[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Monday 11 February 2008 15:34, Darrell Keim wrote:
> But moving the stateline would in no way solve the long term planning.
> Sure, it would solve the Hawkins issue.  But, what about when someone     
> wants to move in to Hawkins?  I'm sure they will.  Do we move the line   
> again?  and again?  and again?  Simply not a reasonable solution.

Regional corridor development planning is an iterative process of which one 
could expect to revisit a master plan every few years after intensive work 
to establish an initial master version. This does not imply property by 
property border movements. Rather it suggests looking at the entire area 
between what is reasonably a Moscow service area and what is reasonably a 
Pullman service area, and planning for growth from both directions toward 
some as yet unlocated, but expected, border between the two service areas.

This conversation is part of that iterative process. Other currently unknown 
issues may change the view of where, between Moscow and Pullman, a more 
practical state border ought to lie. For example, David Sarff wrote to this 
list today mentioning a US Highway 95 by-pass around Moscow, were it to be 
built, might need what is now Washington land. Surely it is an appropriate 
subject for a regional corridor development plan to consider. If the state 
line is to be moved, it should be as a result, not as a precursor, of 
regional planning.

Whether the Hawkins development is be allowed to proceed with Idaho 
subsidies, or asked to proceed without them, or frozen in place by several 
or all relevant jurisdictions until planning results and decisions are in 
place are options yet unresolved as far as I know. It is not unreasonable, 
however, to ask that these options be examined in publicly available fora, 
and decisions taken with at least some cognizance of future corridor 
development expectations.


Ken