[Vision2020] response to Walter Steed (briefly)
J Ford
privatejf32 at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 11 19:29:11 PST 2008
Ha! Knew I wasn't the only one that felt this way. Thanks.
J :]
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:02:58 -0800
> From: rhayes at turbonet.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] response to Walter Steed (briefly)
>
> 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
> > ******************************************
> >
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080211/67eac7a2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list