[Vision2020] Weitz is a civic terrorist?

[Glenn Schwaller]

BL -

It seems to me a huge amount of administrative time and a sizable chunk of
money was paid out a short time ago in what many perceived to be a misguided
attempt to build a new high school.  I don't remember the district nor its
patrons being overly concerned about this expense - but then it was
something MSD wholly embraced.  I got the impression this (a new high
school) was something so wonderful and necessary that only a fool or a
curmudgeon could be against it.  Huh.  I think MSD was a bit off-target on
that particular issue.

Now we have an issue which seems to have a significant amount of interest
and support from the locals (read taxpayers), yet it is probably NOT
something MSD is totally embracing.  So this makes an attempt to resolve
this issue with prejudice (i.e. end of story) a totally unnecessary
expenditure of time and money??  And if Dr. Weitz loses, cannot the district
have court costs and associated legal fees paid for by the plaintiff?

I think MSD has a concern, but I'm not so sure it's main focus is an
unnecessary expenditure of time and money.

Schwaller

"Be concerned.  Be very concerned."
    (with apologies to Veronica Quaife)

On 5/8/07, Bill London <london at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  G-
> your question: "If Dr. Weitz's claim has no legal merit, then why would
> MSD have any concern?"
> my response: a huge amount of administrative time and a sizable chunk of
> money (as in paid by local taxes to the district) will have to be used to
> fight this suit.  Of course the district, and its patrons, are concerned.
> BL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Glenn Schwaller <vpschwaller at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:10 PM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Weitz is a civic terrorist?
>
> Ms. Emerinemix,
>
> I don't know if there is any merit to Dr. Weitz's claim.  I believe that
> the foundation for any argument is "is this position valid?"   With
> something as complex and potentially dangerous and damaging as the
> illlegality of a tax-based ballot measure, I have no problem with someone
> questions its validity.  Dr. Weitz has wisely chosen to use the law to
> determine if his claim has merit.  Many will discount this as "frivolity"
> and cite a laundry list of reasons based on gut-wrenching emotion (oh the
> poor kids!  The poor teachers!  The poor administration!) and avoid
> considering a more insidious outcome of allowing a group to unfairly and
> inappropriately tax the public for whatever it is they want (be it schools,
> roads, parks, athletic centers).  This potentially could set a precedence by
> which any group could do the same thing.  If Dr. Weitz's claim has no legal
> merit, then why would MSD have any concern?  I for one would rather see the
> law surrounding this issue clearly delineated than to see some other,
> possibly more unsavory group, use the same tactics to fund their particular
> interest.
>
> Schwaller
>
> "The bigger they are, the harder they fall on you"
>      Mark Knopfler
>
> ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070508/6bca8535/attachment.html