[Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from Walter Steed

[Garrett Clevenger]

I am pasting the 2nd reply from Walter Steed below,
followed by my response, as to keep you all informed
on his comments...

Garrett


Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:47:22

Garrett, 

Sorry about the Jason as you are right, that is the
name I saw at the end.  I purposefully deleted V2020
because, as a policy, I do not respond to it.  I try
to respond promptly at all e-mails sent directly to me
by individuals (please do not incite V2020 to start
sending everything to me as I will have to stop all
responses).

Let me try to clear up the noise ordinance.  You are
right about my response to you during the campaign.  I
did not think the one month came up during this
council's discussions and I was prepared to vote for
the night times only, but came to believe only Version
A would pass.  What I said during the campaign was
what I believed prior to having additional
information.  We did give officers the ability to
write noise "speeding" tickets.  I don't think they
will be too interested in daytime hours but time will
tell whether or not I am right.

Re my comment "Locating by Pullman would have had no
impact on water from our aquifer as it would be drawn
from the same basin" was poorly worded in that I meant
their locating in Pullman would have had the SAME
impact on our water as locating by Moscow as it is
drawn from the same basin.  Additionally, I have no
idea what Hawkins thoughts were re scaling back if
locating in Moscow or what they were set on size wise.

One thing I have thought about that I should have put
in the earlier e-mail and might also answer your
latest is that I, and I believe Wayne, presumed that
Hawkins would build regardless of what we did.  I did
not think the present council had the will to continue
the water rights appeals as they could have cost the
City 100,000's of dollars with no guarantee of
success. That being the case, Hawkins would have
drilled wells and built their project and I was
attempting to get what I could for the City out of a
presumed done deal.  Whitman County seems determined
on seeing this and other development in the corridor
and I did not want Moscow to sit by as just a
spectator.  In other words, I do not think we created
any greater competition for Moscow businesses than
what was going to occur anyway; and, as I have said, I
believe the greater volume of business traffic created
by the Hawkins development will create sales in
existing Moscow businesses.  A recent newspaper
article by a U of I economist said as much re a Super
WalMart.

Thanks again and let's keep up the dialog,

Walter

Walter Steed
Moscow City Councilor


Hi Walter,

Yes, the NO deal was pretty disappointing.  I thought
you and Dan, who told me he wanted to "shitcan" the
whole proposal and start from scratch, would join with
Tom and vote for version C, as that seemed like the
most reasonable solution, without having to wait and
see if the police will indeed focus on the advertised
problem, party houses.

I've learned in this process that the law you voted on
is probably "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad",
and in the right circumstances, will probably be
challenged and overturned, costing the city, I
imagine, lots of money if they decide to defend the
law and lose.

The least Mayor Chaney could have done is allowed the
public to speak to the council at the meeting (like
she said she would) because, like you said at the
meeting, 3 of you were new members and deserved to
hear from your constituents.  Perhaps I couldn't have
convinced you to vote against version A, but at least
the council would have had the perspective from the
person who put a lot of time into insuring the city
passed a reasonable law.

Unfortunately, I left that meeting with a bad taste in
my mouth.  I can't help but think how much time I put
into getting a better law passed, all for naught...

Take care,

Garrett