vision2020
RE: Alturas
My impression is that the Alturas critics are more concerned with the
(percieved or real) shady/underhanded way Alturas was approved than with
the (percieved or real) economic benefits Alturas has brought.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, B. J. Swanson wrote:
> Bob & Bill,
>
> Would you prefer that we still have the old foreclosed Moscow Mall that was
> less than 18% occupied? It would probably be a real slum area by now. And
> would you prefer that the community be without the 47 jobs in Alturas that
> pump $2 million annually into our economy?
>
> B. J. Swanson
>
> ---------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hoffmann [mailto:escape@alt-escape.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 3:39 PM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Alturas
>
>
> [do not forward]
>
> Bill,
>
> One juicy detail that I forgot to mention:
>
> Shelley Bennett (formerly of the LEDC) spoke. She said that when looking
> for a location, and the issue of the Troy Highway area came up, she was
> quite enthusiastic, because her family had just bought the mall across the
> street, and what a great selling point that would be for filling the mall
> vacancies.
>
> I was astounded that she was speaking in public about how her influence
> over a decision involving public funds could result in substantial
> financial gain for her family. She must have felt really comfortable with
> her audience.
>
> According to the agenda, the man in charge of questions and answers was
> Rich Levengood, Latah Economic Development Council, Alturas Outsider
> Extraordinaire. Question & Answer period did spill over about an extra 15
> minutes, although Ken Medlin took up most of that. Aside from Ken's
> questions/comments, there was only one other written question that was
> submitted.
>
> Bob Hoffmann
> 229 East C St., Suite B
> Moscow, ID 83843 USA
> Phone: (208) 883-0642
> Fax: 1-800-683-3799
> http://www.alt-escape.com
>
>
-------------------------------------
Robert Anton-Erik
anton933@uidaho.edu
http://www.ets.uidaho.edu/rob/
"The medium is not the message,
the message is the message."
-------------------------------------
Back to TOC