<html>
<body>
My appreciation to Bill Bonte and John Dickinson for an informative and
pleasant dialogue on the topic. Both of your responses were
helpful.<br><br>
As I travel east on Joseph St often, I can easily agree that the Joseph
Bridge is a real problem. Hopefully, that can be given a high
priority - before all the properties slated for Salisbury and Rolling
Hills come on line.<br><br>
Thanks again John and Bill.<br><br>
At 12:02 PM 5/28/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#0000FF">
Hi-<br><br>
Ive stuck a few comments in response to some of the items in this post.
I hope they are helpful.<br><br>
John Dickinson<br>
<br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></font></div>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> vision2020-bounces@moscow.com
[<a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>bill
bonte<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, May 28, 2006 10:30 AM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Re: subdivisions (Was "Tribune
Uncovers")<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1> <br>
Reference Mr. Harkins statement that residents of the Rolling Hills<br>
subdivisions have easy acess to the Joseph Street ball parks and
Latah<br>
Fairgrounds: It is true that a wonderful stairway was constructed
between<br>
6th street and Hathaway Drive and another between Panorama and the
new<br>
Trinity Baptist Church. These provide a walkable connection among
the<br>
three neighborhoods. A further connection is possible to the
Fairgrounds<br>
through the Salsbury neighborhoods (when the streets are
completed). As<br>
for now, bicycle and foot traffic to the Joseph Street ballparks from
all<br>
neighborhoods east of Paradise Creek must the use Joseph Street Bridge.
<br>
This is one of the most dangerous pedestrian rights of way in
Moscow. Now<br>
that the traffic has increased in volume and speed it can be life<br>
threatening to use this narrow bridge. This is a good example of
the<br>
failure of city development officials. Before approving the
Salsbury<br>
addition, they should have required the bridge be replaced by a new,
wider,<br>
pedestrian friendly crossing, at the developers' expense. It is
obvious<br>
that Joseph, east of Paradise Creek will become a major arterial, but
no<br>
provision was made, and the developer was not required to provide right
of<br>
way for future widening of the road.
</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0000FF"><br><br>
The bridge on Joseph was approved and funded sometime in the late 1990s.
It has not been constructed yet for a number of unconnected little
reasons. The latest was that someone questioned whether the bridge was
old enough to be of historic interest and so that needed to be checked
out (it is not an historic bridge).<br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1> <br>
The comprehensive plan does show a connection from the Rollings
Hills<br>
subdivisions to the area of Good Sam and Hordeman Pond, but this does
not<br>
currently exist. Residents must walk or bike (as Bill London
stated) to Mt<br>
View Rd, and walk along it, without sidewalks most of the way, to D
street.<br>
Once again, the developers of Rolling Hills and the planned Windfall<br>
subdivision east of Mt. View between Rollings Hills Dr and Paradise
Creek,<br>
shoud be required to provide sidewalks on Mt.
View.</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0000FF"><br>
<br>
Developers are required to provide street improvements along any streets
that their development touches. When a development has an impact on
streets and roads that are farther away from the development, it is a
difficult matter to demand improvements. When there was talk of the high
school moving beyond Mt. View Park, that development did include
improvements beyond the borders of the development. But the prospects of
improvements were worked out with the developers and the city, I dont
think we could have required the improvements. To some extent, every
development impacts the entire community and these costs (impacts) are
recovered in a variety of development costs, such as water meter
installations.<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1>The Comprehensive plan
shows a public park at the end of Moser extending to<br>
the south. This would further connect the neighborhoods. The
developers<br>
must have paid into a fund to contruct this park, but it has not
been<br>
started after more than 8 yrs of Rolling Hills development. I am
firmly against<br>
private parks and doubt their legality. With the property taxes I
pay, I am within<br>
my rights to expect a public park in my neighborhood, as
promised.</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0000FF">
<br>
<br>
The park will exist. It will be a public park. I would like to see our
subdivision code include an addition to the parkland dedication section
to facilitate the early development of the parks within development.
Currently the parks are developed as the land that they exist on is
developed. It makes sense, in that a developed park with no streets of
sidewalks to get to would be less useful than one with infrastructure
but I still would like to see parks developed early so that they could
mature with the neighborhood.<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1>Developers already pay
far too little for the privilege of building in Moscow. They<br>
can afford to put in right of way connections as exist in your Frontier
and Borah<br>
neighborhoods.<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1>On another subject -
water. Developers of residential lots should have increased<br>
water and sewer hookup fees, in the $20,000-30,000 range per lot.
This would <br>
let the market regulate the amount of new construction in
Moscow.</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=1 color="#0000FF">
<br><br>
Developers dont really pay development fees, home buyers do. There are
many conflicting goals here affordable housing, charging fees that can
be substantiated as fair and equitable. I dont think that higher fees
are a good idea higher fees just for the sake of higher fees may not be
legal, would create a community where only the rich could live, and
wouldnt stop growth (if that is your point).<br>
</font>_____________________________________________________<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fsr.net
</a> <br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</blockquote></body>
</html>