[Vision2020] subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")
Matt Decker
mattd2107 at hotmail.com
Thu May 25 21:59:37 PDT 2006
Keely et all,
What is smart growth. I had this conversation with Bill london 2 months ago.
He had advised me to go to some web sites in order to find out for myself. I
did and some good points were made. I also tried to ask him what specific
ideas we could do here. Maybe he was to busy or he might not want to discuss
the topic with me. Point being, it was the end of discussion. I would like
to hear how we can make Moscow better. Some concerns come up every time I
think of it though.
What is wrong with subdivisions? Was Hathaway, Conestoga, Arborcrest, Moser,
Pheasant Run, and others a mistake. Should we have incorperated these spaces
closer to downtown? What about 6th street? These are 3-4 houndred thousand
dollar homes that have well designed street access, along with sidewalks.
Should we not have any residential growth? According to Bills' website we
should grow vertically near downtown areas. Wouldn't this increase on light
pollution, as Bruce Livingston would say. Or decrease in our overall feel
and decrease in our ability to see our surroundings, as Linda Pall would
say. What do we want?
I know what I want. Growth! Growth that would incorporate parks and a good
feel attitude for Moscow. I don't want to see some groups(AKA MCA) try to
put so many rules and regulations on any future subdivison that a developer
says screw and goes elswhere. Granted this group doesn't make the rules but
their apointees do.
Please lets make Moscow a great place to stay that thrives on conservation,
community, and family. All of these which point to growth, not a stubborn
anti growth attitude.
Just a fraction of my opinion but I'm tired of typing
MD
>From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>To: jampot at adelphia.net, london at moscow.com, jeanlivingston at turbonet.com,
> mattd2107 at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")
>Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 20:11:06 -0700
>
>I'm not an urban planner and, worse, I'm a subdivision dweller and
>committed . . . well, "streetwalker" probably isn't the ideal word . . .
>but I'm someone who enjoys a good walk through town. The point, I think,
>is that many subdivisions, my own included, aren't linked well to town. Of
>course, that's probably the reason they're "subdivisions" -- parcels of
>land, formerly open, divided and platted into separate residential parcels.
>
>Having now exhausted the limits of my expertise in the field of planning, I
>freely acknowledge that I don't know the answers, Gary. I just want to try
>to get away from the "no-growth" vs. "big growth" polarization that tends
>to define the discussion.
>
>keely
>
>
>From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>To: "keely emerinemix"
><kjajmix1 at msn.com>,<london at moscow.com>,<jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>,<mattd2107 at hotmail.com>,<vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")
>Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:39:29 -0700
>
>Ms. Mix, I am truly perplexed. At no point in my afternoon travels did I
>leave the city limits of Moscow and yet I drove through the majority of
>Moscow's new development. There are sidewalks next to all the streets that
>I traveled that connected the new to the old. Since the "town proper" is
>already developed where do you suggest we locate new homes that does not
>require a little bit of travel? Particularly since nobody wants any
>commercial development next to their home. If you have a technique by which
>you can float new development over the top of the old and tie it together
>with chute and ladders can you share it with the rest of us?
>
>gc
>----- Original Message ----- From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>To: <jampot at adelphia.net>; <london at moscow.com>;
><jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>; <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>;
><vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")
>
>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>_____________________________________________________
>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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list