<!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 face=Arial size=2>"Moscow will make money selling these services
to Hawkins, but whether that matches lost tax revenue in Moscow, lost
revenue for business owners in Moscow who will have to face greater
competition with Hawkins around, or covers the cost of upgrading the
system that will be stretched even more by Hawkins, without the need
for Moscow rate-payers to pitch in and pay, too, remains
dubious."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Lets assume, for the sake of your argument, that you are 100% correct and
the Hawkins development does result in major loses for Moscow taxpayers and
merchants. What is it about not receiving any revenue for services is there that
will make everything better?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> <BR>"There is a finite amount that Moscow's
infrastructure can be used before it needs to be upgraded. If ratepayers
have to upgrade the infrastructure sooner because of Hawkins' use, I would say
Moscow rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins by having to pay for upgrading due to
Hawkins."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>The rates set for users is not just to cover the water that is
used. Built into the rate is an amount to cover maintenance and future
upgrades. If the system requires upgrading, Hawkins will be paying their
fair share. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The sad fact of the matter is that geography is not in our favor when it
comes to development between Moscow and Pullman. When I was probably 11 years
old (or at whatever age thoughts beyond what's for supper kicked in) and I
traveled between our two communities I knew that eventually that the two
university towns would inevitably grow together and I find it hard to believe
that any rational person doesn't come to the same conclusion. Coming to grips
with this fact and developing strategies to cope strike me as a far more
productive use of time and resources than the endless complaining and impotent
posturing. If I'm wrong, please point out to me the upside for Moscow of
standing firm and having nothing to do with the inevitable development on the
west side of out border. Just exactly what benefits will it bring?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>g<BR></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>>;
<</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: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:05 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Hawkins Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Costs</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> According to g's estimate at close to $6 million of<BR>> cost
savings for water and sewer infrastructure<BR>> Whitman County will not have
to pay for if Hawkins<BR>> uses Moscow's, that's around 66% of the $9.1
million<BR>> bond Whitman County agreed to pay. <BR>> <BR>> Whitman
County passed this bond right before Moscow<BR>> passed the Hawkins
agreement, probably knowing it<BR>> would place fire under Moscow's council
to vote for<BR>> the agreement knowing that Whitman County was
backing<BR>> Hawkins with their subsidy. It was a brilliant
move<BR>> on their part, and their gamble paid off, saving them<BR>> $6
million.<BR>> <BR>> While I agree Moscow taxpayers are not sending a
$6<BR>> million check to Whitman County, the $6 million<BR>> savings
certainly gives Whitman County more money to<BR>> develop their side. I
can't blame Whitman County for<BR>> wanting to develop near the border, but
with Moscow's<BR>> help in providing infrastructure to an out of
state<BR>> developer, Moscow is enabling direct competition to<BR>>
Moscow. Whether that is wise or not is up to the<BR>> discerning
citizens concerned about the future of this<BR>> region to decide.<BR>>
<BR>> Moscow will make money selling these services to<BR>> Hawkins, but
whether that matches lost tax revenue in<BR>> Moscow, lost revenue for
business owners in Moscow who<BR>> will have to face greater competition with
Hawkins<BR>> around, or covers the cost of upgrading the system<BR>> that
will be stretched even more by Hawkins, without<BR>> the need for Moscow
rate-payers to pitch in and pay,<BR>> too, remains dubious. <BR>>
<BR>> There is a finite amount that Moscow's infrastructure<BR>> can be
used before it needs to be upgraded. If rate<BR>> payers have to
upgrade the infrastructure sooner<BR>> because of Hawkins' use, I would say
Moscow<BR>> rate-payers are subsidizing Hawkins by having to pay<BR>> for
upgrading due to Hawkins. <BR>> <BR>> g says Moscow didn't give
anything away. While we<BR>> don't agree about the financial giveaway,
I hope g<BR>> agrees that one thing Moscow gave away as spelled out<BR>>
in the agreement is the right for Moscow to "protest,<BR>> contest, or appeal
any permits or governmental<BR>> approvals sought by Hawkins for the
Stateline Project"<BR>> beyond "permits or governmental approvals based
on<BR>> public safety or nuisance." <BR>> <BR>> g may not think this is
much of a giveaway as he seems<BR>> to think Moscow has no right meddling in
Whitman<BR>> County's affairs, or developments in general. <BR>> However,
I don't think Moscow should be legally bound<BR>> to such a sweeping
obligation. I don't think it's<BR>> smart to limit the ability to have
a voice in being<BR>> able to appeal things which may not be thought of
now<BR>> as being a big deal, but may pop out in the future. <BR>> Such as
Hawkins applying for water from elsewhere and<BR>> still being guaranteed 1
to 2% of Moscow's water. <BR>> Thus, Hawkins would be drawing more water than
they<BR>> would have otherwise, while Moscow continues to get<BR>> the
short end of the stick. The city gave a lot of<BR>> power way by agreeing to
that provision.<BR>> <BR>> It may seem a stretch for me to include
"the<BR>> anti-Bush, anti-Wal-Mart, anti-"aggressiveness"<BR>>
screed" g mentions, but in my head, this is all so<BR>> related. You
have unaccountable, greedy people making<BR>> bad decisions that less
powerful people have to live<BR>> with, and eventually pay for.
<BR>> <BR>> I may be strong in my opinions regarding this, but no<BR>>
less than the paloustics bloggers who take a cranky<BR>> tone towards those
they don't agree with. Read the<BR>> posts on the blog and I think you
will see that while<BR>> g doesn't think paloustics Tom is cranky towards
him,<BR>> from the view over hear, he seems cranky, aggressive<BR>> and
willing distort those who he disagrees with views<BR>> in a disrespectful
way. But kudos to him for<BR>> providing many of the local Hawkins
articles, if<BR>> albeit with his snide remarks intertwined.
Sometimes<BR>> he makes me laugh and think of the situation from a<BR>>
different perspective. Something I hope we all try to<BR>> do.<BR>>
<BR>> Respectfully,<BR>> <BR>> gclev<BR>> <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>>> Now that you seem to have the anti-Bush,<BR>>>
anti-Wal-Mart, <BR>>> anti-"aggressiveness" screed out of your system
(the<BR>>> world view parts I <BR>>> mentioned earlier that have
nothing to do with the<BR>>> current topic) back to <BR>>> the
matter at hand.<BR>>> <BR>>> $3,217,975.00 for water and
2,738,604.00 for sewer<BR>>> comes a lot closer to <BR>>> being 6
million. My point remains the same. Not one<BR>>> penny of that amount
<BR>>> will be covered by the taxpayers of the City of<BR>>> Moscow.
(the dreaded <BR>>> subsidy) While you were at the Whitman Co. site
I<BR>>> assume that you also took <BR>>> a look at the Preliminary
Development Agreement I<BR>>> referred to previously. In <BR>>> it
you will note that Whitman Co. is ready, willing,<BR>>> and able to float
the <BR>>> bond necessary to make the Hawkins development<BR>>>
happen whether or not Moscow <BR>>> steps up and provides "an alternative
source." It<BR>>> also makes no mention of <BR>>> reducing the
amount of the bond should this happen<BR>>> although, in all <BR>>>
likelihood, it would. By refusing to partner with<BR>>> our Pullman
neighbors we <BR>>> do absolutely nothing to hinder the shopping
center<BR>>> you so abhor and succeed <BR>>> in depriving Moscow
rate payers of a very<BR>>> significant amount of money. The <BR>>>
only thing that Moscow is "giving away" is the exact<BR>>> same water that
would <BR>>> have been pumped either way and placing a
slightly<BR>>> greater burden on our <BR>>> existing waste water
facility. We gain by having<BR>>> Hawkins/Whitman in the <BR>>>
revenue pipeline to help pay for any future upgrades<BR>>> to these
systems that <BR>>> may be required. The choice for our city
government<BR>>> was obvious, come to the <BR>>> table and enjoy its
measure or stand back and look<BR>>> on longingly while <BR>>>
licking its ravenous chops. Either way, supper was<BR>>>
served.<BR>>> <BR>>> With regard to the paloustics site, I am very
aware<BR>>> of it and visit it <BR>>> relatively often. Since I am
an evil Latah Co.<BR>>> conservative and the site is <BR>>> mainly
an evil Whitman Co. Conservative blog, I<BR>>> seldom post there. Tom
<BR>>> Forbes and I agree in a great many areas but, we<BR>>> don't
always see exactly <BR>>> eye to eye on all matters. I did have the
great<BR>>> pleasure of hoisting a few <BR>>> with him last year and
found him to be a good guy.<BR>>> When we did disagree he <BR>>>
didn't get all cranky. I enjoy that in a person.<BR>>> <BR>>>
g<BR>>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>>> 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>><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: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:08 PM<BR>>>
Subject: [Vision2020] Hawkins Water and Sewer<BR>>> Infrastructure
Costs<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> > Who needs newspapers when you
have access to<BR>>> > government records on the web?<BR>>>
><BR>>> > Doing a little digging on Whitman County's
website<BR>>> > gives this link, which includes the cost of
water<BR>>> and<BR>>> > sewer infrastructure Whitman County would
be<BR>>> paying<BR>>> > for if not for the "agreement." I
calculate over<BR>>> $4<BR>>> > million, but I'm not sure of all
the itemized<BR>>> costs.<BR>>> > What do you think?<BR>>>
><BR>>> ><BR>>><BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.whitmancounty.org/PDFs/Infrastructure_Cost_Breakdown.pdf"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://www.whitmancounty.org/PDFs/Infrastructure_Cost_Breakdown.pdf</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>>> ><BR>>> ><BR>>> > This blog has
a lot of articles (and cute banners<BR>>> such<BR>>> > as
"Liberal Advisory I Am An Evil Conservative"<BR>>> (at<BR>>> >
least he's honest) and other right-wing<BR>>> blatherings)<BR>>>
> regarding Hawkins. Maybe g is familiar with this<BR>>> >
site?<BR>>> ><BR>>> ><BR>>><BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://palousitics.blogspot.com/search?q=hawkins+water+rights"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://palousitics.blogspot.com/search?q=hawkins+water+rights</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>>> ><BR>>>
><BR>>><BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>