[Vision2020] subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")

keely emerinemix kjajmix1 at msn.com
Thu May 25 18:15:14 PDT 2006


I think Bill was pretty clear that he didn't mean sidewalks meandering 
through subdivisions -- we can all see that those exist -- but that the 
sidewalk-laced new subdivisions are not easily connected to other parts of 
town.  The concern is that subdivisions are built with "roads to nowhere," 
requiring car travel or the addition of footbridges or paths to link the 
subdivision to the town proper.

Whatever disagreements I might have with some "smart growth" proponents over 
school facilities, I appreciate the reasonable and coherent arguments that 
most have advanced, Bill London included.  It's easy to lose patience with 
those who go incendiary with their rhetoric, or whose idea of "smart growth" 
is really no growth at all, with additional stream-of-consciousness rambling 
about "our hills" and "our fields" and "tasting of the land to see what it 
speaks to us."  (God knows I've lost patience with it, sometimes publiclly). 
  But Bill London and most of the people I know personally in MCA aren't 
like that, and while I regret the lack of support for new school buildings, 
I appreciate the work involved in keeping Moscow from being flooded with big 
boxes and "cheap crap" merchandisers.  Above all, I don't regret at all the 
opportunity to continue the dialogue.

keely

keely

From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
To: "Bill London" <london at moscow.com>,        "Bruce and Jean Livingston" 
<jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>,        "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>, 
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:07:03 -0700

Mr. London, I'm not sure what you're talking about. My afternoons travels 
took me through several of the "subdivision developments sprawled around 
town perimeter" as you put it. They all had sidewalks on at least one side 
of the street. Most on both. I am sure that the developers all paid the city 
a fee in lieu of land dedication for parks as per requirements. All were 
"connected to town." I suppose that every time someone wanted to put up some 
houses we could require them to improve all the infrastructure from the 
furthest point in the city to their new development but I'm guessing that 
this would make new homes a tad spendy. The developments, as they are, seem 
to be meeting the requirements of people quite nicely, judging by the fact 
that folks are only to willing to live in them. Sounds to me as though your 
vision of smart growth, affordable housing, and what people actually want 
doesn't  mix very well.

  If parks and paths and sidewalks are so important to you, why haven't you 
and your neighbors banded together and done so in your own neighborhood? 
There is vacant land not too far to the east and west of you to acquire for 
a park. Each of you could be responsible for your own sidewalk and you could 
all chip in for a bike path and to connect to the sidewalk that the 
developer on Hershi Rd. (new development) thoughtfully stubbed out toward 
your neighborhood to help with being "connected." I think that should you do 
this you would better appreciate the kind of additional cost you are asking 
the developer to incur and pass on to the new potential home owners. Why ask 
others to do what you aren't willing to do yourself?

  G. Crabtree
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Bill London
   To: g. crabtree ; Bruce and Jean Livingston ; Matt Decker ; 
vision2020 at moscow.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:57 AM
   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro


   G-
   What you suggest for Moscow's growth ("let the people with a real vested 
interest in any given project move ahead ") is just what happened under 
former council and result was series of subdivision developments sprawled 
around town perimeter.  Not one has a park.  Not one is connected 
bysidewalk/trail/path to town.  All require rest of us to provide 
infrastructure for them (think Joseph street bridge).  That is Dumb Growth.
   BL
     ----- 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
     /////////////////////////////////////////////////////


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

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list