Dan Carscallen

(candidate for 2005 Moscow City Council (4 year seat))

1. Moscow’s police officers recently approached the city with a request to form a union. The city refused. Was that the right choice – why or why not? What should the city do now?
From what I recall, there was some outside pressure on the officers to form a union, and right about the same time the city "refused" the request, the officers dropped their request. I think this is a non-issue.

2. Which schools, if any, (K-12, colleges/universities, commercial schools) should Moscow's zoning code allow downtown in the central business district, and under what conditions, if any? Explain why.
I think any school could be allowed in the central business district with conditions. It is hard to to say what conditions, since they would be different for different types of schools. I would much prefer, though, seeing a "school" in the central business district rather than a vacant building, since having varied uses will encourage economic activity at retail establishments downtown. Not only that, someone occupying a building generates a sense of "ownership", and the occupant will usually take time to keep their building looking nice, thereby making downtown a more pleasant place overall.

3. Please list the changes in city regulations or policy, if any, that you favor to lessen the depletion of our aquifer: for example, a stronger tiered rate structure, required use of treated effluent water for irrigation in parks, required installation of water-conserving designs in new structures, limitations on building permits, or any other changes?
The city has a chance to follow Latah County's lead in developing a plan to conserve this valuable natural resource. Whether there truly is "depletion" is still up for debate, but conservation is always a good thing. Hopefully through the funds allocated by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, we will be able to get a better picture of what is going on with our aquifer, and where the water is located. I am in favor of using treated effluent in a variety of ways, irrigation only being one of them. I think we need to look at having more, smaller treatment plants, which can then have the treated effluent used for irrigating city parks that are closer. Currently, it is not feasible to use the treated effluent anywhere except on the UI campus. I also think encouraging water-conserving designs, especially in public buildings, and creative conservation uses, such as gray-water irrigation systems, is a good idea.

4. Should a bridge be built over Paradise Creek to connect Third Street between Hayes and Mountainview Road? If no, why not? If yes, should that bridge be built for use only by bicycles and pedestrians or should the bridge be designed for motor vehicles? Are there ways to improve the city’s approach to planning and maintaining our transportation needs?
As a resident of that neighborhood, I see both benefits and drawbacks to having a bridge across the creek at Third street. I like the idea of having connectivity in our transportation system. I also like the idea of quicker access for emergency vehicles to that little neighborhood. I don't like the idea of more traffic when kids are walking to school. I think that IF the bridge gets put in, there needs to be some plan to mitigate traffic hazards to the school children, whether it be more crossing guards, four-way stops, or a roundabout at Third and Cleveland. The biggest thing about this bridge is that the City needs to look at whether building it is in the public interest, and that means the entire public, not just a neighborhood.

5. What are your views about the proposed city ballfields on Palouse River Drive? To ensure that neighborhood parks are created in new subdivisions, should development of dedicated parkland there occur simultaneously with the initial development of the subdivision? Are there ways to improve the city’s approach to planning and maintaining city parks?
I think a park out on west Palouse River Drive is a good thing. If there is anything lacking in this city, it is usable ball fields. There are so many youth activities now -- soccer, football, baseball, and now even lacrosse -- that practice time is at a premium, and the parks we have are getting overused. I think people may be overreacting a bit to this park because there has been mention of hosting baseball and softball tournaments at this proposed park, but I think that has all just been talk so far. These things need to be planned for way in advance. This park is another example of needing to look at whether something serves the greater good of the public, and not just those who might live near it.

I also think that we should have more neighborhood parks that are not necessarily used for practices, more as places for people to go and relax. There should be dedicated parkland when developments are submitted, but I am not sure if it is legal to require that. I have thought recently of creative ways of planning and maintaining city parks, but I would have to see more information before deciding if it would be economically realistic in the long run.

6. Please include biographical information about yourself and any other message or contact information you want to share with Moscow voters.
I have been a Moscow resident since birth, which will be 37 years on election day. I think Moscow was a good place for me to grow up, and I think it is a great place for my kids to grow up. I'm a Moscow Bear ('87) and an Idaho Vandal (B.S. AgEd, '91), as is my wife. I have two children, a boy and a girl, both attending Moscow public schools. I would like to be on the city council so we can start concentrating on what is RIGHT about Moscow, instead of always focusing on what is WRONG.

I can be reached at and more information can be found at

Return to the Election page