<!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 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Nils, I am not saying that re-zoning the industrial grain elevator land is
necessarily wrong. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What I am saying is that:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>(a) decreasing industrial land is a bad idea -- we need to maintain
our industrial land and seek light industry and the jobs those bring with
them. If this land is to be re-zoned, (and you failed to note that I
said that redevelopment of this land was not the issue) then industrial land
ought to be sought in an area that is suited to it, so that we do not decrease
our industrial land. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(b) that eliminating a parking requirement by magically
transforming your land into the one category that does not require parking is
a means of eliminating costs from the project -- and that is a developer idea
to increase profitability of the project at the expense of neighbors who bear
the brunt of the unallocated parking spillover.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>To eliminate industrial land without anticipating and finding replacement
industrial land is short sighted, bad planning and contrary to the needs of the
community's need to diversify the job base.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And clearly, the request to eliminate the parking requirement is a
developer-pushed idea to maximize his project's profitability, quite possibly at
the expense of his neighbors and the community at large.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I stand by my statements. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The P&Z was right to ask the parking questions, and before such a major
step as re-designating the land to Central Business District should be taken,
the developer should allay the fears of the neighbors who would bear the brunt
of the project by explaining how and why their concerns are misplaced -- if
indeed they are.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bruce Livingston</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message -----
<DIV>From: "Nils Peterson" <<A
href="mailto:nils_peterson@wsu.edu">nils_peterson@wsu.edu</A>></DIV>
<DIV>To: <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>>; "Bruce and
Jean Livingston" <<A
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">jeanlivingston@turbonet.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:44 PM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Getting a Community Plan was: Parking Downtown Moscow</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>| Bruce said:<BR>| "This re-designation of land to other uses
from its zoned or planned<BR>| designation as industrial and motor business land
is a typical,<BR>| short-sighted, developer-pushed project to maximize
short-term profits<BR>| notwithstanding the existing plan."<BR>| <BR>| And <BR>|
<BR>| " It is time to get ahead of the curve. Engage the community in the
process<BR>| and get support for a proposal before seeking special treatment at
the<BR>| expense of the citizenry."<BR>| <BR>| Bruce, there was discussion that
night at P&Z about converting industrial<BR>| land and several members
pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates<BR>| the vacation of the
railroads and the transition of that land to other uses.<BR>| <BR>| I don't
recall this concern about re-designation of industrial land at the<BR>|
NewCities meeting at University Inn, where they gave a final(?) report and<BR>|
advocated Moscow grow inward, upward, and that new mixed use development<BR>|
take place between downtown and university.<BR>| <BR>| So, I'm not sure I could
agree with your assertion in the opening paragraph<BR>| about "developer-pushed,
short-sighted..."<BR>| <BR>|</BODY></HTML>