I can kind of see the meeting being an executive one not privy to open meeting laws (only because of the pending legal action and the mediation agreement). However, the city didn't have to accept the terms of the mediation requiring secrecy. I don't know who agreed to it, but I don't think it was the smart thing to do. Government is supposed to be and should be transparent and agreeing to do otherwise seems unwise. Except for the pending legal action, everything else should have been open for the public to see and comment on. But then, maybe that's what they (whoever agreed to the mediation terms) wanted -for the public to be left in the dark.<br><br><br><b><i>Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc@verizon.net></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> After working to get the City to come to their senses<br>regarding the Noise Ordinance and watching the city in<br>action, my
response is I don't trust our City to make<br>decisions based on what's best for Moscow and its<br>people. I'm not surprised that the current Council is<br>willing to sell out our tax-dollars and water for<br>development.<br><br>Walter Steed had told me he thought the NO should have<br>time constraints and Dan Carscallen said he thought<br>the NO should be put in the "shitcan" and rewritten,<br>yet they both voted for the original, unacceptable<br>version.<br><br>Bill Lambert and John Weber never replied to my<br>repeated requests to answer my questions and the<br>wanted to pass the NO on the first reading without<br>giving the public a chance to input.<br><br>Tom Lamar, after originally voting to bring the NO to<br>the council in the first place, was too "swamped" to<br>insure that an acceptable version was passed.<br><br>Nancy Chaney said she would take public testimony at<br>the City Council meeting, yet she finally decided<br>against allowing the public to
testify.<br><br>Randy Fife twice gave the Council the wrong version of<br>the Noise Ordinance they were to consider.<br><br>My most reasonable meeting was with Chief Dan Weaver<br>who agreed with my compromise saying it was<br>reasonable. Unfortunately, at the Council meeting, he<br>said he preferred the original version, of course,<br>because that's like asking a kid if he wants one<br>cookie or the whole cookie jar.<br><br>In the end, it seems everybody just wanted what they<br>wanted, irregardless of the consequences to everyone<br>else, no matter how reasonable the request for<br>compromise is.<br><br>The irony is, the Greater Moscow Alliance endorsed<br>candidates supposedly are for private property rights,<br>yet they don't care that landlords and homeowners can<br>now be cited under a potentially unconstitutional NO. <br>So their hypocrisy equals their contempt for what is<br>best for the long-term health of our community.<br><br>Good luck holding these folks
accountable!<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Garrett Clevenger<br><br><br>[Vision2020] Hawkins Mall and Moscow<br><br>roger hayes rhayes at turbonet.com <br>Wed Feb 6 07:25:25 PST 2008<br>Previous message: [Vision2020] "Moscow cares" (Update<br>02060801)<br>Next message: [Vision2020] Hawkins Mall and Moscow<br>Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [<br>author ]<br>Dear Moscow taxpayers and business owners,<br><br>It appears the city of Moscow will provide water,<br>sewer, and most <br>likely police and fire services to the proposed<br>Hawkins development <br>which is slated to be built just across the border in<br>Washington. Who <br>will benefit by this? Hawkins, regional developers and<br>Whitman county. <br>The losers will be Moscow businesses and Moscow<br>taxpayers.<br>If this plan comes to fruition, we will be exporting<br>our tax dollars to <br>Whitman county, shipping the profits of local business<br>to another <br>state, while reducing Moscow's tax base,
AND<br>increasing the demand on <br>our city's infrastructure. How much money will Hawkins<br>agree to pay <br>Moscow to mitigate the destructive consequences this<br>megamall will have <br>on our city?<br>With the exception of Tom Lamar, the city council<br>voted against the <br>best interests of our city and its citizens. Walter<br>Steed said he could <br>not comment on the negotiations because they were held<br>in "secret." Why <br>the secrecy? Steed also said "this will not make some<br>people happy." <br>Well, when you make a deal which is destructive to the<br>people who <br>elected you, it is bound to make them unhappy.<br>We need to consider a RECALL!<br><br>Roger Hayes<br>Moscow!<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><BR><BR>Tom & Liz Ivie<p> 
<hr size=1>Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a>