[Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was Recall the city council

[Garrett Clevenger]

g writes:

"That was exactly the point I was hoping to make. None
of the items I mentioned, with the exception of the
bus ride, are examples of a subsidy and the city
selling services to a business in Whitman county isn't
either."


The point I'm getting from your response is that you
are not addressing the point I keep bringing up, that
Moscow is subsidizing Whitman County's growth.  You
are good at evading my point, and reading your
response to Cynthia, you don't have a grasp on how
those things you mentioned are indeed subsidized, so I
can see why you don't understand my point.  But let's
make sure:

Do you think that by providing water and sewer
services to Hawkins, Moscow is reducing the bond
Whitman County agreed to pay to build that
infrastructure?

Whitman agreed to pay $10 million, and that agreement
even mentions that Moscow may provide water and sewer,
thus the bond would be reduced down to around $6
million.  Moscow is saving Whitman County $4 million,
money they can now use for other projects.  I would
say Moscow is subsidizing Whitman County because
Whitman County has not agreed to give anything back to
Moscow.

What part of this do you not agree with?

Whitman sold the bond as being self-paying, that is,
Hawkins will be paying back the bond through sales
tax, and they expect that business to mostly come from
Moscow.  Thus, Moscow has decreased tax revenue and an
infrastructure that is being taxed through use by
development in Whitman County.

Retail development is not necessarily economic growth.
 In fact, it can be an economic drain.  Roughly the
same amount of money will exchange hands, but now it
will be shared with an out of state development. 
Hawinks expects to make at least $100 million back to
pay for their development, and that money more than
likely will come from Moscow.

To clarify the sarcastic subsidies you mentioned, I
would like to point out why you were correct
originally when you said they are subsidies:

g writes:

"your own life is subsidized in nearly every possible
way.
 
"It's cheaper and more convenient for you to go to
Wal-Mart and buy your clothes then it is to grow
cotton and raise wool and sew your own."


Wal-Mart's market clout gives it all kinds of tax
benefits.  How many towns bow down to Wal-Mart's
demands, paying for infrastructure such as Whitman
County did for Hawkins.  That is subsidy.  Plus, since
most of Wal-Mart's products come from China, we are
subsidizing China's wealth through loss of jobs here
in the US.  The cheap products you can buy would not
be so cheap if it weren't for cheap labor in China. 
If there was a level playing field, I imagine most of
those jobs would stay in the US.
 
g writes:

"It's cheaper and more convenient to buy your gasoline
from a local retailer then to drill and refine your
own."


Oil companies too get all kinds of tax breaks.  Plus,
they have the US military on their side to insure they
will have access to oil, which makes gas cheaper.
 
g writes:

"It's cheaper and more convenient to purchase food
from the local grocer then it is for you to raise your
own."


Again, US farmers are highly subsidized.  WSU's
organic farm is small potatoes when it comes to
feeding from the subsidy trough.  We have cheap food
because of farm subsidies and the cheap (perhaps not
so much now) fuel that is subsidized as mentioned
above. And a lot of that food comes from another
country, with similar problems as described for China.
 
g writes:

"Did you build your own house? Grow the trees? Mill
the lumber? I guess you have been subsidized by
Logging company's and carpenters."


You are just plain silly here...
 
g writes:

"Do you generate your own electricity or does Avista
subsidize your power and heat?"


The dams were built and funded by the US government. 
Plus there is the upkeep of the dam and river that has
to be paid for.


While all these subsidies may not be so
straightforward, considering the hidden costs of
environmental damage (super-fund sites, anyone) most
can also have added the fact that our grandchildren
will be paying the debt of our subsidized lifestyle,
so it's fair to say we are being subsidized by the
future.

My point here is that I wish g would address the issue
of a subsidized Whitman County, as well as recognize
that we all enjoy things in our life that are paid for
beyond the upfront cost we may pay at a store.  The
true costs will have to be paid by someone, at some
point.

gclev

--- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> "I can't see where any of your examples are
> "subsidies". 
> 
> Thank you very much, Ms. Nichols! That was exactly
> the point I was hoping to make. None of the items I
> mentioned, with the exception of the bus ride, are
> examples of a subsidy and the city selling services
> to a business in Whitman county isn't either.
> Hawkins will be paying a rate that covers the true
> cost of the service they receive along with an
> amount built in to cover future upgrades to the
> system. Just like all the other residential and
> commercial customers of the City of Moscow's water
> dept.
> 
> Again, I appreciate your assistance in putting the
> silly and incorrect notion of a "subsidy" for the
> Hawkins project to rest.
> 
> g
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: cynthia nichols 
>   To: g. crabtree 
>   Cc: Garrett Clevenger ; vision 2020 
>   Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:16 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was Recall
> the city council
> 
> 
>   I can't see where any of your examples are
> "subsidies". I pay full price for my clothes, my
> house, my groceries---enough for all those
> businesses to make a profit (sometimes an obscene
> profit, by the way). And when their costs go up, so
> do mine. They never say to me, "boy, this has been a
> tough year in the economy for you, cynthia, so we'll
> reduce your prices til things get better".
> 
> 
>   Our governments do (outrageously, IMHO) subsidize
> big business in that they give them special
> treatment (in the form of tax breaks, tax
> write-offs, cheap services, and more) even though
> they are making profits and COULD be paying those
> taxes. In the Hawkins case, instead of using their
> own money to fight Washington for water rights,
> instead of bearing the cost of drilling the well,
> instead of having to bear the cost of disposing of
> their sewage, Moscow is providing it for
> them--without them paying any premium price . AND
> they have a contract to GUARANTEE those services.
> Whereas I live in Moscow and I have NO SUCH
> GUARANTEE. So if the water runs low, guess who will
> do without ? If the sewage treatment plant needs to
> be replaced, guess who'll pay for it?  Maybe the
> citizens of Moscow need to write up a contract like
> Hawkins so that I can have that same guarantee. That
> might be a great legal challenge.
> 
> 
>   cynthia
> 
> 
>   On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:03 AM, g. crabtree wrote:
> 
>     It would seem to me that if your subsidy
> argument is to hold water you would have to admit to
> the fact that your own life is subsidized in nearly
> every possible way.
> 
>     It's cheaper and more convenient for you to go
> to Wal-Mart and buy your clothes then it is to grow
> cotton and raise wool and sew your own.
> 
>     It's cheaper and more convenient to buy your
> gasoline from a local retailer then to drill and
> refine your own.
> 
>     It's cheaper and more convenient to purchase
> food from the local grocer then it is for you to
> raise your own.
> 
>     Did you build your own house? Grow the trees?
> Mill the lumber? I guess you have been subsidized by
> Logging company's and carpenters.
> 
>     Do you generate your own electricity or does
> Avista subsidize your power and heat?
> 
>     Just because it's less expensive in the short
> term for Hawkins to purchase water and sewer
> services from Moscow doesn't mean that they are
> being subsidized by Idaho taxpayers. Infrastructure
> and future upgrades are paid for through the fees
> that are paid by the users not taxes. Consequently,
> Hawkins WILL be paying its share. No giveaway
> anywhere along the line that I can detect unless
> it's the daily bus ride you talk about. Now there is
> a true subsidy. Strangely, you seem to be cool with
> that particular handout. What's up with that?
> 
>     g
> 
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: "Garrett Clevenger"
> <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>     To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:16 AM
>     Subject: [Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was Recall
> the city council
> 
> 
>     >g writes:
>     > 
>     > "I know the tactic is to repeat the lie so
> often it
>     > becomes accepted fact but, Moscow is, in fact,
>     > subsidizing nothing."
>     > 
>     > 
>     > I would say g is perpetuating a lie, or at
> least
>     > misinformation as I think in order to lie you
> have to
>     > be aware you are wrong, because, in fact,
> Moscow is
>     > subsidizing something.  
>     > 
>     > By providing water and sewer services, Moscow
> is
>     > saving Hawkins $4 million in development costs
> that
>     > would be needed to build infrastructure to
> receive
>     > water and dispose of sewer.  Whitman County
> agreed to
>     > fund a $10 million dollar bond to build that
>     > infrastructure and more.  Now Whitman County
> will save
>     > $4 million by not having to pay to build the
> water and
>     > sewer infrastructure.  I would say Moscow is
>     > subsidizing Whitman County's growth, if not
>     > necessarily Hawkins itself, because our
>     > infrastructure, something paid for by Moscow
> tax and
>     > rate payers, will now be stretched further,
> and
>     > perhaps need upgrades sooner, if Hawkins uses
> Moscow's
>     > water and sewer services.  
>     > 
>     > Whitman County, as far as I can tell, is not
> agreeing
>     > to give Moscow anything.  Usually subsidies
> expect
>     > something in return, so perhaps this isn't a
> strict
>     > subsidy, but a give away.
>     > 
>     > Am I wrong in thinking the new city council
> could have
>     > rezoned an area in Moscow for Hawkins, or a
> Super
>     > Walmart?  Not that I'd want them to do it, but
> in
>     > their negotiation with Hawkins, could that not
> have
>     > been part of the negotiation, offering instead
> of
>     > selling water and sewer, the ability to build
> in
>     > Moscow?  If the new council really had
> Moscow's future
>     > at heart, instead of merely development for
>     > development's sake, regardless if that
> development
>     > will directly compete with Moscow, it seems
> the
>     > council had another alternative: rezone
> somewhere in
>     > Moscow to suit what seems to be a need for
> more
>     > shopping areas.
>     > 
>     > Keep in mind, though, that considering Walmart
> is the
>     > kind of store that will close a smaller, older
> one to
>     > build a Super Center, their intent is to
> garner more
>     > market share.  They don't necessarily have the
>     > community's interest at heart.  I think many
> owners of
>     > these types of developments who live in
> another
>     > community really are mostly interested in
> their bottom
>     > line, not building community.
> 
=== message truncated ===