> q) are we interested in managed growth, or are we interested in no
> growth?
I think we are interested in the growth of quality of life.
This is not the same as economic growth, though there *could*
be positive correlation. There could also just as easily be
a negative correlation.
Popluation, traffic flow, open space, rural character, sense
of community, quality education, and of course, economic viability
are potential indicators of quality of life. I think it would be a good
exercise for vision2020 and others to develop key indicators
and measurements of quality of life for Moscow/Latah County.
Places like Seattle have already done so.
> q) what sort of growth is acceptable?
Quality of life. We need to define it, measure it, and
track it. Or lose it.
> q) no doubt, the recent "shoebox" apartments constructed in moscow
> have not had a positive impact on the built environment. does that mean
> we feel all development is inherently bad?
Not at all. I'm very supportive of redevelopment or
urban renewal.
> q) if we can agree that "no growth" is not positive for the well being of
> the community and its inhabitants, what sorts of development are
> positive?
See above. Redevelopment and urban renewal.
> my point is, the community can not remain stagnant and expect to
> survive. in my mind, the question is not "to grow or not to grow," it is the
> "who, what, when, where, how, and at what rate" questions which i am
> interested in.
Fine. Let's agree on a set of indicators.
-- Greg Brown (gregb@uidaho.edu) Computer Services Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Forestry,Wildlife,& Range Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 885-2126 Fax: (208) 885-7539