[Vision2020] Hawkins Scam letter to editor clarification

[Garrett Clevenger]

I'm providing 2 letters I've written to the local
papers to clear up misstatements I included in my
first letter for anyone who may have read it and
wondered.  I don't want to be spreading
misinformation, so please accept my apology for doing
so.

Garrett


Editor,

I'm guilty of a misstatement in my previous letter
(2/15).  Don Palmer of the Water Dept. says all
rate-payers of water pay fees for upkeep.  Sewer fees
are used to pay the $10 million sewer bond.  Hawkins
will pay for infrastructure upkeep.  I apologize for
misinformation.

Possibly, I'm not alone.  Some on the Council say
Moscow can charge a "premium" rate for water.  It's
illegal for Moscow to profit on water it sells.  It
may be hard to justify charging Hawkins more if that
rate is not based on what is needed to cover costs. 
Some pay two times the normal rate to cover costs for
extension of services.  Since Hawkins is paying for
extensions, those costs won't need to be recouped.

Some on the Council also say we were about to spend
$100,000 or more on a lawsuit with Hawkins.  However,
the appeal of Hawkins' water transfer had not been
heard by PCHB.  Possibly, they would have ruled in
Moscow's favor, giving Moscow more bargaining power in
a settlement.

It's possible IDWR won't allow Moscow to sell water to
Hawkins.  Since the agreement with Hawkins says, "The
City shall not directly or indirectly protest,
contest, or appeal any permits or governmental
approvals sought by Hawkins...", if Hawkins applies
for water rights, the city will not be allowed to
appeal, but Hawkins is still guaranteed sewer
services.

No other entity is guaranteed water and sewer
services.  The agreement gives Hawkins 1% of Moscow's
current water use.  Our Mayor says, "Moscow can't
regulate how much grease a restaurant in the
development can release into the wastewater system."

Moscow was given the short end of the stick by the
Council who voted to subsidize a competitor to
Moscow's businesses and potential tax receipts.



Editor,

Hawkins, a 714,000 square foot mall proposed in
Washington near the Palouse Empire Mall, was granted
up to 65 acre/feet of water and sewage services by
Moscow, a contract that lasts forever.  This
out-of-state entity, a direct competitor with Moscow,
was given up to a $4 million subsidy by the taxpayers
of Moscow.  Hawkins is not obligated to pay bonds for
upgrades to our infrastructure, like Moscow taxpayers.
This gives Hawkins an unfair, competitive advantage. 
They get to use our services, but not have to pay for
upkeep.

Hawkins is responsible for selling the water it get to
its end-users, meaning they potentially could profit
from the water we sell them.

Why did the Council agree to providing sewer services?
 How does that fit in with the water rights appeal?

They agreed to this corporate welfare because they
wanted to be able to have some control over the water.
 Unfortunately, the agreement does not prevent Hawkins
from applying for water rights and drilling wells. 

Probably, those water rights will be used by other
developers in the corridor, meaning the Council gave
Moscow away, without getting much back.  They opened
the door to develop the corridor in full-force,
starting by the border.  Meaning, those businesses are
competing with Moscow even more.  And they were given
an unfair advantage by our Council, expecting you and
I to subsidize their growth.

Home Depot pulled out of building in Moscow because
they determined they couldn't profit.  Hawkins may
cost up to $100 million to build.  That's money they
hope to make back, and more, leaching off of Moscow. 
And they cut this deal behind closed doors, signing
secret documents, and not letting the public see it
until after they passed it.  What a scandal!