Man who finished last in five-way race lashes out
By David Johnson of the Tribune Wednesday, January 2, 2008
MOSCOW - Aaron Ament, an ousted city councilor here who's never been known to pull a political punch, has decided to depart with a few left-wing haymakers.
First, a jab at Mayor Nancy Chaney.
"She had this idea she could have everybody love her. That all sides would come together. Unless the (new) council is arrogant beyond my expectations about what they'll do, I don't think Nancy has a chance of winning re-election."
How about an uppercut for that new right-leaning city council?
"We'll be back to the kind of government we had three years ago, which is run by the golden rule. Whoever has the gold makes the rules."
And here's a not-so-subtle right cross for the local pastor of Christ Church.
"It's dangerous to have a man who controls the votes of 175 students and however many people in his church. I'm talking about Doug Wilson. Should one person control 600 votes?"
Finally, a knock-out blow aimed at those who say Moscow's city council over the past two years, with Ament in the thick of it all, was using government as a tool for social engineering.
"That's what government is. To me, civilization is about making life livable for more and more and more people. If government is not working to make people's lives more livable, then we don't need government. We need something else. Because that's what government should be about. That's what the continued march of civilization is about."
Ament, who came in dead last in November's five-way race for three seats on the council, seems to drop his guard only when describing being trounced at the polls.
"Losing is tough. I had friends tell me early on, 'When you get into office, you're going to change and become someone else.' And I worked really hard to remain who I was."
At 58, he describes himself as a longtime member of the disenfranchised.
"I'm one of those guys who doesn't feel like I've had a real lot of representation in government during my life. So I wanted to represent the truly progressive. I'm not afraid of being liberal or progressive. And also, I'm just so tired of people ignoring things."
If people continue to ignore what's happening in Moscow, says Ament, the town will be changed forever for the worse. He warns that religion and capitalism, with the help of city government, have become mixed together in a misguided formula for the future.
"They're all together ... that's the thing. They're all mixed up together. Christ Church, New Saint Andrews College, the Greater Moscow Alliance ... it's all one group, they've just got different names."
Ament jests that the GMA, a politically active conservative citizens group, transformed its acronym into an election slogan meaning, "Get Mr. Ament." And with powerful people and dollars working against him, his campaign had no chance.
"So now it's trickled down to our local city council election, where we have religion getting into the middle of democracy."
Ament says his targeting of Christ Church and New Saint Andrews College has less to do with religion than it does salvaging Moscow's downtown business district. "I don't agree with what I've heard about their religion. But I'm not so concerned with that as I am concerned with how it manifests itself in our community. And that people will ignore and allow it to happen eludes me."
Ament contends that the college, a faith-based institution associated with Christ Church, remains illegally located in downtown Moscow. And city government has allowed the occupation.
"The only time they've been legal is when the law has been changed to fit them," he says. What's more, he predicts the college is looking to expand by purchasing more downtown property. College administrators have said they plan to keep the school about the same size.
Wilson dismisses Ament's concerns. "I don't dictate to people how they vote."
The only reason he urged his followers to get involved in the election, says Wilson, was to ensure they could someday "get uninvolved" in city government.
Downtown Moscow, says Ament, is the last bastion of the community's small-town atmosphere. The surrounding farmland, he says, is giving way to "starter castles" on the hills and the idea that economic growth should be geared to residential construction and "big-box" retailing.
As for the notion that he simply wants Moscow to remain a liberal oasis in red Idaho, Ament says, "The only reason Moscow can be called progressive or liberal is because it is in Idaho. You stick it somewhere else, it's conservative."
That's one reason, says Ament, he recently voted against Chaney's attempt to control firearms on city property. "It's Idaho. It's insane to propose gun control. It's not going to go anywhere. All you're going to do is the same thing you do with not saying the pledge of allegiance. You're going to make it a campaign issue."
Ament confirms that, while he stands out of respect to others who recite the pledge, he remains silent. "To me, the patriotism thing, mixed into our democracy, is as dangerous as the religion thing."
When he was elected two years ago, Ament says he enjoyed sharing many of the same political views with Chaney, John Dickinson and Bob Stout. But Dickinson died last year and Stout left to join the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in Iowa.
And then, during a heated debate last June about the city's big-box retail store ordinance, Chaney turned on him, Ament says.
"I'll tell you when our relationship changed irrevocably," Ament says of Chaney. "That's the night (Councilor John) Weber told me to shut up at a city council meeting and the mayor said he was right in doing so, and it was just fine. I was stunned."
For the record, Chaney called for a return to order and said of Weber's words, "He interrupted at an appropriate time."
Today, Chaney declines comment about Ament's take on her, other than to say, "Working with Aaron has been an adventure." She also lauds him for his passion and holding everyone on the council accountable for their actions. "I wish him well."
So Ament says he leaves office the way he came in, speaking not just his mind, but the minds of those he represented. "I represented people who are forward looking, who are of the past, but not rooted in the past. My constituents want to grow, we want to change, want to develop, but we want to do it in a way that doesn't destroy that which brought us all here."
And yes, if Chaney gives him the floor, he plans to say more at Monday's city council meeting prior to new members taking the oath of office.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Linda Pall plans to stay active in city politics
Councilwoman leaving her seat in January, but doesn't plan to disappear
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer Saturday, December 29, 2007
Linda Pall doesn't mind if Moscow residents don't think about her political career 20 years from now.
She wants them to see the fruit of her years on City Council instead.
"I want them to look at scarlet oaks on Main Street and people on an ice rink yet to be determined as they're walking on the Paradise Path, wherever it goes," she said. "When they listen to the 25th season of the Plaza Concert Series on a Monday night in July, I hope they'll look up (at the 1912 Center) and they'll say, 'Wow, somebody was really smart to preserve this old building and to make this a beautiful setting for making Moscow Moscow.' "
Pall has served on the City Council for 18 nonconsecutive years since 1978. She was defeated in the November elections, and will officially be off the council in January.
She may not be sitting at a council post, but residents shouldn't expect her to disappear from city life. Pall said she plans to keep working on the type of projects she's championed as a council member.
Parks have been a hallmark of Pall's political career. Mountain View Park was completed in the early years of Pall's time on the council. She took the lead of a linear park task force in 1994, which helped create the Paradise Path that runs through Moscow.
"I'm just obsessed with getting additional parkland for Moscow," Pall said. "It's right out of the Mark Twain lexicon, where his father told him, 'Buy land son, they ain't making any more.' ... If we don't do it now, we're sure not gonna have it."
One of Pall's dreams is to build a children's garden. The "interactive environment for kids" would have play space, garden plots for growing vegetables and opportunities to learn about local plants and animals. Pall said the first step to making a children's garden reality is to find a place for it, then start writing grants and looking for contributors to fund it.
A sculpture garden and art park also are on Pall's list of dream parks. As president of Friends of the Dog Park, she hopes to find a place for a second dog park in Moscow. Finding a permanent home for the Palouse Ice Rink is also a priority.
"Let's face it - we've got to get that ice rink a permanent home in Moscow," Pall said. "They need it; I want it. That's a good combination."
Pall has also been a champion of historic buildings. She helped save the Old Post Office, which is now City Hall. Pall was the City Council representative on the Moscow Library Board in 1981, when the city considered building a new library. Pall and the board successfully argued that an architecturally compatible expansion should be built on the classic Carnegie Library.
Pall began working to make the 1912 Moscow High School into a community center in the mid-1990s. The city purchased the building in 1998, and the first phase of the 1912 Center opened in 2001. In May, the city turned control over the building to Heart of the Arts, Inc., an nonprofit organization Pall helped found.
Pall said she's excited about the continued support for the 1912 Center. The City Council recently approved renovations for the west wing of the building's ground floor.
"That's just a total winner," she said.
Pall also plans to lobby for the city to include an in-house economic development coordinator in its next budget. She said a coordinator would be able to focus on economic development projects such as a business improvement district for downtown and the Urban Renewal Agency projects. She unsuccessfully fought to include the position in this year's budget.
When the next election comes in 2009, Pall may be on the ballot again.
She said last time she took an "unintentional electoral hiatus," people were soon knocking on her door, asking her to run again.
"If that's the case, I just may," she said.
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer Saturday, December 29, 2007
Linda Pall doesn't mind if Moscow residents don't think about her political career 20 years from now.
She wants them to see the fruit of her years on City Council instead.
"I want them to look at scarlet oaks on Main Street and people on an ice rink yet to be determined as they're walking on the Paradise Path, wherever it goes," she said. "When they listen to the 25th season of the Plaza Concert Series on a Monday night in July, I hope they'll look up (at the 1912 Center) and they'll say, 'Wow, somebody was really smart to preserve this old building and to make this a beautiful setting for making Moscow Moscow.' "
Pall has served on the City Council for 18 nonconsecutive years since 1978. She was defeated in the November elections, and will officially be off the council in January.
She may not be sitting at a council post, but residents shouldn't expect her to disappear from city life. Pall said she plans to keep working on the type of projects she's championed as a council member.
Parks have been a hallmark of Pall's political career. Mountain View Park was completed in the early years of Pall's time on the council. She took the lead of a linear park task force in 1994, which helped create the Paradise Path that runs through Moscow.
"I'm just obsessed with getting additional parkland for Moscow," Pall said. "It's right out of the Mark Twain lexicon, where his father told him, 'Buy land son, they ain't making any more.' ... If we don't do it now, we're sure not gonna have it."
One of Pall's dreams is to build a children's garden. The "interactive environment for kids" would have play space, garden plots for growing vegetables and opportunities to learn about local plants and animals. Pall said the first step to making a children's garden reality is to find a place for it, then start writing grants and looking for contributors to fund it.
A sculpture garden and art park also are on Pall's list of dream parks. As president of Friends of the Dog Park, she hopes to find a place for a second dog park in Moscow. Finding a permanent home for the Palouse Ice Rink is also a priority.
"Let's face it - we've got to get that ice rink a permanent home in Moscow," Pall said. "They need it; I want it. That's a good combination."
Pall has also been a champion of historic buildings. She helped save the Old Post Office, which is now City Hall. Pall was the City Council representative on the Moscow Library Board in 1981, when the city considered building a new library. Pall and the board successfully argued that an architecturally compatible expansion should be built on the classic Carnegie Library.
Pall began working to make the 1912 Moscow High School into a community center in the mid-1990s. The city purchased the building in 1998, and the first phase of the 1912 Center opened in 2001. In May, the city turned control over the building to Heart of the Arts, Inc., an nonprofit organization Pall helped found.
Pall said she's excited about the continued support for the 1912 Center. The City Council recently approved renovations for the west wing of the building's ground floor.
"That's just a total winner," she said.
Pall also plans to lobby for the city to include an in-house economic development coordinator in its next budget. She said a coordinator would be able to focus on economic development projects such as a business improvement district for downtown and the Urban Renewal Agency projects. She unsuccessfully fought to include the position in this year's budget.
When the next election comes in 2009, Pall may be on the ballot again.
She said last time she took an "unintentional electoral hiatus," people were soon knocking on her door, asking her to run again.
"If that's the case, I just may," she said.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
OUR VIEW: Impact fees make sense for Moscow
By Doug Bauer, for the editorial board, Saturday, December 22, 2007
Moscow residents have differing opinions on exactly how they want their city to grow, be it through a pick-and-choose process or by allowing free-for-all development.
One aspect of growth most can agree on is that taxpayers shouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden of extending infrastructure for every new project that comes along.
That's what makes impact fees such a good idea.
Impact fees are tacked on to new development to help pay for growth-related costs. They are calculated by dividing the cost of maintaining city services as population grows by how much the city's population and land use are expected to grow.
They essentially provide an up-front way to tackle infrastructure costs before anything is built. Developers can make up the difference by passing the cost on to the consumer once their project is complete.
The concept is a far cry better than allowing development to occur unchecked and then trying to find a way to continue the level of city services residents have come to expect.
Aside from that, the idea fits well with the city's comprehensive plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission members unanimously recommended the City Council approve capital improvement plans for streets, storm drainage, parks, and police and fire services until 2017. The implementation of impact fees is a key component of the capital improvement plans, and provides a funding mechanism that might not exist otherwise.
Opponents argue that charging impact fees could scare away potential businesses that want to locate in the city.
If that's the case, Moscow probably doesn't have a serious need for those businesses in the first place.
Like many Moscow residents, we feel the city is worth the investment for those wanting to set up shop and enjoy all this area has to offer.
Moscow residents have differing opinions on exactly how they want their city to grow, be it through a pick-and-choose process or by allowing free-for-all development.
One aspect of growth most can agree on is that taxpayers shouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden of extending infrastructure for every new project that comes along.
That's what makes impact fees such a good idea.
Impact fees are tacked on to new development to help pay for growth-related costs. They are calculated by dividing the cost of maintaining city services as population grows by how much the city's population and land use are expected to grow.
They essentially provide an up-front way to tackle infrastructure costs before anything is built. Developers can make up the difference by passing the cost on to the consumer once their project is complete.
The concept is a far cry better than allowing development to occur unchecked and then trying to find a way to continue the level of city services residents have come to expect.
Aside from that, the idea fits well with the city's comprehensive plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission members unanimously recommended the City Council approve capital improvement plans for streets, storm drainage, parks, and police and fire services until 2017. The implementation of impact fees is a key component of the capital improvement plans, and provides a funding mechanism that might not exist otherwise.
Opponents argue that charging impact fees could scare away potential businesses that want to locate in the city.
If that's the case, Moscow probably doesn't have a serious need for those businesses in the first place.
Like many Moscow residents, we feel the city is worth the investment for those wanting to set up shop and enjoy all this area has to offer.
Domestic-partner decision draws fire
Six state senators seek legal analysis from attorney general's office
By Tara Roberts, Daily News, Saturday, December 22, 2007
Six Idaho state senators have asked the Idaho Attorney General's Office to analyze the Moscow City Council's decision to extend insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners.
Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, submitted the request Friday afternoon on behalf of Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, Michael Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, Curtis Bowers, R-Caldwell, Phil Hart, R-Athol, and Steven Thayne, R-Emmett.
"We were surprised to see the decision regarding the health insurance policy," Fulcher said. "It appears it would conflict with the marriage amendment, or at least the spirit of it."
Idaho's marriage amendment, passed in 2006, states, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
The City Council passed a resolution Monday extending health insurance benefits from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho to employees' same- and opposite-sex domestic partners and their partners' dependents. Regence began offering the plan in November.
Domestic partners who want to sign up for the plan must file an affidavit with Regence certifying their partnership and meet a list of qualifying criteria, such as shared residence and financial responsibility.
Fulcher said there is an "intuitive conflict" between the benefit plan and the marriage amendment, which led to the legislators' decision to ask the attorney general's office for an analysis.
He said it is too early to speculate what the legislators will do when they get information back.
Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said she does not believe the decision conflicts with the Idaho Constitution.
"This is a matter of extending to employees an insurance plan that is offered by our insurance provider," Chaney said. "The city is neither defining domestic partnerships nor creating them."
City Attorney Randy Fife said Regence originated the benefit plan, determines what is offered and decides who is eligible, so the plan does not require the city to "recognize" domestic partnerships in the sense of the marriage amendment.
Fife said the city did not change anything in its personnel policy to define or establish domestic partnerships. The city's definition of "immediate family" does not include domestic partners.
"To me, it is not related to whether or not there is a domestic partnership or a relationship that's prohibited by law," Fife said. "It has to do with whether or not the city has the capability of allowing an insurance benefit to be offered to its employees."
Fife said he would review any opinion from the attorney general's office and pass it on to the mayor and City Council to decide how to respond.
Attorney general's office spokeswoman Kriss Bivens Cloyd said the office can respond to legislators' requests with a legal analysis, but it is only an opinion. The legislators can tell the city of Moscow what the opinion is, but the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."
Bivens Cloyd said an analysis requires much research, so it will be some time before any opinion is offered.
Idaho Values Alliance Executive Director Bryan Fischer on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Lawrence Wasden in support of the legislators' request for analysis.
IVA began questioning the constitutionality of extending benefits to domestic partners before the City Council made its decision. IVA is the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.
"I think the city of Moscow must be stopped in its tracks," Fischer said. "If the city is allowed to get away with this, then the constitution of the state of Idaho is a meaningless document."
Fischer said Moscow leaders' arguments that offering the benefit plan doesn't conflict with the constitution are "gobbledygook."
"The city is offering benefits to people in domestic partnerships. That is flatly contrary to the Idaho state constitution," he said.
Chaney acknowledged the subject of domestic partnerships is very emotional for some people. She said the city is not attempting to redefine family, but to recognize that nontraditional families are common.
"The people who would benefit are existing employees, conceivably," she said. "They're people's friends, neighbors, relatives. I think there's this perception that the prospective beneficiaries are kind of scary or evil people, and in fact they're somebody's child."
By Tara Roberts, Daily News, Saturday, December 22, 2007
Six Idaho state senators have asked the Idaho Attorney General's Office to analyze the Moscow City Council's decision to extend insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners.
Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, submitted the request Friday afternoon on behalf of Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, Michael Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, Curtis Bowers, R-Caldwell, Phil Hart, R-Athol, and Steven Thayne, R-Emmett.
"We were surprised to see the decision regarding the health insurance policy," Fulcher said. "It appears it would conflict with the marriage amendment, or at least the spirit of it."
Idaho's marriage amendment, passed in 2006, states, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
The City Council passed a resolution Monday extending health insurance benefits from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho to employees' same- and opposite-sex domestic partners and their partners' dependents. Regence began offering the plan in November.
Domestic partners who want to sign up for the plan must file an affidavit with Regence certifying their partnership and meet a list of qualifying criteria, such as shared residence and financial responsibility.
Fulcher said there is an "intuitive conflict" between the benefit plan and the marriage amendment, which led to the legislators' decision to ask the attorney general's office for an analysis.
He said it is too early to speculate what the legislators will do when they get information back.
Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said she does not believe the decision conflicts with the Idaho Constitution.
"This is a matter of extending to employees an insurance plan that is offered by our insurance provider," Chaney said. "The city is neither defining domestic partnerships nor creating them."
City Attorney Randy Fife said Regence originated the benefit plan, determines what is offered and decides who is eligible, so the plan does not require the city to "recognize" domestic partnerships in the sense of the marriage amendment.
Fife said the city did not change anything in its personnel policy to define or establish domestic partnerships. The city's definition of "immediate family" does not include domestic partners.
"To me, it is not related to whether or not there is a domestic partnership or a relationship that's prohibited by law," Fife said. "It has to do with whether or not the city has the capability of allowing an insurance benefit to be offered to its employees."
Fife said he would review any opinion from the attorney general's office and pass it on to the mayor and City Council to decide how to respond.
Attorney general's office spokeswoman Kriss Bivens Cloyd said the office can respond to legislators' requests with a legal analysis, but it is only an opinion. The legislators can tell the city of Moscow what the opinion is, but the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."
Bivens Cloyd said an analysis requires much research, so it will be some time before any opinion is offered.
Idaho Values Alliance Executive Director Bryan Fischer on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Lawrence Wasden in support of the legislators' request for analysis.
IVA began questioning the constitutionality of extending benefits to domestic partners before the City Council made its decision. IVA is the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.
"I think the city of Moscow must be stopped in its tracks," Fischer said. "If the city is allowed to get away with this, then the constitution of the state of Idaho is a meaningless document."
Fischer said Moscow leaders' arguments that offering the benefit plan doesn't conflict with the constitution are "gobbledygook."
"The city is offering benefits to people in domestic partnerships. That is flatly contrary to the Idaho state constitution," he said.
Chaney acknowledged the subject of domestic partnerships is very emotional for some people. She said the city is not attempting to redefine family, but to recognize that nontraditional families are common.
"The people who would benefit are existing employees, conceivably," she said. "They're people's friends, neighbors, relatives. I think there's this perception that the prospective beneficiaries are kind of scary or evil people, and in fact they're somebody's child."
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission approves capital improvement plans
City Council will make final decision
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer, Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Wednesday the City Council approve capital improvement plans for streets, storm drainage, parks, and police and fire services until 2017.
The plans are part of a proposal to implement impact fees in the city, the result of a $35,000 fee study approved by the City Council in July.
Impact fees are charged to new development to help pay for growth-related costs. They are calculated by dividing the cost of maintaining city services as population grows by how much the city's population and land use are expected to grow.
Planning and Zoning was responsible only for deciding whether the proposal's land-use projections and associated capital improvements were appropriate. The City Council will decide early next year whether to implement impact fees.
The capital improvement plans will be integrated into the city's comprehensive plan whether or not impact fees are approved.
Planning and Zoning members voted unanimously to recommend the plans, without any changes, to City Council.
Commissioner and city councilman-elect Wayne Krauss said he was concerned Planning and Zoning was being asked to make a decision too soon. The commission was first introduced to the plans last week.
However, the commission voted on the plans with little discussion.
Commissioner Sue Scott said she felt confident approving the plans because they will be reviewed every year, and the money generated by impact fees must be used within eight years of payment.
Commissioner Nels Reese said he trusted Moscow's department heads to know what their departments will need in the future.
"This looks like a careful job that is well-presented," he said.
Consultant Tom Pippin said the plans are based on a population growth rate of slightly more than 1 percent a year over the next 10 years. Nonresidential development is expected to increase by 2.4 million square feet by 2017.
The growth rates were based mostly on data in the comprehensive plan and a city database of developed commercial acreage, Pippin said.
The capital improvement plans include growth-related projects, such as a fourth fire station, which can be funded by impact fees. They also include projects that are not impact-fee eligible or can only be funded in part by the fees, such as sidewalks or street improvements that would not directly serve new development.
Some items that city leaders determined may be needed were included on the list, but not calculated into the impact fees in order to be conservative, Pippin said.
For example, Moscow Volunteer Fire Department Chief Ed Button said a fifth fire station may be needed, depending on how the city grows. The $1.5 million station is included in the fire capital improvement plan, but not calculated into the possible impact fees.
The plans do not include equipment that lasts less than 10 years or personnel needs.
Contractor Kelly Moore testified in favor of the plans during a short public hearing. Moore is a member of the citizen advisory committee that will review impact fees annually if the fees are implemented.
"Generally speaking, whether the city adopts impact fees or not, I think it's a very good idea for us to have a capital improvement plan in the comprehensive plan," Moore said. "It helps the community and elected officials know where our growth should be going."
Contractor Pat Planagan said he supports having capital improvement plans, but does not believe impact fees should be used to pay for them.
He said the city should pay for new projects "how we paid for them in the past," such as bonds, taxes and donations.
Moscow resident Evan Holmes said he's in favor of capital improvement plans, but knows plans tend to change as time goes on.
Holmes said he may agree with Planagan's point that "the way we did it in the past didn't require this extra layer of oversight."
Parks and Recreation Director Dwight Curtis said he was pleased with Planning and Zoning's decision.
"It's the appropriate decision. We can't do anything without it," he said. "The critical decision will be the impact fees."
QUICKREAD
WHAT HAPPENED: The Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the City Council approve capital improvement plans for the next 10 years.
WHAT IT MEANS: An outline of equipment and facility needs for streets, storm drainage, parks, and police and fire services until 2017 will be attached to the city's comprehensive plan.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: Early next year, the City Council will discuss the plans and potential impact fees to help pay for them.
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: The capital improvement plans will guide impact fees. Impact fees could potentially add several thousand dollars per unit to the cost of new development.
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer, Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Wednesday the City Council approve capital improvement plans for streets, storm drainage, parks, and police and fire services until 2017.
The plans are part of a proposal to implement impact fees in the city, the result of a $35,000 fee study approved by the City Council in July.
Impact fees are charged to new development to help pay for growth-related costs. They are calculated by dividing the cost of maintaining city services as population grows by how much the city's population and land use are expected to grow.
Planning and Zoning was responsible only for deciding whether the proposal's land-use projections and associated capital improvements were appropriate. The City Council will decide early next year whether to implement impact fees.
The capital improvement plans will be integrated into the city's comprehensive plan whether or not impact fees are approved.
Planning and Zoning members voted unanimously to recommend the plans, without any changes, to City Council.
Commissioner and city councilman-elect Wayne Krauss said he was concerned Planning and Zoning was being asked to make a decision too soon. The commission was first introduced to the plans last week.
However, the commission voted on the plans with little discussion.
Commissioner Sue Scott said she felt confident approving the plans because they will be reviewed every year, and the money generated by impact fees must be used within eight years of payment.
Commissioner Nels Reese said he trusted Moscow's department heads to know what their departments will need in the future.
"This looks like a careful job that is well-presented," he said.
Consultant Tom Pippin said the plans are based on a population growth rate of slightly more than 1 percent a year over the next 10 years. Nonresidential development is expected to increase by 2.4 million square feet by 2017.
The growth rates were based mostly on data in the comprehensive plan and a city database of developed commercial acreage, Pippin said.
The capital improvement plans include growth-related projects, such as a fourth fire station, which can be funded by impact fees. They also include projects that are not impact-fee eligible or can only be funded in part by the fees, such as sidewalks or street improvements that would not directly serve new development.
Some items that city leaders determined may be needed were included on the list, but not calculated into the impact fees in order to be conservative, Pippin said.
For example, Moscow Volunteer Fire Department Chief Ed Button said a fifth fire station may be needed, depending on how the city grows. The $1.5 million station is included in the fire capital improvement plan, but not calculated into the possible impact fees.
The plans do not include equipment that lasts less than 10 years or personnel needs.
Contractor Kelly Moore testified in favor of the plans during a short public hearing. Moore is a member of the citizen advisory committee that will review impact fees annually if the fees are implemented.
"Generally speaking, whether the city adopts impact fees or not, I think it's a very good idea for us to have a capital improvement plan in the comprehensive plan," Moore said. "It helps the community and elected officials know where our growth should be going."
Contractor Pat Planagan said he supports having capital improvement plans, but does not believe impact fees should be used to pay for them.
He said the city should pay for new projects "how we paid for them in the past," such as bonds, taxes and donations.
Moscow resident Evan Holmes said he's in favor of capital improvement plans, but knows plans tend to change as time goes on.
Holmes said he may agree with Planagan's point that "the way we did it in the past didn't require this extra layer of oversight."
Parks and Recreation Director Dwight Curtis said he was pleased with Planning and Zoning's decision.
"It's the appropriate decision. We can't do anything without it," he said. "The critical decision will be the impact fees."
QUICKREAD
WHAT HAPPENED: The Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the City Council approve capital improvement plans for the next 10 years.
WHAT IT MEANS: An outline of equipment and facility needs for streets, storm drainage, parks, and police and fire services until 2017 will be attached to the city's comprehensive plan.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: Early next year, the City Council will discuss the plans and potential impact fees to help pay for them.
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: The capital improvement plans will guide impact fees. Impact fees could potentially add several thousand dollars per unit to the cost of new development.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Ranger Rick shouldn't be able to take your gun
Tom Henderson of the Tribune, Wednesday, December 19, 2007
If you go bear hunting in Yellowstone National Park, you deserve whatever punishment the law hands out. However, should you be busted simply for having a loaded weapon in your car?
There are some good and valid gun control laws, but the ban on carrying loaded weapons in national parks isn't one of them. In fact, it's absurd.
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and the National Rifle Association are right to oppose it.
Many state parks - including the ones in Idaho - allow people to carry loaded weapons even though hunting is prohibited. You can also carry a loaded weapon in some national parks. A few national parks and wildlife refuges even permit hunting.
In most national parks, however, guns are allowed only if the owner has broken them down into a carrying case, rendering them inoperable.
How can gun owners keep up with these rules and track when they're crossing the boundary between one regulation and another? That's the question Crapo is asking - and why he wants to see uniformity in the regulations.
Crapo and almost half of the U.S. Senate (39 Republicans and eight Democrats) sent a letter Monday to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, asking him change the rules. These changes, Crapo says, "respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners while providing a consistent application of state weapons laws across all land ownership boundaries."
There are times and places when restricting loaded weapons makes sense. Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney was pilloried by gun enthusiasts for suggesting a ban on firearms at public meetings. Although the Moscow City Council shelved her idea, the question it raised is still valid:
Why would you want or need to bring a loaded weapon to a planning and zoning meeting?
National parks are different. People sometimes have to stop, break down a gun and stow it in a carrying case when they cross from state to federal lands, says Susan Wheeler, a spokesman for Crapo. "We've got a couple of agencies that go by state law and some that don't," she says. "If they all went by the same rules, that would be a lot easier."
In a word: consistency.
Now that's a gun law that makes sense. - T.H.
If you go bear hunting in Yellowstone National Park, you deserve whatever punishment the law hands out. However, should you be busted simply for having a loaded weapon in your car?
There are some good and valid gun control laws, but the ban on carrying loaded weapons in national parks isn't one of them. In fact, it's absurd.
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and the National Rifle Association are right to oppose it.
Many state parks - including the ones in Idaho - allow people to carry loaded weapons even though hunting is prohibited. You can also carry a loaded weapon in some national parks. A few national parks and wildlife refuges even permit hunting.
In most national parks, however, guns are allowed only if the owner has broken them down into a carrying case, rendering them inoperable.
How can gun owners keep up with these rules and track when they're crossing the boundary between one regulation and another? That's the question Crapo is asking - and why he wants to see uniformity in the regulations.
Crapo and almost half of the U.S. Senate (39 Republicans and eight Democrats) sent a letter Monday to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, asking him change the rules. These changes, Crapo says, "respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners while providing a consistent application of state weapons laws across all land ownership boundaries."
There are times and places when restricting loaded weapons makes sense. Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney was pilloried by gun enthusiasts for suggesting a ban on firearms at public meetings. Although the Moscow City Council shelved her idea, the question it raised is still valid:
Why would you want or need to bring a loaded weapon to a planning and zoning meeting?
National parks are different. People sometimes have to stop, break down a gun and stow it in a carrying case when they cross from state to federal lands, says Susan Wheeler, a spokesman for Crapo. "We've got a couple of agencies that go by state law and some that don't," she says. "If they all went by the same rules, that would be a lot easier."
In a word: consistency.
Now that's a gun law that makes sense. - T.H.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Crapo leads charge to allow guns in parks
For one thing, national park visitors camping or hiking deep in the woods want to protect themselves, a firearms advocate says.
ERIKA BOLSTAD of the Boise Statesman- Edition Date: 12/18/07
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo is leading an effort to repeal federal gun restrictions in national parks and wildlife refuges, saying that the guidelines are "confusing, burdensome and unnecessary."
In a letter sent Monday, Crapo and almost half of the U.S. Senate asked Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to change rules that prohibit visitors to most national parks and wildlife refuges from carrying active, loaded guns.
Such changes would "respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, while providing a consistent application of state weapons laws across all land ownership boundaries" Crapo wrote.
The letter was signed by 47 senators, including fellow Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig. A total of 39 Republicans and eight Democrats signed on; the Democrats included both of Montana's senators.
They're merely asking for consistency from federal agencies, said Crapo's spokeswoman, Susan Wheeler. Often, people aren't aware whether they are on federal or state land and don't know which regulations they should follow, Wheeler said.
Sometimes, people have to stop, break down a gun and stow it in a carrying case when they cross from state lands to federal lands, Wheeler said.
"We've got a couple of agencies that go by state law and some that don't," she said. "If they all went by the same rules, that would be a lot easier."
There currently is no process under way to change the existing gun guidelines on federal lands, Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino said.
"We've received the letter and will review it and take the senators' views into consideration," he said.
Crapo decided to press for the changes now, so that they would be considered before the end of the Bush administration, Wheeler said. Crapo spent the past two weeks collecting signatures.
Crapo has spoken to Kempthorne about his proposal, Wheeler said. She wouldn't elaborate on whether the Interior secretary, a former senator and Idaho governor, was interested in the changes.
"We would hope that he would be amenable to it, being a fellow westerner and understanding the lifestyle," she said.
Wheeler said that the timing of Crapo's letter has nothing to do with his objections to Michael Sullivan as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Both Crapo and Craig have placed a hold on Sullivan's confirmation as the director of the agency, saying ATF has become overly aggressive in enforcing U.S. gun laws. President Bush nominated Sullivan in March; last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination. But under Senate rules, any single senator can put a hold on legislative action, including confirming presidential appointees.
Crapo's effort to change the gun guidelines on federal land is backed by the National Rifle Association, which has been trying to change the rules on firearms on federal lands for about five years, spokeswoman Ashley Varner said.
"When you have law-abiding citizens who are not allowed to carry firearms for personal protection when they are out hiking, when they are out camping deep in the national forests ... that really leaves the law-abiding citizens defenseless," Varner said.
Current gun regulations on federal lands vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the land.
Active, operable guns are allowed on federal land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, for example, as long as the applicable state and local firearms laws are followed.
Nationwide, guns are generally allowed on national wildlife refuges and in national parks -- but only if the owner has broken them down into a carrying case, rendering them inoperable.
However, there are some exceptions, particularly in Alaska, where guns are allowed in some backcountry locations. Also, some National Wildlife Refuges allow hunting, and loaded guns are acceptable in those locations during hunting season. There also are 59 National Park units where people can hunt and carry weapons, Paolino said, but again, only during hunting season.
If park visitors are uncertain about the regulations, "There's no harm in calling where you're headed and just asking the question, and getting it clarified," Paolino said.
Active, loaded guns are allowed at Idaho state parks, said spokeswoman Jennifer Wernex. However, no hunting is allowed in the Idaho state park system, she said.
And anyone who carries a gun at a park must abide by the state laws on firearms, including Idaho's law on concealed weapons.
----------------------------------------------
National Parks will be okay, and State Parks are okay, but City Parks aren't?
ERIKA BOLSTAD of the Boise Statesman- Edition Date: 12/18/07
WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo is leading an effort to repeal federal gun restrictions in national parks and wildlife refuges, saying that the guidelines are "confusing, burdensome and unnecessary."
In a letter sent Monday, Crapo and almost half of the U.S. Senate asked Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to change rules that prohibit visitors to most national parks and wildlife refuges from carrying active, loaded guns.
Such changes would "respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, while providing a consistent application of state weapons laws across all land ownership boundaries" Crapo wrote.
The letter was signed by 47 senators, including fellow Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig. A total of 39 Republicans and eight Democrats signed on; the Democrats included both of Montana's senators.
They're merely asking for consistency from federal agencies, said Crapo's spokeswoman, Susan Wheeler. Often, people aren't aware whether they are on federal or state land and don't know which regulations they should follow, Wheeler said.
Sometimes, people have to stop, break down a gun and stow it in a carrying case when they cross from state lands to federal lands, Wheeler said.
"We've got a couple of agencies that go by state law and some that don't," she said. "If they all went by the same rules, that would be a lot easier."
There currently is no process under way to change the existing gun guidelines on federal lands, Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino said.
"We've received the letter and will review it and take the senators' views into consideration," he said.
Crapo decided to press for the changes now, so that they would be considered before the end of the Bush administration, Wheeler said. Crapo spent the past two weeks collecting signatures.
Crapo has spoken to Kempthorne about his proposal, Wheeler said. She wouldn't elaborate on whether the Interior secretary, a former senator and Idaho governor, was interested in the changes.
"We would hope that he would be amenable to it, being a fellow westerner and understanding the lifestyle," she said.
Wheeler said that the timing of Crapo's letter has nothing to do with his objections to Michael Sullivan as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Both Crapo and Craig have placed a hold on Sullivan's confirmation as the director of the agency, saying ATF has become overly aggressive in enforcing U.S. gun laws. President Bush nominated Sullivan in March; last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination. But under Senate rules, any single senator can put a hold on legislative action, including confirming presidential appointees.
Crapo's effort to change the gun guidelines on federal land is backed by the National Rifle Association, which has been trying to change the rules on firearms on federal lands for about five years, spokeswoman Ashley Varner said.
"When you have law-abiding citizens who are not allowed to carry firearms for personal protection when they are out hiking, when they are out camping deep in the national forests ... that really leaves the law-abiding citizens defenseless," Varner said.
Current gun regulations on federal lands vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the land.
Active, operable guns are allowed on federal land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, for example, as long as the applicable state and local firearms laws are followed.
Nationwide, guns are generally allowed on national wildlife refuges and in national parks -- but only if the owner has broken them down into a carrying case, rendering them inoperable.
However, there are some exceptions, particularly in Alaska, where guns are allowed in some backcountry locations. Also, some National Wildlife Refuges allow hunting, and loaded guns are acceptable in those locations during hunting season. There also are 59 National Park units where people can hunt and carry weapons, Paolino said, but again, only during hunting season.
If park visitors are uncertain about the regulations, "There's no harm in calling where you're headed and just asking the question, and getting it clarified," Paolino said.
Active, loaded guns are allowed at Idaho state parks, said spokeswoman Jennifer Wernex. However, no hunting is allowed in the Idaho state park system, she said.
And anyone who carries a gun at a park must abide by the state laws on firearms, including Idaho's law on concealed weapons.
----------------------------------------------
National Parks will be okay, and State Parks are okay, but City Parks aren't?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
