[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

[Garrett Clevenger]

Ted writes:

"there are critical issues regarding this Hawkins
development that are not even on the radar in this
discussion, such as mitigation of CO2
emissions related climate change, and those eventual
massive economic impacts, and the economic
consequences of fossil fuel depletion, as it relates
to the long term viability of sprawling suburban
development, when the fossil fueled fleet of vehicles
that deliver to, service and allow consumer access to
this development, becomes very expensive to operate."


I reply:

Ted has a really good points here (and questions
further in his post)

After being dissed by the council regarding the noise
ordinance in such an unscrupulous way, my tolerance
for council actions that seem underhanded is "zero." 
This is something that motivated me to look into the
Hawkins deal a bit deeper.  Considering the secret
negotiations and potential cost to Moscow, this is
something everybody should look into before deciding
one way or the other.

I admit I am against the mall for my own personal
reason as I think it's a waste of resources just to
sell cheap stuff made overseas (another way this
drains on our national economy)  Most of the big box
stores are making such profit because they exploit the
labor and resources of other countries.  

I'll provide my argument against it as fairly as I
can, but now you know that I have initial
philosophical disagreements with it to begin with.

Hawkins is proposing a 714,000 square foot mall right
on our border near the Palouse Empire Mall.  They say
Lowe's is their anchor store.

The Palouse Empire Mall is 384,000 square feet.

What I wonder is why people need so much more mall
space?  How do they figure investing in this thing
will bring them profits?  According to the Spokesman
on 2/9, "The development might cost $60 million to
$100 million"

$100 million just to pay it back.  They are putting it
near Moscow because they want Moscow's business.  So
that potentially is at least $100 of lost revenue to
Moscow businesses.

Home Depot recently withdrew their proposal to build
in Moscow, and apparently the potential Lowe's did not
influence their decision.  From what I can tell, they
pulled out because they didn't think Moscow would pull
in enough revenue to cover their costs.

So, if Home Depot feels Moscow is not profitable, it
makes you wonder why Lowe's, and the whole Hawkins
mall, thinks they can actually make this profitable.

Perhaps the fact that the council voted to provide
corporate welfare to the predatory developers on the
other side of the border tips the balance in their
favor.  And the fact that Whitman county is
subsidizing $9.1 million to pay for the Hawkins public
infrastructure.

If you are someone who supports the mall, I suggest
you ask yourself, "Is building Hawkins worth it and
needed?  Do you feel comfortable knowing Moscow will
be subsidizing that development, Moscow's competitor? 
Do you think all the environmental consequences, such
as water use, land development (How many tons of dirt
are going to have to be moved on that hill to make it
flat and buildable?) and fuel use really is necessary
just to have more stores that more than likely will
sell the same things other stores in the region sell?

Finally, why can't the process be more transparent and
democracy-friendly?  The fact that the city feels the
need to hide their negotiations seems suspicious to
me.

>From what I can tell, I have even more reasons to not
support this mall based on the evidence I've been able
to find, and I particularly resent the city making the
taxpayers of Moscow subsidize Hawkins.

Sincerely,

Garrett Clevenger