<div><a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a> wrote:</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> We<br>elected hopefully wise individuals to represent us, and that's what<br>they did. You ask whether I think there should have been "more open<br>
public discussion" first, and my truthful response is no, I don't.<br>First, because I believe that there had already been ample opportunity<br>for discussion for everyone who had anything viable to say. Every<br>
nuance of opinion had already been expressed ad nauseum.</blockquote>
<div>-------------------------------</div>
<div>After reading Tom Lamar's Moscow/Pullman Daily News editorial explaining his no vote on the Hawkins deal with the city of Moscow, I am even more convinced claiming that "every nuance of opinon had already been expressed ad nauseum" is simply untrue, and expresses a dismissiveness towards the critics of the Hawkins deal that appears an attempt to shut down debate and discussion about an important set of issues that should have been placed before the public for discussion, as Tom Lamar stated:</div>
<div><em></em> </div>
<div><em>(February 15, 2008) with thanks to Moscow Councilor tom <br></em>Lamar -<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>HIS VIEW: Why I oppose selling Moscow's water<br>By Tom Lamar<br>
<br>On Feb. 4, I was the only member of the Moscow City Council to vote <br>against the mediated settlement between the city and the Hawkins <br>Companies, a Boise developer that wants to build a shopping center in <br>rural Whitman County just west of Moscow. I owe Moscow residents an <br>
explanation for my dissenting vote.<br><br>I first learned of the settlement the previous Thursday but was unable to <br>discuss it with anyone outside the council because of the confidentiality <br>agreement. But it was clear to me at first glance that this agreement was <br>
not in Moscow's long-term best interests. The possible gains were too <br>small given the large policy changes that were about to be made with no <br>citizen input.<br><br>Moscow's appeals of the Washington Department of Ecology's water right <br>
transfers to Hawkins were about protecting the groundwater resources of <br>the Palouse. In approving the settlement, the council majority not only <br>dropped the appeals, it created an unprecedented public policy of selling <br>
water and sewer services across the state line. The city should not make <br>such a significant policy move without advance public discussion. This <br>reason alone should have stopped consideration of the agreement at the <br>
Feb. 4 meeting.<br><br>In addition, I am not convinced that it is legal for an Idaho city to sell <br>water to a private entity in another state. The proponents provided no <br>evidence of any benefit to Moscow, other than the small amount of money in <br>
water fees. We cannot collect taxes from the development, nor can we annex <br>it, yet this decision might save Whitman County and/or Hawkins millions of <br>dollars in utility development costs. Why should Moscow give up its <br>
precious resource to benefit another county and a private company?<br><br>I have not seen a retail study showing that a retail development of this <br>size - 714,000 square feet is needed or justified. If it is, such a <br>
development should be in Moscow - so our residents can control the <br>development to fit our community.<br><br>Instead, by subsidizing Hawkins' water and sewer costs, this agreement <br>gives the company an opportunity to undercut retail rents next door at the <br>
Palouse Mall. This decision will subject existing Moscow businesses - many <br>of them locally owned - to unfair competition.<br><br>Locating a giant shopping center in an unincorporated area is poor <br>community planning. It runs contrary to Moscow's comprehensive plan. It <br>
will likely promote additional sprawl, and increase the costs of services <br>that will be required by Whitman County. It will be more difficult for <br>Moscow residents to reach via walking, biking or bus than our current <br>
shopping choices. Moscow residents who work in Pullman likely will face <br>longer commute times.<br><br>I am also greatly concerned by the amount of water that Moscow has agreed <br>to sell: 45 acre feet now (over 14.6 million gallons), plus an additional <br>
20 acre feet of potable water for irrigation use, until some undetermined <br>future date when this water from the aquifer can be replaced with <br>reclaimed water. How will this long-term commitment of water affect the <br>
future ability of Moscow businesses to grow? Or our ability to attract new <br>businesses?<br><br>Like many legal documents, the settlement agreement declares "time is of <br>the essence" but gives no justification for the rush. To me, the needs for <br>
our residents to understand, digest and support such a large policy shift -<br>facilitating a shopping center in another county and state - is more <br>important than the impatience of one Boise developer. We were elected to <br>
serve the people of Moscow, not residents of Whitman County or a private <br>developer 300 miles away.<br><br>For these reasons when this agreement came to the City Council, I moved to <br>delay a decision until we had the opportunity to discuss it publicly. My <br>
motion died for lack of a second.<br><br>What happens next? The Idaho Department of Water Resources will consider a <br>request from the city of Moscow to allow the sale of this water. This <br>permit process is a public one. I urge residents to send comments to IDWR.<br>
<br>I'd like to thank the many residents who have contacted me since Feb. 4 <br>thanking me for my opposing vote.<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>