[Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten

[g. crabtree]

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)

>From the top. Yes you are right. I was making broad generalizations in my 
communication with Ms.Woolf however, the anti-NSA spokesman brought up no 
other criterion for exclusion.  I did hear the Husky/Lund party line as put 
forth by Rose and dismissed the tax issues for the same reason that the BOA 
did. NSA is tax exempt no matter where they go. Downtown, Third St, 
Washington, Jackson,  Sixth, or Highland Dr. all the same, all tax exempt. 
If you would like to make a less discriminatory argument for revoking tax 
exemptions for all schools and churches have at it. Till then it's a dead 
issue. That leaves the "dangerous precedent" argument. (also brought up by 
one individual only) You're right, sorry, I did somehow manage to overlook 
that subtle point. Zoning allows for educational institutions downtown with 
a CUP. I'll worry about BSU hogging up Main St. with a satellite campus when 
the danger is a trifle more immanent. 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. I suspect that it was more of a rhetorical device 
than any kind of sincere change of heart.

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. That is why the board briefly discussed having the 
school acquire additional off-site parking before any additional expansion 
may occur. I believe that it was determined that this was impractical and 
discriminatory. When Moscow Florist & Gifts downsized and the coffee shop 
went in, it  increased the use of available parking and yet they were not 
forced to provide additional spaces to the general parking pool. I think 
that if any facts are being twisted its to conflate current parking lot use 
with the use at NSA's theoretical maximum and then point to it as some sort 
of awful reason for other businesses having a tough time making a go of it. 
If you want to solve the parking problem for good and all, and not just 
throw up road blocks for NSA, I would think you would be exploring the 
option for a return of parking meters or making the Jackson St. lot permit 
only. Or float a LID for additional parking improvements. Tax exempt 
organizations are not exempt from them. As I have said before, this really 
isn't about parking (much less the slippery slope of educational orgs.) 
Respectfully, I think that you and your fellow travelers in the anti-CC gang 
must think that the bulk of the community and I just blew in from hay seed 
heaven if you think we are going to believe it.

G. Crabtree
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
To: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at adelphia.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten


> Hi Mr. Crabtree,
>
> Well, I'm sorry I didn't get the opportunity to meet *you* Tuesday 
> night --
> I was there & would have welcomed the opportunity to meet you in person 
> :-)
>
> You wrote:
> "The few detractors that did speak could only muster the parking issue as
> the reason for a denial."
>
> No, sorry -- that's flatly incorrect.  Erosion of the property tax base 
> and
> the resulting increase on the other tax paying businesses was mentioned.
> Compliance with the Comp Plan was cited.  Preservation of the downtown for
> retail & service was mentioned.  From David Johnson's Wednesday Lewiston
> Trib article:
> "Those opposed were mainly downtown business owners who claimed the 
> college
> caused major parking problems that drove retail customers away, robbed 
> city
> government because of its tax-exempt status and set a dangerous precedent
> for other institutions, like the University of Idaho, Lewis-Clark State
> College, and North Idaho College, to seek similar downtown locations that
> should be preserved for retail business. . . Rosemary Huskey, one of the
> more outspoken critics of the college's downtown location, said the city
> needs to be more proactive in its enforcement of zoning regulations and
> conditional-use permits, rather than reacting to complaints after the 
> fact.
> She said she endorses the college and its students, as long as it is 
> located
> somewhere other than downtown. "
>
> You also wrote:
> "An issue that has been shown to be a false since the school uses no more
> parking than any other potential user of that property. This is not just 
> my
> biased contention, but the result of statistics provided by the city 
> staff.
> "
>
> 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.
>
> So, in light of those statistics provided by City staff, how do you arrive
> at, "An issue that has been shown to be a false since the school uses no
> more parking than any other potential user of that property. This is not
> just my biased contention, but the result of statistics provided by the 
> city
> staff "?
>
> If you want to support the granting of NSA's CUP, that's your right, but
> *please* don't twist the facts to support your opinion -- that's a huge
> disservice to your credibility and to our community.
>
>
> 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.*****
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of g. crabtree
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:02 PM
> To: J Ford; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten
>
> Ms.Woolf, It was a pleasure to meet you at the  meeting Tuesday night. As
> one of the most vocal (at least on this forum) detractors of NSA, I was 
> very
> surprised that you didn't take the opportunity to educate the BOA as to 
> the
> evils of the NSA. You complain that the board doesn't listen to the people
> and yet you gave them nothing to hear. The overwhelming majority of the
> testimony that they did hear was in favor of the collage remaining right
> where they are. The few detractors that did speak could only muster the
> parking issue as the  reason for a denial. An issue that has been shown to
> be a false since the school uses no more parking than any other potential
> user of that property. This is not just my biased contention, but the 
> result
> of statistics provided by the city staff. What outcome did you expect the
> board to produce with that kind of input? I've got to assume that if a
> better argument could have been concocted, it would have been brought
> forward. It wasn't.
>
> With regard to the whimsical letter that you thoughtfully reproduce for us
> here on the V. I would find it far more persuasive, informative, and
> entertaining if it had some actual signatures attached, and would be 
> happier
> if, as a downtown merchant mine, by implication, wasn't.
>
> Till we meet again,
> G. Crabtree
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:11 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Atwood Letter Rewritten
>
>
>> As posted on poohsthink.com (this is NOT just a NSA-only issue - it IS a
>> MOSCOW COMMUNITY issue - please take the time to talk to the merchants
>> downtown and see how they feel.  All we hear is how Atwood and the NSA
>> kids feel.  No one, including and especially the BOA, is listening to the
>> people who live/work in the CBD.):
>>
>> March 30, 2006
>>
>> Downtown Merchants
>>
>> Central Business Zoning District
>>
>> Moscow, Idaho 83843
>>
>> Dear President Atwood:
>>
>> On behalf of the downtown merchants, we're writing to confront you about
>> your decision to occupy Friendship Square without a zoning certificate 
>> and
>
>> without offering any mitigation for your detrimental impact, to ask you 
>> to
>
>> apologize formally, and to make full restitution as appropriate.
>>
>> Since, in fact, you occupied the Skattaboe Block without the requisite
>> documentation, you need to do two things at the very least. First, you
>> should apologize personally to your neighbors, who work very hard to
>> maintain their daily businesses and treat everyone - including you -
>> fairly and honestly according to the Zoning Code, for your inappropriate,
>> unilateral decision to invade the Central Business District. And second,
>> since you have not yet paid and contributed anything toward parking
>> mitigation, you should do so immediately to make full restitution for
>> essentially robbing your neighbors and stealing from those businesses who
>> have conducted themselves lawfully, according to the Zoning Code. Those
>> who moved in legally had every right and expectation of not having an
>> overcrowded parking lot. Your decision to crash the zone was not only
>> wrong but rude, so as merchants we ask you to confess it, apologize, and
>> pay an extra amount because of your non-conforming use.
>>
>> Perhaps there were mitigating circumstances surrounding your occupation
>> that would change or correct this perspective, but at this point, with 
>> two
>
>> previous zoning violations under your belt, it doesn't look good. Let us
>> know if this is incorrect. Barring that, please reconcile yourself to
>> these retail establishments in a way befitting an institution that names
>> Christ. Make full restitution to your neighbors.
>>
>> We are delighted you were so anxious to occupy Friendship Square, but 
>> next
>
>> time we urge you to obey the law of the land with the respect and honor 
>> it
>
>> deserves.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Downtown Merchants
>>
>>
>>
>> PS: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)
>>
>> J  :|
>
>
>