But moving the stateline would in no way solve the long term planning. Sure, it would solve the Hawkins issue. But, what about when someone wants to move in to Hawkins? I'm sure they will. Do we move the line again? and again? and again? Simply not a reasonable solution.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 11, 2008 3:34 PM, Darrell Keim <<a href="mailto:keim152@gmail.com">keim152@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>But moving the stateline would in no way solve the long term planning. Sure, it would solve the Hawkins issue. But, what about when someone wants to move in to Hawkins? I'm sure they will. Do we move the line again? and again? and again? Simply not a reasonable solution.</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 11, 2008 3:00 PM, Kenneth Marcy <<a href="mailto:kmmos1@verizon.net" target="_blank">kmmos1@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Good questions. I am not suggesting that Hawkins give up their bundle of<br>rights to the land they now have. What I am suggesting is that the State of<br>
Washington sell a portion of its domain of statehood to the State of Idaho,<br>thus moving the boundary between the states. By domain of statehood I mean<br>a right held by the state, not by an individual property owner, to claim a<br>
particular parcel of land as part of that state. I suggest this is a<br>separate property right, distinct from Hawkins' ownership interest, that<br>can be transferred for consideration, $1 or more, as agreed, between the<br>
states.<br><br></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br>