> As far as growth goes, I hate strips, whether in Spokane or on the
> Pullman-Moscow Highway. I do not want to see the communites of Moscow and
> Pullman physically meet one another in the middle of the corridor
> somewhere. I believe we need to preserve the corridor for purposes of
> transportation, farming and open space. Nor do I wish to see a greater
> "strip" than already exists on the Troy Highway. As Ray Pankopf pointed
> out, we could have more strip development tomorrow with the current zoning.
> Maybe another car wash or a bigger video store?
As I pointed out in my response to Ray which did not make it to
the larger discussion group, there is always that danger that
something worse will come in the place of the business park.
But I see that happening anyway. A successful business park is
going to be a magnet for strip development in that area.
Shirley Greene was quoted in the paper as wanting to see a "Wendy's"
in the cemetary across the street! There are absolutely no
restraints (legal or otherwise) on such type of development,
at least none that have been exercized thus far.
Why locate the business park on a strip? Why not keep it in the
core of the City? Ironically, a solution for the business park,
which I would conditionally endorse, would be to locate it in the
*alleged* deteriorated area designated by the Council. This, of
course, makes too much sense: 1) it would revitalize that
area, 2) it would be located next to primary transportation
sources (Hwy 8 and 95, and rail), 3) it would be right across the
street from the business incubator that is supposedly the reason
for all this in the first place.
> I do like the idea of neighborhood centers where services are made
> available to residents, enabling them to reduce their need to travel across
> town for a bag of nails or a gallon of milk. Is there anything inherently
> wrong with having places of employment also being in neighborhood centers?
No. But the business area on the Troy highway is at the furthest
extension of the City limits. The pressure to convert more farmland
to actually build the neighborhoods out there will be tremendous.
> Or should we all commute to Pullman (or Moscow) to be employed at one of
> the Universities? Aside from the financing question, which obviously needs
> more discussion, I think the idea of a business park is worth pursuing,
> because *maybe* there will be a benefit to others in the community besides
> the EDC.
You hit the nail on the head-- *maybe*. A business park is a
speculative venture. There are plenty of ghost business parks
around the country to prove this point. Why *is* it that the
private sector is not doing this? Because it is *risky*.
Tranferring the risk from the private sector to the taxpayers
of Moscow does not make the project any less risky. The only
difference is that if the park does fail, taxpayers will bear
the cost rather than the private developers.
I can hear the grumblings out there...but with tax increment financing,
there is no risk to taxpayers. To which I respond, poppy-cock.
The argument goes that because the law specifically allows the City
to not be legally responsible for bond default, there is no risk to
taxpayers. Not true. There are two very important down-side risks
that no one talks about:
1) Let's say the business park fails, the bond payments cannot
be met, and the Urban Renewal Agency says "sorry" to the bond
holders. Because the URA is acting as agent for the City, future
bond issues by the City will potentially cost taxpayers more because
future lenders will look at the failure of the bond
repayment and say, "hmmmm....this is a City that does not
have its financial act together....it has allowed a major public
project to fail." The result--higher cost of new bonds.
2) A more likely result is that the City would not let the
bonds default. Call it the Chrysler effect. If the City were
to realize the business park is going to go belly-up, it would
intervene on behalf of the Urban Renewal Agency to keep the
bonds going. Why? Listen to the words from City Council
members. In their view, this is a very important project for the
community. The community *needs* this business park. How is
this likely to change in the future? If it is important now, it
will be important in the future. Like the federal government
bailing out Chrysler, City officials will claim it is in the
public interest to keep the business park going. General tax
revenues will be used to pay for the bail out.
> I feel strongly that the Council needs to look more carefully at growth
> issues than has been done in the past, particularly surrounding large
> annexations and developments, and the stress they put on our WATER supply
> and infrastructure needs. As many of you know, I opposed one of the
> largest annexations the Council has approved in recent years.
Yes. And I (for one) thank you for that. But, the fact remains,
if the business park is successful, it *will* be a growth stimulant.
How can one approve a growth stimulating project when the City
cannot meet its *current* water usage agreement? The water
usage agreement appears not to be worth the paper it is written
on. Tear the agreement up. It is meaningless. The City has
no intention of living within its means.
> As far as growth and why we are growing, look at what is happening with the
> world population. Can we really isolate ourselves? Maybe we should all
> chip in some time and energy to providing family planning services to our
> corner of the world to have a small impact on the growing numbers of
> people.
I'm with you here. That's why we chose not to have biological
children. :-)
> Most importantly, I wish to retain an open and questioning mind when it
> comes to issues that appear to divide us as a community.
I thank you for your open mind. This is an important issue.
The fact that the business park is a closed-door deal using special
interest legislation without voter approval stinks. It represents
everything that we deplore about government today.
-- 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