[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

a smith at turbonet.com
Fri Mar 13 14:04:26 PDT 2009

What you find hard to believe based on your subjective experience vs. the reality as presented by the director of public works doesn't make for a very compelling case. While I have no doubt that you have been intimately aquainted with the scullery of many a greasy spoon, and would doubtless be more familiar still were it not for the sincure of the ivory tower. Facts, sad to say, is facts. The water usage at any retail business is lower then that of any household and that of a large modern restaurant far less then that of 100 individuals. Period.

As to your analogy, there are problems with it as well. A better scenario whould be your lovely wife sold me the rights to listen to your favorite radio station. I am very happy and I think your wife is a wonderful woman who could have done far better in the matrimonial marketplace and is deserving of much better things in life but, I digress. I am happy to pay her for the opportunity to hear the broadcast because it's easier for me to obtain it that way then to build or buy my own receiver. She is happy with the extra income and I am happy not having to pay more but, had she decided to not go through with the mutually benificial transaction, I can and would be willing to use other means to listen to the signal. You don't own the "RIGHTS" to the bandwidth and Moscow doesn't own the "RIGHTS" to the aquifer.

Your water argument is weak, your willingness to limit retail compition is without merit, and your asthetic opinion is arbitrary in the extreme. Add that all up and you've got a pretty good case of not much of anything at all.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Campbell 
  To: g. crabtree 
  Cc: a ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; garrettmc at verizon.net 
  Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

  Two comments.

  1/ I'm "attempting to shift the specifics"? I gave a few criticisms to one of your posts and now I'm following up on your reply. I'm "shifting the specifics" because I didn't - in this post - follow up on another, something I thought I adequately dealt with? Sweet, Marie!

  I said my mind wrt to the "100 individuals" example. I've worked in a lot of restaurants. I find it hard to believe that most people would use more water while eating at home than while eating out. I don't care how efficient the toilets are. But this is an empirical issue. Folks have kindly sent me some links with information that might help settle it. Maybe we can revisit this matter when one of us has something more specific to add to the debate.

  2/ Suppose that you're right and that IF they build the mall as you say, water usage remains more or less the same. And suppose we have good reason to think that they will build it as they/you say they should. I'm still against the SALE of water RIGHTS to WA businesses, given our current situation. Here's my argument.

  I think that my rights to water are as strong as my rights to anything that Moscow or the world has to offer. I need water to survive, not just to clean myself and my dishes. I live in a community where our water level is shrinking - that much is known - yet we don't know the rate. We don't know whether we will run out of water in 30 years or 50 years or 150 years or 300 years given current usage (plus rate of growth), which is to say we just don't know the size of our current and future water supply. So it would tick me off to find out, given our lack of knowledge, that our council and mayor are willing to SELL rights to that water supply to a WA business venture. That seems to me to be reckless and careless, even if I'm confident that the sale won't result in an increase of water usage. That confidence - even if I had it, which I don't - has little to do with it.

  Here is an analogy. Suppose my wife decided to sell the rights to my CD collection to my best friend David. Now I know that David won't abuse this right. He won't take any of my CDs. But CDs are pretty precious to me and I'd still be pissed at my wife for selling the right to my CDs to David. I'd feel vulnerable to David since my supply would now be dependent on his good graces. No matter how much I trusted David, I'd still feel vulnerable and, thus, I'd feel betrayed by my wife.

  Suppose my wife sold the rights to my CD collection to YOU, Gary. Well, then I'd be really pissed. And your assurances that you won't abuse those rights wouldn't do any good at all.

  Add to this the fact that we, Moscow, already have a mall that is pretty good and getting better and that the competition is unlikely to improve our choices a whole lot - I've seen the other malls and I know what's available - AND the fact that we are selling water rights to a WA based business in direct competition with MANY Moscow based businesses AND the fact that the mall will be an eyesore, add this all up and I have a pretty good case, regardless of what you've said and speculated about so far.

  Joe Campbell

  On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:35 AM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

    "Will they be able to pump water on thief own without buying from  
    Moscow? If so, why on earth do they want to pay us for it?"

    I'm sure they can pump on their own as they have already acquired the water right. Why they may not want to and buy from us would be not having to maintain wells,  pumps, and the other components of a self contained water system.

    You are attempting to shift the specifics of the discussion. Our original debate involved restaurants water use vs. water use for 100 individuals. The reason I expect to see the reduced energy/reduced water consumption devices without having seen the building plans is because I have been in several recently constructed restaurants. These sorts of fixtures are the rule, not the exception.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
    To: "a" <smith at turbonet.com>
    Cc: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net>
    Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:01 PM
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

    > Again most of your responses are based on presumptions that you cannot  
    > gaurentee -- mere wishful thinking on your part, as far as I can tell.  
    > Will they be able to pump water on thief own without buying from  
    > Moscow? If so, why on earth do they want to pay us for it? And IF they  
    > stock the mall with "low energy" whatever, sure that would be better  
    > than not. But why on earth should I expect that to happen? Have you  
    > seen the building plans?
    > Joe Campbell
    > On Mar 12, 2009, at 3:56 PM, "a" <smith at turbonet.com> wrote:
    >> "Selling water to a WA mall seems like bad usage. I dont see the  
    >> benefit."
    >> And having them pump their own rather than buy from the city helps  
    >> your argument how?
    >> "I can promise you that more water is used when eating out than  
    >> while eating at home."
    >> A promise you just can't keep, I'm afraid. When the 100 people of  
    >> your original statement are factored in,  a new restaurant with  
    >> urinals, low gpf toilets, water saving sink fixtures, and energy and  
    >> water efficent dishwashers will use far less water then those same  
    >> people will at home. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of  
    >> the head of Moscow's Public Works dept. Someone a bit more qualified  
    >> on the topic then you or I wouldn't you say?
    >> g
    >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com 
    >> >
    >> To: "a" <smith at turbonet.com>
    >> Cc: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net 
    >> >
    >> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:33 AM
    >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
    >>> 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
    >>> -- 
    >>> 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


  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090313/70921e9f/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list