<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Ha! Knew I wasn't the only one that felt this way. Thanks.<br><br>J :]<br><br><br>> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:02:58 -0800<br>> From: rhayes@turbonet.com<br>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: [Vision2020] response to Walter Steed (briefly)<br>> <br>> The argument that Steed uses, "it was a done deal is horsepucky!" All <br>> they had is some deal to transfer water from Colton We held all the <br>> power to benefit Moscow. If Hawkins wants to build its mall, let them <br>> spend the money on sewage, wells, and probably police and fire <br>> protection. That we enable them just saves them millions of dollars. We <br>> will all pay dearly in water, and sewage treatment so that Hawkins can <br>> pillage our economy. I smell something very distasteful here. It stinks <br>> of collusion. I am a very upset taxpayer. You should be too!<br>> <br>> Roger Hayes<br>> Moscow!<br>> <br>> <br>> On Monday, February 11, 2008, at 03:34 PM, <br>> vision2020-request@moscow.com wrote:<br>> <br>> > Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to<br>> > vision2020@moscow.com<br>> ><br>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>> > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020<br>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>> > vision2020-request@moscow.com<br>> ><br>> > You can reach the person managing the list at<br>> > vision2020-owner@moscow.com<br>> ><br>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>> > than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Today's Topics:<br>> ><br>> > 1. From the Legislature (Shirley Ringo)<br>> > 2. Re: Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from Walter<br>> > Steed (Chasuk)<br>> > 3. Re: Advanced Real Estate Question (Kenneth Marcy)<br>> > 4. Re: Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from<br>> > (pkraut@moscow.com)<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > Message: 1<br>> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:03:47 -0700<br>> > From: "Shirley Ringo" <ringoshirl@moscow.com><br>> > Subject: [Vision2020] From the Legislature<br>> > To: <vision2020@moscow.com><br>> > Message-ID: <000b01c86cf9$fa535180$f30b050a@LSOSRINGO><br>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>> ><br>> > Visionaries:<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >> From the Legislature<br>> ><br>> > Representative Shirley Ringo<br>> ><br>> > February 11, 2008<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee (JFAC) has completed <br>> > budget hearings. Next Monday, we begin the process of setting <br>> > budgets. Barring unforeseen events, the process will take <br>> > approximately three weeks. A member of JFAC may make a motion for any <br>> > budget. Among those for which I plan to prepare motions are public <br>> > education and higher education.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > We enter the process with a degree of uncertainty, because the stream <br>> > of revenue has not been following projections. Actual collections <br>> > exceeded expectations until December, when collections were $31.3 <br>> > million behind projections. In January, collections were $38.1 behind <br>> > projections. Economists in the Department of Financial Management are <br>> > busily studying the components of revenue collections to analyze <br>> > contributing factors.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Last year, public employees received a 5% increase in pay <br>> > (merit-based) and public school employees received a 3% increase in <br>> > pay. This year the Governor recommends a 5% increase for public <br>> > employees and educators accompanied by a decrease in public employee <br>> > benefits. The Governor still backs the 5% pay increase as one of his <br>> > top priorities, but some legislators are talking of only a 3% increase <br>> > this year as a response to the uncertain revenue picture. (The <br>> > reduction would reduce state expenditures by approximately $32 <br>> > million.)<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > The iSTARS teacher pay proposal dominated the early stages of this <br>> > legislative session. I hope is it not an exaggeration to say we are <br>> > moving forward into more productive discussions now. I am <br>> > co-sponsoring a resolution calling for an improved system for <br>> > evaluating teacher performance. I have criticized the iSTARS plan for <br>> > being politically motivated, and lacking educational soundness. <br>> > Although a task force convened prior to this legislative session to <br>> > consider alternative teacher pay plans, there was no serious <br>> > collaboration leading to the iSTARS proposal. The absence of a good, <br>> > transparent process contributed to its failure.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > During the summer of 2006, your District 6 Representatives (Trail and <br>> > Ringo) met with citizens, members of law enforcement, Professor <br>> > Elizabeth Brandt (U of I College of Law), and others to discuss the <br>> > need for address protection for victims of domestic violence. Last <br>> > year, Professor Brandt drafted legislation which Representative Trail <br>> > and I (Rep. Ringo) presented in the House Judiciary and Rules <br>> > Committee. The bill was not successful last year. It has been <br>> > fine-tuned a bit, and we are giving it another try. It is a well <br>> > crafted piece of legislation - we hope for a better outcome this year. <br>> > We have had a successful introduction in the House Judiciary and <br>> > Rules Committee, and look forward to a formal hearing on the bill.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Idaho law currently allows individuals to remove children of age six <br>> > or younger from car seats and restraining seatbelts to deal with <br>> > routine needs. In my opinion this is an extremely dangerous practice <br>> > that can lead to serious injury or death. I am teaming with Senator <br>> > Joyce Broadsword to propose legislation requiring that these young <br>> > children be properly restrained in a moving vehicle at all times. We <br>> > successfully introduced the bill in the House Transportation <br>> > Committee. Unfortunately, the vote was only 7-6. It looks like a <br>> > rough road ahead.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone if you have <br>> > questions or concerns. (sringo@house.idaho.gov; <br>> > ringoshirl@moscow.com; 208-301-2272)<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > -------------- next part --------------<br>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> > URL: <br>> > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080211/ <br>> > a2619695/attachment-0001.html<br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > Message: 2<br>> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:06:48 -0800<br>> > From: Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com><br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply<br>> > from Walter Steed<br>> > To: "J Ford" <privatejf32@hotmail.com><br>> > Cc: vision2020@moscow.com, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc@verizon.net><br>> > Message-ID:<br>> > <ef6f41de0802111406x614ef8e1n5b06930327bb0d91@mail.gmail.com><br>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>> ><br>> > On Feb 11, 2008 1:32 PM, J Ford <privatejf32@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> ><br>> >> Question to Mr. Steed - why would you purposefully "cut off all <br>> >> replies" to<br>> >> questions put to you by the people that elected you? Are you saying <br>> >> you<br>> >> will refuse to respond to the public regarding any issue that<br>> >> directly/indirectly affects and effects the tax payers - you know, <br>> >> the ones<br>> >> that pay for you to be in office and voted you there? If I <br>> >> mis-understand<br>> >> your statement, I totally am open you correcting me on that.<br>> ><br>> > I imagine that Mr. Steed quite reasonably makes this decision in order<br>> > to cut off accusatory and combative posts. He is an elected<br>> > official, yes, but this means that he has to prudently spend his time,<br>> > and getting embroiled in dialog that sinks as low as it frequently<br>> > does on unmoderated public forums (not just Vision2020) is imprudent.<br>> > Consider time a resource that shouldn't be wasted, and you will have<br>> > your answer.<br>> ><br>> >> Question 2 to Mr. Steed - you state "I was attempting to get what I <br>> >> could<br>> >> for the City out of a presumed done deal." IF it were a "done deal" <br>> >> then<br>> >> what are you trying to get out of it for the City? That phrase <br>> >> indicates<br>> >> that what is, is and there will be no other additions or changes. <br>> >> Again, if<br>> >> I am incorrect in that, please explain how.<br>> ><br>> > If the City had remained intransigent, Hawkins still would have had<br>> > the Mall built, just without the cooperation of the City, hence<br>> > without any profit for the City, and possibly with the additional cost<br>> > of ultimately fruitless litigation. Our water would still be sucked<br>> > away, the Mall would still exist, but we would have no input and our<br>> > coffers would be emptier.<br>> ><br>> >> Question 3 to Mr. Steed - You and Mr Krause were apparently not very <br>> >> well<br>> >> informed prior to the vote regarding this vote and yet you voted - <br>> >> ever hear<br>> >> about putting the question off until more details can be presented?<br>> >> Wouldn't that have been the prudent thing to do in order for you two <br>> >> to make<br>> >> a better, well-informed decision that affects thousands of people's<br>> >> taxpayers? Are you in the habit of voting for something solely on the <br>> >> fact<br>> >> "heck, they are going to do it anyway"?<br>> ><br>> > Question 3 seems exactly the sort of hostile question that justifies<br>> > Mr. Steed's decision to avoid forums like Vision2020.<br>> ><br>> > Chas<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > Message: 3<br>> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:00:10 -0800<br>> > From: Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1@verizon.net><br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question<br>> > To: "Vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><br>> > Message-ID: <200802111500.10726.kmmos1@verizon.net><br>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1<br>> ><br>> > On Monday 11 February 2008 13:40, g. crabtree wrote:<br>> >> The most glaring problem I see with this plan would have to be that <br>> >> the<br>> >> land in question doesn't belong to the State of Washington, it <br>> >> belongs to<br>> >> Hawkins. I can not imagine a circumstance where by they would be <br>> >> anxious<br>> >> to sell their property other than to offer them an obscene amount of <br>> >> the<br>> >> tax payers money. As to adjusting the Idaho/Washington boundary, under<br>> >> what scenario would that be advantageous to Whitman County much less<br>> >> Washington State?<br>> ><br>> > Good questions. I am not suggesting that Hawkins give up their bundle <br>> > of<br>> > rights to the land they now have. What I am suggesting is that the <br>> > State of<br>> > Washington sell a portion of its domain of statehood to the State of <br>> > Idaho,<br>> > thus moving the boundary between the states. By domain of statehood I <br>> > mean<br>> > a right held by the state, not by an individual property owner, to <br>> > 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, <br>> > that<br>> > can be transferred for consideration, $1 or more, as agreed, between <br>> > the<br>> > states.<br>> ><br>> > Why would Washington state want to do that? Because it is the right <br>> > thing,<br>> > the moral thing to do to avoid Latah county and Moscow city residents <br>> > being<br>> > forced, de facto, to subsidize development over which they have <br>> > inadequate<br>> > legal control. If the State of Washington wants some sort of monetary<br>> > adjustment for its right of domain of statehood over the parcel, I <br>> > think<br>> > that value can be assessed and agreed upon by the parties, i.e., the<br>> > states, in consultation with the local entities.<br>> ><br>> > Why would Whitman county want to assent to such a plan? Well, for <br>> > starters,<br>> > I understand that it would take quite a bit of utility investment to<br>> > properly serve that property if state lines, and various fresh water <br>> > and<br>> > waste water regulations, were honored in letter as well as in spirit. <br>> > Said<br>> > another way, the combination of Hawkins Development Group and Whitman<br>> > county property tax payers can save a pile of dollars if more realistic<br>> > engineering plans can be brought to bear on the proposed project.<br>> > Unfortunately, at the moment, such more realistic plans put Idaho <br>> > Palouse<br>> > residents at some considerable disadvantage. Assuming the Idaho <br>> > Palousites<br>> > can persuade themselves not to give away the barn and the bathtub <br>> > inside,<br>> > some other more equitable plan, that also happens to be more physically<br>> > realistic, needs to be devised.<br>> ><br>> >> What would make much more sense would be for all the folks who do not<br>> >> wish to see this piece of property to be developed to pool their<br>> >> resources and acquire the land themselves. Then it would be 100% up to<br>> >> them what happens on the land. Of course I suspect that Hawkins will <br>> >> take<br>> >> the profit from the sale and simply acquire an even larger parcel of <br>> >> land<br>> >> in or near the corridor and the process will start anew.<br>> ><br>> > No.<br>> ><br>> > There may be folks who would prefer to not see the Moscow-Pullman <br>> > corridor<br>> > developed. Unfortunately for the prospect of their prevalent success, I<br>> > think they may be related to King Canute, who is reported to have <br>> > commanded<br>> > the tide to not come in, with predictable disobedience from the sea. In<br>> > other words, given that the corridor will be developed, the relevant<br>> > questions relate to how best to accomplish the larger, overall project<br>> > without putting one group of citizens at inequitable disadvantage.<br>> ><br>> >> Mean while the folks with the newly acquired land that they recently<br>> >> rescued can relocate their homes to their new, hard won purchase. Of<br>> >> course residential development will unquestionably use up a <br>> >> significantly<br>> >> greater amount of water then the previous development ever would <br>> >> have...<br>> ><br>> > This prospect is a good reason why the entire overall corridor <br>> > development<br>> > should be looked at as a regional planning project, at least, and <br>> > should<br>> > have the open public consideration of all of the relevant stakeholders<br>> > whose interests are affected. Surely that includes more than just a few<br>> > present or near future property holders in the immediate area or <br>> > adjacent<br>> > to this parcel.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Ken<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > Message: 4<br>> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:34:33 GMT<br>> > From: <pkraut@moscow.com><br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply<br>> > from<br>> > To: vision2020@mail-gw.fsr.net<br>> > Message-ID: <200802112334.m1BNYcnV042108@mail-gw.fsr.net><br>> ><br>> > Maybe you should refer to the recent comments about snide remarks on <br>> > this<br>> > site. V2020 has a reputaion all over town for people who are not <br>> > willing<br>> > to learn and listen. Steed and Krauss have been very involved in city<br>> > politics for a long time they both know about the water situation. <br>> > Thats<br>> > why I voted for them.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> >><br>> >> Wow....thanks, Garrett, for posting Mr. Steed's reply to your emails..<br>> >><br>> >> Question to Mr. Steed - why would you purposefully "cut off all <br>> >> replies"<br>> > to> questions put to you by the people that elected you? Are you <br>> > saying<br>> > you<br>> > w> ill refuse to respond to the public regarding any issue that<br>> > directly/indir> ectly affects and effects the tax payers - you know, <br>> > the<br>> > ones that pay for<br>> >> you to be in office and voted you there? If I mis-understand your<br>> > statemen> t, I totally am open you correcting me on that.<br>> >><br>> >> Question 2 to Mr. Steed - you state "I was attempting to get what I<br>> > could<br>> > f> or the City out of a presumed done deal." IF it were a "done deal"<br>> > then<br>> > wh> at are you trying to get out of it for the City? That phrase<br>> > indicates<br>> > tha> t what is, is and there will be no other additions or changes.<br>> > Again, if<br>> > I> am incorrect in that, please explain how.<br>> >><br>> >> Question 3 to Mr. Steed - You and Mr Krause were apparently not very<br>> > well<br>> > i> nformed prior to the vote regarding this vote and yet you voted - <br>> > ever<br>> > hear> about putting the question off until more details can be<br>> > presented?<br>> > Would> n't that have been the prudent thing to do in order for you two <br>> > to<br>> > make a<br>> > b> etter, well-informed decision that affects thousands of people's<br>> > taxpayers?> Are you in the habit of voting for something solely on the<br>> > fact "heck,<br>> > the> y are going to do it anyway"?<br>> >><br>> >> WOW! That seems like a really reliable way to go......<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> J :]<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >>> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:12:05 -0800<br>> >>> From: garrettmc@verizon.net<br>> >>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >>> Subject: [Vision2020] Water and Sewer Agreements: second reply from<br>> > Walte> r Steed<br>> >>><br>> >>> I am pasting the 2nd reply from Walter Steed below,<br>> >>> followed by my response, as to keep you all informed<br>> >>> on his comments...<br>> >>><br>> >>> Garrett<br>> >>><br>> >>><br>> >>> Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:47:22<br>> >>><br>> >>> Garrett,<br>> >>><br>> >>> Sorry about the Jason as you are right, that is the<br>> >>> name I saw at the end. I purposefully deleted V2020<br>> >>> because, as a policy, I do not respond to it. I try<br>> >>> to respond promptly at all e-mails sent directly to me<br>> >>> by individuals (please do not incite V2020 to start<br>> >>> sending everything to me as I will have to stop all<br>> >>> responses).<br>> >>><br>> >>> Let me try to clear up the noise ordinance. You are<br>> >>> right about my response to you during the campaign. I<br>> >>> did not think the one month came up during this<br>> >>> council's discussions and I was prepared to vote for<br>> >>> the night times only, but came to believe only Version<br>> >>> A would pass. What I said during the campaign was<br>> >>> what I believed prior to having additional<br>> >>> information. We did give officers the ability to<br>> >>> write noise "speeding" tickets. I don't think they<br>> >>> will be too interested in daytime hours but time will<br>> >>> tell whether or not I am right.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Re my comment "Locating by Pullman would have had no<br>> >>> impact on water from our aquifer as it would be drawn<br>> >>> from the same basin" was poorly worded in that I meant<br>> >>> their locating in Pullman would have had the SAME<br>> >>> impact on our water as locating by Moscow as it is<br>> >>> drawn from the same basin. Additionally, I have no<br>> >>> idea what Hawkins thoughts were re scaling back if<br>> >>> locating in Moscow or what they were set on size wise.<br>> >>><br>> >>> One thing I have thought about that I should have put<br>> >>> in the earlier e-mail and might also answer your<br>> >>> latest is that I, and I believe Wayne, presumed that<br>> >>> Hawkins would build regardless of what we did. I did<br>> >>> not think the present council had the will to continue<br>> >>> the water rights appeals as they could have cost the<br>> >>> City 100,000's of dollars with no guarantee of<br>> >>> success. That being the case, Hawkins would have<br>> >>> drilled wells and built their project and I was<br>> >>> attempting to get what I could for the City out of a<br>> >>> presumed done deal. Whitman County seems determined<br>> >>> on seeing this and other development in the corridor<br>> >>> and I did not want Moscow to sit by as just a<br>> >>> spectator. In other words, I do not think we created<br>> >>> any greater competition for Moscow businesses than<br>> >>> what was going to occur anyway; and, as I have said, I<br>> >>> believe the greater volume of business traffic created<br>> >>> by the Hawkins development will create sales in<br>> >>> existing Moscow businesses. A recent newspaper<br>> >>> article by a U of I economist said as much re a Super<br>> >>> WalMart.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Thanks again and let's keep up the dialog,<br>> >>><br>> >>> Walter<br>> >>><br>> >>> Walter Steed<br>> >>> Moscow City Councilor<br>> >>><br>> >>><br>> >>> Hi Walter,<br>> >>><br>> >>> Yes, the NO deal was pretty disappointing. I thought<br>> >>> you and Dan, who told me he wanted to "shitcan" the<br>> >>> whole proposal and start from scratch, would join with<br>> >>> Tom and vote for version C, as that seemed like the<br>> >>> most reasonable solution, without having to wait and<br>> >>> see if the police will indeed focus on the advertised<br>> >>> problem, party houses.<br>> >>><br>> >>> I've learned in this process that the law you voted on<br>> >>> is probably "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad",<br>> >>> and in the right circumstances, will probably be<br>> >>> challenged and overturned, costing the city, I<br>> >>> imagine, lots of money if they decide to defend the<br>> >>> law and lose.<br>> >>><br>> >>> The least Mayor Chaney could have done is allowed the<br>> >>> public to speak to the council at the meeting (like<br>> >>> she said she would) because, like you said at the<br>> >>> meeting, 3 of you were new members and deserved to<br>> >>> hear from your constituents. Perhaps I couldn't have<br>> >>> convinced you to vote against version A, but at least<br>> >>> the council would have had the perspective from the<br>> >>> person who put a lot of time into insuring the city<br>> >>> passed a reasonable law.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Unfortunately, I left that meeting with a bad taste in<br>> >>> my mouth. I can't help but think how much time I put<br>> >>> into getting a better law passed, all for naught...<br>> >>><br>> >>> Take care,<br>> >>><br>> >>> Garrett<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>> >> Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, <br>> >> we<br>> > g> ive.<br>> >> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ---------------------------------------------<br>> > This message was sent by First Step Internet.<br>> > http://www.fsr.com/<br>> ><br>> ><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>> > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 20, Issue 87<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 /><hr />Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. <a href='http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008' target='_new'>Get it now!</a></body>
</html>