[Vision2020] response to g (longly)/ was response to Walter Steed (briefly)

[Garrett Clevenger]

>From what I understand, and I am still piecing this
together, I will answer these comments, from my
perspective.  Please correct me where I am wrong:


Roger wrote:

"We held all the power to benefit Moscow."

I reply:

I believe he meant that our council did not use the
cards in our hand for our benefit, but instead chose
to Give Moscow Away.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised
the developers of GMA would use every opportunity to
make $$$.  Steve Busch, the chair of the Greater
Moscow Alliance (I guess they think Whitman County is
now part of Moscow) apparently owns the land right
across the street from Hawkins.  How much will his
land values go up now that development will happen in
full force on the other side of the border?  This
reeks of conflict of interest:  get candidates into
office who will increase his wealth.  At least we know
where there campaign contributions are coming from:
Moscow taxpayers!


g writes:

Moscow had exactly three choices in the Hawkins
development decision:

1. Continue to litigate, spending huge amounts of tax
dollars on, at best, a very uncertain (and for most,
unwanted) outcome.

I respond: 

As far as I know, no litigation money has been spent,
aside from staff time to file the appeal with Wash.
DOE over the water permit Hawkins planned to use for
their water needs.  The commission who would hear that
case has not heard the case.  I doubt it would have
taken a lot of money to at least let the city present
it's case to the board.  If the city lost that, the
appeals process after that would be the more expensive
part, as that would involve the courts.

DOE may have ruled in favor of the city, thus leaving
it up to Hawkins to appeal.  We would have let the
process be carried out to it's most appropriate place,
where evidence would be presented to determine the
impact this water right would have on the surrounding
aquifer.  Instead, the process was hijacked because
they all along want to start developing, regardless of
how it will affect the people of Moscow. 

Hawkins will be responsible for selling the water to
the end users.  Potentially, Hawkins could be making a
profit on this water, as the agreement does not
regulate the rate Hawkins charges.

Colton also will get 100 acre/feet of water back,
thanks to Moscow dropping it's appeal.  So
potentially, a total of 165 acre/feet could be drawn
each year from this sole source aquifer.  That's
almost 54 million gallons.


g writes:

2. Stop wasting tax monies, back off and sit on the
sidelines.

I respond:

The problem here is that there is a good potential
that Hawkins will actually compete with Moscow, thus
reducing sales tax receipts, thus not generating as
much revenue.  On top of that, Hawkins is not liable
to pay for infrastructure through bonds that other
Moscow users of the sewage facility pay.  Why was
sewage part of the deal?  I thought this was about
water rights.

Here is a quote from the 2/8 Daily News:

"{Chaney} also is concerned that the city does not
control utility-related issues at Hawkins it would
control within city limits. For example, Moscow can't
regulate how much grease a restaurant in the
development can release into the wastewater system."

This has been reported in the 2/7 Whitman Gazette: 

"Moscow’s provision of water cuts more than $4 million
from the projected costs of installing infrastructure
at the site.

The county estimated a sewage treatment facility would
cost $2 million, installing wells and pumping
structures would cost $900,000, and building a water
tank to store fire flow would cost $1.5 million."

I don't think Moscow should sit on the sidelines.  I
want our city to stand up for Moscow, not be meeting
in executive sessions where no record is kept of what
the council is discussing.  From what I understand,
the old council met to discuss this, yet they can't
even tell you if they talked about Hawkins, which
apparantly they did.  Why does the city need to be
hiding its discussions about an issue that affects our
aquifer and tax revenue?  Why did the city say they
needed to sign a confidentiality agreement?

People of Moscow need to get off the sidelines and go
to your city meetings.  They are cutting deals to
strip you of your rights, your water, and your tax
base, all while letting an out-of-state private entity
dump their crap in our sewage system which is already
be fined for being out of compliance.  And Hawkins can
still drill for a well and apply for other water
rights.  Those old water rights are still out there
that others can apply for.  If someone gets them, then
in the long run, way more water will be used, and
Moscow is bound to sell Hawkins water and sewage
forever if IDWR approves the deal.

Here is a portion of the agreement Hawkins has with
Whitman County:

"4. Hawkins will transfer its interest in sufficient
water rights for use in the Development to the County
at no charge to the County.  Hawkins shall also
facilitate the regulatory transfer of the water
rights.  It is anticipated that the county will create
a water district to supply water for the development.
"

I believe this implies that Whitman County now gets
those water rights.

All this time, Moscow will subsidized the eastern end
of Whitman County's prosperity.

Which leaves the question, should the city even be
signing contracts it does not have the authority to
fully fulfill?  How does the city even know they will
be granted the authority to sell water to an out of
state entity?  Did they consult with the city sewer
people to find out how an extra load of mall crap will
affect our services, including rates?


g writes:

3. Partner up, generate some revenue for the city and
start to mend fences with our western neighbor and in
the process garner what little "power" we possibly
could.

I respond:

Exactly.  I agree we need to partner, but that won't
happen if we continue to let this council say one
thing, not say anything, and do something that has a
good potential of negatively affecting us in the
future.

Only one realistic choice as far as I'm, concerned. 
That is for people who understand the impacts this new
mall will have on Moscow to contact your city council
people, and tell them they need to get their act
together.  They have voted 5-1 on 2 negative things
for Moscow, both of which may end up costing us all
money in the end.  

The city should be looking our for those who actually
pay the city taxes.

You want to know how Whitman County is selling the
$9.1 million bond to pay for infrastructure for
Hawkins?  It seems they know this money is coming
mostly from people in Moscow who shop at the mall in
Wash.

"If the County {Whitman} enters into this project to
build infrastructure, will my taxes go up?

Answer: No. As explained below in more detail, the
County expects the increased sales and property tax
revenue that this development will generate will more
than pay for the costs to the County."

http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2008/02/pinned-important-information-about.html


Egad, I never started this email thinking it would be
this long!

gclev