<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Bill et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Parts of this "argument" are not based on a fair factual investigation of the actual financial conduct and behavior of the individuals in question. It is easy to create a scenario out of thin air comparing 150 teenagers with sparse allowances depriving another group with a median income exceeding $75,000 from spending their riches downtown to make this argument, but this scenario is almost certainly hyperbole, and is tangential from a strict legal standpoint to deciding whether or not NSA is legally operating downtown. The writer also misses the point of one of Donovan Arnold's arguments in defense of NSA's current location based on economic issues.<BR>
<BR>
NSA may very well subtract from the total cash spent in the downtown core from what was being spent when Verizon operated the NSA building. But I don't think the actual facts of who spends what in what circumstances when parked in downtown Moscow is written into the law as a determining factor regarding what sort of school is allowed in the downtown area.<BR>
<BR>
What is the disposable cash of NSA students and faculty and where do they spend it when parked downtown? The writer might present some actual data to support his assumptions. Why assume the students are teenagers with "sparse allowances?" Some private schools have rather privileged students in attendance. And I doubt that NSA faculty are limited in their expenditures downtown to dropping "a dime at Zume."<BR>
<BR>
Let's assume that NSA students and faculty have more disposable income than most who park downtown, and they spend it downtown when parked there. It would not really matter regarding whether NSA is legally operating downtown. This would not change the application of the law regarding operation of an "educational" noncommercial school in the downtown area, if this is indeed what NSA is doing. It would still be illegal, according to this interpretation of the law, even if all NSA associated individuals were millionaires dropping thousands every day into Moscow's downtown while they parked their Rolls- Royces.<BR>
<BR>
I think Donavan's point about NSA students was that when they sit in class, they are using a service they have purchased with cold hard cash. So the comment that "NSA students fill up spaces not to shop, but to sit in class" misses Donovan's point. They shopped for a school and purchased the product NSA offers, with some of this money they spent for this product no doubt coming back into the Moscow economy somewhere. If I purchase a year's worth of massage from a local masseuse who operates in downtown Moscow, and drive downtown and park to get my massage every week, am I driving downtown just to get rubbed, not to shop? No, I am using the service I purchased with cash when I shopped for a masseuse in downtown Moscow, and the service I shopped for, that I paid good money for in downtown Moscow, happens to be provided in downtown Moscow over a period of a year. Ditto for NSA students, if you follow this argument.<BR>
<BR>
Suggesting extreme unfounded scenarios to argue against NSA, and overlooking the fact that, as Donovan points out, NSA students have shopped and spent money for a service NSA is providing in downtown Moscow, suggests bias whether or not the person creating the scenario intends this or not.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>