RE: Alturas and the Future of Urban Renewal Business Forum

["B. J. Swanson" <bjswan@moscow.com>]

RE:  Alturas Forum, "Let's separate the facts from the fiction"
	Wednesday, 12:00 noon, Old Sears Building
	Eastside Marketplace

Fritz:  Thanks for your clarification and questions.  The two questions you
asked are excellent and timely and are on the agenda to be asked of the
Assessor and realtor responsible at the Forum on Wednesday.  I hope you will
be able to attend.

Duncan:  In my opinion, the statements about Alturas in your 3/30 post are
full of misinformation.  I have spent many hours on Alturas numbers and I
wonder where you found the basis for this statement:

		"The present problem with Alturas is that
		taxpayer money has been used to create an
		industrial park for private enterprise:
		corporate welfare."

My question to you is, how much taxpayer money was used?  Seems to me that
the URA "borrowed" $600,000 for infrastructure for development that would
not have been built otherwise.  The payback is that the "increased" taxes go
to payoff the infrastructure loan until it is paid (probably 5-7 more years
based on $5.6 million in increased value now), then the full amount goes to
the public, ie, a very good investment for the citizens of the City of
Moscow.  Also consider the $2 million plus in payroll from the Alturas
tenants alone that recycle to support other businesses (jobs) in the
community, pay taxes, etc.

Also, please clarify your basis for this:

		"So, the answer to John's first question
		is, yes, businesses in the Alturas park
		pay lower taxes, because Moscow taxpayers
		subsidized the infrastructure costs. And,
		yes, Moscow taxpayers must absord the
		lost tax revenue, because they have had
		to pay for that infrastructure."

Again, how much lower taxes?  The Alturas Park tax rates are the same as all
others in Moscow.  How much subsidy?  Is the subsidy you are referring to
the cost of additional police protection to URA district improvements?  What
else?  If Alturas had not been built, there would not be the jobs and
payroll now and there would be no investment return later when the
infrastructure loan is paid.  Without Alturas, it is highly likely that
Eastside Marketplace would still be the foreclosed and dumpy Moscow Mall
with 18% occupancy instead of 70% occupancy now and Winger's, KFC, etc.,
would not be there. Pacific Simulation and Anatek would be thriving Eastern
Washington businesses instead of thriving and contributing to Moscow.
Without Alturas, that would be REAL lost tax revenue plus a highly probable
slum area.  Which would you prefer?

Duncan, I challenge you to come to the Forum on Wednesday and discover for
yourself the actual costs vs. benefits of Alturas.

B. J. Swanson











-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Palmatier [mailto:dpalm@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:57 AM
To: Dave Potter
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: Re: Alturas and the Future of Urban Renewal Business Forum


Dear Vision2020:

The original problem with Alturas was that productive farm land was used
for "urban renewal". That was a mistake. Alas, there is little to be
done about that now. And, Dave Potter is correct that a "technology
park" may be better than other uses, like used car lots.

The present problem with Alturas is that taxpayer money has been used to
create an industrial park for private enterprise: corporate welfare. So,
the answer to John's first question is, yes, businesses in the Alturas
park pay lower taxes, because Moscow taxpayers subsidized the
infrastructure costs. And, yes, Moscow taxpayers must absord the lost
tax revenue, because they have had to pay for that infrastructure. While
the scheme has the appearance of a shell game ("it's only the
incremental value that is lost"), the fact is that taxpayer money has
been spent for Alturas that could have been spent for other purposes.
There was a reason for this. The purpose of spending money in this way
was to mobilize city government resources to create a high tech
industrial park, since private enterprise could not, or would not, do it
itself. The goal was to attract high tech businesses and their high
paying jobs.

A high tech zone to attract new high tech businesses is an excellent
idea for our small, remote community. But, the problem is that the City
failed to limit uses to high tech businesses, or to offer additional
incentives to those businesses. The result has been that an established
downtown business relocated to Alturas and is speculating on the
taxpayer funded industrial park land. Presumably, this private
speculation is beyond the control of government. Thus, our citizen
taxpayer funded high tech park has become, to some extent, a subsidized
private land speculation scheme. This was never the intention.

It is encouraging that some high tech businesses have decided to locate
at Alturas. But, it is depressing that our elected representatives have
failed to watch over the deteriorating situation with much interest or
leadership.

Duncan Palmatier
Patent Law Office of Duncan Palmatier
530 South Asbury, Suite 5
Moscow, Idaho  83843
Tel: (208) 892-2962
Fax: (208) 892-3853
Email: dpalm@earthlink.net