<html>
<font size=3 color="#000080"><br>
<br>
EXACTLY! (I grew up in the Los Angeles area.
Cathy)<br>
<br>
<br>
In response to Garrett's post below:<br>
<br>
</font><font size=3>"I grew up in an area that sprawled out in strip
malls. Every time I visit my folks where they live now, there are new
strip malls. That's what's coming to the corridor. Personally, I dread
that, as it will change the flavor of this area while in my mind taking
away from the value of what the Palouse is. Why do we have to become like
Everywhere, USA? Why can't we have leaders who are willing to plan
rationally how this area grows, rather than seemingly let it become
retail strip mall hell?"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 06:40 PM 3/8/2009 -0700, Garrett Clevenger wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>If the city had not signed their secret
agreement with Hawkins, its possible Hawkins may not have been given
water rights. It's possible they may not find enough water where they
drill now. It's possible that if they use water from their own well, it
won't affect Moscow's water. It's possible it will. <br>
<br>
It seems that the closer the source of Hawkins' water is to ours, the
more likely we'll see an impact. If Hawkins uses Moscow's water, our need
to expand our water system (drill deeper or whatever) will be more likely
than if Hawkins used its own water. In other words, Idaho users may have
to pay more money for its water than if Hawkins took car of itself. Will
that be covered by the revenue generated by selling water? Will that be
on top of potential lost sales tax?<br>
<br>
Whatever the case, it is completely unnecessary for Idaho to change its
water laws to make it easier to sell water out of state. There already is
a mechanism in place for Idaho to sell water out-of-state.<br>
<br>
If the city sells water under the proposed bill, they'll probably have to
supply an unlimited amount of water to them. However much water Hawkins
wants, Moscow will have to sell them. That will make it even worse than
if under the secret agreement.<br>
<br>
Facilitating out of state development by not fully using what options are
available to have more control over that development, only will make
out-of-state developments more likely. It definitely seems more inviting
for developers, at least.<br>
<br>
Whitman County did commit bond money to build infrastructure to Hawkins.
If Hawkins is built, they'll still want to develop the corridor. Only
they'll have even more reason to build the infrastructure: to add to the
development around Hawkins and increase its potential
profitability.<br>
<br>
Why should Idaho essentially subsidize Whitman County's growth, when that
growth will directly compete with Idaho? If we reduce the costs of
Whitman County's subsidy to corridor development, that only gives them
more money to invest in further corridor development. Unless Idaho gets
something significant from that, it seems irrational to put Idaho tax
dollars into the corridor's development.<br>
<br>
Why couldn't the city, in its agreement, asked for more things that would
lesson its impact on Moscow. Would it be possible to arrange sharing
sales tax with Whitman County? Could Hawkins be forced to be smaller?
Adopt strict water recycling methods?<br>
<br>
If the council didn't jump right in bed with them, they could have taken
more time to think about ways to maximize its influence.<br>
<br>
The council people who voted for the secret agreement used reasons that
don't stand up to the facts. The council initially said the city could
charge a premium price for the water sold to Hawkins, but that now is
seen as unrealistic. They said the city was about to spend tens of
thousands of dollars, when they were not at that point in the process.
And then you have the conflicts of interests muddying the decision making
process.<br>
<br>
Admittedly, it does seem like we're in a damned if you do, damned if you
don't scenario and perhaps we need to make the best of things. But that
still doesn't mean it couldn't be better. The city still had better
options in my mind, and it doesn't need the state to change the water
laws.<br>
<br>
<br>
Most people see the reported 1 to 1.5 foot yearly drop in the aquifer and
realize that can't go on forever. Eventually, there will be too much
demand for it to sustain, and everybody will pay the price for unwise
planning.<br>
<br>
I grew up in an area that sprawled out in strip malls. Every time I visit
my folks where they live now, there are new strip malls. That's what's
coming to the corridor. Personally, I dread that, as it will change the
flavor of this area while in my mind taking away from the value of what
the Palouse is. Why do we have to become like Everywhere, USA? Why can't
we have leaders who are willing to plan rationally how this area grows,
rather than seemingly let it become retail strip mall hell?<br>
<br>
I see nothing wrong with our elected officials thinking about these
issues, and trying to find ways to prevent that from happening,
particularly when those developments are designed to compete with
Moscow.<br>
<br>
Garrett Clevenger<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net /" eudora="autourl">http://www.fsr.net
</a> <br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG -
<a href="http://www.avg.com/" eudora="autourl">www.avg.com</a> <br>
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1988 - Release Date: 03/06/09
19:17:00<br>
</font></blockquote></html>