[Vision2020] Just Say "NO" to Jobs and Businesses In Moscow

Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 26 18:41:36 PDT 2006

 Forgive me for getting personal here, but you cannot  even find a job in this town.  Wouldn't you much rather  work  in Moscow rather then be going to another town for a job? Well, I sure  would.  

Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:  Here is one way to characterize the differences between us when it comes to our attitudes about local businesses, Donovan.

Suppose  that we are at the big high school party. You think that Moscow is  similar to the girl that has not yet been asked to dance. It is near  the end of the evening. She's lonely and desperate and had better dance  with the first guy who asks her because he might be the last!

I  think that Moscow is the Prom Queen and she's just arrived at the  party. She's intelligent, self-assured, and a real knockout. She can  dance with anyone. She can afford to be choosy.

(I admit that  the above example is sexist. Substitute 'boy' and 'star quarterback'  where appropriate. Be sure to change the pronouns, too!)

Best, Joe

---- Donovan Arnold  wrote: 

I  am in full agreement with MCA on this. I am tired of businesses coming  into Moscow and creating jobs, raising wages, and providing  opportunities for the people here.
 This 16 page regulatory  document will send a clear message to businesses like Home Depot,  Wal-Mart, Schweitzer, Micron, and other institutions that provide wages  to the residents in the area that we don't want them here.
  Establishing 16 pages of new and "special" laws and regulations for  some business that provide a high number of jobs, we will assure  victory over the people that want jobs and to pay less property taxes.  Whitman County is where these business people will have to give their  taxes and create jobs.
 YEAH MCA! I am with you. Stop business  from coming here to Moscow and Latah, we already have enough good  paying jobs at least $5.15 an hour. 
  PS, I hope you know I was being sarcastic, there is always one in the crowd. 

Bill London  wrote:                Dear County Commissioners Kimmell, Nelson and   Stroschein:
  The Moscow Civic Association (“MCA”) is in favor of Latah County  adopting Moscow’s Large Scale Retail Ordinance (“LSRO”) for the  Area of City Impact.
 The LSRO was written by a team of  community members with the goal of mitigating negative impacts that  retail outlets 40,000 square feet or larger (“Big Box Stores”)  would likely bring to our growing community. Retail outlets of this  size are cropping up all over the country with a variety of  consequences involving traffic, noise, storm water, aesthetics, etc.  Communities across the country are recognizing the need to pass  ordinances to eliminate or mitigate the adverse impacts of Big Box  Stores. For this reason, the MCA supported the city’s efforts to  mitigate these problems by adopting the LSRO. 
 Planning and  zoning are reasonable and desirable activities of local governing  bodies. We do not endorse the view that ordinances placing reasonable  requirements on businesses represent an assault on the free market or  discourage beneficial development. We believe that the LSRO regulates  development wisely, in a community-friendly and beneficial manner that  protects the property rights of developers, adjacent landowners and the  surrounding community. We wish to encourage this type of development.
  We believe it is not only justifiable but necessary in our role as  responsible citizens and as community participants placing reasonable  requirements on retail establishments larger than 40,000 square feet.  To mitigate the adverse spillover effects that come with great size is  an absolutely appropriate protection of the property rights of the  surrounding landowners and community. We believe that the LSRO does  that adequately by defining large scale retail outlets as conditional  uses in the Motor Business zoning district and by placing specific  requirements on such establishments to address the following areas of  concern:
  Site   location
  City Services and City   infrastructure impacts
  Storm water   quality
  Traffic   Impacts
  Building   abandonment
  We agree with the   requirements provided by the LSRO.
  As stated in the first five and a half pages of the sixteen page  document, there are many reasons to adopt such an ordinance. We would  like to draw your attention to the following paragraph of the ordinance  (p. 5), which highlights the beneficial purpose of the LSRO in  protecting the property rights of the nearby property owners and the  community itself:
  Whereas,   the City is currently without design review regulations or any   discretionary
  review   and public hearing process specific to retail establishments in excess of   forty
  thousand   (40,000) square feet which preserve    and/or enhance the general appearance
  of   building design and construction; preserve the historical character and   significance of
  the   community; coordinate onsite vehicular and non-vehicular traffic circulation   patterns 
  within   adjacent transportation systems; minimize visual impact; provide for and   protect
  existing   light, air, solar access, and orientation, privacy, views, and vistas by the   proper
  and   efficient location of building sites and design layout; provide adequate usable   open
  space   in a manner appropriate to the development and uses of lands, and protect   and
  preserve   wildlife, stream, natural topography and other desirable natural features   and
  qualities   such as skyline, ridge tops, knoll ridges, established trees and shrub   masses,
  topsoil,   streambeds and banks, drainage swales; promote aesthetic harmonizing   with
  the   environment adjacent to development; enable requirements for traffic   studies,
  market   studies, and impact studies; and enable imposition of mitigation   measures;
  Without the LSRO in place, the citizens of our community have no  protection from the adverse spillover effects that unregulated large  retail establishments will bring to nearby neighborhoods, to the  detriment of residents’ property values and quality of life. This  threat is something we can mitigate through the LSRO while preserving  economic opportunity, enhancing property values and quality of life,  and protecting and balancing developer’s property rights with those  of the impacted neighbors and community. 
 We hope you will  take these comments to heart and pass the LSRO for the Area of City  Impact. Please protect and preserve the quality of life for Latah  County.
  Bruce   Livingston
  President,   Moscow Civic   Association 
  On   Behalf of the Moscow Civic Association Board of   Directors

 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060926/5668c2fb/attachment.htm 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list