[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Monday 11 February 2008 13:40, g. crabtree wrote:
> The most glaring problem I see with this plan would have to be that the   
> land in question doesn't belong to the State of Washington, it belongs to 
> Hawkins. I can not imagine a circumstance where by they would be anxious  
> to sell their property other than to offer them an obscene amount of the 
> tax payers money. As to adjusting the Idaho/Washington boundary, under   
> what scenario would that be advantageous to Whitman County much less     
> Washington State?

Good questions. I am not suggesting that Hawkins give up their bundle of 
rights to the land they now have. What I am suggesting is that the State of 
Washington sell a portion of its domain of statehood to the State of Idaho, 
thus moving the boundary between the states. By domain of statehood I mean 
a right held by the state, not by an individual property owner, to claim a 
particular parcel of land as part of that state. I suggest this is a 
separate property right, distinct from Hawkins' ownership interest, that 
can be transferred for consideration, $1 or more, as agreed, between the 
states.

Why would Washington state want to do that? Because it is the right thing, 
the moral thing to do to avoid Latah county and Moscow city residents being 
forced, de facto, to subsidize development over which they have inadequate 
legal control. If the State of Washington wants some sort of monetary 
adjustment for its right of domain of statehood over the parcel, I think 
that value can be assessed and agreed upon by the parties, i.e., the 
states, in consultation with the local entities.

Why would Whitman county want to assent to such a plan? Well, for starters, 
I understand that it would take quite a bit of utility investment to 
properly serve that property if state lines, and various fresh water and 
waste water regulations, were honored in letter as well as in spirit. Said 
another way, the combination of Hawkins Development Group and Whitman 
county property tax payers can save a pile of dollars if more realistic 
engineering plans can be brought to bear on the proposed project. 
Unfortunately, at the moment, such more realistic plans put Idaho Palouse 
residents at some considerable disadvantage. Assuming the Idaho Palousites 
can persuade themselves not to give away the barn and the bathtub inside, 
some other more equitable plan, that also happens to be more physically 
realistic, needs to be devised.

> What would make much more sense would be for all the folks  who do not    
> wish to see this piece of property to be developed to pool their          
> resources and acquire the land themselves. Then it would be 100% up to   
> them what happens on the land. Of course I suspect that Hawkins will take 
> the profit from the sale and simply acquire an even larger parcel of land 
> in or near the corridor and the process will start anew.

No.

There may be folks who would prefer to not see the Moscow-Pullman corridor 
developed. Unfortunately for the prospect of their prevalent success, I 
think they may be related to King Canute, who is reported to have commanded 
the tide to not come in, with predictable disobedience from the sea. In 
other words, given that the corridor will be developed, the relevant 
questions relate to how best to accomplish the larger, overall project 
without putting one group of citizens at inequitable disadvantage.

> Mean while the folks with the newly acquired land that they recently      
> rescued can relocate their homes to their new, hard won purchase. Of     
> course residential development will unquestionably use up a significantly 
> greater amount of water then the previous development ever would have...

This prospect is a good reason why the entire overall corridor development 
should be looked at as a regional planning project, at least, and should 
have the open public consideration of all of the relevant stakeholders 
whose interests are affected. Surely that includes more than just a few 
present or near future property holders in the immediate area or adjacent 
to this parcel.


Ken