I'm practicing to see if this works this time. My reply to you was sent
separately. (No snickering please: give me credit for being willing to talk
to you all in other ways than face to face.)
Pam
>Pam,
>I suspect you have seen this message, and may be able to offer some
>insights as to the validity of the arguements. What gives here?
>concerned,
>Dave peckham
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 19:14 PST
>From: Fritz Knorr <fritzk@moscow.com>
>To: vision2020@uidaho.edu
>Cc: ARNOLDAT@aol.com
>Subject: Re: LPTF and Dave Plummer's land
>
>>Fritz,
>>
>>I can clarify the issues in the proposed David Plummer land trade and the
>>Linear Park Task Force's position on the trade. David Plummer, in a letter
>>sent to the City Council, proposed trading the land he owns along the creek
>>for land the City owns adjacent to Styner Avenue. The council was very
>>concerned about the idea of trading land that can be developed easily for
>>land in the flood plain on an equal square foot basis. Moreover, if this
>>trade was made, the City would loose the potential income that would be
>>gained from selling their land; proceeds which would go to reducing the
>>anticpated overrun of the Styner Avenue widening. When the Linear Park Task
>>Force was asked to make a recommendation, they responded to the council with
>>the following memo:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Amanda,
>
>Pardon my bluntness, but this is total baloney. The trade was to involve
>land that Dave Plummer already holds an easement on to put a road back to
>his property. His interest was in holding the title "free and clear" in
>order to dedicate the road to the city for a public road. As it is, it will
>be a private road, a driveway. And he can put in that driveway right now.
>He owns the right to put it in already.
>
>The land that the City would have traded will have Dave Plummer's road on it
>ANYWAY. He holds an easement on that property to put a road on it.
>
>The land that was in question has NO COMMERCIAL VALUE. None. Zero. Zip.
>Would you buy a piece of land that had an ironclad easement on it to become
>the road to a developer's property? Would you buy your neighbor's driveway?
> You can't build on it. You can't farm it. It will be a road no matter
>what. Someone in the city is being less than truthful if there is talk of
>the parcel with Plummer's easement as being valuable.
>
>Likewise, the floodplain land that was offered by Plummer is not without
>value to him. He will fill it in (affecting flood safety, and wildlife
>habitat) and build on it. Plus, some of it has value as the required
>setback on the north side of his property.
>
>The trade that was offered was a clever, win-win situation. Both parties
>traded land of little value for land of higher value. Unfortunately, there
>seems to be a cover up of the true financial situation of the Styner Ave
>project. Someone wants to keep this property on the income side of the
>balance sheet for as long as possible. Of course, the City will NEVER get
>much (if any) actual cash for their land, but maybe the truth can be covered
>up for a few more years. By then no one will remember or care.
>
>And sadly, all of Moscow will now suffer from this cover up.
>
>Fritz