[Vision2020] response to Walter Steed (briefly)
roger hayes
rhayes at turbonet.com
Mon Feb 11 18:02:58 PST 2008
The argument that Steed uses, "it was a done deal is horsepucky!" All
they had is some deal to transfer water from Colton We held all the
power to benefit Moscow. If Hawkins wants to build its mall, let them
spend the money on sewage, wells, and probably police and fire
protection. That we enable them just saves them millions of dollars. We
will all pay dearly in water, and sewage treatment so that Hawkins can
pillage our economy. I smell something very distasteful here. It stinks
of collusion. I am a very upset taxpayer. You should be too!
Roger Hayes
Moscow!
On Monday, February 11, 2008, at 03:34 PM,
vision2020-request at moscow.com wrote:
> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
> vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vision2020-request at moscow.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vision2020-owner at moscow.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. From the Legislature (Shirley Ringo)
> 2. Re: Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from Walter
> Steed (Chasuk)
> 3. Re: Advanced Real Estate Question (Kenneth Marcy)
> 4. Re: Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from
> (pkraut at moscow.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:03:47 -0700
> From: "Shirley Ringo" <ringoshirl at moscow.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] From the Legislature
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Message-ID: <000b01c86cf9$fa535180$f30b050a at LSOSRINGO>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Visionaries:
>
>
>> From the Legislature
>
> Representative Shirley Ringo
>
> February 11, 2008
>
>
>
> The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee (JFAC) has completed
> budget hearings. Next Monday, we begin the process of setting
> budgets. Barring unforeseen events, the process will take
> approximately three weeks. A member of JFAC may make a motion for any
> budget. Among those for which I plan to prepare motions are public
> education and higher education.
>
>
>
> We enter the process with a degree of uncertainty, because the stream
> of revenue has not been following projections. Actual collections
> exceeded expectations until December, when collections were $31.3
> million behind projections. In January, collections were $38.1 behind
> projections. Economists in the Department of Financial Management are
> busily studying the components of revenue collections to analyze
> contributing factors.
>
>
>
> Last year, public employees received a 5% increase in pay
> (merit-based) and public school employees received a 3% increase in
> pay. This year the Governor recommends a 5% increase for public
> employees and educators accompanied by a decrease in public employee
> benefits. The Governor still backs the 5% pay increase as one of his
> top priorities, but some legislators are talking of only a 3% increase
> this year as a response to the uncertain revenue picture. (The
> reduction would reduce state expenditures by approximately $32
> million.)
>
>
>
> The iSTARS teacher pay proposal dominated the early stages of this
> legislative session. I hope is it not an exaggeration to say we are
> moving forward into more productive discussions now. I am
> co-sponsoring a resolution calling for an improved system for
> evaluating teacher performance. I have criticized the iSTARS plan for
> being politically motivated, and lacking educational soundness.
> Although a task force convened prior to this legislative session to
> consider alternative teacher pay plans, there was no serious
> collaboration leading to the iSTARS proposal. The absence of a good,
> transparent process contributed to its failure.
>
>
>
> During the summer of 2006, your District 6 Representatives (Trail and
> Ringo) met with citizens, members of law enforcement, Professor
> Elizabeth Brandt (U of I College of Law), and others to discuss the
> need for address protection for victims of domestic violence. Last
> year, Professor Brandt drafted legislation which Representative Trail
> and I (Rep. Ringo) presented in the House Judiciary and Rules
> Committee. The bill was not successful last year. It has been
> fine-tuned a bit, and we are giving it another try. It is a well
> crafted piece of legislation - we hope for a better outcome this year.
> We have had a successful introduction in the House Judiciary and
> Rules Committee, and look forward to a formal hearing on the bill.
>
>
>
> Idaho law currently allows individuals to remove children of age six
> or younger from car seats and restraining seatbelts to deal with
> routine needs. In my opinion this is an extremely dangerous practice
> that can lead to serious injury or death. I am teaming with Senator
> Joyce Broadsword to propose legislation requiring that these young
> children be properly restrained in a moving vehicle at all times. We
> successfully introduced the bill in the House Transportation
> Committee. Unfortunately, the vote was only 7-6. It looks like a
> rough road ahead.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone if you have
> questions or concerns. (sringo at house.idaho.gov;
> ringoshirl at moscow.com; 208-301-2272)
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080211/
> a2619695/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:06:48 -0800
> From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply
> from Walter Steed
> To: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> Message-ID:
> <ef6f41de0802111406x614ef8e1n5b06930327bb0d91 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Feb 11, 2008 1:32 PM, J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Question to Mr. Steed - why would you purposefully "cut off all
>> replies" to
>> questions put to you by the people that elected you? Are you saying
>> you
>> will refuse to respond to the public regarding any issue that
>> directly/indirectly affects and effects the tax payers - you know,
>> the ones
>> that pay for you to be in office and voted you there? If I
>> mis-understand
>> your statement, I totally am open you correcting me on that.
>
> I imagine that Mr. Steed quite reasonably makes this decision in order
> to cut off accusatory and combative posts. He is an elected
> official, yes, but this means that he has to prudently spend his time,
> and getting embroiled in dialog that sinks as low as it frequently
> does on unmoderated public forums (not just Vision2020) is imprudent.
> Consider time a resource that shouldn't be wasted, and you will have
> your answer.
>
>> Question 2 to Mr. Steed - you state "I was attempting to get what I
>> could
>> for the City out of a presumed done deal." IF it were a "done deal"
>> then
>> what are you trying to get out of it for the City? That phrase
>> indicates
>> that what is, is and there will be no other additions or changes.
>> Again, if
>> I am incorrect in that, please explain how.
>
> If the City had remained intransigent, Hawkins still would have had
> the Mall built, just without the cooperation of the City, hence
> without any profit for the City, and possibly with the additional cost
> of ultimately fruitless litigation. Our water would still be sucked
> away, the Mall would still exist, but we would have no input and our
> coffers would be emptier.
>
>> Question 3 to Mr. Steed - You and Mr Krause were apparently not very
>> well
>> informed prior to the vote regarding this vote and yet you voted -
>> ever hear
>> about putting the question off until more details can be presented?
>> Wouldn't that have been the prudent thing to do in order for you two
>> to make
>> a better, well-informed decision that affects thousands of people's
>> taxpayers? Are you in the habit of voting for something solely on the
>> fact
>> "heck, they are going to do it anyway"?
>
> Question 3 seems exactly the sort of hostile question that justifies
> Mr. Steed's decision to avoid forums like Vision2020.
>
> Chas
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:00:10 -0800
> From: Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question
> To: "Vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Message-ID: <200802111500.10726.kmmos1 at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:34:33 GMT
> From: <pkraut at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply
> from
> To: vision2020 at mail-gw.fsr.net
> Message-ID: <200802112334.m1BNYcnV042108 at mail-gw.fsr.net>
>
> Maybe you should refer to the recent comments about snide remarks on
> this
> site. V2020 has a reputaion all over town for people who are not
> willing
> to learn and listen. Steed and Krauss have been very involved in city
> politics for a long time they both know about the water situation.
> Thats
> why I voted for them.
>
>
>
>>
>> Wow....thanks, Garrett, for posting Mr. Steed's reply to your emails..
>>
>> Question to Mr. Steed - why would you purposefully "cut off all
>> replies"
> to> questions put to you by the people that elected you? Are you
> saying
> you
> w> ill refuse to respond to the public regarding any issue that
> directly/indir> ectly affects and effects the tax payers - you know,
> the
> ones that pay for
>> you to be in office and voted you there? If I mis-understand your
> statemen> t, I totally am open you correcting me on that.
>>
>> Question 2 to Mr. Steed - you state "I was attempting to get what I
> could
> f> or the City out of a presumed done deal." IF it were a "done deal"
> then
> wh> at are you trying to get out of it for the City? That phrase
> indicates
> tha> t what is, is and there will be no other additions or changes.
> Again, if
> I> am incorrect in that, please explain how.
>>
>> Question 3 to Mr. Steed - You and Mr Krause were apparently not very
> well
> i> nformed prior to the vote regarding this vote and yet you voted -
> ever
> hear> about putting the question off until more details can be
> presented?
> Would> n't that have been the prudent thing to do in order for you two
> to
> make a
> b> etter, well-informed decision that affects thousands of people's
> taxpayers?> Are you in the habit of voting for something solely on the
> fact "heck,
> the> y are going to do it anyway"?
>>
>> WOW! That seems like a really reliable way to go......
>>
>>
>>
>> J :]
>>
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:12:05 -0800
>>> From: garrettmc at verizon.net
>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from
> Walte> r Steed
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ========================> =========================> ======
>>> 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
>>>
> ========================> =========================> ======
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM,
>> we
> g> ive.
>> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> http://www.fsr.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
> =======================================================
>
> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 20, Issue 87
> ******************************************
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list