[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

[Jeff Harkins]

Ken,

Interesting idea, but the economics favor a purchase of Moscow by 
Washington.  Maybe you could spearhead that project.  Pullman has 
industry, a PAC10 University, an airport, a new four lane highway and 
a desire to expand their opportunities for prosperity.

At 03:00 PM 2/11/2008, you wrote:
>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
>
>=======================================================
>  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
>=======================================================