[Vision2020] Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure Costs

[g. crabtree]

"Moscow will make money selling these services to Hawkins, but whether that matches lost tax revenue in Moscow, lost revenue for business owners in Moscow who will have to face greater competition with Hawkins around, or covers the cost of upgrading the system that will be stretched even more by Hawkins, without the need for Moscow rate-payers to pitch in and pay, too, remains dubious."

Lets assume, for the sake of your argument, that you are 100% correct and the Hawkins development does result in major loses for Moscow taxpayers and merchants. What is it about not receiving any revenue for services is there that will make everything better?

  
"There is a finite amount that Moscow's infrastructure can be used before it needs to be upgraded.  If ratepayers have to upgrade the infrastructure sooner because of Hawkins' use, I would say Moscow rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins by having to pay for upgrading due to Hawkins."

The rates set for users is not just to cover the water that is used. Built into the rate is an amount to cover maintenance and future upgrades. If the system requires upgrading, Hawkins will be paying their fair share.  

The sad fact of the matter is that geography is not in our favor when it comes to development between Moscow and Pullman. When I was probably 11 years old (or at whatever age thoughts beyond what's for supper kicked in) and I traveled between our two communities I knew that eventually that the two university towns would inevitably grow together and I find it hard to believe that any rational person doesn't come to the same conclusion. Coming to grips with this fact and developing strategies to cope strike me as a far more productive use of time and resources than the endless complaining and impotent posturing. If I'm wrong, please point out to me the upside for Moscow of standing firm and having nothing to do with the inevitable development on the west side of out border. Just exactly what benefits will it bring?

g

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:05 AM
Subject: Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure Costs


> According to g's estimate at close to $6 million of
> cost savings for water and sewer infrastructure
> Whitman County will not have to pay for if Hawkins
> uses Moscow's, that's around 66% of the $9.1 million
> bond Whitman County agreed to pay. 
> 
> Whitman County passed this bond right before Moscow
> passed the Hawkins agreement, probably knowing it
> would place fire under Moscow's council to vote for
> the agreement knowing that Whitman County was backing
> Hawkins with their subsidy.  It was a brilliant move
> on their part, and their gamble paid off, saving them
> $6 million.
> 
> While I agree Moscow taxpayers are not sending a $6
> million check to Whitman County, the $6 million
> savings certainly gives Whitman County more money to
> develop their side.  I can't blame Whitman County for
> wanting to develop near the border, but with Moscow's
> help in providing infrastructure to an out of state
> developer, Moscow is enabling direct competition to
> Moscow.  Whether that is wise or not is up to the
> discerning citizens concerned about the future of this
> region to decide.
> 
> Moscow will make money selling these services to
> Hawkins, but whether that matches lost tax revenue in
> Moscow, lost revenue for business owners in Moscow who
> will have to face greater competition with Hawkins
> around, or covers the cost of upgrading the system
> that will be stretched even more by Hawkins, without
> the need for Moscow rate-payers to pitch in and pay,
> too, remains dubious.  
> 
> There is a finite amount that Moscow's infrastructure
> can be used before it needs to be upgraded.  If rate
> payers have to upgrade the infrastructure sooner
> because of Hawkins' use, I would say Moscow
> rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins by having to pay
> for upgrading due to Hawkins.  
> 
> g says Moscow didn't give anything away.  While we
> don't agree about the financial giveaway, I hope g
> agrees that one thing Moscow gave away as spelled out
> in the agreement is the right for Moscow to "protest,
> contest, or appeal any permits or governmental
> approvals sought by Hawkins for the Stateline Project"
> beyond "permits or governmental approvals based on
> public safety or nuisance." 
> 
> g may not think this is much of a giveaway as he seems
> to think Moscow has no right meddling in Whitman
> County's affairs, or developments in general. 
> However, I don't think Moscow should be legally bound
> to such a sweeping obligation.  I don't think it's
> smart to limit the ability to have a voice in being
> able to appeal things which may not be thought of now
> as being a big deal, but may pop out in the future. 
> Such as Hawkins applying for water from elsewhere and
> still being guaranteed 1 to 2% of Moscow's water. 
> Thus, Hawkins would be drawing more water than they
> would have otherwise, while Moscow continues to get
> the short end of the stick. The city gave a lot of
> power way by agreeing to that provision.
> 
> It may seem a stretch for me to include "the
> anti-Bush, anti-Wal-Mart,  anti-"aggressiveness"
> screed" g mentions, but in my head, this is all so
> related.  You have unaccountable, greedy people making
> bad decisions that less powerful people have to live
> with, and eventually pay for.  
> 
> I may be strong in my opinions regarding this, but no
> less than the paloustics bloggers who take a cranky
> tone towards those they don't agree with.  Read the
> posts on the blog and I think you will see that while
> g doesn't think paloustics Tom is cranky towards him,
> from the view over hear, he seems cranky, aggressive
> and willing distort those who he disagrees with views
> in a disrespectful way.  But kudos to him for
> providing many of the local Hawkins articles, if
> albeit with his snide remarks intertwined.  Sometimes
> he makes me laugh and think of the situation from a
> different perspective. Something I hope we all try to
> do.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> gclev
> 
> 
> --- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> 
>> Now that you seem to have the anti-Bush,
>> anti-Wal-Mart, 
>> anti-"aggressiveness" screed out of your system (the
>> world view parts I 
>> mentioned earlier that have nothing to do with the
>> current topic) back to 
>> the matter at hand.
>> 
>> $3,217,975.00 for water and 2,738,604.00 for sewer
>> comes a lot closer to 
>> being 6 million. My point remains the same. Not one
>> penny of that amount 
>> will be covered by the taxpayers of the City of
>> Moscow. (the dreaded 
>> subsidy) While you were at the Whitman Co. site I
>> assume that you also took 
>> a look at the Preliminary Development Agreement I
>> referred to previously. In 
>> it you will note that Whitman Co. is ready, willing,
>> and able to float the 
>> bond necessary to make the Hawkins development
>> happen whether or not Moscow 
>> steps up and provides "an alternative source." It
>> also makes no mention of 
>> reducing the amount of the bond should this happen
>> although, in all 
>> likelihood, it would. By refusing to partner with
>> our Pullman neighbors we 
>> do absolutely nothing to hinder the shopping center
>> you so abhor and succeed 
>> in depriving Moscow rate payers of a very
>> significant amount of money. The 
>> only thing that Moscow is "giving away" is the exact
>> same water that would 
>> have been pumped either way and placing a slightly
>> greater burden on our 
>> existing waste water facility. We gain by having
>> Hawkins/Whitman in the 
>> revenue pipeline to help pay for any future upgrades
>> to these systems that 
>> may be required. The choice for our city government
>> was obvious, come to the 
>> table and enjoy its measure or stand back and look
>> on longingly while 
>> licking its ravenous chops. Either way, supper was
>> served.
>> 
>> With regard to the paloustics site, I am very aware
>> of it and visit it 
>> relatively often. Since I am an evil Latah Co.
>> conservative and the site is 
>> mainly an evil Whitman Co. Conservative blog, I
>> seldom post there. Tom 
>> Forbes and I agree in a great many areas but, we
>> don't always see exactly 
>> eye to eye on all matters. I did have the great
>> pleasure of hoisting a few 
>> with him last year and found him to be a good guy.
>> When we did disagree he 
>> didn't get all cranky. I enjoy that in a person.
>> 
>> g
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>> To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:08 PM
>> Subject: [Vision2020] Hawkins Water and Sewer
>> Infrastructure Costs
>> 
>> 
>> > Who needs newspapers when you have access to
>> > government records on the web?
>> >
>> > Doing a little digging on Whitman County's website
>> > gives this link, which includes the cost of water
>> and
>> > sewer infrastructure Whitman County would be
>> paying
>> > for if not for the "agreement."  I calculate over
>> $4
>> > million, but I'm not sure of all the itemized
>> costs.
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> >
>>
> http://www.whitmancounty.org/PDFs/Infrastructure_Cost_Breakdown.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> > This blog has a lot of articles (and cute banners
>> such
>> > as "Liberal Advisory I Am An Evil Conservative"
>> (at
>> > least he's honest) and other right-wing
>> blatherings)
>> > regarding Hawkins.  Maybe g is familiar with this
>> > site?
>> >
>> >
>>
> http://palousitics.blogspot.com/search?q=hawkins+water+rights
>> >
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080330/d39d185a/attachment-0001.html