[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

[Garrett Clevenger]

g writes:

"Future infrastructure improvements brought about by
increased demand are funded through the monies
collected from rate payers for services and not from
general tax revenues."

I reply:

Are you sure about this?  During the council meeting,
one of the councilors made the comment that Hawkins
may choose to help pay for any upgrades (particularly
sewer)  From what I gathered from that, and after
talking with others, upgrades may cost more than
revenue brought in through sewer receipts.  So you are
saying there is no money beyond receipts that will be
needed for upgrades?  There will be no potential need
for a public bond to help pay for future upgrades? 
That there is no money from the general fund that pays
for Moscow's water and sewer?  It was my understanding
that the water and sewer bills we pay mostly go
towards operating costs, and that there potentially
will be a need for money outside of the revenue steam
from normal water and sewer receipts to pay for
upgrades.

If the council has a hope that Hawkins will pay more
than specified in the contract, that should have
stipulated in the contract, that Hawkins will be
obligated to pay for upgrades needed that are more
expensive then the water and sewer receipts.


g writes:

"This is not a public works project."

I reply:

Then why is Whitman County having a $9.1 million bond
to pay for the public infrastructure of Hawkins?

I believe you are correct that that bond would have
paid for water and sewer of Hawkins, but now that
Moscow will be "subsidizing "that, Whitman's bond may
only be $5.1 million.  It seems Moscow saved the
taxpayers of Whitman County $4 million by agreeing to
provide water and sewer.


g writes:

"I know that there is a sizable group here in Moscow
that thinks that all decisions should be made
collectively but thankfully we have not quite yet
reached that unpleasant point."

I reply:

That's not what I want.  Consensus won't work in
situations like this.  What I want is some
transparency and public involvement before the council
agrees to subsidizing Whitman County's growth. 
Especially when the councilors cutting the deal are
GMA candidates whose chair Steve Busch, who owns
property right across the steet from Hawkins, stands
to profit off of this deal.

How can you not be concerned about this conflict of
interest?  Anytime special interests are able to
negotiate secret deals, and the public is not given
the opportunity to discuss the merits before voting on
it, is suspicious to me.
 

g writes:

"what is it that you think has been kept from us?  Is
it your contention that something illegal took place?"

I reply:

I don't know if any laws were broken, but their
actions were unethical, and they certainly broke any
sense of trusting their intentions.

Granted, I was already jaded by the unethical actions
of the council regarding the noise ordinance, so I may
be more sensitive to the need of keeping the public
engaged in process that we all may be paying for in
the end.

One of the excuses given for signing the "agreement"
was to prevent spending money on litigation.  The
irony is, the city may be spending money on litigation
if someone challenges the NO.  If the city loses, they
will have wasted our money defending a law that we
don't need.  It is hypocritical of them not to be
concerned about the NO litigation while saying they
are concerned about Hawkins litigation when we weren't
even at the point where litigation was about to begin.
 The city had time to think about this deal, but
instead chose to pander to Hawkins, who said in the
agreement that was signed, "Time is of the essence." 
Yeah, I guess time is money, and that is their bottom
line.

Thanks for the dialog.  I appreciate v2020 giving us
all an opportunity to express our views.  Nobody may
be right, but that doesn't change the reality that the
city basically agreed to help Hawkins, a mall which
seems completely out of balance with Moscow.  And they
did so without insuring that the water that the city
said it was trying to protect, will really be
protected.  Subsidies or not, those water rights are
still out there for other developers to use. 
Therefore, this "agreement" did not accomplish the
goals the council says they accomplished.  And that is
another disingenuous piece of info those who voted for
the "agreement" keep spouting.  They are stretching
what they really did and hoping the public won't
notice the details.

If you havn't seen the picture of what this mall will
look like in relation to our town:

http://www.hawkinscompanies.com/fliers/WA_Pullman_Hwy270-AirportRd_F.pdf

Garrett

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:27 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question
> 
> 
> > 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
> > 
> >
>
=======================================================
> > 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
> > =======================================================