[Vision2020] Will Moscow support Hawkins sprawl-mall?
mark r. seman
baukunst at moscow.com
Sun Jan 13 20:56:43 PST 2008
ted,
it seems easiest, far too frequently, to react to situations rather than
anticipate and proact. even more so when the world's super-power is so
willing to use avoidance rather than creative problem solving.
even if buildings are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions
(http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/architecture-and-climate-change.html)
i do not think that a "green" Hawkins project will solve anything; it only
has the opportunity to address a set of pressing issues. we all need to
consider our impact on the next decade, and the ones after. conscientiously
acting today, we can help develop solutions to known problems and give
social and environmental meaning to progress. increasing awareness and
cultural changes to todays' realities are needed (electric or human
propelled vehicles might be an example) to provide the global mass to make a
significant difference.
i think the "remote" location of is minor considering alternative methods of
transportation could accomodate people's travel. i would also much rather
see palouse-sprawl lead to moscow/pullman growing together rather than
growing apart. and if governments can work together, the state line effect
could be neutralized to the benefit of ID & WA. the downtowns can remain
vital and core elements, they won't be the same and will need to make
adjustments, but services and goods will be needed there.
Hawkins and other stakeholders (governments included) can take a stand on
being progressive and seek common ground towards good solutions. smarter
use of our natural resources and greater energy conservation in construction
are just quick & obvious approaches. developing programs and infrastructure
to provide sustained benefit take greater effort and time to implement.
i think moscow's water rights appeal was a good move to make people stop and
allow time for negotiation of better long-term solutions. without the
appeal, progress would have been status quo. everyone needs to come to the
table with the intent of strategically planning for a long-term journey.
whether local or global - where there are influences that shrink economies,
there are usually markets that can provide some level of compensation and
expansion. new minds see the opportunities and fill the gap. if (when) the
petroleum industry is gone, there will be alternative markets. how well or
how quickly we adapt to change is a critical factor. we have valid info to
use to begin making changes and the coming years will provide the metrics so
we can adjust our speed.
mark
(i'm outta town w/o internet for the next 2 weeks)
mark r. seman, architect
v=928.925.7617
f=928.776.9107
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Moffett [mailto:starbliss at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:58 PM
To: mark r. seman
Cc: Vision2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Will Moscow support Hawkins sprawl-mall?
Mark et. al.
It is astonishing to perceive how the very serious energy and
environmental crises we are facing somehow get dismissed or down played in
the economic arguments for local development. We are living in a world
where our local actions are having profound impacts on economies and the
environment, nationally and internationally. No longer can we responsibly
view our behavior just through the lens of a local cost/benefit analysis.
Oil depletion, peak oil, etc. alone is a national security issue, given
our nations economic dependence on 20 million barrels of oil a day,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
oil that recently hit 100 dollars a barrel (I posted this news to
Vision2020, and astonishingly this generated not a single response). Yet
we continue to proceed with business as usual as though a development model
based primarily on a fossil fuel powered economy is not soon to be a
"dinosaur." Do we have an energy and transportation infrastructure in place
to address this? No. Should this be a priority now for every community in
the USA? Of course.
Add to this the approximately 20 tons of CO2e per capita (yes, for every
women, man and child) that the USA economy dumps into our atmosphere
annually,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
the most by far per capita of any nation, and the USA earns the shocking
and shameful status of the greatest contributor to what is very likely a
massive planetary environmental disaster in anthropogenic climate change,
recognized by the Pentagon as a serious national security risk (if the
Pentagon is worried, this means business, because I do not think the
Pentagon is populated by wild eyed environmentalist socialist tree huggers,
to use a derogatory composite stereotype lobbed at those warning of the
dangers of human sourced climate change):
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the
Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has
repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they
will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national
defence is a priority.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office -
and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of
terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then
this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire
warnings could no longer be ignored.
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of
document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority
is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally
speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national
security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush
Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added
Watson.
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the
Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty
scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob
Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a
higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of
water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome,
plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic
conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass
migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
------------------------------------
We are not paying for the economic externalities of our CO2 emissions,
which will cost the economy in the future billions of dollars, due to
damages from climate change. So we can have our fossil fueled wealth now,
and leave the damage to future generations? Is this an ethical approach?
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ucs_northeast/
------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming
could shrink the global economy by 20%.
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product,
the 700-page study says.
-------------------------------
Given these daunting realities, if we are going to promote development,
the issues of reduction in fossil fuel dependence and CO2 emissions,
developing a clean energy, energy conservation and alternative powered
transportation infrastructure, should be top priorities, as national
security issues.
Is there a way to have a new mall operate in the Pullman/Moscow corridor
that can substantially address these concerns? Perhaps, though limiting the
CO2 emissions associated with the extra distance shoppers will drive from
Moscow to the mall and back is a far more difficult problem to solve (plug
in electric gas or diesel hybrids partially powered by clean electric
sources) than building a "Green" mall incorporating alternative energy and
resource and energy conservation strategies. Building a mall on the far
edge of a city that will encourage driving miles from the city for some
residents to shop is inherently an inefficient proposal.
It could be argued that those who commute on the corridor daily might use
less fossil fuel to shop, due to stopping at the mall on their daily
commute, rather than making a longer shopping trip to other outlets. Of
course, the massive fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions associated with the
commuter lifestyle demands mitigation of these impacts.
As has been pointed out, some shoppers who drive to Lewiston or Spokane
might instead shop more locally if they could find the products locally that
draw them to Lewiston or Spokane. However, I think some shoppers go to
Lewiston or Spokane to "escape" from the local area, and shopping is just an
added attraction, not the primary motivation.
Mark's suggestions address some of these issues, yet I have not heard,
except perhaps from councilman Tom Lamar, comments from the Moscow City
Council indicating they are prioritizing the national security issues of
fossil fuel dependence/depletion, anthropogenic climate change, and the
inevitable and critical necessity of the rapid development of clean energy
technologies, energy conservation strategies, and alternative energy
transportation infrastructure.
Information on the most environmentally advanced large city building in
the Inland Empire:
http://www.landscouncil.org/news/welcome_to_saranac.asp
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 1/13/08, mark r. seman <baukunst at moscow.com> wrote:
very few current businesses are positioned to sustainably operate within
the triple bottom-line model of people/planet/profits [
http://getsustainable.net/]. although new and existing businesses can be
encouraged or incentivized to do so if the citizens of their resident
communities perceive a value in doing so. the communities (town, county,
and state entities) of the palouse seem well positioned to do so with the
Hawkins development. but it requires that all parties at least agree to
work towards implementing programs to achieve sustainable business (&
development) practices. negotiations will then determine how far programs
will be taken. there are so many elements that could be identified to take
positive steps and time should be allocated to identify and deliberate them.
why shouldn't the corridor be developed with enough vision to make it an
"oasis" that positively addresses economic development, the environment,
transportation, waste streams, energy, natural resources, construction
materials & methods, inter-state/multi-county/trans-municipal collaboration,
etc?
sidebar on achievable water conservation measures:
waterless urinals & dual flush toilets, IR controlled lowflow faucets,
stormwater detention for irrigation use, rainwater harvesting for irrigation
& toilet use, recyling greywater for toilet use, xeriscape plantings,
education programs for facility users and maintenance staff.
mark
mark r. seman, architect
v=928.925.7617
f=928.776.9107
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of keely emerinemix
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Donovan Arnold; Bill London; v2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Will Moscow support Hawkins sprawl-mall?
I'm astonished at the equation of a locally-owned (and owned by its
customers) food co-op that lives out its mission of sustainable, healthy,
locally-produced and fairly traded products -- one that "recycled" a vacant
building and improved it while still making it accessible to its community
by locating downtown -- with a huge shopping mall.
I don't think there's enough caffeine in the world to have that one
make sense . . .
Keely
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:36:39 -0800
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
To: london at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Will Moscow support Hawkins sprawl-mall?
Mr, London makes the following arguments against a new shopping
center on the edge of town:
"If the Moscow council ships utilities across the state line to
enable this strip mall, Moscow will face a series of problems, including:
--depletion of the aquifer that supplies this town with most of its
water
--massive sprawl that will further uglify the Palouse and ravage
existing downtown vitality
--bankruptcy of Moscow businesses unable to compete with this new
shopping mall
--continuing future upgrades of Moscow infrastructure to cover the
demands made by this extension of services, upgrades that will be paid for
by Moscow taxpayers
Is this what Moscow residents really want?"
As I understand it, Mr. London strongly supported the expansion of
the Co-Op, not once, but twice to larger buildings that further deplete the
town's water aquifers, increased sprawl of other businesses to the outside
of town, created more competition with other businesses in the area, and
forcing future upgrades of Moscow's infrastructure to be paid for by Moscow
taxpayers. So I would argue what is good for goose must also be for the
gander.
"Is this what Moscow wants?" I bet it is. If it isn't, then we will
have a vacant building on the edge of town. I willing to venture out on a
limb, and say those that putting millions into a building of new shopping
center aren't doing it on a guess, but in fact put as much research into it
as Mr. London did for the expansions of his Co-Op grocery store.
I think it would be a significant advantage to have a mall on the
western edge of Moscow accepts and competes with the big chain only stores
in the Palouse Empire Mall that prohibits local businesses from leasing
there. I also think it would allow other chains in Spokane to locate here,
and provide jobs to local students and residents, increasing wages and
competition for quality laborers rather than providing them to people in
Spokane.
Best,
Donovan
Bill London <london at moscow.com> wrote:
Won't it be grand? The Moscow-Pullman Highway turned into one
long strip mall.....
And you can read in today's Lewiston Tribune (below) that the
first big step in that direction will likely soon be taken. The new Moscow
City Council is under pressure to sell use of Moscow utilities (like sewage
and water, and possibly police/fire protection) to the planned Hawkins
shopping center located in Washington state on the Moscow-Pullman Highway.
The new council members (pragmatic politicians that they are) seem to be
willing to ignore the real issues and fall for a cheap payoff.
If the Moscow council ships utilities across the state line to
enable this strip mall, Moscow will face a series of problems, including:
--depletion of the aquifer that supplies this town with most of
its water
--massive sprawl that will further uglify the Palouse and ravage
existing downtown vitality
--bankruptcy of Moscow businesses unable to compete with this new
shopping mall
--continuing future upgrades of Moscow infrastructure to cover the
demands made by this extension of services, upgrades that will be paid for
by Moscow taxpayers
Is this what Moscow residents really want?
BL
-----------------------------------------
LEWISTON TRIBUNE
Council shift changes outlook for proposed Hawkins development
By David Johnson
Saturday, January 12, 2008
MOSCOW - Politics here may have shifted enough after the November
election to trigger talks about the city providing water and sewer services
across the state line for the proposed Hawkins Co. shopping center.
A majority of Moscow city councilors, Whitman County commissioners
and a spokesman for Hawkins told the Lewiston Tribune there's renewed
potential for cooperation.
This despite Moscow's continued legal challenge of Hawkins'
attempts to secure water rights to drill its own wells for the
700,000-square-foot shopping mall.
The situation comes as the first of two public comment meetings
has been scheduled in Colfax on Monday. The county commissioners will take
comments, beginning at 1:30 p.m., regarding Hawkins' recent request for
Whitman County to float revenue bonds of more than $10 million to help fund
infrastructure (including water and sewer) for the development.
A Whitman County pro-business citizens group, meanwhile, Friday
endorsed the proposed bond issue and called on Moscow officials to drop
their water rights appeal against Hawkins.
"It's clear Moscow's appeals are not about water but about keeping
out particular kinds of businesses," April Coggins, spokeswoman for
Businesses and Residents for Economic Opportunity wrote in a news release.
"That attitude was rejected by Moscow voters in November and it is our hope
that the new Moscow city council will see things differently and seek to
cooperate with their neighbors."
Moscow's waterlines extend right up to the Hawkins property, and
the sewage treatment plant is located nearby.
"Hawkins is always open to talking to the city of Moscow," said
Jeff De Voe, project manager for the proposed shopping center. He declined
further comment because of the pending legal appeal.
It remains unclear how much money Moscow might make (through fees)
or Hawkins might save if the two entities can reach an agreement about water
and sewer services. But City Attorney Randy Fife and Public Works Director
Les McDonald confirmed that a hookup of services is both legal and
technically possible.
Whitman County Commissioners Jerry Finch and Greg Partch, who
continue to champion the Hawkins project as the beginning of retail
development between here and Pullman, said it's time for Moscow to either
join ranks or get out of the way.
"Moscow didn't say no, they said hell no," Finch said about the
city's refusal to cooperate with development of the mall. "Before the
election, it's pretty obvious the door had been slammed."
Three new Moscow councilors were elected in November and appear to
have become part of a five-member, pro-business majority. The three, Walter
Steed, Dan Carscallen and Wayne Krauss, along with council President Bill
Lambert, all said they are willing to talk with Hawkins and Whitman County
officials about water and sewer services. Councilor John Weber couldn't be
reached for comment, but indicated in the past he favors cooperation.
Only Councilor Tom Lamar, who has gone on record opposing retail
development in the corridor, balked at renewed talks. "I think the best way
for Hawkins to tap into our sewer and water is to locate in Moscow," Lamar
said.
Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney, who's been accused of spearheading
efforts to thwart the Hawkins project, said her intentions are rooted in
environmental and groundwater concerns. That was confirmed by McDonald. "The
mayor's driving concern," he said, "is the water resource that the whole
region relies upon.
"Moscow has always been open to talking," said Chaney, adding that
the table for such discussion has already been set through the water rights
appeal. She said the city has proposed mediation as a means of settling the
issue.
But Partch said talks, if they happen, shouldn't happen in a legal
arena. Withdrawal of the appeal, he said, would be the best way for Moscow
to show good faith. "That would be a huge gesture on their part," he said,
"and we would certainly like to work with them."
The water rights appeal hearings are scheduled to begin in March.
"You can't build without water," Finch said, adding that many
people think Chaney is simply using the water issue as the only legal lever
available to stop retail development in the corridor. "She's the one who
seems to be dead set against it."
A shopping center, said Finch and Partch, is not necessarily a big
water consumer. But it would surely be a big revenue producer for the
county.
According to county records, the undeveloped Hawkins acreage,
which abuts the Moscow city limits and the Washington-Idaho state line,
currently generates about $1,400 in annual tax revenue. If the mall is
developed to full capacity, it could produce nearly $1.8 million in annual
property and sales taxes for the county, De Voe told the commissioners when
making his pitch for the $10 million in infrastructure bonds.
While Moscow couldn't directly tap into those tax dollars,
councilors here said the city might be able to negotiate a fee for water and
sewer services that translates into a profit.
"If it's going to happen and we can sell them something," Lambert
said, "why not?"
"I'm very anxious to get together with entities across the
border," said Krauss.
"I would be interested in talking about the possibility of
extending services to Hawkins," Steed said.
"I think that I would," Carscallen said about talking. Whether
Hawkins connects to Moscow or drills its own wells, he said, doesn't seem to
make a lot of difference. "They're going to get it out of the same tub we're
getting ours."
Researchers have said the underground aquifers on the Palouse have
been steadily dropping. But, lacking data about just how much water is
available, the same scientists have said a water management challenge is at
hand, not a crisis.
Finch suggested its up to Moscow officials, since they've filed
the appeal against Hawkins, to propose new talks. "If they send us a letter,
I would find it more receptive," he said.
But Lambert said the catalyst for talks might have to come from
elsewhere. "I don't see why it would hurt for these people to approach us.
Somebody has to generate it, but it wouldn't be something generated by the
council, per se."
Moscow City Supervisor Gary Riedner said the city might reach out.
"I will do what we can to facilitate it at the mayor's direction."
"I know lots of people are talking about talking," Fife said.
De Voe, meanwhile, told Whitman County officials that his company
wants to begin construction this summer. As proposed, the shopping complex
would be anchored by a Lowe's home improvement center.
---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080113/465b52b8/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1913 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080113/465b52b8/attachment-0002.gif
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1913 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080113/465b52b8/attachment-0003.gif
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list