Diane
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:24:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Diane Prorak <prorak@buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu>
To: Bill London <london@wsunix.wsu.edu>
Cc: vision2020@uidaho.edu
Subject: Re: Business Park
Yes, Bill, I heartily agree that more public discussions, more time for
letters to the editor and a public vote would have been preferable.
Thanks for your efforts at the Monday Council meeting. It wasn't
until the night before the Council vote, at the 2020 sponsored meeting
(thank you Susan and Priscilla),that I really learned enough to form some
opinions on the issue. And if it weren't for Greg, I don't think I would
have known much at all about the issue before it was history (thanks,
Greg also).
So where are the problems for this lack of awareness? The media, the
Council, P & Z, all of us? I liked Mark Leeper's suggestion at the
candidate's forum that city meeting agendas include some more information
about the topics to be discussed -- some implications, some background
for citizens. I think the Shared Facilities group has done well at
getting the word and the public out (thanks Pam and others
involved). But that sure didn't happen with this business park. I
think the next proposal like this should include public meetings early
on, so there can be the necessary public discussion.
Diane
On Fri, 10 Nov 1995, Bill London wrote:
> Diane-
> I echo your ambivalence--and the positive points about the biz
> park that you list.
> However, the message that I tried to give to the council (which
> was of course ignored by all) was that Moscow residents (as in voters
> in general)--NOT a core group of
> pro-development EDC members and cronies on council--needs to decide what
> they want Moscow to look like in the future.
> BL
>