Re: Alturas Park

[Greg Brown <gregb@alaskapacific.edu>]

Stephen Cooke wrote:

> Dear Visionaries,
>  Does a bad result necessarily imply a bad decision? If a football team goes
> for a 2 point conversion in a 14-13 game and fails, it that a bad decision?
> Disappointing, yes. Wrong? I am not so sure.

   I think the opposite is the case.  The issue is not the result (ends) but
thedecision itself (means).   The jury is still out on the ultimate benefit of
the
development to the community.  The question for me is whether bad "means"
justify "good" ends?  I think the "decision" (means) was wrong for the
following reasons:

1)  The decision violated the intent of the Idaho Urban Renewal
Act to restore degraded areas.  The City was, in fact, headed
down an unlawful path, weaving its way through an intricate
web of legal loopholes before it stumbled.  Is it ethical to
guide one's personal behavior by "loopholes"?  Doesn't
government have an even higher ethical obligation?

2)  The decision was undemocratic.  The EDC may or may not
represent the full spectrum of community interests.  The EDC
utilized its close political connections to further its private agenda.
At a minimum, there should have been a community referendum
to determine whether EDC's interests are, in fact, the
community's interests.

3)  Issues of taxation require public consent.  The decision
was a back door to bond approval.  Despite official rhetoric
to the contrary, development boosters put Moscow
taxpayers at risk.  Will the City let the business park bonds
go into default?  Of course not.  That would cost the City
more in the long run because of a reduced credit rating.
But putting a bond vote to the people is risky--it could
be denied.

--
Greg Brown, Associate Professor
(gregb@alaskapacific.edu)
Alaska Pacific University
(907) 564-8267
Fax: (907) 562-4276