vision2020
Re: Where's the debate?
Actually, I don't care what anyone wears. Those who know me well would
scoff that I might be a fashion arbiter. Martha Stewart I am not. Mike,
you might want towear really tight shorts so you can thwart Evan in case he
tries the ice cube trick.
Sue
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Curley <curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Where's the debate?
> Sue:
>
> The "necktie issue" has once again reared its ugly head in your recent
post. I
> ignored it when Evan first raised it, but now I'm totally befuddled. Gee,
I
> don't want to lose the election because I wore or didn't wear a tie. Can
I
> have a ruling from the Grand High Commissioner on Attire about the
"message" of
> particular haberdashery? If this is really to be a "judge the book by the
> cover" meeting, then maybe we should just model briefly and sit down--only
> shouldn't we know the rules in advance? Would a tie be a demonstrationof
> respect to one's audience, or a subtle message that the wearer is a member
of
> the "establishment" (whatever that may be). Should those of us who oppose
the
> unfettered development and growth of our city "dress down" so that we
appear to
> be "just folks?" Or is the answer to wear a tee shirt AND a tie--and be
sure
> not to sit near Evan and his ice cubes?
> You, Sue, are out of town now, but were closely associated with this
process
> in the past. I believe that YOU are the fashion arbiter, so PLEASE, let
us
> know what we will be saying if we wear slacks, jeans, sweater, sport coat,
tie,
> basketball shoes, loafers vs. tie shoes, etc. Golly, what a confusion
there
> would be if there were a woman on the ballot--in that case would there be
> separate rules for each gender or is there now an ecumenical dress code.
Well,
> you can save that for another day, because, sadly, it is not an issue this
time
> around.
>
> Looking forward to your guidance.
>
> Mike Curley
>
> From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com>
> To: <vision2020@moscow.com>, "Nancy Holmes"
<ncmholmes@moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: Where's the debate?
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:09:02 -0700
>
> Dear Evan,
>
> This is a response to your concerns about the LWV Forum to occur Thursday
> evening.
>
> #1. I'm not moderating it this time so perhaps you will find Christopher
> Stream more in the mold of Greg Brown than I was. If things get too dull
> you can always carry out your ice cube threat.
>
> #2. Eat dinner before you get to the forum. If it's bad, you have none
but
> yourself to blame. Or maybe Nancy, but I'd be careful about that.
>
> #3. I have to wonder why you waited till the last minute (week) to
discuss
> a change in the format. If you feel it's grossly inadequate it would have
> been helpful to have had your input early. Frankly, I think it would be a
> lot of fun to have a prolonged debate which might get really rambunctious:
> someone would have to assure that all candidates were treated equitably of
> course. But whatever we might do in the future will be the decision of
> League members. Obviously changes should be made based on the
> recommendations from those persons who attend the forum. Anyway, if you
are
> planning to storm the Bastille on Thursday evening, be warned, somebody
just
> might have a guillotine ready on the other side.
>
> #4. And last, I think, other voters might not be as swayed by a prolonged
> evening as you and I. Many are the reasons people choose one candidate
over
> another--eloquence and articulation are only two. It may even be
> appropriate to recall that Douglas won the debate and the senate seat, but
> Lincoln beat him anyway for the presidency.
>
> #5. And really last, your musings about your vision for Moscow are
> compelling. I appreciated them. But I bet you won't see six neckties.
> Maybe five or even four.
> Looking forward to Thursday evening.
>
> Sue Hovey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nancy Holmes <ncmholmes@moscow.com>
> To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 1:06 AM
> Subject: Where's the debate?
>
>
> > Dear Visionaries;
> >
> > This contest for the Moscow city council has certainly got off to a slow
> > start. I'm sure there must be a lot of rubbing shoulders behind the
scenes
> > but I guess I was hoping for more to occur out in the open. I've been
too
> > busy roofing to rub shoulders. Plus it would be dangerous to do that on
a
> > 12/12 pitch. In fact, that is probably indicative of decision-making in
> > Moscow anyway. It's like being up in the cheap seats trying to figure
out
> > what is going on in a huddle of referees down at the fifty yard line.
Here
> > in Moscow we often won't know the score until the game is almost over.
> >
> > The Chamber of Commerce luncheon was fairly well attended (even 75% of
the
> > candidates appeared) but quite frankly, the rules of engagement didn't
> > allow for any engagement. They served us a nice little chicken filet, an
> > arrangement of steamed vegetables and some browned herbed potato cubes.
It
> > would have been good stuff for a food fight but I don't think that was
> > allowed either. I was pleased by the professional deportment and public
> > speaking ability of each of the candidates but nothing was said to upset
> > the status quo. In many cases you would have to be pretty well versed in
> > the issues and make some logical inferences in order to differentiate
> > between candidates. You could have made your choice based on neckties -
> > three had them, three didn't.
> >
> > My thanks to those of you who have shown an interest in this election
> > through this medium. I remember some questions arising from the Danahys
> and
> > from Linda Pall and I have put off answering them until now. The League
of
> > Women Voters forum next Thursday promises to follow the same format as
the
> > Chamber of Commerce. It is grossly inadequate. Perhaps if enough of us
ask
> > nicely (like they did when they stormed the Bastille) we could get that
> > changed. The three minutes for introduction is inadequate and the timed
> one
> > minute response to questions is ludicrous. I would prefer having a
> > moderator with a gavel and absolute authority who would allow someone to
> > speak until their point was clear. I miss Greg Brown - he could serve us
> > well in this capacity. If people don't want to stay to listen then they
> can
> > go home. I have to assume that those who come have an interest in
hearing
> > what the candidates have to say. There are not more forums or more
> > opportunities - except, perhaps, this one. Let us discuss issues well
into
> > the wee hours; we're tough enough for that. If we can't change things
I'll
> > be there and do my best anyway but don't bet against me slipping an ice
> > cube into Mike Curley's boxer shorts. Otherwise you won't see any lines
> > drawn in the sand at this meeting, either - although I'm betting on six
> > neckties.
> >
> > The Danahys asked about the prospect of rising taxes and retaining
or
> > creating a Moscow that is a safe harbor for teenagers. Good questions. I
> > pay taxes and I have two prospective teenagers.
> > Yes, taxes will go up. Even if there is no increase in services,
> taxes
> > will go up. Retained employees receive wage increases. Materials and
> > supplies cost more. This year the city of Moscow will spend
approximately
> > $1500 per resident. Although there is a lot of hocus pocus out there
> > concerning sources of and collection of revenues, as you know, it all
> > ultimately originates from the individual consumer-resident and trickles
> > up. That $1500 compares favorably to what most people will spend for
food
> &
> > eating, for cars and transportation, for insurance, for housing and far
> > less than many will spend on recreation and entertainment. Next year the
> > city budget will nudge the $40 million mark ($2000 per resident) because
> of
> > the water-sewer infrastructure investments. In fact, about half of what
> the
> > city will spend next year is for supplying water to and removing sewage
> > from the residences and businesses. If we plan to search through the
> budget
> > for significant ways to save money we might hope that one of the
> candidates
> > identifies himself as a magician. I'm merely a wizard so I don't see
much
> > room to give. In fact, I see the opposite. We underpay many employees,
> > especially in the public safety arena. Even our chief of police, Dan
> > Weaver, receives noticeably less compensation than other comparable
> > division heads in the city hierarchy. Long ago police work was treated
as
> a
> > blue collar profession and in many places it has not escaped that stigma
> > and pays accordingly.
> >
> > Teenagers are subject to a lot of influences and I often question
> > whether it is better to let them see life as it is and trust them to
make
> > good choices or shelter them in some ways and let them transition more
> > slowly toward our adult constructs. Relatively speaking, Moscow is a
> > shelter, so statistically our teenagers have a better chance to
transition
> > without harm. I would work to prevent that from changing - we make our
> kids
> > grow up too fast anyway. A big concern about teenagers is drugs and I
> can't
> > fight that much no matter how lofty a council seat might seem. Our
> > economics and culture are significantly influenced by pharmaceutical
> > companies who, mostly in the name of profit, advertise the benefits of
> > chemical partnerships in every aspect of life. We might be able to
defeat
> > them if every one of us reduces their influence by minimizing
consumption
> > of their products and then laughing when we outlive all of their CEO's
> > anyway. And it is probably better in the long run to teach children,
> > beginning at a young age, that drugs are sometimes a necessary evil but
> not
> > that they are a solution. You should read this opinion three times a day
> > with a glass of water and if symptoms of paranoia don't begin to appear
> > within a week then read it some more but skip the water.
> >
> > Linda was curious about what our ideas are for handling development
> > issues and how we feel about the 1912 building. You can get an
> introduction
> > to my views on development in the answers to the V2020 questions to
> > candidates. But I might as well diverge into the topic of growth. For
> those
> > of you who are proponents of a 2 to 3 percent growth rate I'd guarantee
> > that if that was promoted and accomplished beginning in the 1960's or
> > earlier, you probably wouldn't by choice be living here now. By my
> > calculations Moscow has averaged a one percent growth rate over the last
> > fifty years, maybe slightly less. At some point sheer numbers matter
more
> > than percentages and we may have reached that plateau. Maybe the average
> > population increase of 150 per year over the past half century in a good
> > benchmark. Assuming we covet any growth we should make sure we've
decided
> > specifically where to put it. Also, keep in mind that if our state and
> > region encourages growth that we will feel some of the effects even if
we
> > slam the door locally; for instance, think of traffic on Hwys 8 and 95.
> > The purchase of the city block containing the 1912 building was a
> good
> > buy. The $4 million conversion price tag is hefty and I'd say it was
> > ridiculous to even consider if not for the likely prospect that the
money
> > will come privately. Fund raising has begun so don't be surprised when
you
> > start hearing the "1912 overture". All that is left to debate really is
> the
> > cost of maintenance and operation. Yes, the city coffers will be used.
By
> > my calculations for a building of this size, value and purposes we
should
> > ante $40K per year to a cyclic maintenance fund and $60K to $80K more
for
> > utilities, operations and routine maintenance. I think the city and its
> > residents will benefit by at least that amount - it comes out to fifty
> > cents per resident per month. Less if some of the costs are offset by
> > revenue gathering measures such as user fees. Maybe we can make that
> > payment voluntary. Those households that absolutely refuse to pay the 50
> > cents per head wouldn't have to do so and members must avert their gaze
> > when passing the building. Others would have to pay a little more and
may
> > even be allowed to enter.
> >
> > Thanks again for your attention. Questions or comments are welcome
> > here (even if anonymous!) or you can call me at 883-4918.
> >
> > - Evan Holmes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Back to TOC