain for growth, loathe for
>local individual and business economic prosperity
>and general hysterics by some "progressives " is
>simply unwarranted. The facts do not support
>their histrionics. It does make one wonder exactly what the agenda is?
>
>Now, as I close, please read again the next
>editorial appended to this email (by Ms.
>McGovern) - note the bold italicized
>statement. if you have lived on the Palouse as
>long as I have, you will recall that the same
>arguments were made about the current WalMart
>store. Does the fear-based argument stand up?
>
>My challenge to you - just as the residents of
>Latah County welcomed those of us that were not
>born here, to live and raise our families here,
>and share in the rich bounty offered by the
>Palouse area, so it is incumbent upon us to
>welcome those 150 to 200 families each year to
>live with us - with the same freedoms we
>enjoyed. IMHO, that is a heritage worth preserving.
>
>At 12:00 PM 2/25/2006, you wrote:
> > >From this weekend's (February 26-26, 2006)
> Daily News with a special vote of
> >thanks to Antone Holmquist and Eileen McGovern -
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Unsustainable, Doomed Model
> >
> >B.J. Swanson has come under fire for her opinion on the proposed Wal-Mart
> >Supercenter and some are calling for her head. I say bully for her. As a
> >well-respected local banker, her learned opinion should be worth a great
> >deal.
> >
> >Some local economists have trumpeted the economic mantra of "consumer
> >choice" and bemoan Moscow's 1 percent annual growth.
> >
> >Basic mathematics, however, reveals that a 1 percent annual growth in Moscow
> >would certainly fill every nook and cranny from Moscow Mountain to Paradise
> >Ridge and beyond within an average lifetime and such growth is just frankly
> >unsustainable worldwide.
> >
> >Last year I embarked on a road trip from Fort Worth, Texas to northern
> >Arkansas. This is the heart and soul of Wal-Mart and other big-box stores.
> >An awful lot of these towns have virtually no business district and the
> >towns look shriveled up. I drove into Bill Clinton's birthplace and found
> >nearly a ghost town.
> >
> >Wal-Mart and the other huge chains have sucked the soul from these towns.
> >As a young college student studying economics I suspected the basic economic
> >premise of growth, growth that was crammed down my throat was not quite
> >right and 35 years later I know it is an unsustainable and doomed model.
> >
> >Antone G. Holmquist
> >Moscow
> >
> >------------------------
> >
> >Protect Our Quality of Life
> >
> >Moscow, Idaho, Heart of the Arts, home of the Farmers Market - nestled
> >cozily in the undulating Palouse. Moscow is a community unique in its
> >ability to combine small-town familiarity and warmth with the enriching,
> >energizing force of the University of Idaho. This has been Moscow's
> >strength for many years and now it is under attack.
> >
> >Wal-Mart, the largest corporation in the world, and persistent violator of
> >human rights both locally and globally, wants to gouge out a chunk of the
> >Palouse and replace it with a sprawling, concrete Goliath of commerce - the
> >Wal-Mart Supercenter.
> >
> >The super center is likely to alter the character of Moscow to something
> >more gray and generic. It will initiate urban sprawl, threaten both
> >downtown businesses and the potential for sustainable economic growth, and
> >have a negative impact on the local environment - all of which makes Moscow
> >a less attractive place to live.
> >
> >Whether or not this assault on our quality of life occurs has a lot to do
> >with the City Council's answer to the question: How to zone the area
> >Wal-Mart wants to invade. If it is zoned a mixed-use area, Moscow will be
> >protected from the corporate onslaught.
> >
> >Please contact your City Council members and let them know how important it
> >is to this community that they zone that area mixed-use in order to protect
> >our quality of life.
> >
> >Eileen McGovern
> >Moscow
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Thank you so very, very much Antone and Eileen for expressing a true sense
> >of community.
> >
> >Take care, Moscow.
> >
> >Tom Hansen
> >Moscow, Idaho
> >
> >**************************************************************
> >
> >"A bad cause will ever be supported by bad means and bad men."
> >
> >- Thomas Paine (English Writer, 1737-1809)
> >
> >**************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> > 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
> >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯Â
> ¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯Â¯
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list