[Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals $2 million of food
jampot at roadrunner.com
Thu Mar 6 19:31:37 PST 2008
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! How's about we cheese it with the key to my heart eyewash. The next thing I know you'll be degenerating our disagreement into doggerel ala the oil, toil, goyl debacle and setting it to ear piercing, mind numbing music. Exactly the sort of thing the new noise ordinance was designed to prevent. Wouldn't it be ironic if the initial citation was yours? For the sake of my, the communities, and humanities collective aural sanity, please stop now.
Yours for hope and change,
P.S. I've been recycling keys since you were in middle school. The likelihood of your coming up with any that might possibly compromise the security of ANY of my internal organs is vanishingly small. Go with the string. I'm tellin ya it's a wide open category with growth potential. Can you do it? YES YOU CAN!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals $2 million of food
> "I don't see the problem with an end user reselling
> water provided by our city at a profit. It happens all
> the time."
> Hawkins is not "reselling water provided by our city
> at a profit." The city will not profit from the water
> it sells Hawkins. While you meant that Hawkins will
> profit from the water it sells, the main difference
> here is that the city has guaranteed an out of state
> developer 1% of Moscow's water. No body else has this
> guarantee. If this were in Moscow, at least Moscow
> would be getting the tax from that profit, but
> instead, Whitman County gets it.
> g writes:
> "I think that you are trying awfully hard to find
> reasons to be upset
> about a development that most folks in Latah and
> Whitman county are just fine with."
> Just because most people may be complacent about
> Hawkins doesn't make it right. You can interpret
> things the way you want, but that doesn't mean the
> arguments against Hawkins are hard to find. In fact,
> they seem fairly apparent to me, but I just see things
> differently then you.
> I don't think I would ever convince you of the need to
> plan our water use wisely, or how we subsidize growth
> in another state. Some people think every thing will
> always be peachy keen, so why limit our right to grow
> But for the people who are able to see clearly, I
> believe they understand the negative consequence of
> g writes:
> "It's good to have a hobby but the one you have chosen
> seems a trifle
> useless. Perhaps you could take up recycling string
> (not twine) into
> the worlds largest ball. The record for this feat
> seems to be up in the air and I just KNOW you could be
> a contender."
> While this may be funny, it just goes to show what
> sort of person you are in trying to belittle me, my
> passion about insuring a sustainable future, and my
> desire to engage the reasonable people on this list.
> But to go along with your joke, I think I would
> recycle keys, stringing them all together. Perhaps
> one of those keys would be for your heart and you
> would see how ridiculous it is to belittle those who
> are just trying to prevent what too many other areas
> on this planet are experiencing. While it may be
> useless, it's better than remaining apathetic.
> --- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> I don't see the problem with an end user reselling
>> water provided by our
>> city at a profit. It happens all the time. Were I to
>> run my tap into some
>> pretty light blue bottles and slap on a label that
>> read "Aqua de Mosque" and
>> retail it to the gullible at fashionable coop type
>> stores, what would be the
>> Beer producers take municipal water and add some
>> barley and hops and people
>> like me beat a path to their door.
>> Bartenders mix a little scotch or bourbon with water
>> and sell it at a fairly
>> exorbitant markup.
>> The guy that maintains my yard mixes fertilizer and
>> pesticide with water and
>> sprays it onto my yard a couple times a year and I
>> gladly pay for the
>> I think that you are trying awfully hard to find
>> reasons to be upset about a
>> development that most folks in Latah and Whitman
>> county are just fine with.
>> It's good to have a hobby but the one you have
>> chosen seems a trifle
>> useless. Perhaps you could take up recycling string
>> (not twine) into the
>> worlds largest ball. The record for this feat seems
>> to be up in the air and
>> I just KNOW you could be a contender.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>> To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:04 PM
>> Subject: [Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals
>> $2 million of food
>> > Pat writes:
>> > "So you weren't at the meeting last night or heard
>> > of the
>> > explainations for the vote?? Too bad you might
>> > learned some things."
>> > I'm not sure why Pat writes this as my post had
>> > nothing to do with an explanation for the vote.
>> > However, I was at the meeting and learned that my
>> > suspicions about the deal are well founded.
>> > The questions I asked were:
>> > Since Hawkins is responsible for collecting fees
>> > end-users of water in the mall, what's to prevent
>> > Hawkins from profiting from the water we sell
>> > According to Wayne Krauss, nothing will prevent
>> > from profiting. In fact, if I understood his
>> > since Hawkins is a corporation, they are entitled
>> > profit from the water.
>> > Yes, that was about his answer, as unbelievable as
>> > that seems. Krauss thinks it's ok for Hawkins to
>> > profit from the water we sell them, even though
>> > cannot profit from water it sells Hawkins.
>> > My second question was:
>> > Since Moscow can't profit on water it sells, is
>> > council justified in saying we can charge Hawkins
>> > premium for the water we sell them since we can
>> > charge what it costs to deliver the water.
>> > Krauss's answer was basically we can charge them
>> > appreciation of infrastructure and went into the
>> > fees will be charged to Hawkins for water. He
>> > to answer the question, I thought, and only said
>> > we already know. The problem with his answer is
>> > those fees are exactly what everybody else pays,
>> so it
>> > isn't a premium.
>> > The rest of the forum pretty much said how Hawkins
>> > will not be beneficial to Moscow, but more than
>> > is bad for Moscow.
>> > I'm not sure what Pat got out of the meeting as
>> > didn't go into detail about what she learned.
>> > she will enlighten us with what she learned?
>> > gclev
>> > List services made available by First Step
>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> > http://www.fsr.net
>> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020