[Vision2020] real economic development in Moscow

[Jeff Harkins]

Bruce,

I have had conversations with each of the GMA candidates.  I have 
every confidence that the "water situation" is on their radar 
screen.  What I am most impressed about with their positions is that 
they recognize the need for science to determine the parameters that 
our water system consists of.  It is foolhardy to attempt to solve a 
problem when you don't know what the problem is.  Recall, if you will 
indulge me a bit, my position on water two years ago.  I made a 
significant effort to help people understand that we do not have a 
water supply problem, we may have a water distribution problem.  I 
pointed out that our rain and snowfall of approx. 24 " a year 
produced an enormous amount of water for us to work with - and 
pointed out that we needed to capture less than 2% of that rainfall 
to meet our current needs.  The response I got from members of the 
MCA group at that time was name-calling, personal insults, etc. Now 
two years later, MCA has embraced the water reservoir concept, has 
never apologized for the mean and nasty things said.

I did not hear those kind of remarks from the GMA crowd.  Their 
approach was not to intimidate me or my ideas, but to reflect on 
them.  And to recognize that creating a "water fear" problem was not 
going to do anything to address our needs.  And name calling has 
never been part of their repertoire.  From what I have seen and heard 
from them during this campaign reinforces that view.

I have not seen compelling evidence to support the view that we have 
a crisis.  Many of us recognize that our available ground water has 
limitations, but we really don't know what those limits are.  We need 
to invest in the science to address that knowledge gap.  Then, and 
only then should we invest public dollars to provide for our future 
water needs.  This is a rational, business-like approach to problem 
solving and it works.

Labeling the unknown as a "crisis" has impacted our possible economic 
development opportunities.  Water issues are a pot of trouble not 
many folks want to buy in to.  Labeling the problem as a "problem" 
reflects maturity and wisdom and communicates a confidence for 
dealing with the unknown.

I regret you and I are so far apart on this issue, but rest assured, 
Wayne, Dan and Walter are not ostriches with their heads in the 
sand.  Before you indict them with additional metaphors, look 
carefully at their resumes and the time and organizations they have 
worked with to understand the issue.  Look at the positions of 
responsibility they have held.  Collectively, they make a good 
package of experience and judgment.

In any event, thanks for the dialogue.


At 11:57 PM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>I appreciate your only calling my "ostriches" comment a "mild" derogatory
>remark.  I suppose that is a fair criticism, because it was certainly not
>meant to be complimentary.  But how can you be complimentary of a group of
>politicians' stand on an issue that seems not just short-sighted, but
>ignores or under-estimates the extent of a significant problem?
>
>"Ostriches" still seems like a good metaphor to me.  Ostriches are known to
>bury their head in the sand and impair their vision.  That describes in
>fairly vivid "picture" terms those who minimize the extent of our water
>problem, characterize it as a management problem and "not an emergency,"
>even when wells are going dry around us in the county.  I suppose I could
>have compared these "we don't have a water emergency" candidates to pacers
>at the track who have "blinders on," or I could have suggested that they are
>playing Nero and "fiddling while Rome burns."
>
>Those of us who express concern about water have been called "Chicken
>Littles," by the "it's not an emergency" side.  Both "ostriches" and
>"Chicken Little" are vivid satirical devices.  I would applaud the good
>writing on both sides, except that I'm not here to applaud myself.
>
>Any way you cut it, I think that while all candidates recognize that there
>is a problem, the GMA candidates minimize the problem and act irresponsibly
>when they suggest that there is "no emergency."  And being upset about
>people voluntarily conserving and letting their lawns go dry, because then
>our town is not as attractive?  Or suggesting that we ought not conserve
>here, since Pullman isn't saving downstream?  Well, I'm sorry but that does
>seem to not take the water issue seriously.  That does seem like being a
>"poor steward of the environment."
>
>Bruce
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeff Harkins" <jeffh at moscow.com>
>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>;
><vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] real economic development in Moscow
>
>
>|
>|
>| You wrote
>|
>| >'Entrepreneurs are willing to take risks, provided there is a probable
>and
>| >appropriate return for those risks.  An important element for them is a
>| >relative predictability of the business climate.  Divisiveness and social
>| >conflict are generally not good indicators of a stable market place.'
>| >
>| >How do you define 'social conflicts?'
>|
>| Social conflicts - groups of people don't agree - and when the
>| rhetoric heightens, members resort to name calling, derogatory
>| remarks and the like.  Here is a mild example from recent a
>| contributor to Vision2020:
>|
>|         "The GMA candidates are "ostriches" with their collective
>| heads in the sand.  And they are very poor stewards of the environment."
>|
>| >And I guess I'm curious why would
>| >you raise specific issues here, call them pollutants, and then want to
>| >discuss them off-list?
>|
>|  I raised the issues because Joe Campbell challenged me to identify
>| factors relative to our challenges with economic development and the
>| current city council
>|
>| Because I think the time invested in a dialogue with Bruce
>| Livingstone would be better served if he and I clarified our
>| positions to each other rather than serve as kindling to
>| to the fire.
>|
>| >Finally, do conservatives never question their opponents' honesty 'to
>| >obfuscate issues?'
>|
>| I won't speak for other conservatives.  I try my level best to avoid
>| that tactic.
>|
>| Does that answer your questions?
>|
>|
>|
>|
>| >Sunil
>| >
>| >
>| > >From: Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
>| > >To: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>;,
>| > ><vision2020 at moscow.com>
>| > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] real economic development in Moscow
>| > >Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:22:17 -0700
>| > >
>| > >Thanks for weighing in Bruce.
>| > >
>| > >Frankly, the most important element of your post was your closing
>| > >comment - and I will respond to that first.  I have not discussed my
>| > >comments with Wayne - he is the kind of fellow that can allow me to
>| > >have my own point of view and if he disagrees, we discuss it and move
>| > >on.  Just the sort of person that we need in a leadership position in
>| > >the City of Moscow.  He has experience and judgment. We would do well
>| > >to elect him.
>| > >
>| > >As to where Wayne stands on these various issues - ask him - I am
>| > >certain he has his positions and he would be pleased to share them with
>| > >you.
>| > >
>| > >You might have missed the closing paragraph of my post. My post was
>| > >to highlight for Joe Campbell some of the issues that lead to a
>| > >conclusion that the current city government (or the current climate
>| > >in Moscow) is anti-growth or anti business.  The point was not to
>| > >revisit the "right or wrong" of those decisions.  I thought I made it
>| > >rather clear that the issues are necessarily philosophical and
>| > >ideological in tenor - thus the outcomes are necessarily divisive.  I
>| > >do have positions and opinions on many of the issues - others I don't
>| > >have much interest in.  But, I stand by my conclusion that each of
>| > >these issues casts a shadow or cloud on Moscow as a place for an
>| > >entrepreneur to invest his or her capital.  Entrepreneurs are willing
>| > >to take risks, provided there is a probable and appropriate return
>| > >for those risks.  An important element for them is a relative
>| > >predictability of the business climate.  Divisiveness and social
>| > >conflict are generally not good indicators of a stable market place.
>| > >
>| > >Hopefully, that clarifies the list of issues and their importance to
>| > >this upcoming election.  Collectively, the climate is murky - quite
>| > >polluted.
>| > >
>| > >Now if you wish to discuss any of the issues cited as to our relative
>| > >positions, I would be pleased to do that.  It would likely be
>| > >interesting and productive.  Probably best to have that dialogue
>| > >offlist so that we don't add excess murkiness to the already murky
>| > >situation.
>| > >
>| > >
>| >
>| >
>| >=======================================================
>| >  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
>| =======================================================
>|