Re: Palouse Mall landscaping

["Shelley Longeteig-Lupher" <shelleyll@attbi.com>]

I have been following this lively debate for some time, and a few questions
keep coming to mind regarding this issue that I hope some of you can answer:

1.  Why is it only the mall property that has to adhere to such vegetation
rules?  There are many other properties along this same stretch of road that
do not appear to have this requirement, such as Walmart, Sears, Tri-State,
gas stations, etc, all of which can be seen from the road, and have vast
expanses of asphalt.  Also , is the Eastside mall required to provide the
same amount of vegation as the Palouse Mall?

2.  Is there an existing covenant or regulation that says a certain amount
of the mall property must be vegetated?

3. Does the public feel that they have "more" say as to what happens to the
property because it is University owned, thereby being essentially "public"
property?What if this were a private property?   Public involvement is
essential and key, but its bad when it hampers elected officials from being
able to make an educated decision; remember that's why you voted for your
representatives in the first place, they represent you.  The last thing I'd
like to see in Moscow is it turning into the mess that is called "Seattle".

4. I agree that there should be more beautification requirements for many
business properties, to enhance air quality, reduce runoff, buffer noise,
and increase natural beauty, but remember, it is the consumer who ultimately
ends up paying for this through higher prices.  Considering the current and
future economy, are Moscow citizens willing to pay more for their goods and
services?

Food for thought.

Respectfully,

Shelley Longeteig-Lupher





----- Original Message -----
From: <dwhitney@moscow.com>
To: "Kenton Bird" <kentonbird@hotmail.com>; <comstock@moscow.com>;
<steveb@moscow.com>; <johnguy@moscow.com>; <pegh@uidaho.edu>;
<jmhill@moscow.com>; <jmack@turbonet.com>; <mtethoma@moscow.com>;
<vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Palouse Mall landscaping


> Dear Council Members: It does not really matter whether Kenton is right
about
> the degree of maturity and health of the trees. What matters is that we do
not
> want to see the mall or the store fronts from the highway-we know what is
there
> and it is ugly, epecially with the addition of those ridiculous arches
over the
> mall entrances. If these trees are diseased, then replace them, together
with
> those which were removed with healthy trees of the same size, so as to
destroy
> any so-called "view lines."
>
> Doug Whitney
> 939 E. 6th
> Moscow
>
> > Dear council members,
> > Thank you for your decision to delay a vote on the Palouse Mall's
> > landscaping.  As the questions raised at the meeting Monday night
indicated,
> > there was too much last-minute information presented to allow thorough
and
> > thoughtful consideration of the plan.
> >
> > I remain opposed to the removal of mature and healthy trees from the
buffer
> > strip along State Highway 8.  I do not accept the University of Idaho's
> > position that "view lines" need to be provided to businesses at the
mall, or
> > that the proposal only widens existing openings.  Many of these openings
did
> > not exist before the illegal removal of vegetation in November of 2000.
> >
> > While I applaud the proposal to increase the number of trees within the
mall
> > parking lot and along Farm Road, I fail to see the justification for
> > removing and/or relocating this many trees from the buffer strip. Please
> > review the proposal carefully before your decision on March 11.
> > Sincerely,
> > Kenton Bird
> > 517 East B St.
> > Moscow
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.net/
>