<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. London, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
My afternoons travels took me through several of the "subdivision developments
sprawled around town perimeter" as you put it. They all had sidewalks on at
least one side of the street. Most on both. I am sure that the developers all
paid the city a fee in lieu of land dedication for parks as per requirements.
All were "connected to town." I suppose that every time someone wanted to put up
some houses we could require them to improve all the infrastructure from the
furthest point in the city to their new development but I'm guessing that this
would make new homes a tad spendy. The developments, as they are, seem to be
meeting the requirements of people quite nicely, judging by the fact
that folks are only to willing to live in them. Sounds to me as though your
vision of smart growth, affordable housing, and what people actually
want doesn't mix very well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> If parks and paths and sidewalks are so
important to you, why haven't you and your neighbors banded together and done so
in your own neighborhood? There is vacant land not too far to the east and west
of you to acquire for a park. Each of you could be responsible for your own
sidewalk and you could all chip in for a bike path and to connect to the
sidewalk that the developer on Hershi Rd. (new development) thoughtfully stubbed
out toward your neighborhood to help with being "connected." I think that should
you do this you would better appreciate the kind of additional cost you are
asking the developer to incur and pass on to the new potential home owners. Why
ask others to do what you aren't willing to do yourself?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>G.
Crabtree</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=london@moscow.com href="mailto:london@moscow.com">Bill London</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> ; <A
title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A> ; <A
title=mattd2107@hotmail.com href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">Matt
Decker</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:57
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune
uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>G-</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What you suggest for Moscow's growth ("let the
people with a real vested interest in any given project move ahead ") is just
what happened under former council and result was series of subdivision
developments sprawled around town perimeter. Not one has a park.
Not one is connected bysidewalk/trail/path to town. All require rest of
us to provide infrastructure for them (think Joseph street bridge). That
is Dumb Growth.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BL</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A> ; <A
title=mattd2107@hotmail.com href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">Matt
Decker</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:33
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune
uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bruce, It's clear from your post that you do
not feel that the MCA is a "no growth" organization. But it's equally clear
that it's a long way from being pro growth. What it appears to me to be is a
growth by strangling committee group. A here is our vision of how property
that is not ours should look and be used club. If you stand in the way of
the kinds of development that developer's actually are willing to put their
money on the line for, can you honestly say you're in favor of growth? To
proclaim yourselves as "smart growth" advocates is to say that you're in
favor of a set of confused and contradictory goals design to leave everyone
dissatisfied. It would seem to me that pro growth is to let the people
with a real vested interest in any given project move ahead under a straight
forward and not overly restrictive set of guidelines and let the
community vote with its patronage. In a society where failure is seldom
rewarded, mistakes will likely not be repeated. To try and make everybody
happy on the front end of every project is to create needless road blocks
and stagnation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Gary Crabtree</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mattd2107@hotmail.com
href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">Matt Decker</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:45
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune
uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Whoa Nellie!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt, I think you need to stop buying what certain "growth at all
costs" types are selling in their inaccurate smear of the MCA as an
organization favoring no-growth. We are by no means a
"no-growth"-seeking organization. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We seek to bring open public discussion and planning -- long
range planning especially -- back into the process. We seek to
incorporate into our City better pedestrian and bicycle corridors,
sidewalks, mixed uses and cluster developments that use forward thinking
combinations of higher densities, and more shared, open
space. We seek sustainable community development, not
stagnation. There is a continuum of positions on the growth
spectrum, from no growth on the one hand to unregulated, absolute power to
develop one's land without regard to the effect on one's neighbors on the
other. MCA is not for the former; I would hazard a guess that
GMA is not for the latter. Time will tell.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Up until recently, this City has operated on a basis that had
relegated the zoning code to an advisory document, spot-zoning and
re-zoning property willy-nilly at the request of any developer --
regardless of the conflict any particular proposal may have had with the
Comprehensive Plan. Evidence of that sad pattern can be found
with the prior council's frittering away of the West A street
commercial property that has been turned into one apartment complex after
another. The "pro-growth at all costs" crowd decries the current
"lack" of motor business land in the City and uses that alleged "lack" as
a basis for asserting the necessity of re-zoning the Thompson
property. Those same "pro-growth regardless of the costs" folks
include those who spent much of our best motor business land on
short term, short-sighted, frenzies of granting every request to
turn A Street into apartments -- in an area that has no
adequate pedestrian crossing of the largest road in our City for the
numerous pedestrian students who were locating in those apartments.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Smart Growth we advocate, not "no growth." <A
href="http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/">http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The best place for heavy commercial growth was always along the
Pullman Highway and behind Third Street on A, as was set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan. The recently annexed university-owned land north
of the Palouse Mall is an obvious motor business area, and it serves far
wiser planning and strategic needs by its location as close to Pullman as
we can place it, while retaining a Latah County location. The
good folks of Troy will drive through Moscow and past our downtown to get
to the Moscow motor business developments near the state line. The
Pullmanites and WSU students, particularly those using the bus, seem much
less likely to drive or hitch a ride to the far side of eastern Moscow,
especially as their choices expand in Whitman County. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Being opposed to a misguided and ill-conceived, 77 acre motor
business re-zone on the east side of town does not make one
anti-growth. It makes one opposed to that particular
development.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Likewise, as evidenced by prior discussion on this list, expressing
concern and seeking solutions about water usage on the Palouse is not
anti-growth. In fact, it is pro-growth. The Seattle
model, referenced by Nils Peterson and Mark Solomon on V2020 discussions,
is worthy of pursuit here. Seattle was able to grow
-- substantially -- while actually cutting its water usage
through thoughtful, long-term conservation policies. We, too, can do
the same. Given our scarce and declining water supply, why not seek
to implement water conserving policies that will enable future growth,
rather than blindly play a game of chicken with an aquifer of unknown size
and dimensions? Preserving our water through thoughtful and proven
conservation methods preserves our ability to grow for the long
term. Our County Commissioners, two of whom are Republicans, have
listened and learned from Diane French, Mark Solomon and others on the
water issue, so don't be so quick to dismiss Diane and Mark as having
ideas that take root only on the left, when the evidence is to the
contrary and their hard work on water management benefits us
all.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Personally, I also welcome discussion of a reservoir. I oppose
injection of the pristine waters of the Grand Ronde aquifer with
relatively filthy runoff from muddy fields laden with various herbicides,
pesticides, fertilizers, and assorted other pollutants. But
opposing injection of the Grand Ronde does not make me anti-growth, Matt,
it makes me opposed to that particular water management option among a
myriad of choices that enhance the possibility of and favor
long-term growth.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am pro-growth. Most in the MCA are as well. Several
years ago the MCA Board took a position favoring growth.
We accepted the Smart Growth model, and rejected a no
growth alternative. That position has not changed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We in the MCA welcome the GMA to the discussion; undoubtedly the
community at large does, too. Informed and open discussion is
enlightening and useful to all. Overall, my sense is that the Moscow
community is glad that the MCA arrived and changed the discussion from
private conversations of a few policymakers, movers and shakers to a much
larger group of people throughout the community who are all
engaged in the discussion. The GMA will undoubtedly add its
voice to the discussion, which can only be a good thing. Let the
marketplace of ideas percolate and see what happens. But don't
mis-apprehend the MCA as being anti-growth, for we are not.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bruce Livingston</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt Decker said:</DIV></DIV>| Remember this(GMA) group was
established because of the Mark Solomans, Diane <BR>| Frenchs, and the MCA
groups that back up their no growth attitudes. Smart <BR>| Growth, Please.
Disguise it however you like, but it just adds up to little <BR>| or nil
growth. The attitudes of these people are just to aggressive for <BR>|
Moscow. Yes some of the people in the group have lives outside of the
<BR>| computer, that depend on growth, including myself.<BR>| <BR>| See
what we can do first before belittling us to a bunch of money crazed <BR>|
good ol boy. This group also wants what is best for Moscow.<BR>| <BR>|
MD<BR>| <BR>| Matt<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>