<DIV>Paul,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Maybe Moscow should just outlaw cars. Make everybody walk, ride a bike or a bus. Just think how many problems they would solve. Plus, they could keep all the students from driving away from the city's ever increasingly unaffordable Marxist society. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Watch out! The smog test for your car is coming soon. Look for the fleet of bright red vans marked with "Emissions Test Here!" scattered all over town parking lots. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But truthfully, Moscow does not care which burdens it places on the poorest of its society. Why do you think the poorer members are leaving the county? Moscow is just too expensive, and unless you got a high paying government job you cannot afford to stay. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT:
5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I'm walking into this a little late, but does this ordinance only apply <BR>to people renting? Or does it apply to anyone? In other words, can I <BR>allow as many people as I want to stay on my property for free as I wish?<BR><BR>Since when does my neighbor's right to park on a public street close to <BR>their front door negate my right to do as I wish with my own property <BR>(assuming I'm not running a "boarding house" but merely allowing some <BR>unrelated people - i.e friends - to visit for an extended period)? If <BR>the issue is parking, address it as a parking issue. I could be wrong, <BR>but it seem en vogue these days for some families to own a veritable <BR>fleet of vehicles even if they don't have as many drivers as needed to <BR>operate them all at once. Doesn't this have the same negative impact on <BR>neighbor's parking rights? Should we be trying to limit the number of <BR>vehicles a property owner can
have on or near their property?<BR><BR>I don't know anything about the GMA, and don't really care. I do know <BR>that I should have the right to do as I wish on my own property, within <BR>reason. If the goal is to stop one brand of commercialization from <BR>happening in particular zones, I'm ok with that. Just be careful not to <BR>step on people's rights in an attempt to fix the problem. I'd also <BR>appreciate not losing them so that an impact can be made on one <BR>particular church in this town.<BR><BR>I also agree with some of Donovan's points. If you need to fit more <BR>people into a house you are renting in order to make the payments (and <BR>the landlord is ok with this), why should the city stop them? I doubt <BR>that parking will be a problem if they can barely afford their rent. Do <BR>these people live on the street so that no one has to walk another <BR>car-length or two when they park their big Escalade?<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>jeanlivingston
wrote:<BR>><BR>> The answer to your question, Tom, is "yes, it does." If someone has <BR>> more than the allowed number of unrelated people living together under <BR>> the ordinance that was passed Monday night, that household can seek a <BR>> C.U.P. to obtain approval for the extra renters.<BR>><BR>> And I would suggest to the alleged protecters of "property rights" who <BR>> opposed this ordinance, the Greater Moscow Alliance among them, that <BR>> the ordinance does exactly that, by protecting the property rights of <BR>> the /neighbors/ to these "boarding houses" in low density residential <BR>> neighborhoods that were not experiencing the low density uses to which <BR>> they were entitled under the code -- due to commercial, high density, <BR>> apartment/boarding house-style uses that were foisted on the <BR>> neighborhood by those bringing in numerous renters. <BR>><BR>> <BR>><BR>> There is a pattern developing in
the issues to which the GMA takes an <BR>> interest: the defense of property rights for a fe! w, often at the <BR>> expense of the property rights of the many, and all too frequently at <BR>> the expense of our quality of life. The property rights advocates at <BR>> the GMA that opposed this ordinance also failed to oppose both <BR>> Proposition 2 and the Naylor Farms conditional use permit application <BR>> last fall, while they opposed any regulation of big box stores in the <BR>> large retail store ordinance (which imposed reasonable regulations on <BR>> parking lot size, screening and lanscaping, sign size, and other <BR>> similar regulations on big boxes). The GMA property rights <BR>> zealots fail to recognize that we passed a zoning code in this town <BR>> that reasonably and constitutionally regulates property rights in part <BR>> to prevent neighbors from ruining the value and enjoyment of adjoining <BR>> parcels through
unfettered infringing uses that spill over onto the <BR>> property of others. <BR>><BR>> <BR>><BR>> The zoning code gives all of us the benefit of predictability; in <BR>> enacting the zoning code we surrendered the! ability to use property <BR>> in a particular zoning category for certain uses that are not allowed, <BR>> in return for the security of knowing that our neighbors could not use <BR>> their adjoining property in the same zone for those same disallowed <BR>> uses. When people push the limits of reason, straining credulity in <BR>> asserting that the code does not distinguish low density, <BR>> single-family residences from a commercial boarding house with a <BR>> single family /plus/ numbers of additional renters, <BR>> restoration/clarification of the zoning code's intent and purpose was <BR>> entirely appropriate. By passing a definition of a family that <BR>> addresses the number of unrelated people who may
live in a single <BR>> family residence without obtaining a conditional use permit, sanity <BR>> returned to our neighborhoods and the quality of life in those <BR>> neighborhoods was preserved and enhanced. <BR>><BR>> <BR>><BR>> I commend the four votes for the ordinance, Pall, Ament, Lamar and <BR>> Craine. Hopefully, in time both Weber and! Lambert will reconsider <BR>> their opposition to the ordinance.<BR>><BR>> In the meantime, without regard to the effects on our community's <BR>> water supply or the adjoining neighbor's property, the GMA failed to <BR>> oppose the operation of (a) the Naylor's proposed strip mine and (b) a <BR>> crowded boarding house with many additional people or cars in a low <BR>> density residential neighborhood, while the GMA did oppose (c) an <BR>> ordinance that sought to regulate garish 24-hour big boxes with <BR>> inadequate screening and landscaping. Defending the "property <BR>>
rights" for the few, without regard to related, associated trampling <BR>> on the property rights of others, is not the sort of "protection" of <BR>> private property rights that this town needs.<BR>><BR>> Bruce Livingston<BR>><BR>><BR>> -----Original message-----<BR>> From: Tom Ivie the_ivies3@yahoo.com<BR>> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:41:57 -0700<BR>> To: Moscow Vision 2020 vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What? Discrimination<BR>><BR>> > My original question wasn't answered, if anyone wants to field it. <BR>> "Doesn't this include a CUP process?<BR>> ><BR>> > Donovan Arnold wrote: Tom Ivie,<BR>> ><BR>> > Lowering the number of occupants per housing unit by law increases <BR>> demand for more apartments and housing units, driving the cost up. <BR>> With rents up even more, renters are further soaked again by limiting <BR>> the number of people they can split rent
with.<BR>> ><BR>> > Moscow is a college town. Students cannot afford much more that $300 <BR>> piece for rent. IF Moscow raises its rents, the number of students <BR>> returning to UI will reduce because they cannot afford to live in the <BR>> city with no jobs and unaffordable housing. Many of them will elect <BR>> elsewhere to attend like BSU, Albertson, NNU, ISU, LCSC or the new <BR>> junior college in Nampa. But this is a good move for the socialists <BR>> agenda of destroying the Moscow economy through relentless un! needed <BR>> government regulation.<BR>> ><BR>> > Best,<BR>> ><BR>> > Donovan<BR>> ><BR>> > Tom Ivie wrote:<BR>> > Doesn't it include a CUP process? As I understand it, and I could be <BR>> wrong, lowering the number brings Moscow more in-line with the <BR>> codified number that the majority of cities our size use.<BR>> ><BR>> > Donovan Arnold wrote: "These three
people [(Pall, Ament and Lamar)] <BR>> feel that counting unrelated people in a<BR>> > dwelling will solve noise and parking problems in residential<BR>> > neighborhoods."<BR>> ><BR>> > Mr. Busch is correct on this point. I think counting the number of <BR>> unrelated people is discriminatory. When I worked at Inclusion North <BR>> there were often several people with disabilities living in one home <BR>> because they cannot afford their own place on a $660 a month SSI <BR>> check, especially in a city like Moscow. There are many poor, <BR>> disabled, and elderly pe! ople that MUST live together in one dwelling <BR>> for economic survival. This code is a raw deal for those that are in <BR>> need of affordable housing. Another example of elitist socialists <BR>> trying to make everyone live like them regardless of their financial <BR>> situations. The City Council members are saying, "Let them eat cake", <BR>> or in
this case, let them live in an apartment with only two people if <BR>> they can only afford to live in an apartment with four others.<BR>> ><BR>> > And on the other side of the coin, a family of two adults with two <BR>> teenagers can be very noisy and make life for their neighbors <BR>> intolerable. Why not limit how many teenagers can live in one <BR>> household, or how many babies a single mom can have? It would be just <BR>> as unfair.<BR>> ><BR>> > An unjust law, clearly invented by people living in nice homes with <BR>> secure incomes. I hope the newly elected city council will reverse <BR>> this piece of discrimination.<BR>> ><BR>> > If Moscow would allow for the bui! lding of affordable housing for <BR>> what people actually earn in Moscow we would not have 5 students or 5 <BR>> people on SSI living in one housing unit. And BTW, Moscow has more <BR>> people per housing unit then any other city in the
state according the <BR>> BLS.<BR>> ><BR>> > Best,<BR>> ><BR>> > Donovan<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Tom Hansen wrote:<BR>> > In a letter to the editor of the Lewiston Tribune, published today<BR>> > (September 16, 2007), Steve Busch suggests that "enforcing existing law<BR>> > [Moscow Zoning Code] is all that is necessary."<BR>> ><BR>> > -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > Comments made in a letter to the editor authored by local attorney Jack<BR>> > Porter and published in the Sept. 12 Lewiston Tribune cannot be <BR>> ignored. On<BR>> > Sept. 4, the current city council voted 3-2 to change Moscow's city <BR>> code in<BR>> > an attempt to deal with a real! problem.<BR>> ><BR>> > Unfortunately, the majority (Pall, Ament and Lamar) threw the baby <BR>> out with<BR>> > the bath water. These three
people feel that counting unrelated <BR>> people in a<BR>> > dwelling will solve noise and parking problems in residential <BR>> neighborhoods.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > The Greater Moscow Alliance feel enforcing existing law is all that is<BR>> > necessary. We said so in a letter presented to the council on Sept. <BR>> 10 (to<BR>> > see a copy visit www.greatermoscow.org). Mr. Porter thinks this is <BR>> evidence<BR>> > the GMA is insensitive to Moscow citizens' cherished life style. Nothing<BR>> > could be further from the truth. GMA is working hard to educate the <BR>> public<BR>> > about issues and candidates.<BR>> ><BR>> > I urge all Moscow voters to ask candidates for city council tough <BR>> questions.<BR>> > Listen carefully to the answers and vote your conscience.<BR>> ><BR>> > Steve Busch<BR>> > President<BR>> > Greater! Moscow Alliance<BR>> >
Moscow<BR>> ><BR>> > -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > Questions, Mr. Busch: How often, and how selective, should <BR>> enforcement of<BR>> > zoning codes be enforced? Instead of amending the current code ad <BR>> nauseam<BR>> > and allowing for conditional use permits every time somebody violates<BR>> > "existing law", should we draw the proverbial line in the sand, much <BR>> like<BR>> > the Raven, strongly proclaim "Ne'er more", and further demand that those<BR>> > entities that are currently in violation of the zoning code move <BR>> elsewhere?<BR>> ><BR>> > Reminder, folks!<BR>> > http://tinyurl.com/36ghxk<BR>> ><BR>> > Seeya round town, Moscow.<BR>> ><BR>> > Tom Hansen<BR>> > Moscow, Idaho<BR>> ><BR>> > "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college<BR>> > students are not
very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."<BR>> ><BR>> > - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > =======================================================<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>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ---------------------------------<BR>> > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. <BR>> =======================================================<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>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Tom & Liz Ivie<BR>> > ---------------------------------<BR>> > Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! <BR>> Autos. =======================================================<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>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ---------------------------------<BR>> > Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the <BR>> hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Tom & Liz Ivie<BR>> ><BR>> > ---------------------------------<BR>> > Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!<BR>> > Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at <BR>> Yahoo!
Games.<BR>> ><BR>><BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> =======================================================<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><BR>=======================================================<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><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48516/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ">Join Yahoo!'s user panel</a> and lay it on us.