[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

Wed Feb 13 07:13:54 PST 2008

I don't know what would make you say that. Colton was certainly willing to work with Hawkins on water. Whitman Co. is floating a 9+ million dollar bond to help out. They certainly made no protest to any of the proposed water right transfers. Judging from what I read on various internet sites the people of Pullman (aside from the usual suspects) are supportive of the development. Sounds like a neck being stuck out to me.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
To: "'Jeff Harkins'" <jeffh at moscow.com>; "'Kenneth Marcy'" <kmmos1 at verizon.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

Hi Jeff & Other Interested Visionaries,

I'm at risk for going over the V2020 voluntarily daily posting limit, but .
. . I think this will slide in under the voluntary wire  :-)

I, too. Found Ken Marcy's suggestion intriguing, but I'm wondering why you
think ID land would be more likely to be purchased by WA?  After all,
neither Pullman, Whitman County, nor any other WA entity was willing to
stick their necks out to provide water and/or sewer services to the Hawkins
development ostensibly to be located in the state of Washington . . . 

Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Jeff Harkins
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:38 PM
To: Kenneth Marcy; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

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
>=======================================================

=======================================================
 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
=======================================================

=======================================================
 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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080213/b729e3bc/attachment-0001.html 