Bill London wrote:<br><br>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> It is one thing if your business dies through direct<br>competition to another business in Moscow. However, in this situation,<br>
Moscow is enabling not only Washington to collect property/sales taxes, but<br>enables the loss of those same taxes here in Moscow when your business<br>folds. Moscow loses both ways.<br><br>The water sold to this sprawl mall is (as agreed in the secret deal) priced<br>
at customary rates. No extra cash for the negative economic impact of the<br>mall being in Washington. No extra cash for the future upgrades needed to<br>water, sewage and other Moscow facilities. Moscow taxpayers are stuck with<br>
the bill.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The property tax revenue concerns involved in Moscow providing services to a mall in Washington that may, as Bill points out, put a property/sales tax paying business in Moscow out of business, while the competitor who ran them under now supports Whitman and Washington state with their property/sales tax, are significant. Of course some are claiming that the Hawkins mall would be built across the state line with or without Moscow's assistance, so there was no way to stop these impacts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is it true that the upgrades needed to support the extension of Moscow services to the Hawkins mall will, as Bill said, result in Moscow taxpayers being "stuck with the bill?" Or will the income from the services provided help to fund the infrastructure upgrades? It seems this issue should have been addressed in depth with public input before any decisions were made to extend services from Moscow to Hawkins. Maybe it has been addressed in public... Or not?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div></div>