---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:08:15 -0800
From: Marc Fleisher <fleisher@pullman.com>
To: london@wsunix.wsu.edu
Subject: Proposition 1
You wrote to me at my university email address. I am replying to you at my
pullman,.com address to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
>Marc--
> I originally posted my questions about the Pullman growth
>referendum to the Moscow Vision 2020 email list. Kenton replied with
>this. Would you care to respond/add info/etc. Send to me and I will post
>to list.
> Also, would Prop 1 people like to come to Vision 2020 sponsored
>meeting in Moscow?
I'd be happy to attend. When?
Kenton Bird wrote (in part):
>Are the real estate/builders/building supply folks putting money into
>advertising to defeat the de-annexation?
The opponents have outspent the proponents about 6 to 1. They have spent
about $6,000. The top three contributors to the Committee for Pullman's
Future (the opponents) are developers.
>Has WSU taken a stand? (If WSU adds
>10,000 students in the next 15 years, as its long-range plan calls for,
>it will need every one of those building lots, plus more, for new faculty and
>staff.)
Not that I know of. I don't think they would take a public position on
this. The opponents have used statements made by Sam Smith in a public
forum in their ads.
I think it is a dubious proposition that the $40-50,000 lots in the Meyer
annexation will be of much use to the University. The $200,000 and up homes
that will be built there will be out of the price range of any new faculty
and staff that might come. We think that the developers have not thought
through the consequences of their annexation and proposed development.
Planning before annexation would have helped everyone see what the right
mix of housing might look like.
The projected top to the student population is about 24,000. That is only
8,000 more than at present, not 10,000. The increase in student population
is already lagging behind the projections. What evidence is there that the
increase in students will lead to a higher permanent leveL? The "baby
boomlet" is driving the increase; when the crest passes, what then?
>And has the Daily News supported or opposed the referendum?
With a new publisher, they might this time remain neutral. It is too much
to hope that they would be smart enough to see beyond the mere vadt of
de-annexation to the larger issues of good planning and development and
support the de-annexation.
>Passage of the referendum would raise some interesting questions for Moscow.
>If Pullman succeeds in stopping residential growth while allowing employment
>growth, where will all the new WSU employees live? Commute from rural Latah
>County and add to the congestion on the Pullman-Moscow Highway?
The intent of Proposition 1 is not to stop growth. This is the propaganda
of the opponents. Rather, it is intended to send a strong message to the
Pullman City Council that un-restrained and higgledy-piggledy growth is not
in Pullman's best interest. The proponents hope that the Council will get
the message that planning has to precede annexation and development, not
follow it.
It is speculation only that employment will grow. Since 1981, Pullman has
grown about 2.5%. That's about 50 people added per year.
What congestion on the Pullman-Moscow highway? This is not rush-hour
Chicago we are talking about here.
There is an effort by the opponents to argue that Pullman workers are
forced to live out of town by the lack of housing in Pullman. It is much
more likely that they choose to live out of town because of poor planning
in Pullman.
Thanks for the opportunity to express the proponent's views. There is much
more to say, of course, and I'd be happy to have the opportunity to say it
at a Moscow Vision 2020 meeting.
Marc Fleisher
for Pullman City Council, 1997
332-7873