[Vision2020] subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")
Matt Decker
mattd2107 at hotmail.com
Sun May 28 17:12:01 PDT 2006
Joe,
So I keep hearing what "smart growth" is, what is your input? Everytime I
post on this issue and ask for specific answers or examples of how to better
Moscow, I get a blank stare. Maybe everyone is waiting to look for others
examples to find their own.
I also hope that "my" group will strive for a smart but yet not too
restricted growth. If not I can always leave, but the way I look at it, is
it was too long a waiting for a group that counters the MCA. With these two
groups I feel that Moscow has a better chance of survival and countinueing
or great atmosphere of Moscow.
Take care Joe
Matt
>From: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")
>Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 16:03:19 -0700
>
>But your group talks about smart growth, too. Right?
>Let's work together to try to find out what that means.
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>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/
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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