| [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] |
| [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Author Index] | [Subject Index] |
And, also thank goodness for Priscilla, who oftentimes guides voices here back to reality.
I must point out, for the record, that I am a journalist, a former local staffer and onetime student of Don's.
I also covered the URA in the early days. On this point, I would like to share some reservations I have, although I no longer live in Moscow (I do visit, have friends and in-laws and a stake in some possible retirement land). Perhaps reporters there have already written about this issue, but here is are troubling scenarios:
When the URA formed and declared a fertile wheat field (owned by a rich farmer) and a patch of southeast Moscow "blighted" in order to build the technology park, there were some who predicted property values within the blighted area would eventually decline. Now that the hotel is moving in, I am curious whether the property near the river and bridge where this hotel/development is planned was purchased at a discounted value.
In other words, did the landowners there get cheated by the blighted designation? It may be true that the property owners were glad to sell and move. Then again, maybe not. Has anyone bothered to complete a room occupancy rate study to determine if another hotel is actually in need? I would think this would be part of the URA's mandate, in order to protect the taxpayers' investment. While it certainly would be nice to clean up the area where this hotel is planned, how about the environmental imacts of a largescale development on the tributary. If I'm not mistaken, an oil company and the Idaho Forge (Mark Solomon's former digs) are located nearby. Will they remain? What are the lingering hazards of cleaning up those two businesses, which I believe remain in the "blighted" area? What obligation does the URA have to coordinate and finance cleanup?
Here's another miff: When I left town, there were few if any sidewalks within the blighted area and at least one city official suggested that funding and constructing sidewalks there would be a potential benefit of the blighted designation. Any sidewalks yet? In the future?
Does anybody care?
cheers, greg burton
Priscilla Salant wrote:
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