<!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>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Gary, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I am not sure why you suggest that it is equally clear
that the MCA is "a long way from being pro-growth." You seem to imply
that all growth is good, and that opposing any particular project makes the
opponent of the project "not pro-growth." If I understand you correctly, I
disagree with you on both counts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You assert that those who object to a re-zone of property,
that is owned and sought to be developed by others, are trying to dictate
to those others how to develop their property. In some instances, I
think you are close to correct, and I find it a little presumptuous for others
to be so "helpful" in coming up with alternative proposals for the property
owner, (though those "helpful 'here's an alternative development possibility'
sorts" are really only suggesting, not dictating). But in reality,
the multitude of complaining citizens are voicing their opinions on how the
re-zone will affect their own property and community, not telling the
developers how to develop their land. The zoning ordinance, itself, (upon
which we all relied when we bought our land) is what limits the development
rights of everyone who owns land within its bounds. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The nub of this argument is over what is a "straight
forward and not overly restrictive set of guidelines" for
development. That is an easy question to answer for me: the zoning
code. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You seem to suggest that if a developer wants to change
the rules of the game by re-zoning property and allowing a
heretofore dis-allowed use in a neighborhood, that the developer should be
permitted to do so as a matter of right. Your test for whether the
growth was appropriate or not is an after the fact assessment: whether the
development succeeds or fails in the market. </FONT>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Both the MCA and I understand that re-zoning is sometimes
necessary to allow for growth. Where we seem to disagree with you is
on whether the community, whose collective property may be affected by a
proposed re-zone, has a right to provide input on the re-zone when the
re-zone will effect not only the land subject to the re-zone request, but the
surrounding property and community, too. In those circumstances,
I think the community should have input on whether and how to allow re-zone
proposals without being automatically labeled as "anti-growth."
</FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I think that if a developer can't sell the community on
the value of its proposed "new rules," changed game, and re-zoned property, the
community has no obligation to the developer and ought not automatically re-zone
the property. The developer DOES have the unfettered right to
develop his or her land within the restrictions imposed by the zoning
ordinance. However, the developer DOES NOT have the automatic right to
more intensive uses of property than are allowed in a particular
neighborhood. Such uses ought to go where they are planned and
prescribed under the existing zoning ordinance, not wherever a particular
property owner wishes to site them -- most especially when those
uses are prohibited under the existing zoning code at the developer's
proposed site. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Many citizens, especially nearby neighbors to a proposed
development, think that the current zoning should mean something -- it
is, after all, a law upon which we relied when we bought our land in the first
place. While the scope and intensity of any particular re-zone proposal
may be acceptable to the community, not all developments that require a change
in zoning are an appropriate fit in the existing neighborhood or the
town. You seem to label as anti-growth any group that raises objections to
any development proposal. But the MCA and most citizens do not
object to all growth. We object to growth that is so significantly
different from that already allowed that it not only would require zoning
amendments but also would detrimentally change the character of our
neighborhood and community. You seem to gloss over the fact that in
purchasing our land in the first place we relied upon the governing
limitations of the zoning ordinance and its protection of OUR private
property rights. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>What we are trying to do is encourage growth that is
consistent with our laws and best accounts for effects beyond the development --
effects the community at-large needs to absorb and finance as best we can,
whether those effects involve transportation, infrastructure, water or increased
demands on police or fire protection. Generally speaking, I don't hear
people objecting to growth that fits within the parameters of the
existing zoning category, (with the possible exception of water issues not
covered by the zoning ordinance). People are objecting most strenuously to
proposals that require a change in zoning to a more intensive use that many
think will have the effect of imposing a quantum change in our community
and neighborhood, thereby affecting the property rights of us all.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>What people find most objectionable is changing
the rules of the game after they bought property and relied upon the zoning code
for a semblance of reliability and stability in their neighborhood. In
buying land in a place like Moscow that is governed by a zoning ordinance, we
all gave up our unfettered right to develop land without any regulation and
instead acceded to the restrictions of the zoning ordinance. The trade-off
is obvious: we don't get to do anything we want to our land, but neither do
other landowners. The zoning ordinance controls what is
allowed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The fundamentally wrong part of your premise, as I see it,
Gary, is the notion that we, MCA, or any other citizen for that matter, are
not pro-growth because we object to a particular proposal that a developer
wishes to see imposed here. But the fact is that in the
few development proposals that a mass of citizens find objectionable, the
developer is seeking ACCOMMODATIONS and CONCESSIONS from the City, in the way of
re-zoning, variances, etc. What I understand you and the
Greater Moscow Alliance ("GMA") to be saying is that those who object
to ANY re-zone proposal are "anti-growth" and improperly limiting
the developer's property rights. That mantra is BUNK, and an occasional
objection to a mis-placed and ill-conceived development does not make the
objector "anti-growth." <FONT color=#0000ff><STRONG>To suggest that
everyone has a right to do with their land as they wish, in a community that has
adopted a zoning ordinance, is to ignore the covenant that a zoning ordinance
provides -- some surety for each of us that the land next door in a
particular use category will not be changed to some other more intensive use
without our consent as a community, as decided by the P&Z and then Council,
after community hearings.</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If you bought a house in an R-2 neighborhood, you would
have every right to object to your neighbor seeking to put a rendering factory,
oil refinery or large scale retail development next-door.
Objecting to that inappropriate use does not make you anti-growth.
Likewise, to suggest that a re-zone is an entitlement in a community that has a
zoning ordinance may be "pro-growth at all costs" but it also ignores the
purpose of adopting a zoning ordinance -- the dependability of clearly stated,
allowable uses for land in a particularly zoned neighborhood.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In my opinion, this town has been entirely too loose with
rezoning any property at any developer's request. The prior councils
and city staff have been all too willing to ignore the zoning
ordinance by haphazardly amending it on an ad hoc, project-by-project basis,
crafting whatever exceptions into the zoning ordinance that a developer
requests. Instead, we have endured a hodge-podge of re-zones, a
parcel at a time, all the while diminishing the justified expectations of the
neighbors in the use of their nearby land. Most
of us relied upon the zoning in this town when we bought our
land. We did not intend to develop or change the allowed uses in our
neighborhoods, but instead anticipated that the existing zoning would limit not
just ourselves but our neighbors, too, to the allowed uses under the
code. What about our property rights and reliance
interests? Preserving property values and quality of life in our
community while supporting sustainable growth under the Smart Growth principles
is pro-growth and a long, long way from "anti-growth."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You also seem to suggest that we should buy any land that
we don't want changed. I agree with you, in part. When the developer
merely seeks to develop his or her land within the limits of the current zoning
category and does not seek special treatment, allowances, and a change in
the governing zoning regulations, the developer has a right to
proceed. We might not like the transformation of a
nearby pastoral setting to a passel of houses, but we would seem
to have little or no basis for objecting to the developer's right to build those
houses if the property were already zoned residential and for the
requested density. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>However, when the developer seeks special accommodations
and re-zoning to a more intensive use, that is another story. That
developer may be affecting my property rights adversely, because the effects of
the new, unforeseen and previously unallowed uses may leak beyond the
developer's property to my own and diminish my property value or
enjoyment. Because I relied upon the existing zoning of the neighborhood
when I bought my land, I have a right to object to zoning changes that I
perceive will adversely effect my property without being labeled
anti-growth. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Growth in highly intensive uses, especially, is best
placed where it is allowed, and not wherever the developer-of-the-month asks to
put it after a re-zone. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bruce Livingston</FONT></DIV></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=jampot@adelphia.net href="">g. crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A> ; <A title=mattd2107@hotmail.com
href="">Matt Decker</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="">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><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></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="">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mattd2107@hotmail.com
href="">Matt Decker</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="">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><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Whoa Nellie!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Smart Growth we advocate, not "no growth."
</FONT><A href=""><FONT
face=Arial>http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bruce Livingston</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Matt Decker said:</FONT></DIV></DIV><FONT face=Arial>|
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></FONT>
<P></P><FONT face=Arial>
<HR>
</FONT>
<P></P><FONT
face=Arial>_____________________________________________________<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></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>