On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Joel Hamilton wrote:
> Visionaries:
>
> I'm back in town after being gone for a few days -- so I suppose it
> is time to reenter the discussion. My concern is that we not get diverted
> by side issues.
>
> I consider the recent flurry regarding DN publication of Vision2020
> posts such a side issue. The Vision2020 discussion list is a public list,
> freely accessible to anyone who wants to subscribe, and intended for open
> discussion of community issues. The present list membership of 60 or more
> is already very diverse. The postings are supposed to be printed off by
> someone and kept in a folder in the Moscow Library for use by those who
> don't have access to the internet. (Is someone still doing that?) When we
> post something on the list, we should consider it roughly similar to
> speaking at a public meeting -- and expect to be quoted. On the other hand
> -- I always appreciate it when a reporter checks things out with me before
> publishing my comments (DN take note!).
>
> Several of us brought copies of the Vision2020 posts related to the
> area of impact draft to the last Moscow P&Z meeting for distribution to
> those members who do not subscribe. I personally thought that Greg's
> comments were very useful in framing a number of relevant issues which
> should receive more discussion -- and I really hope that Greg is comfortable
> in engaging in this discussion publically, rather than just among
> subscribers to the Vision2020 list. Also, I hope that others of you are
> comfortable responding publically.
>
> I am still disappointed that we have had so little discussion of the
> very real issues that Greg's post raises. What goals should we have for the
> area of impact? How should we accomplish those goals? We're breaking new
> ground here and need guidance. I personally think these are some of the
> most important (and difficult) issues facing the city. As a member of the
> Moscow P&Z Commission, I have so far resisted getting involved in the
> substantive discussion, because I want to know what others think.
>
> Keep in mind that Dale Pernula's original post was a DISCUSSION
> DRAFT -- a "strawman" -- intended to provoke thought and comment. It was
> not a PROPOSAL, and the P&Z Commission is not married to this draft. Greg
> commented on the need to involve residents of the area of impact and the
> County P&Z. We are pleading for such involvement. Now is the time!
>
> Remember -- there is a workshop meeting scheduled from 4 to 7 pm
> next Wednesday, at the City Hall, to discuss area of city impact issues.
> Lets make this a good discussion of the issues, goals, and appropriate actions.
>
> I would still like to hear more discussion of the issues on this
> list -- because that can help frame the discussion that will occur next
> Wednesday.
>
> Joel Hamilton
>
>