Re: Alturas--Bill London's post

["Mike Curley" <curley@turbonet.com>]

Bill:
A, if not "the," continuing problem with Alturas is that it is 
NOT being used as intended.  The tax money being 
diverted is not for businesses that would otherwise have 
left town, nor for support of the technology uses at the 
park.  When the law office moved to the park the "city" 
(administration, council, mayor) said that there was a 
"loophole" by which the city would lose if sued by the 
capable attorneys who sought to move there (from 
downtown, of course, not a new law firm in town).  
In the first place it was a lame argument and, I think, 
anything but a slam dunk that the attorneys would have 
prevailed.  Secondly, would a law firm have sued the city 
and risked the bad publicity to do something that was 
clearly out of the spirit and stated purpose (citation 
available, write me off list) of the park so that they could 
drive through the loophole?  Doubtful.
Nevertheless, what did the city do about the loophole?  
Not one thing.  It was (and still is) easy to correct, but 
nothing was done and we now have accountants 
relocating to Alturas from another part of town.  
There is only one thing that I can see that is "wrong" with 
what is being allowed--the failure to give the public what it 
was told it would get if Alturas was approved.  Tax money 
paid by Alturas residents is diverted from the usual public 
uses to pay for the Urban "Renewal" Agency bond.  That 
means that our city, our schools, cemeteries, etc. do NOT 
receive revenue they otherwise would until the bond is 
paid--now many years down the road.  Voters thought it 
made sense to provide technology firms (particularly 
startups) an incentive to locate in Moscow.  When an 
exisiting local business moves to Alturas (or even a non-
startup new business comes to town and locates there) it 
takes tax revenue away from the public uses for which 
they are intended.
I do not fault the businesses that have chosen to move to 
the park, but I surely fault the city for continuing to 
promote tax diversion for purposes clearly different from 
what the community voted.  If Alturas was a financial 
mistake, then changing its intended character should be 
put back to a vote and subject to public debate.  
Meantime the loophole should be closed and the original 
purpose achieved.
Mike Curley


On 6 Sep 02, at 10:21, bill london wrote:

Date forwarded: 	Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date sent:      	Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:21:34 -0700
From:           	bill london <london@moscow.com>
To:             	Vision2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject:        	Alturas
Forwarded by:   	vision2020@moscow.com

    My thanks to Ted McDonough for the report (front page
    Daily News,
Thursday, Sept 5) on the soon-to-be-finalized divorce of the
Urban Renewal Agency and Alturas Tech Park.  The URA 
funded
the creation of Alturas with our tax money and the
assumption that high tech businesses were going to fill
Alturas, first an initial phase and then two future
sections.
    It didn't work out that way.  Even the first phase of
    Alturas is not
filled yet, despite the willingness of the URA to ignore the
original mandate and open the site to lawyers, 
accountants,
and other offices.
    So, I am glad that the URA has decided that any
    expansion of Alturas
or the creation of other technology parks is best left to
private developers.  Of course, those who constantly strive
toward that elusive goal of Economic Development are trying
to think of new ways the URA can spend tax money.  But I am
more hopeful that the decisions may be made less blindly in
the future.
    My favorite quote reported in the article is from Gary
    Riedner, city
supervisor: "One of the things Alturas taught us is we need
to have a business plan."
    About time.  Perhaps Alturas was a good lesson for
    Moscow's economic
planners: Resist your urge to offer taxpayer money to the
fickle gods of Economic Development.