[Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

Fri Nov 2 17:59:15 PDT 2007

Because of the agreement between the UI and the City of Moscow regarding the planing and maintaining of the trees on that part of the roadway.

The End.

J  :]

From: mattd2107 at hotmail.com
To: privatejf32 at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 17:44:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

J,

This will be my last post about this. Point being if the property is owned by the university why are the city official getting involved on property that is not easement. The mall replaced shrubs that ended up being cut down with 84 1" or bigger trees. 

J I don't need a response. If you feel to do so do it to me offline. 

Thank you 
Matt

From: privatejf32 at hotmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:48:23 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

I think you need to look at that a wee bit closer.  From what I remember hearing and from talking to the Council members of the time, the fact that the Mall owners were thumbing their noses at the City and not caring what the UI or the citizens were saying maddened a lot of folks.  I believe the fines, if they were actually levied against them, were a result of the attitude the owners showed of "Screw you!  We're doing what we want." as well as the fact that the trees were removed in the dead of night and without prior knowledge of the City personnel.  Also, I believe there was some kinda deal worked out that allowed the new plantings to replace the trees that were removed.

I'm not sure this is worth going on about especially since its in the past.  My main point was that DJA was purposing knee-jerk punishments on a bunch of people that really don't have a dog in this fight.

J  :]

From: mattd2107 at hotmail.com
To: privatejf32 at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 07:20:23 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

J,

I believe you are right in the fact that all properties in Moscow have a right of way, one that the owner is responsible for. Also, removal of any trees can be subject to a fine. In the case of the mall I believe they have a thirty ft easement  running along the highway. I believe many shrubs/trees that were removed happened on both sides of this easement. 

Matt

From: privatejf32 at hotmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 05:55:05 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

ALL property in Moscow has a "right of way" that the CITY owns; if you plant a tree on it, you CAN NOT REMOVE SAID TREE unless or until the City gives you permission.  No matter who you are, you can not just cut down a tree.  And, if you do remove a tree you have to have a plan in place to replace said tree and a time-table to do so.  You do any of this without permission you get hit with a fine.

Mark IV found this out last summer when they removed 4 trees from what they felt was their property - without City Permission or oversight.  They got fined - big time!

Homeowners, property owners, even the City has to have written permission to do any tree removal from the right-of-way.  

Look it up if you don't believe me.

J  :]

From: mattd2107 at hotmail.com
To: privatejf32 at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 17:50:29 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

J said "Em, isn't the mall property owned by the UI?  Which makes it
State-owned, in rights, yes?  Which means the City can't "impose" any
of the restrictions or punishments that DJA childishly suggests below"

Explain how the city was involved and how fines almost came down on the mall for cutting down shrubs/trees. Or maybe you should just talk to Linda Pall if you don't believe me.

Matt

From: privatejf32 at hotmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 05:55:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

Em, isn't the mall property owned by the UI?  Which makes it State-owned, in rights, yes?  Which means the City can't "impose" any of the restrictions or punishments that DJA childishly suggests below.  I say childish because they seem more "reactionary" than thought out....sorta like the old saying "If you don't play the way I want you to, I'm taking my toys home."  But then, it IS DJA....says it all, I guess.

J  :]

From: gussie443 at hotmail.com
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; sbasoa at moscow.com
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:52:07 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

Hey, Donovan!. . . .I think number 22 of your plan is already in place!  Haven't you ever noticed the lovely smell of cows and the aroma coming from the treatment plant across the road from the mall?

In some ways parts of Moscow already smell a little like Lewiston.

Ellen A. Roskovich

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:35:15 -0700
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
To: sbasoa at moscow.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dispel the anti-growth myth

Steven asked me:

"Yes, the Palouse Mall has kicked out quite a few 'local' businesses  
and replaced them with national chains.  But just what is it that you  
think the city council could have done about that?  How could they  
have protected the businesses?  Personally, I think that what the  
mall did was/is wrong, but as a landlord, I guess that's their  
right.  I don't see how you can drag the city into it."

Steve, I don't honestly think it has been difficult for the government to impede businesses from succeeding, particularly this local government. 

There are many things the City Council can do in reaction to the Palouse Mall discriminating against local businesses. I am sure many people can think of better things than I can but here are a few:

1) Deny any tax breaks
2) Create a long and underfunded road construction project around all the roads that make mall entrance easy. 
3) Rezone so no car sales or events may take place at the Mall.
4) Increase the parking requirements for the mall. 
5) Raise taxes on national chain stores
6) Promote Downtown and business elsewhere in Moscow
7) Prohibit the extension of the building
8) Enforce every environmental, zoning, fire, safety, and disability access law for the city, state, and federal government. 
9) Limit water availability
10) Launch public protests
11) Create a government information campaign as to what the Mall is doing
12) Increase fines for violations they frequently break
13) May the Mayor, President of UI, the City Council, and Latah County Commissioners ask them not to act in such a discriminatory fashion against Moscow owned businesses. 
14) Change the bus routes not to include the Mall
15) Place a curfew on teens so they cannot hang out there. 
16) Enforce no loitering laws at the Mall
17) Enforce the law strictly on Mall grounds
18) Give no aid or government assistance to the Mall or any business in the mall
19) Build a Wal-Mart Super Center on the other side of town so shoppers go the opposite direction.
20) Write the corporate leaders of the National Chain stores explaining how their presents in a Mall that is discriminatory makes their business look unfriendly to the local community
21) Prevent any more construction of housing and businesses near or around the site.
22) Allow noisy smelly industrial plants and construction to take place on all sides of the Mall. 

Those are my ideas. I am sure others have more and better ones to make the Mall more friendly to the people they are suppose to be supporting, and give them a paycheck. 

Best,

Donovan

Steven Basoa <sbasoa at moscow.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:

>The City Council didn't approve the rezone when I was there. They 
might have changed their mind at a later date.

The city council (during Mayor Comstocks reign) rejected the UI's 
rezone application twice before (apparently) approving it on the 
third attempt. The reason they rejected it the first time was 
because the representative from the UI was totally inept and clueless 
and could not answer any of the council's questions. At the same 
meeting I believe they passed the Thompson family's request to annex 
the property across from the cemetery. The difference in the two 
presentations was amazing. Shelly Bennett had done her homework, 
presented it well and was able to answer every question thrown her 
way. The UI representative knew virtually nothing about the UI's 
request and was totally unprepared for the meeting. For the second 
application, the UI sent one of their VP's who read a letter from 
President White and repeated the same spiel from the first meeting. 
The VP was also unprepared and unable to answer the same questions. 
I wasn't at the third meeting but I assume they finally sent someone 
who actually had a clue.

>Tidyman's is still in business, just not in Moscow.

I don't know about the Tidyman's chain, but the Moscow store was 
hugely hurt by the arrival of Winco. I'm guessing that was the main 
reason the Moscow store went under.

>True, it was the County, not the City, that pulled the trigger on 
Naylor Farms, but I bet you $100 the City would not have ruled any 
differently and would >have carried on the fight against them is they 
got approval from the County. To a business, it doesn't matter if it 
is the actual city or county killing their >business, it is still 
killing their business when they try to local here. 70% of the county 
is the City.

I really don't see how you can blame the city of Moscow for something 
they might or might not have done. To tar and feather the city 
council for the Naylor Farm issue is silly.

>I think sales tax is the problem with the state government, 
especially on food and OTC drugs and education materials. Moscow has 
to high of taxes >because of school levies. I am not saying education 
isn't worth funding well, but there is breaking point for what many 
people on what they can afford to >give and the MSD has long passed it.

I agree with you about the state taxing food and medicine. And the 
extremely high property taxes, most of which goes to the school 
district.

>Best,
>Donovan

In another email Donovan wrote:
"Many local businesses have been pushed out of the Palouse Mall and 
the city has done nothing to protect them."

Yes, the Palouse Mall has kicked out quite a few 'local' businesses 
and replaced them with national chains. But just what is it that you 
think the city council could have done about that? How could they 
have protected the businesses? Personally, I think that what the 
mall did was/is wrong, but as a landlord, I guess that's their 
right. I don't see how you can drag the city into it.

Take care,
Steven

=======================================================
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
=======================================================

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now!

Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!

Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now!

Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!

Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now!

Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! Try now!

_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071102/1e453011/attachment-0001.html 