<!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>Greetings Bruce, You can't imagine my shock that
you find yourself in disagreement with my point of view. This has never happened
before on this forum. Please allow me a moment to clarify my position so that
you can join all the other happy and harmonious people on the V that love
me and dote upon my every word.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its one thing to move into an R-1 or R-2 area
surrounded by other single family homes and have an expectation of limited
change. (protected by zoning) However ,if you live on the edge of an area which
the comprehensive plan suggests future development might best serve the
community as industrial/commercial area you should have no such expectation.
It's lovely to have rolling farm land for you back yard but, to assume it will
always be such is short sighted in the extreme. You move in and gamble.
Heads, pastoral beauty, tails, Wal-Mart. You shouldn't have the option of
modifying the bets final outcome at the end. If I can't have my farm view, I'll
take a ball field. No? How about "mixed use" instead? Sorry, pal. If you
want total control of your immediate environment, move someplace that's already
the way you like it, or purchase a large enough buffer to insulate yourself from
unpleasant potentialities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As I have said before, I do not think that it's a
pro-growth position to say 'We're in favor of growth as long as it's small and
cute and fuzzy. As long as it sells the kinds of things us progressive people
like. ("no cheap plastic crap") As long as they compensate their employees the
way we and the union thinks is right and proper. As long as it's aesthetically
pleasing to those of refined sensibilities. As long as you can tuck it
someplace that's at least half a mile from everywhere. And above all, doesn't
change the "unique character of the community" whatever the heck that is. Where
did the notion that everyone should have equal input into everyone elses
business dealings come from?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In closing, I would have to say that I would agree
with you, that my mantra was BUNK if what I, the GMA, the property owners and
developers (three groups for which I do not speak) were, in fact, proposing
rendering plants next to old folks homes. Toxic waste dumps next to orphanages.
Rack next to ruin. I disagree because the sorts of things that I see causing the
most knickers waddage for the fellowship that is V2020 and for the most part,
the MCA, is sub-divisions in the proximity of other
sub-divisions, retail having a close personal relationship with
retail, commercial development cheek by jowl with other
commercial/industrial development. And the ever present droning of 'not enough
goodies (parks, paths, pavilions, pork, pie in the sky, etc.) for me but
paid for by others.' I will find your arguments much more persuasive when
the horrors that you claim to be steadfast in your opposition to are, in fact,
the sorts of things that are being put foward.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>G. Crabtree</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></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=jeanlivingston@turbonet.com
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">Bruce and Jean Livingston</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">gary crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:03
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] RE: Tribune
uncovers new Moscowpro-growth gro</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>