[Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was Recall the city council

[Garrett Clevenger]

g,

The cost of of infrastructure Hawkins estimated it
would spend was reported in one of the papers.  They
also reported the cost of the development, the Whitman
County bond and how that was to be paid.  That
proposal says the bond will be lower if Moscow
provides water and sewer services.

I base my opinions on what I observe, read, and talk
with people about.  I appreciate v2020 not because I
care about your world view necessarily, but because I
can get a different perspective from people I'm
sharing this town with.  If you can't appreciate that,
there is no point in you responding to my posts,
especially if you do it as an attack.  I don't
appreciate being called a liar.

I don't plan to get in a discussion with you over the
super walmart in Moscow, as I have not discussed this
on v2020 before, so don't use arguments regarding that
relating to my opinion regarding the Whitman County
subsidy.  I don't care what you call that, either, as
I see it is a giveaway.  I hope you are right in your
world view regarding the future of Moscw, but I doubt
it considering my world view.  We obviously don't see
things the same.  You may think I spread lies, and I
may think the same as you.  All I want though are the
facts, not speculation.

The bottom line is I don't trust people in power who
use their power for their financial gain while
screwing over other people.  Whether that is walmart
and the billionaire Waltons and their developer
friends, dictators, or a city council with not enough
respect for Moscow, I will speak out when I see a bad
deal.  If I'm wrong, I'll learn, but I have no intent
to be a liar.

I hear a new song, and guess what, it has a G and C
chord.

Sincerely,

Garrett Clevenger

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

> "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?"
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where you come by your 4 million dollar
> savings figure or the notion that it will be
> subtracted from the overall amount of the bond but,
> lets assume that what you say is fact. Doubtless it
> will be less expense initially to hook into Moscow's
> water and sewer system rather then to drill the well
> or wells required and to construct a septic system
> but, the long term payout for those services will
> likely be higher and will result in revenue for the
> City of Moscow. In short, savings for Whitman Co.
> (and Hawkins) up front, revenue for Moscow in the
> long run. A quid pro quo, not a subsidy.
> 
> "Hawkins will be paying back the bond through sales
> tax, and they expect that business to mostly come
> from Moscow."
> 
> Funny, when it was building a Super Wal-Mart, tax
> revenue generated for Moscow and Latah Co. was
> dismissed as a pittance. Now that we're talking
> Hawkins and Whitman it's big bucks and the end of
> the world. No doubt some of the business that will
> help to pay off the bond will come from Moscow but,
> a significant amount will also come from Pullman and
> outlying areas as well. Depending on what sorts of
> businesses locate in the development there is no
> reason not to expect shoppers from the valley and
> perhaps further, especially once the improvements to
> U.S. Highway 95 are complete.  Many of these
> shoppers will likely patronize other local
> merchants. Many local venders will likely provide
> service to the Hawkins development. Many local
> people will likely be employed at the new retail
> center. Hawkins is also an Idaho corporation,
> corporate profit will be taxed in Idaho. Your
> mournful song of woe that has the endlessly
> recurring "nothing for Moscow" refrain has
> definitely become a tedious and unconvincing tune
> and I'm tired of singing the obvious up-tempo
> counterpoint.
> 
> The rest of your post is just too scattered for me
> to respond. You seem to have a hard time
> distinguishing (deliberately, I suspect) between
> subsidy, and tax deduction, tax credit, incentive,
> market share, efficiency of scale, military
> objectives and plain old everyday commerce. It is
> far beyond my ability and my desire to range as far
> and wide as you seem to want to in this discussion.
> I don't care about your overall world view. I
> believe that if you still see Moscow's participation
> in the Whitman Co./Hawkins project as subsidization
> it's because you feel it's an effective offensive
> tactic in the anti-growth on the
> Palouse/anti-corporation/big government war and
> we're back where we started. Repeat the lie, repeat
> the lie, repeat the lie... ad nauseum.
> 
> g 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; "cynthia
> nichols" <cynthiann0 at mac.com>
> Cc: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>;
> "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was Recall
> the city council
> 
> 
> >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
> 
=== message truncated ===