<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16608" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=2>"Do you think that by providing water and sewer<BR>services to
Hawkins, Moscow is reducing the bond<BR>Whitman County agreed to pay to build
that<BR>infrastructure?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm not sure where you come by your 4 million
dollar savings figure or the notion that it will be subtracted from the overall
amount of the bond but, lets assume that what you say is fact. Doubtless it will
be less expense initially to hook into Moscow's water and sewer system rather
then to drill the well or wells required and to construct a septic system but,
the long term payout for those services will likely be higher and will result in
revenue for the City of Moscow. In short, savings for Whitman Co. (and Hawkins)
up front, revenue for Moscow in the long run. A quid pro quo, not a
subsidy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>"Hawkins will be paying back the bond through sales tax,
and they expect that business to mostly come from Moscow."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Funny, when it was building a Super Wal-Mart, tax
revenue generated for Moscow and Latah Co. was dismissed as a pittance. Now that
we're talking Hawkins and Whitman it's big bucks and the end of the world.
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>No doubt some of the business that will help to
pay off the bond will come from Moscow but, a significant amount will also come
from Pullman and outlying</FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>areas as
well. Depending on what sorts of businesses locate in the development there is
no reason not to expect shoppers from the valley and perhaps further, especially
once the improvements to U.S. Highway 95 are complete. Many of these
shoppers will likely patronize other local merchants. Many local venders will
likely provide service to the Hawkins development. Many local people will likely
be employed at the new retail center. Hawkins is also an Idaho corporation,
corporate profit will be taxed in Idaho. Your mournful song of woe that has the
endlessly recurring "nothing for Moscow" refrain has definitely become a tedious
and unconvincing tune and I'm tired of singing the obvious up-tempo
counterpoint.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The rest of your post is just too scattered for me
to respond. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing (deliberately, I
suspect) between subsidy, and tax deduction, tax credit, incentive, market
share, efficiency of scale, military objectives and plain old everyday commerce.
It is far beyond my ability and my desire to range as far and wide as you seem
to want to in this discussion. I don't care about your overall world view.
I believe that if you still see Moscow's participation in the Whitman
Co./Hawkins project as subsidization it's because you feel it's an effective
offensive tactic in the anti-growth on the Palouse/anti-corporation/big
government war and we're back where we started. Repeat the lie, repeat the
lie, repeat the lie... ad nauseum.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Garrett Clevenger" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>garrettmc@verizon.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "cynthia
nichols" <</FONT><A href="mailto:cynthiann0@mac.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>cynthiann0@mac.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: "Garrett Clevenger" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>garrettmc@verizon.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "vision
2020" <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:20 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was Recall
the city council</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>g writes:<BR>> <BR>> "That was exactly the point I was hoping
to make. None<BR>> of the items I mentioned, with the exception of
the<BR>> bus ride, are examples of a subsidy and the city<BR>> selling
services to a business in Whitman county isn't<BR>> either."<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> The point I'm getting from your response is that you<BR>> are not
addressing the point I keep bringing up, that<BR>> Moscow is subsidizing
Whitman County's growth. You<BR>> are good at evading my point, and
reading your<BR>> response to Cynthia, you don't have a grasp on how<BR>>
those things you mentioned are indeed subsidized, so I<BR>> can see why you
don't understand my point. But let's<BR>> make sure:<BR>> <BR>>
Do you think that by providing water and sewer<BR>> services to Hawkins,
Moscow is reducing the bond<BR>> Whitman County agreed to pay to build
that<BR>> infrastructure?<BR>> <BR>> Whitman agreed to pay $10 million,
and that agreement<BR>> even mentions that Moscow may provide water and
sewer,<BR>> thus the bond would be reduced down to around $6<BR>>
million. Moscow is saving Whitman County $4 million,<BR>> money they
can now use for other projects. I would<BR>> say Moscow is subsidizing
Whitman County because<BR>> Whitman County has not agreed to give anything
back to<BR>> Moscow.<BR>> <BR>> What part of this do you not agree
with?<BR>> <BR>> Whitman sold the bond as being self-paying, that
is,<BR>> Hawkins will be paying back the bond through sales<BR>> tax, and
they expect that business to mostly come from<BR>> Moscow. Thus, Moscow
has decreased tax revenue and an<BR>> infrastructure that is being taxed
through use by<BR>> development in Whitman County.<BR>> <BR>> Retail
development is not necessarily economic growth.<BR>> In fact, it can be
an economic drain. Roughly the<BR>> same amount of money will exchange
hands, but now it<BR>> will be shared with an out of state development.
<BR>> Hawinks expects to make at least $100 million back to<BR>> pay for
their development, and that money more than<BR>> likely will come from
Moscow.<BR>> <BR>> To clarify the sarcastic subsidies you mentioned,
I<BR>> would like to point out why you were correct<BR>> originally when
you said they are subsidies:<BR>> <BR>> g writes:<BR>> <BR>> "your
own life is subsidized in nearly every possible<BR>>
way.<BR>> <BR>> "It's cheaper and more convenient for you to go
to<BR>> Wal-Mart and buy your clothes then it is to grow<BR>> cotton and
raise wool and sew your own."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Wal-Mart's market clout
gives it all kinds of tax<BR>> benefits. How many towns bow down to
Wal-Mart's<BR>> demands, paying for infrastructure such as Whitman<BR>>
County did for Hawkins. That is subsidy. Plus, since<BR>> most of
Wal-Mart's products come from China, we are<BR>> subsidizing China's wealth
through loss of jobs here<BR>> in the US. The cheap products you can
buy would not<BR>> be so cheap if it weren't for cheap labor in China.
<BR>> If there was a level playing field, I imagine most of<BR>> those
jobs would stay in the US.<BR>> <BR>> g writes:<BR>> <BR>>
"It's cheaper and more convenient to buy your gasoline<BR>> from a local
retailer then to drill and refine your<BR>> own."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Oil companies too get all kinds of tax breaks. Plus,<BR>> they have the
US military on their side to insure they<BR>> will have access to oil, which
makes gas cheaper.<BR>> <BR>> g writes:<BR>> <BR>> "It's
cheaper and more convenient to purchase food<BR>> from the local grocer then
it is for you to raise your<BR>> own."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Again, US
farmers are highly subsidized. WSU's<BR>> organic farm is small
potatoes when it comes to<BR>> feeding from the subsidy trough. We have
cheap food<BR>> because of farm subsidies and the cheap (perhaps not<BR>>
so much now) fuel that is subsidized as mentioned<BR>> above. And a lot of
that food comes from another<BR>> country, with similar problems as described
for China.<BR>> <BR>> g writes:<BR>> <BR>> "Did you build your
own house? Grow the trees? Mill<BR>> the lumber? I guess you have been
subsidized by<BR>> Logging company's and carpenters."<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> You are just plain silly here...<BR>> <BR>> g
writes:<BR>> <BR>> "Do you generate your own electricity or does
Avista<BR>> subsidize your power and heat?"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The
dams were built and funded by the US government. <BR>> Plus there is the
upkeep of the dam and river that has<BR>> to be paid for.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> While all these subsidies may not be so<BR>> straightforward,
considering the hidden costs of<BR>> environmental damage (super-fund sites,
anyone) most<BR>> can also have added the fact that our grandchildren<BR>>
will be paying the debt of our subsidized lifestyle,<BR>> so it's fair to say
we are being subsidized by the<BR>> future.<BR>> <BR>> My point here is
that I wish g would address the issue<BR>> of a subsidized Whitman County, as
well as recognize<BR>> that we all enjoy things in our life that are paid
for<BR>> beyond the upfront cost we may pay at a store. The<BR>>
true costs will have to be paid by someone, at some<BR>> point.<BR>>
<BR>> gclev<BR>> <BR>> --- "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>> <BR>>> "I can't see where any of your examples
are<BR>>> "subsidies". <BR>>> <BR>>> Thank you very much, Ms.
Nichols! That was exactly<BR>>> the point I was hoping to make. None of
the items I<BR>>> mentioned, with the exception of the bus ride,
are<BR>>> examples of a subsidy and the city selling services<BR>>>
to a business in Whitman county isn't either.<BR>>> Hawkins will be paying
a rate that covers the true<BR>>> cost of the service they receive along
with an<BR>>> amount built in to cover future upgrades to the<BR>>>
system. Just like all the other residential and<BR>>> commercial customers
of the City of Moscow's water<BR>>> dept.<BR>>> <BR>>> Again,
I appreciate your assistance in putting the<BR>>> silly and incorrect
notion of a "subsidy" for the<BR>>> Hawkins project to rest.<BR>>>
<BR>>> g<BR>>> <BR>>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>>> From: cynthia nichols <BR>>> To: g.
crabtree <BR>>> Cc: Garrett Clevenger ; vision 2020
<BR>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:16
AM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Smart Growth/ was
Recall<BR>>> the city council<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> I can't see where any of your examples are<BR>>>
"subsidies". I pay full price for my clothes, my<BR>>> house, my
groceries---enough for all those<BR>>> businesses to make a profit
(sometimes an obscene<BR>>> profit, by the way). And when their costs go
up, so<BR>>> do mine. They never say to me, "boy, this has been
a<BR>>> tough year in the economy for you, cynthia, so we'll<BR>>>
reduce your prices til things get better".<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> Our governments do (outrageously, IMHO)
subsidize<BR>>> big business in that they give them special<BR>>>
treatment (in the form of tax breaks, tax<BR>>> write-offs, cheap
services, and more) even though<BR>>> they are making profits and COULD be
paying those<BR>>> taxes. In the Hawkins case, instead of using
their<BR>>> own money to fight Washington for water rights,<BR>>>
instead of bearing the cost of drilling the well,<BR>>> instead of having
to bear the cost of disposing of<BR>>> their sewage, Moscow is providing
it for<BR>>> them--without them paying any premium price . AND<BR>>>
they have a contract to GUARANTEE those services.<BR>>> Whereas I live in
Moscow and I have NO SUCH<BR>>> GUARANTEE. So if the water runs low, guess
who will<BR>>> do without ? If the sewage treatment plant needs
to<BR>>> be replaced, guess who'll pay for it? Maybe the<BR>>>
citizens of Moscow need to write up a contract like<BR>>> Hawkins so that
I can have that same guarantee. That<BR>>> might be a great legal
challenge.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> cynthia<BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:03 AM, g. crabtree
wrote:<BR>>> <BR>>> It would seem to me that
if your subsidy<BR>>> argument is to hold water you would have to admit
to<BR>>> the fact that your own life is subsidized in nearly<BR>>>
every possible way.<BR>>> <BR>>> It's
cheaper and more convenient for you to go<BR>>> to Wal-Mart and buy your
clothes then it is to grow<BR>>> cotton and raise wool and sew your
own.<BR>>> <BR>>> It's cheaper and more
convenient to buy your<BR>>> gasoline from a local retailer then to drill
and<BR>>> refine your own.<BR>>>
<BR>>> It's cheaper and more convenient to
purchase<BR>>> food from the local grocer then it is for you
to<BR>>> raise your own.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Did you build your own house? Grow the trees?<BR>>> Mill the lumber? I
guess you have been subsidized by<BR>>> Logging company's and
carpenters.<BR>>> <BR>>> Do you generate
your own electricity or does<BR>>> Avista subsidize your power and
heat?<BR>>> <BR>>> Just because it's less
expensive in the short<BR>>> term for Hawkins to purchase water and
sewer<BR>>> services from Moscow doesn't mean that they are<BR>>>
being subsidized by Idaho taxpayers. Infrastructure<BR>>> and future
upgrades are paid for through the fees<BR>>> that are paid by the users
not taxes. Consequently,<BR>>> Hawkins WILL be paying its share. No
giveaway<BR>>> anywhere along the line that I can detect
unless<BR>>> it's the daily bus ride you talk about. Now there
is<BR>>> a true subsidy. Strangely, you seem to be cool with<BR>>>
that particular handout. What's up with that?<BR>>>
<BR>>> g<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>>> From: "Garrett Clevenger"<BR>>>
<</FONT><A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>garrettmc@verizon.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>> To: "vision 2020" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008
12:16 AM<BR>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Smart Growth/
was Recall<BR>>> the city council<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> >g
writes:<BR>>> >
<BR>>> > "I know the tactic is to repeat the
lie so<BR>>> often it<BR>>> > becomes
accepted fact but, Moscow is, in fact,<BR>>> >
subsidizing nothing."<BR>>> >
<BR>>> > <BR>>>
> I would say g is perpetuating a lie, or at<BR>>>
least<BR>>> > misinformation as I think in
order to lie you<BR>>> have to<BR>>> > be
aware you are wrong, because, in fact,<BR>>> Moscow
is<BR>>> > subsidizing something.
<BR>>> > <BR>>>
> By providing water and sewer services, Moscow<BR>>>
is<BR>>> > saving Hawkins $4 million in
development costs<BR>>> that<BR>>> >
would be needed to build infrastructure to<BR>>>
receive<BR>>> > water and dispose of
sewer. Whitman County<BR>>> agreed
to<BR>>> > fund a $10 million dollar bond to
build that<BR>>> > infrastructure and
more. Now Whitman County<BR>>> will
save<BR>>> > $4 million by not having to pay to
build the<BR>>> water and<BR>>> > sewer
infrastructure. I would say Moscow is<BR>>>
> subsidizing Whitman County's growth, if
not<BR>>> > necessarily Hawkins itself, because
our<BR>>> > infrastructure, something paid for
by Moscow<BR>>> tax and<BR>>> > rate
payers, will now be stretched further,<BR>>>
and<BR>>> > perhaps need upgrades sooner, if
Hawkins uses<BR>>> Moscow's<BR>>> > water
and sewer services. <BR>>> >
<BR>>> > Whitman County, as far as I can tell,
is not<BR>>> agreeing<BR>>> > to give
Moscow anything. Usually subsidies<BR>>>
expect<BR>>> > something in return, so perhaps
this isn't a<BR>>> strict<BR>>> >
subsidy, but a give away.<BR>>> >
<BR>>> > Am I wrong in thinking the new city
council<BR>>> could have<BR>>> > rezoned
an area in Moscow for Hawkins, or a<BR>>>
Super<BR>>> > Walmart? Not that I'd want
them to do it, but<BR>>> in<BR>>> > their
negotiation with Hawkins, could that not<BR>>>
have<BR>>> > been part of the negotiation,
offering instead<BR>>> of<BR>>> > selling
water and sewer, the ability to build<BR>>>
in<BR>>> > Moscow? If the new council
really had<BR>>> Moscow's future<BR>>> >
at heart, instead of merely development for<BR>>>
> development's sake, regardless if that<BR>>>
development<BR>>> > will directly compete with
Moscow, it seems<BR>>> the<BR>>> >
council had another alternative: rezone<BR>>> somewhere
in<BR>>> > Moscow to suit what seems to be a
need for<BR>>> more<BR>>> > shopping
areas.<BR>>> >
<BR>>> > Keep in mind, though, that considering
Walmart<BR>>> is the<BR>>> > kind of
store that will close a smaller, older<BR>>> one
to<BR>>> > build a Super Center, their intent
is to<BR>>> garner more<BR>>> > market
share. They don't necessarily have the<BR>>>
> community's interest at heart. I think many<BR>>> owners
of<BR>>> > these types of developments who live
in<BR>>> another<BR>>> > community really
are mostly interested in<BR>>> their
bottom<BR>>> > line, not building
community.<BR>>> <BR>> === message truncated
===<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>