[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

[Joe Campbell]

I'm not saying we should stop ALL building, just that we should be  
careful about water use. Yet again you score points by distorting my  
view.

Selling water to a WA mall seems like bad usage. I dont see the benefit.

Also, Troy is in a better situation than us since a surface capture  
reservoir is more efficient than hoping the water finds it's way to  
the aquifer!

And have you ever washed dishes for a living? I can promise you that  
more water is used when eating out than while eating at home.

Joe Campbell

On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:16 PM, "a" <smith at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Point 3 is wrong in only the most insignifigant way, if that. The  
> City of Troy, population 798, does get its water via surface capture  
> reservoir (although it's a matter of serious consideration whether  
> some of the water captured would be going to recharge ground water  
> sources) Rural Troy draws water from the same shallow aquaifer that  
> is part of Moscow/Pullman's (and the wells Hawkin's would sink if  
> they do not purchase water from us) water supply.
>
> I did not discuss water "cost" to build so I'm hard pressed to see  
> where I might have been wrong. If that is going to be part of the  
> argument then we better place a moratorium on all construction as  
> building Hawkins will be no more consumptive than any other building  
> project of similar scope. (I'm not even sure what this "cost" you  
> refer to would be. Intake and discharge by the construction workers?)
>
> Finally you claim "100 people would not use as much water eating at  
> home, easing there own dishes, as they would eating in a  
> restaurant." Lets fudge the numbers in your favor and call those 100  
> people 20 households. 20 households use far more water than one  
> large restaurant. New commercial dishwashers are quite water  
> efficient.
>
> Seems to me there's more error in your post then mine.
>
> g
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com 
> >
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
>
>
>> Point 3 is wrong. First, the point of the mall would be to bring SOME
>> people from the outside area into the our area. If someone comes from
>> Troy to the Moscow area the water they use comes from a different
>> source than it would have otherwise. Second, it will "cost" a lot of
>> water just to build the mall. Third, if there are restaurants that
>> will be an addition use. 100 people would not use as much water  
>> eating
>> at home, easing there own dishes, as they would eating in a
>> restaurant. Have you ever seen a restaurant dish washer? I washed
>> dishes for a time, so I have!
>>
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 10:59 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. My business is not located in Whitman county.
>>>
>>> 2. Predatory? All business competes with other business. This is the
>>> nature
>>> of the game. Will Idaho lose some tax revenue? Some, but probably
>>> not as
>>> much as you think. Those same tax dollars are lost when Idaho
>>> residents go
>>> to Spokane to shop or make purchases through the intertubes because
>>> what
>>> they seek is unavailable in Moscow.
>>>
>>> 3. Water. We've been over this one repeatedly. Whether it is
>>> delivered by
>>> the City of Moscow, pumped from private wells, or provided by the
>>> City of
>>> Pullman, it's all the same water. The folks who are working and
>>> shopping at
>>> the new mall would be using the same amount of water if they were
>>> working in
>>> Moscow, Pullman, Troy, or Colton. You don't uptake or download any
>>> more just
>>> because you're at the Hawkins development. I suspect that your
>>> vegetable
>>> production facility uses far more water than any individual business
>>> will
>>> and provides far fewer jobs. If the Hawkins property were to be
>>> turned into
>>> a truck farm the same argument you attempt to use applies.
>>> Competition with
>>> Moscow business. (you) No tax dollars for Idaho. Far higher water
>>> consumption. Perhaps you would prefer the land lay fallow?
>>>
>>> 4. I am willing to accept any legal, legitimate business operation
>>> located
>>> on private property in Latah or Whitman Co. Pullman or Moscow, miles
>>> away or
>>> right next door to my shop. Period.
>>>
>>> 5. I think that my answer regarding your questions concerning FOCA
>>> were to
>>> the point. One third of all hospitals in America are Catholic. If a
>>> doctor
>>> or nurse hired on with one of these facilities they would have a
>>> reasonable
>>> expectation of working in an environment that did not promote a
>>> culture of
>>> death. Forcing institutions such as these to provide a service that
>>> they did
>>> not originally is to force every person employed there to do
>>> something that
>>> was not in their original job description. I am not talking about  
>>> the
>>> mythical minority that might have hired on at an abortion mill that
>>> suddenly
>>> don't want to perform their  job. In my example I'm talking about
>>> thousands
>>> of real health care professionals, in yours you talking about a tiny
>>> handful
>>> (if that) of hypothetical employees. I stand by my red herring
>>> assertion.
>>>
>>> It seems that you are arguing in favor of an employers right to  
>>> can a
>>> hypothetical fraction of his work force rather than the rights of
>>> the very
>>> real thousands of doctors and nurses who will be adversely impacted
>>> by BHO's
>>> very bad decision.
>>>
>>> g
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
>>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:21 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> g writes:
>>>>
>>>> "I'm confused. I thought you said you were a Moscow resident... I
>>>> like our
>>>> neighbors to the west, I don't feel a need to meddle in their
>>>> affairs, and
>>>> I'm willing to let them purchase "our" water at reasonable rates."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure why you're confused. I live in Moscow. I try to  
>>>> support
>>>> locally-owned stores, even ones in Whitman County. Like you, I have
>>>> nothing against Whitman County, or the employers and people there
>>>> in a
>>>> general sense. I want their lives to prosper as much as anyb
>>> ody's. But when they are doing so by competing with Moscow's
>>> interests, it
>>> only seems natural to want to defend Moscow.
>>>>
>>>> You are free to feel the way you state. The fact is, a Boise
>>>> developer
>>>> plans to build a predatory mall next to Moscow. Their intent is to
>>>> compete
>>>> with Moscow businesses. To me, I'm not thrilled at that prospect,
>>>> and I
>>>> consider it meddling with Moscow in that they aren't in this to  
>>>> help
>>>> Moscow. More than likely, some businesses in Moscow will suffer,
>>>> and thus
>>>> Idaho sales tax revenue will decrease. So in some sense, they are
>>>> meddling
>>>> with Moscow by intently wanting Moscow business, thus reducing  
>>>> state
>>>> coffers. I see nothing wrong with defending Moscow's interests from
>>>> private developers who don't care if they hurt Moscow.
>>>>
>>>> We aren't talking about one store, but a mall twice the size as
>>>> Moscow's
>>>> largest mall. That isn't minor as you stated earlier. The fact that
>>>> they
>>>> want to draw from the same aquifer as Moscow is another way they  
>>>> are
>>>> meddling with Moscow.
>>>>
>>>> Moscow shouldn't be in the business of facilitating out of state
>>>> mega-malls that don't have Moscow's best interest at heart, meaning
>>>> Moscow
>>>> shouldn't sell them water, and should not have offered to provide
>>>> them
>>>> sewer services, as well. That isn't meddling, that just making sure
>>>> we
>>>> aren't letting Moscow be ill-served.
>>>>
>>>> Should I take from your position, g, that you are willing to accept
>>>> anything that may come to Whitman County, or even to Moscow?
>>>>
>>>> How about a nuclear waste depository? A chemical company with a  
>>>> known
>>>> history of polluting and leaving the waste to be cleaned up by
>>>> taxpayers?
>>>> A strip club a block down from your lock shop, perhaps with a  
>>>> topless
>>>> car-wash (out of public view, of course)?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have limits, or is it an anything goes kind of growth?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the conscience rule questions I asked. I understand the
>>>> specific
>>>> cases you are defending. I had in previous replies to the thread
>>>> taken a
>>>> similar position. From what I remember, Sunil asked you to document
>>>> cases
>>>> where someone was forced to perform an abortion, and you wrote, "To
>>>> the
>>>> best of my knowlage they have not." Meaning to me, no one has been
>>>> forced
>>>> to perform an abortion against their will. So it seems that to
>>>> bring up
>>>> something that is not an issue as an answer to my question is a red
>>>> herring.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't answering a question with a question. The question you
>>>> asked was
>>>> addressed to someone else, and it was answered. I thought of the
>>>> questions
>>>> I asked you to further the discussion on the issue, and since you
>>>> were the
>>>> person supporting the conscience rule as is, I merely was hoping
>>>> you'd
>>>> answer them.
>>>>
>>>> My questions were about the overall implications of the law, not
>>>> specific
>>>> parts. Since the original article was about modifying the order,  
>>>> not
>>>> repealing it, I was trying to get to the meat of the issue. I'm
>>>> sorry you
>>>> interpreted them as red herrings, but that was not my intent. I
>>>> think they
>>>> are questions that supporters of the rule should think about.
>>>>
>>>> If I were to call anything a red herring, it is the answer you just
>>>> gave
>>>> to my questions. If you want me to consider that your "neglected
>>>> reply,"
>>>> then I'll just assume you don't have a reasonable answer those
>>>> questions,
>>>> copied here for references sake:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should a business be obligated to pay an employee who doesn't
>>>> do their
>>>> job?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the business have the right to not spend its money on an
>>>> employee who won't perform their job? If not, then how could a
>>>> business
>>>> continue to function if there doesn't seem to be a way to prevent
>>>> employees from over-enjoying their supposed right to not do their  
>>>> job
>>>> because of such a broad excuse as it goes against their religion?
>>>> Are we
>>>> talking about every single religion?
>>>>
>>>> Does the government have the right to force a business to pay an
>>>> employee
>>>> who doesn't do their job? If so, why should government intervene in
>>>> such
>>>> an intimate way since that seems rather socialistic?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't passing a law requiring businesses to pay an employee who
>>>> doesn't
>>>> do their job because of religion violate the 1st Amendment? If not,
>>>> how
>>>> can a law which essentially is regarding the establishment of
>>>> religion not
>>>> be illegal, particularly when it also seems rather anti- 
>>>> capitalistic?
>>>>
>>>> g's answer:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. If you reply to my question with a question (and no
>>>>> actual response) am I honor bond to reply? If so, should it
>>>>> be in the form of another question?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Your questions were specious in that we were not talking
>>>>> about the nurse at a planned parenthood clinic suddenly
>>>>> deciding that she didn't want to be involved in the
>>>>> tgaking of a life or anyone who contrived to be hired,
>>>>> knowing full well what their job would entail, and suddenly
>>>>> opting to not perform their duties. We are talking about
>>>>> personnel hired at private facilities that had no
>>>>> involvement with abortion suddenly being forced to perform a
>>>>> procedure they never hired on for. We are talking about
>>>>> private sector pharmacists being forced to sell products
>>>>> they in good conscience find abhorrent.
>>>>>
>>>>> This, and Donovan's "emergency save the
>>>>> mother" arguments are red herrings tossed out to cover
>>>>> the stench of forcing private individuals to bow to the whim
>>>>> of others against their will and conscience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please consider this my neglected reply. Sorry for my lack
>>>>> of alacrity.
>>>>>
>>>>> g
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:  
>> 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
>