vision2020
A Vision for the URA
Visionaries,
Someone recently posted a message decrying our lack
of vision in this forum. Good point. Too much petty complaining of late. Too little constructive,
imaginative thinking about Moscow's future.
Among Vision 2020's original goals were
these:
1) to ensure that all parts of our community have
an opportunity to take part in visualizing and planning for the communities
future; and
2) to strengthen citizens' sense of community by
promoting awareness, ownership, and investment in the future.
Heady stuff. What might those goals mean for
a vision of Moscow's Urban Renewal Agency, one that didn't have the appearance
of impropriety, as Bill London has argued?
The URA's five commissioners are currently
considering whether to undertake a convention center / hotel project in the
South Couplet area. Idaho statutes give the URA authority to use tax
increment financing on such a project, whereby increased tax revenues from the
development are temporarily diverted to pay off the bond. To some people
(including Ron Rankin), this is corporate welfare; to others, it's a short term
sacrifice for long term gain.
My vision for the URA is that it give all parts of
the community an opportunity to visualize and plan for the proposed
development. For that to happen, many more people would need to understand
how the project might be financed, and to think through its potential impact on
the community. For his part, Mayor Comstock
would need to encourage the URA to be open in its deliberations, reaching out to
the community throughout the process.
But if the mayor had wanted to do THAT, he
would have filled the vacant commissioner position with someone who wasn't a
developer. Someone who had no financial interest in development.
Maybe someone who had a history of volunteer work in the community and a
commitment to open processes and public welfare.
Oh well. So much for visioning. Should
we go back to our petty complaining?
Priscilla Salant
Back to TOC