Shabad's Commentary

[Ken Medlin <dev-plan@moscow.com>]

Dear Visionaries:  The Moscow Administrator Consultant's statement 
certainly sounds plausible and is appealing to all who want to see some 
economic development move forward, among whom I count myself. However, 
between such statements of intent or purpose, and the carrying out of 
sound economic, social and political development there are some pretty 
important s processes to consider, "political correctness" to the 
contrary nothwithstanding. There are precious few community development 
sites and experiments across the Nation and around the world that exhibit 
the features of open, wholesome public participation and of fully 
responsible govt. behavior which jointly lead to the kinds of growth that 
promise community and environmental sustainability worthy of the name 
"development". Some, but not all by any means, of the criteria needed to 
test out the principle of sustainability might be --

   1) what effects on the existing and future resources base (soil, 
water, air, demography, physical/ethical qualities, etc.) can be 
projected?  (no allowance here for ideological preferences, just plain 
facts....)
   2) how well are existing community institutions and the populace at 
large represented on public boards, councils, commissions, etc., and how 
open and responsive are such bodies to holding public hearings for 
genuine inputs from all those concerned and affected by development 
planning initiatives?
   3) what is the track record, at any point in time, of existing public 
entities in consuming, digesting/using, and following through on inputs 
coming from outside sources, as compared to in-house information and data?
   4) what efforts are/will be made to determine, through public 
disclosure and full investigation by impartial means, if public officials 
have any conflicts of interest in exisiting or planned  economic 
development?
   5) how well, in the past and at present, do public agencies involved 
in development disseminate to the public at large,  through the press or 
through information handouts, what initiatives and project plans are 
being considered by them?
   6) what are the concrete benefits to be derived, for the community as 
a WHOLE, from the planned development and from changes in community 
quality of life that will ensue? How well have such benefits been made 
known to the public at large, as against those who are directly involved 
in development decisions?
   7) what are the projected increases in costs for services and for 
restructuring of existing service systems, roads, utilities, and the like 
in the forseeable future (20 - 30 years at least)?
   8) how will new economic enterprises impact on those which now support 
the community, contribute to our social institutions, tax base, etc. 
(e.g., Walmart keeps how much $ in town  and contributes how much to our 
charities?)

  There are no doubt other considerations/criteria that we could come up 
with -- I consider these to be "bare bones" of a decent governmental 
involvement in both private and public planning. One is hard put, 
however, to find much application of such criteria across the country. 
They are too ambitious and too constraining for those who hold the access 
to development capital and to governmental instrumentation. Yet, in 
defense of such criteria, one can point to the effects, across the 
landscape in America and abroad, of unprincipled development over the 
past century -- effects for which we shall be paying every higher prices 
for a long time to come. "Holistic resource management" and planning are 
virtually unknown to 99% of decision-makers who hold the strings of power 
in their hands. And the public is pretty much unaware of either their 
rights as electors or their responsibility for what ultimately occurs. 
Yes, the landscape outside the Palouse (and increasisngly to some extent 
here) is strewn with the unfortunate effects of unbridled development. 
Now, the carpet-baggers are in Treasure Valley with their 'one acre' plot 
schemes and denials of principled urban development in Boise (there shall 
be NO public transport system there, just as in most other American 
cities, as the auto and oil industries just won't have it! -- thind about 
it folk's, like who tore up the excellent  rail transit system in L.A.? 
GM maybe?).Now, does this situation have anything to do with lobbyism and 
the impotence of congressional and state legislative processes? Well, the 
same relationships will govern local entities without citizen-voter 
involvement in any development policies down the road. 
    Can bad development occur in the Palouse? What do you think, how 
would you prevent it,  and, frankly, why do you think so?  The citizens 
must do their own homework. No one will do it for them!

------------------------
William K. Medlin
Dev-plan associates
930 Kenneth Street
Moscow ID 83843
208/892-0148
dev-plan@moscow.com