<div> </div>
<div>Chas et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I do not know for sure whether the deal with Hawkins and the city of Moscow is the best option in the long term for the economy of Moscow, or whether "special interests" were served at the expense of Moscow taxpayers and businesses. However, that the issues of CO2 related climate change, fossil fuel depletion, and sustainability, do not appear to have been substantively addressed, is irresponsible, in my opinion, and in the long run may have deleterious economic impacts. The economic issues probably can't be answered with certainty given the uncertainty of what will happen to the US economy and world oil supplies and markets in 10, 20, 30m years out, not to mention accelerating climate change and pending regulations effecting CO2 emissions for cars, trucks, and electricity generation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The issue I posed is whether or not public business impacting taxpayers should be conducted in secret by elected officials. This issue is still a concern even if the Moscow City Council's deal with Hawkins is in the best interest of the city of Moscow Yes, this question has been posed over and over, and some on this list are working on parsing through the details. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some will argue that in principle it is unethical for the public's business to be conducted in secret (well, except national security issues, not relevant here) no matter how well intentioned or what positive impacts result. It sets a precedent that gives cover for future corruption and cronyism, Is this not why Idaho has an open meeting law, in theory governing such conduct?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How can we have an informed opinion of what occurred at the meetings with Hawkins when the details are secret?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We could make a parallel, perhaps, with VP Cheney's secret meetings with the CEOs of major energy corporations, and the suit brought to force Cheney to reveal the details of these meetings. This was fought all the way to the SCOTUS, and the result was the US Supreme Court did not force the release of Cheney's energy task force papers:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/enron.gao.lawsuit/">http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/enron.gao.lawsuit/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/chen-j29.shtml">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/chen-j29.shtml</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, your mileage may vary!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Chasuk <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@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 class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> If you are following the posts on Vision2020 regarding the<br>> water/sewer/responders deal between the City of Moscow and Hawkins, you will<br>
> find some of the most involved, intelligent and informed citizens in the<br>> community do not believe there has been "ample opportunity for discussion<br>> for everyone who had anything viable to say." I believe this statement in<br>
> quotes is simply false.<br><br></div>I have been following the discussion with some attention, but not full<br>attention. Still, even paying only half attention, I have witnessed<br>the same questions posed repeatedly, and the same answers given each<br>
time. If there are new questions that need to be asked (I can't think<br>of any), then please, somebody, ask them. I'm not talking about<br>picayune matters that some people seem to delight in dragging out<br>because of apparent sadomasochistic tendencies (i.e., the need to<br>
prolong or provoke strife).<br><br>Dan Carscallen provided an answer that suited me; your mileage may<br>vary. It is linked here:<br><br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-February/051809.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-February/051809.html</a><br>
<br>Our representatives did what we pay them to do, after reaching a point<br>at which litigation would have been inevitable. They chose mediation<br>as a final, hopeful recourse. Mediation necessarily involves<br>compromise. Maybe they compromised too much, or maybe they<br>
compromised beyond their remit. I wasn't there, so I have no informed<br>opinion. Neither do most of those making the loudest noises on<br>Vision2020.<br><br>Chas<br></blockquote></div><br>