[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

[pkraut at moscow.com]

I must have missed something...how can it be a subsidies or give away if 
they are paying the going rate? A going rate that has not even been 
decided yet because we do not know just how much it is going to cost so 
we will only be not paid enough if it is allowed. In my conversations 
with those on the coucil that is not going to happen so I do not 
understand how it is a 'give away'. 
If we needed a new sewer system with or with out Hawkins and they are now 
going to help pay for it I do not see how that is not to our advantage. 
Help me out Jeff because I am not an economist but I thought that the 
more people especially businesses that are helping to pay could reduce 
the cost to little folks. Am I wrong?? 





> On 2/11/08, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> 
> 
> >From what I have gathered the "options examined in public..." 
consideration
> regarding the Hawkins development is mostly absent.  A private 
developer,
> and government servants who apparently are oriented toward thinking free
> market corporate capitalism is the answer to the most critical problems 
of
> the future, are making decisions for Moscow as though public input 
should
> not be critically involved.
> 
> Given the facts and arguments presented to Vision2020, an an open mind
> regarding the claims and counter claims of economic impacts, I can't 
decide
> whether or not the Hawkins development supported by Moscow services 
(water,
> sewer, responders) is a deal revealing collusion, etc. to benefit a few 
at
> the cost of Moscow taxpayers, as some have claimed, or whether it will 
in
> the long run be an economic benefit to most all of Moscow.
> 
> And 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.
> 
> Where is the long term local planning to address climate change and 
fossil
> fuel depletion regarding the Hawkins development?  I've heard 
announcements
> from the City of Moscow about being a leader in sustainability, yet is 
the
> Hawkins development to be built with Green building certification?  
Will it
> incorporate solar or wind or biofuel for its electricity, or maximum
> efficiency in use of water (capturing rain water for some uses, for 
example,
> lessening the drain on the aquifer)?  Did the city make the request for
> Green building certification as a condition of providing services?  
Will the
> location of this mall result in increases in Moscow/Pullman CO2
> transportation related releases over more centralized locations?  The 
goods
> and services that Moscow and Pullman need from outside our area might 
more
> efficiently be provided by commercial outlets that are more centrally
> located in each city.
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 




---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/