defining managed growth

["bill london" <bill_london@hotmail.com>]

Lewiston actively sought--and provided massive tax breaks-- to induce a 500 
employee business to move to that community.
The effects on the town's infrastructure will be huge, and the benefits to 
the citizenry negligible.
How is that careful, progressive, managed growth?
BL


>From: "Keith and Margaret Howe" <kmhowe@moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: "to" or "from"
>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:28:55 -0700
>
>You would prefer, then, that Lewiston remain a static place? Perhaps a
>population cap should be enforced? Mandatory contraceptive use? Or is it ok
>for Lewiston-born citizens to contribute to growth, just so long as out of
>town developers keep their plans to themselves? Or does the border for your
>local community only go as far as your block? Or maybe to the State line? I
>thought we were all citizens of the same country; I wasn't aware that 
>people
>living 2 miles from me were more equal than those living 2000 miles from 
>me.
>It boils down to a pretty simple choice: either manage growth with as
>positive an effect as you can hope to produce, or start enforcing 
>population
>limits. As long as the birth rate outpaces the death rate, growth IS going
>to occur in this country; rural and urban alike. You may be able to
>forestall 'local' development for a while, but eventually people are going
>to start running out of room everywhere else. Sure, it may be decades, even
>centuries, before population levels get to that kind of saturation in this
>country; but the attitudes we develop for dealing with growth in the future
>are being fostered here and now. Do you want Lewiston, for example, to
>remain static for sixty years, only to be completely paved over by a wave 
>of
>land-starved developers? Or would you rather the development be steady,
>progressive, and hopefully moderated by YOUR input to take the form of
>something you find acceptable? There's been a lot of discussion about
>restrictive policies for growth and development; but in the long term, it 
>is
>not something that can be restricted. It seems a waste of time to even
>banter the idea that you can somehow prevent it; people are coming into 
>this
>world faster than they are leaving it; if you do the math, growth is not
>just probable, it's inevitable. Whether it be good, bad, or ugly, is
>entirely up to how you decide to manage it.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: bill london <bill_london@hotmail.com>
>To: <ncmholmes@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 11:25 AM
>Subject: Re: "to" or "from"
>
>
> > Thanks Evan, for a refreshing view of the famous quality of life issue.
> > Everyone in Moscow seems to talk the same language.  Everyone wants to
> > preserve our quality of life.
> > The difficulty is that the definitions of what constitutes that quality
>are
> > so divergent.
> > Lewiston is thrilled to have recruited a 500-employee company to the
>valley.
> >   The 500 jobs in a clean industry will --the local economic development
> > agency says-- preserve the quality of life by providing good jobs.  
>Sorry,
> > but more likely is that the new residents drawn by that big company will
> > strain the roads, schools, and other services, increase taxes on
>established
> > residents while eroding the pleasant "small-town" feel of the community.
> > Evan lists a number of programs (like plans, fees, and restrictions) to
> > increase the barriers to development.  They are already in place.  What 
>is
> > lacking are the city officials willing to stand up to development money
>and
> > myths.
> > Maybe that is something we can change during this election cycle.
> > BL
> >
> > >From: Nancy Holmes <ncmholmes@moscow.com>
> > >To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > >Subject: "to" or "from"
> > >Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:11:50 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >And Now For Something Visionary!
> > >
> > >(a few more words about development)
> > >
> > >
> > >Perhaps even more noteworthy than the creation of baseball and jazz 
>music
> > >is our country's invention of private property and the almost inviolate
> > >rights of ownership. Over the decades, citizens and their governments
>have
> > >tried to backpedal from the pervasiveness of this concept and its
> > >consequences with a myriad of methods; zoning ordinances, comprehensive
> > >plans, planning commissions, scenic easements, the imminent domain
>concept,
> > >neighborhood covenants, et cetera. These counter measures tend to be 
>weak
> > >and reactionary.
> > >
> > >Development and construction in Moscow (and vicinity) seems to have
>always
> > >happened piecemeal  and those charged with "regulating" it do so on a
>case
> > >by case basis. As Mike Curley has pointed out, the "regulators" become
>part
> > >of the process only in the final stages when the land owners and
>developers
> > >are ready to present their proposals. They usually have the high ground
>by
> > >then - legally, procedurally and in terms of preparedness. If the
>citizens
> > >of Moscow (and vicinity) want to challenge this venerated process then
>they
> > >must present a unified front and they must be able to articulate why.
> > >
> > >I believe that during the past few decades development here has been
> > >forestalled more because of local economics and weather than because of
> > >anybody's conscious attempts to control it. The appealing paradox to 
>this
> > >is that Moscow (and vicinity) has thus retained its overall status as a
> > >place to move to rather than a place to move from. The obvious question
> > >arises: How do we prevent turning the corner from "to" to "from". And
>whose
> > >to say when this happens anyway?
> > >
> > >Probably the easiest way to build a consensus on this is to define the
> > >conditions that make a "from" place. Then begin to put in barriers to
> > >prevent them. These "barriers" might be development plans, citizen
>advisory
> > >groups, traffic limits, greenspace fees, land use restrictions or 
>things
> > >that nobody has invented yet. The main point is that the citizens and
>their
> > >government must switch from being reactive to proactive. The intent, I
> > >suppose, would be to build higher hurdles and tighter hoops for 
>would-be
> > >developers and builders. But, in fairness, they need to know what the
>hoops
> > >and hurdles are ahead of time.
> > >
> > >Remember that the rights of private ownership have legal precedence in
>this
> > >arena. And the  American model for economic prosperity includes a
>"develop
> > >and construct" cornerstone. We must ask ourselves how much we want to
>mess
> > >with this paradigm.
> > >
> > >As for me, personally, I'm willing to mess with it a lot.  I'd love to
> > >start the process of describing Moscow as a "from" place and defining
>those
> > >things we'd like to prevent from sneaking up on us. Maybe my kids will
> > >dress up as developers for Halloween! They can go door-to-door with a
>front
> > >loader...
> > >
> > >
> > > - Evan Holmes   October 4, 1999
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com