vision2020
Re: defining managed growth
I wouldn't call an $8 an hour job with full benefits for someone previously
making minimum wage "negligible".
-----Original Message-----
From: bill london <bill_london@hotmail.com>
To: kmhowe@moscow.com <kmhowe@moscow.com>; vision2020@moscow.com
<vision2020@moscow.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 11:47 AM
Subject: defining managed growth
>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
>
>
Back to TOC