Quote of the Day II

The existence of private property rights and the ability to do things with your land as you see fit is often not fully appreciated. The United States of America would not be the county it is without these rights. John Adams, one of the founding fathers of our country, said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." (I bet John Adams told some really good I-remember-when stories.)

Lots of people want to tell you what you can do with property they do not own. The challenge is to allow development of private property in ways that provide profit to the landowner and facility to the community. It is often difficult to find the middle ground, and it is never possible to make everyone completely happy. If the community is not alert, small groups of vocal and active people can be very obstructive and do great harm to the future of the community.

- Steve Busch, "The ever-changing face of the Palouse," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, May 28, 2008

Moscowans should be glad that Steve and other individuals with common sense founded the Greater Moscow Alliance and saved the city from the clutches of those "small groups of vocal and active people."

Sour Grapes Redux

Citizen Ament and his ponytail provided yet another angry and churlish reminder today of why he finished dead last in last November's Moscow City Council election.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

An economic assault on Moscow

When I took my seat on the Moscow City Council the Hawkins development was an inevitability.

By the end of my term [i.e., when the voters booted him out - tf] Hawkins was a possibility, nothing more. I took it for granted that it was my responsibility as an elected official to protect the natural resources and economic health of Moscow. [Obviously the voters disagreed - tf] The Hawkins development will be detrimental to both.

The possibility of the Hawkins project was so remote that without financial assistance the project would not move forward. Whitman County made the same bad decision that many other government entities have made - to offer financial incentives to lure new business. [That's why we're getting Hawkins and Home Depot ditched Moscow - tf] Then our Greater Moscow Alliance-dominated Moscow City Council went to work. I knew these guys had a business-first philosophy. I naively thought they meant Moscow business. Our GMA City Council made the Hawkins development a surety.

Moscow sits atop a resource that is in scarce supply worldwide - pure, clean, unpolluted water. We have yet to work out our own water issues. We need to carefully consider each new burden we place on our water supply. Our GMA City Council sees no need to conserve our water.

Our GMA City Council allocated our water to ensure growth in Whitman County. I am not opposed to growth in Whitman County. I believe we need a healthy region to have a healthy city. Placement by Whitman County of a "big-box village" right next to Moscow, miles from needed Whitman County utilities, is growth I can not support. The Hawkins development is nothing less than an economic assault on Moscow.

The GMA City Council voted against Moscow business and for squandering our resources. Thanks to our GMA City Council, Whitman County will be building infrastructure "in Moscow" that will ship our resources out, their waste in.

Aaron Ament, Moscow

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH! You had your shot and voters overwhelmingly rejected your point of view. Get a life.

It Ain't Over 'Til The Hippie Lady Sings

As you may have noticed by letters and stories in the Daily News, the anti-growthniks in Moscow are not going gentle into that good night with regards to the Moscow-Hawkins water deal. Accusations of smoke-filled backroom deals, juicy quid pro quos for Greater Moscow Alliance members, and cries for a recall of city council members have been flying faster than a pair of stretched tights ripping at the Renaissance Festival.

But a more sinister threat is growing behind the scenes. King Solomon, ominously quiet during the drama these past few weeks, is working behind the scenes to thwart the evil plot of the running lap dogs of capitalism.

Exhibit 1: The following e-mail exchange between Solomon and the Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Department of Water Resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rassier, Phil
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:58 PM
To: 'Mark Solomon'
Cc: Haynes, Bob; 'rfife@ci.moscow.id.us'
Subject: RE: Moscow out of state sale of water

Mark,

This is a brief informal response to your request for my thoughts on your discussion set out below relating to the authorities under which the City of Moscow could seek authorization to provide water across the Washington state line. Many of the statutes and issues you discuss were addressed in the attached June 16, 2005 letter from Steve Strack of the Idaho Attorney General's Office to Randy Fife.

For the reasons stated in the Strack letter, the provisions of I.C. 50-324 do not provide usable authority for the City of Moscow in the present case. That statute provides authority for a city in Idaho to acquire and operate an out of state private water distribution system in order to supply water to the Idaho city from an out of state source.

The Strack letter also addresses the provisions of I.C. 42-401 governing applications for use of public waters outside the state. While this statute certainly governs applications by persons from outside the state it also governs applications from persons within Idaho who intend to "withdraw water from any surface or underground water source in the state of Idaho and transport it for use outside the state ..." To read the statute otherwise would mean the Legislature intended to withhold from Idaho citizens a benefit required under the Commerce Clause that is being provided to non-citizens. In my view, this would not be a plausable reading of the statute.

I appreciate your inquiry and hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Phil Rassier

________________________________

Phillip J. Rassier
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Department of Water Resources
322 East Front Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0098
Phone: (208) 287-4808
Fax: (208) 287-6700
Email: phil.rassier@idwr.idaho.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Solomon [mailto:msolomon@uidaho.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Rassier, Phil
Subject: Moscow out of state sale of water

Dear Phil,

I am writing you today to seek your assistance in clarifying the statutory authorities under which the City of Moscow may seek IDWR permission to sell water across the Washington state line to a private entity. The city attorney, Randy Fife, and I have discussed this matter and come to diametrically held opinions. In the interest of resolving this issue as expeditiously as possible, informal guidance from IDWR, short of a court's determination, may serve all the interests at hand - especially if provided prior to an actual application from the City of Moscow to IDWR.

I understand from communications received by the City from IDWR that an application might be considered under 42-401 I.C. et seq. There is another statute within Title 50 (Municipal Corporations) that I believe may control in this instance as it is specific to the powers of a city regarding transfer of water across a state line.

50-324. CITIES AUTHORIZED TO JOINTLY PURCHASE OR LEASE, MAINTAIN OR OPERATE A JOINT WATER SYSTEM. All cities of this state are empowered by ordinance to negotiate for and purchase or lease, and to maintain and operate, in cooperation with adjoining cities of states bordering this state, the out of state water distribution system, plant and equipment of privately owned utilities used for the purpose of supplying water to the purchasing or leasing cities from an out of state source; provided, the legislature of the state in which such water distribution system, plant, equipment and supply are located, by enabling legislation, authorizes its cities to join in such purchase or lease, maintenance and operation. The city council of the cities acting jointly under this section shall have authority, by mutual agreement, to exercise jointly all powers granted to each individual city in the purchase or lease, maintenance and operation of a water supply system. (Emphasis added).

Here the state has spoken specifically to the conditions under which cities are authorized to distribute water across the state line. By my understanding of the rules of statutory interpretation, when a statute speaks specifically to a circumstance, it then excludes the extension of the power in question. In other words, by specifically granting cities the power to cooperate with adjoining cities in bordering states, the state excludes the cities' power to cooperate with other entities in the operation of a joint water system across state lines. If my interpretation is correct (and while I've read a lot of law, I am not a lawyer), then deciding how to proceed under 42-401 is a moot point.

If it is not mooted, then consideration of the other statutes is required. It is the City's position that 42-401 provides the authority and permitting process for its sale of water across the state line. A simple reading of the Chapter's title "APPROPRIATIONS FOR USE OUTSIDE STATE" would appear to support that position. However, a plain reading of the statute accompanied by its legislative history indicates that this statute speaks to a set of facts that do not fit the City's circumstances.

42-401 I.C. seems to be intended to address facts similar to those that gave rise to the U.S Supreme Court decision in Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) and the subsequent test of New Mexico's statute interpreting that decision in City of El Paso v. Reynolds (El Paso II), 597 F. Supp. 694 (D.N.M. 1984). 41-401 I.C. repeatedly refers to an applicant's use of water in an adjoining state as in Sporhase, not the provision of water by an entity in Idaho to a different entity in another state:(

2) Any person, firm or corporation or any other entity intending to withdraw water from any surface or underground water source in the state of Idaho and transport it for use outside the state or to change the place or purpose of use of a water right from a place in Idaho to a place outside the state shall file with the department of water resources an application for a permit to do so.

(3) In order to approve an application under this chapter, the director must find that the applicant's use of water outside the state.

(7) Upon submittal of the application, the applicant shall designate an agent in the state of Idaho for reception of service of processs.

Taken together the various sections of 42-401 seem to clearly imply that the applicant is an out-of-state entity with a water right in Idaho who intends to use the water outside the state. This interpretation would coincide well with the facts in Sporhase, but not with the intention of the City of Moscow to apply for a permit to sell water across the state line. Even if 42-401 could be read so broadly as to include such a sale, it appears the applicant could not be the City of Moscow but would have to be the out-of-state entity who intends to use the state's water. It is my reading that 42-401 et seq simply does not apply to the situation at hand no matter who is the applicant.

I understand that you would not want to comment on whether a legally viable application will or should be granted, but here, it appears that there is no legal means for the city to obtain the permit they have contracted to request. An informal opinion from you (perhaps to your director that could then be passed on to the city informally?) might save the city a lot of embarrassment, time, money, and public protest. If the City then chose not to file its application, the merits of the question "should the water use be allowed" would never need to be debated and protested in public hearings.

Your thoughts and guidance would be most welcome.

Sincerely,

Mark Solomon
Moscow, ID

Knowledgable observers believe this is just the beginning of an onslaught of efforts to bring pressure upon the Idaho Department of Water Resources and their upcoming decision to approve the water supply agreement.

The 2005 Moscow Water Transfer opinion by Deputy Attorney General Steven W. Strack attached to the e-mail is not promising. Click here to view a copy of this opinion. But that was a past IDWR director's interpretation of Idaho Code. The new IDWR director, Dave Tuthill, interprets the law somewhat more favorably for the extension of water services to occur across state lines. However, this will not stop the Aquinuts from trying to push this as far as they can. The Hawkins cause célèbre, as Gordon Forgey has called it, is still very far from over.

The pro-growth Moscow City Council members, or the "Hawkins 5" as they are being derisively dubbed, are being lambasted publicly in the most concentrated smear campaign we have seen on the Palouse since Jerry Weitz had the temerity to challenge the school levy.

I admit, it is tempting to sit this one out. A business-unfriendly Moscow is very business-friendly to Whitman County and Pullman. And Whitman County is covered with the infrastructure bond and Hawkins still has water rights it can pursue if IDWR doesn't allow Moscow to sell water. Hawkins can still build their mall. Many, including myself, would like to see Whitman County control the water for development in the corridor and not be dependent on Moscow.

BUT WE CANNOT LET THE LEFTISTS WIN THIS ONE!!!!!!! Thw Moscow City Council vote to drop the appeals and agree to sell water and sewer services was a HUGE kick in the teeth to the local socialists. The constant screeching and dramatic rhetoric is evidence of that. But if they manage to stop the water sale to Hawkins, they'll be emboldened to stop every new project by beating down everyone who supports it they way they have this time. And don't forget, there will be other developments in the corridor besides Hawkins. If they win this one, King Solomon and the Knights of the Water Table will oppose every one of them. The Moscow-Hawkins deal has thawed the Cold War between Whitman County and Moscow. It has reestablished relations between our two communities. And this is important. We are a regional economy sharing regional resources. We either work together or fail alone. Plus, as I have stated before, if you believe in preserving the aquifer, Moscow municipal water service will ultimately save more water than the original Hawkins plan for development of new wells.

Someone told me yesterday that, "I attended Mayor Chaney's State of the City address today. The elephant in the room (Hawkins) was never mentioned but many could smell the peanuts...."

What can you do? Consider writing a letter to the editor in support of common sense and the Hawkins-Moscow water deal, whether you are a resident of Pullman, Moscow, Whitman County, or Latah County.

Also, consider sending the Moscow City Council members an e-mail expressing your support:

Bill Lambert
Dan Carscallen
John Weber
Walter Steed
Wayne Krauss

You can also leave a phone message for the council members at (208) 883-7080.

"Time to throw the rotten so-and-so's out"

Another classic column from Michael O'Neal in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

It's hard to keep crybabies quiet.

The back story to this scrap of wisdom runs thus. An out-of-area developer, the Hawkins Companies, wants to put in a retail development just west of Moscow. Five Moscow councilmen, three of them recently elected after running on an openly pro-business platform, are now officially a nefarious cabal, the "Hawkins Five," dubbed so on this page because they voted to sell water to the developer after closed-door mediations.

Now the United States has this thing called representative government. Voters, expressing preferences at the polls, elect people to office, then turn over to those people decision-making authority. That way, everything doesn't become a referendum. Every time a decision has to be made, we don't have to run to the polls, or sit in hothouse meeting halls picking up the flu from the guy with the wet cough behind us.

But there's a class of people in Moscow who don't like representative government, for it gives misguided little people license to vote. Those voters in turn have the temerity to elect to office candidates who are not aging hippies whose notion of economic development is coffee stands (which use water) and tattoo parlors.

What's their problem? For starters, the developers are from Boise. That must mean they're curly-mustachioed, cigar-chomping carpetbaggers, in town to offer the rest of us 40 acres and a mule in exchange for our water. Reasonably, though, the developers believe that business owners might want to tidy up after us and that employees and shoppers should wash their hands after flushing.

But these are all salutary activities. People would presumably be doing them anyhow, somewhere (one hopes), thus using water from the same aquifer, unless of course they're really good at holding it so they can go use water from someone else's aquifer. But then they'd be burning gas, melting the polar ice caps, and drowning the giant Palouse earthworm - the point being that we all exist, so every single one of us uses resources no matter what we do and where we do it. And if we don't have to leave carbon footprints between here and Lewiston or Spokane to do it, something's been gained.

Further, these establishments might sell things people actually want, need, and can afford, without turning to the Internet, as many currently do, thus shipping away dollars and the tax revenues they generate. It's likely that most of the products they'd sell won't be made of hemp or bamboo - or made in co-ops redolent with patchouli. So that means they represent sprawl.

The usual gambit employed by people who don't like a decision is to grumble about process. Closed doors for them are always a bad sign, as they are for my cat. But as I've tried to explain to my cat, mediations are always closed. People are more inclined to mediate (another salutary activity) when they know that a card they show behind closed doors won't get trumped later in a lawsuit.

So the crybabies, who didn't get their way in the last City Council election, want to "recall" the newly elected councilmen. They intone solemnly that there should have been more "public discussion" and that the Hawkins Five (one quakes at the very name) has "betrayed the public trust" - by doing what the little people elected them to do. Of course, the process included no vigorous "public discussion" when the mayor unilaterally filed a petition to quash Hawkins, but this mote of hypocrisy escapes the notice of the hemp-and-bamboo crowd.

Meanwhile, the little people are cattle. We're told that the councilmen who voted in Hawkins' favor were "ushered into office by the Greater Moscow Alliance," more cigar-chompers bent on selling off the Palouse in pieces to the highest bidders. Many of us little people find smug, elitist comments like this a slap in the face. The council members were ushered into office not by the GMA but by the citizens who chose to vote for them. The GMA didn't even exist when two of the Hawkins lapdogs were elected.

But the voters, lobotomized by the GMA, were wrong. The people the voters voted for voted in favor of something some people don't like. So of course we must throw the sonsabitches out.

Get out the (organic) teething biscuits.

"Hawkins's development closed-door dealings under scrutiny; Moscow council members maintain their decision was in city's best interest"

Ah, right out of the ol' liberal playbook. You lose an election, you bitch about the people that won for the next few years and constantly demand they be removed from office.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Moscow's newest City Council members have spent the last several days defending their decision to sell water to a development firm that wants to build just across the state line in Whitman County.

Some residents are so unhappy they're considering a recall.

Dan Carscallen, Wayne Krauss and Walter Steed voted Monday along with Bill Lambert and John Weber to approve a settlement that offers Boise-based Hawkins Companies 45 acre-feet of potable water and 20 acre-feet of irrigation water on an annual basis for use at its proposed 700,000-square-foot retail development just west of Moscow. The Idaho Department of Water Resources must approve the offer before it is official.

The settlement was drafted after two days of mediation last week in Spokane.

Hawkins has about three months to decide whether to purchase wastewater treatment services from Moscow. The settlement also means the city will drop its appeal of water-rights transfers granted to Hawkins, which in turn will relinquish 45 acre-feet of water rights when it has access to Moscow water.

Confidentiality

Moscow resident Bill French, a member of the Palouse Water Conservation Network, said he and others have considered calling for a recall of the council members who voted for the settlement.

A recall is worth considering because "five of our six council members, at least in my opinion, betrayed the public trust by conducting this closed-door negotiation and settlement," he said.

Moscow's representatives at the mediation - Steed, Krauss, Mayor Nancy Chaney and Public Works Director Les MacDonald - agreed to keep the proceedings confidential, as demanded by the mediator. The council had to vote on the settlement without disclosing its content to the public.

Krauss said the confidentiality was necessary because the information discussed in mediation couldn't have been used in later litigation if no settlement was reached.

French said Moscow's representatives should have walked out rather than sign the confidentiality agreement.

"I think it was very imprudent for the council to enter negotiations and make a decision before the public had any opportunity to weigh in on what they were thinking," he said.

Dennis Baird, owner of the Wine Company of Moscow, agrees.

"They could have said, 'I'm sorry, we're not going to do that,' " Baird said. "If the mediator didn't like that, then they could have gotten another mediator."

French said Moscow should have continued with its water rights appeal.

"I'm not of the opinion that (the appeal) was destined to fail," he said. "At the very least it might have delayed Hawkins long enough to change the whole situation."

Krauss and Steed said they decided it was best to go ahead with the mediation.

"I went up there to reach a settlement to conclude the Hawkins situation," Steed said.

Krauss said city representatives had two other options: They could have proceeded with costly litigation on the appeal, or dropped the appeal altogether, but "that would have allowed a private entity to pump from the same aquifer we do without any public entity to monitor them on a regular basis."

Chaney said she was not surprised that the mediation session was kept confidential. To disclose things in a legal dispute would be counterproductive to Moscow's interests.

However, Chaney said the council could have proceeded differently after mediation concluded.

She said the council could have declined the settlement and opened discussion to the public. They could have discussed the elements in the settlement without disclosing the agreement itself, and returned to mediation later if the other entities were open to it.

Control issues

Carscallen, Krauss and Steed said Whitman County was going to help Hawkins move forward one way or another. Moscow had the opportunity to get as much as it could out of the deal.

"We didn't do this to sell out Moscow or to harm or to help Hawkins," Steed said. "We saw an inevitable development that we felt that we could to some degree control, to some degree reduce the amount of water (it used) that we all draw from and to make some money for the city."

The councilmen said the settlement ultimately reduces the net effect on the Grand Ronde aquifer, compared to the water Hawkins would pull if all its water rights were approved and Moscow was not involved.

Chaney said the settlement means "the Hawkins group will end up with more water than was otherwise authorized."

Hawkins had only secured rights to 45 acre-feet, but the settlement guarantees 65 acre-feet.

Chaney said she also dislikes the portion of the settlement in which Moscow agrees not to protest, directly or indirectly, "any permits or governmental approvals" sought by Hawkins for the project. The city can protest "based on public safety or nuisance."

The project was "too ill-defined" for such an agreement, Chaney said.

She also is concerned that the city does not control utility-related issues at Hawkins it would control within city limits. For example, Moscow can't regulate how much grease a restaurant in the development can release into the wastewater system.

Economic issues

Steed said people who shop at the Hawkins development may continue across the border and spend money in Moscow. Shoppers who don't find what they want at Hawkins could come to a similar store in Moscow.

"It's Marketing 101 - you put in a Burger King across the street from a McDonald's," Steed said.

Baird said Hawkins is more likely to hurt Moscow businesses. Because Hawkins will benefit from city infrastructure, which businesses help pay for, the council is forcing business owners to "pay for their own death."

Rate issues

French said he is concerned the agreement doesn't specify what Hawkins will have to pay for water or wastewater treatment.

"We should be making sure we're getting as high a rate as we can from them for providing that service," he said.

Carscallen said city representatives did not set a specific rate because they do not know what Moscow's water rates will be when the development is built.

The settlement states that Moscow "shall be fair and reasonable and consistent with rates and charges set for similarly situated customers of the city."

Steed said this does not mean that Hawkins will pay the same as a business within Moscow city limits.

Krauss said there are no "similarly situated" businesses, so the city will have to create a new rate for businesses across the state line.

The current rate for businesses outside the city limits is twice that of businesses in town, Krauss said. The rate for Hawkins could be as much as three times the in-town rate.

"We will work out a fair rate for them based on who and what they are," Krauss said.

The councilmen said the city also could save money if Hawkins decides to help pay for upgrades to Moscow's wastewater treatment plant in order to speed the availability of treated wastewater for irrigation.

What's next?

French said people who are unhappy with the settlement should speak out when the Idaho Department of Water Resources evaluates the sale.

"We need to see if there is any way to prevent this agreement from being followed through," he said.

Chaney said the settlement could bring positives.

It could encourage the Washington State Department of Ecology and Idaho Department of Water Resources to manage the Palouse Basin as a common watershed, she said. Any well drilled by Hawkins prior to hooking into Moscow's water could later be used as a test well for the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee to assess aquifer levels.

"I think we are all coming at this from the perspective of wanting to do what we think will be beneficial to water in the Palouse Basin," she said. "We may not agree on what that is but ... we will make the best out of whatever the outcome is."

"Moscow Pullman Border War Cease Fire"

Michael has written a must-read post on his blog "The Pajamahadin." Click here to read it.

My favorite quote is:

I expect to see a shabby and disheveled Aaron Ament on a Moscow street corner one of these days holding up a hand-lettered cardboard sign reading, “Will disparage people of faith for food.”

*LOL* Read the whole thing.

Whitman County Commissioners Take Public Comment on Hawkins Bond Proposal

Commissioners Partch, Finch, and Largent listen to public comment
Just got back from the Whitman County Commissioners meeting in Colfax. I was there, along with fellow BREO members Russ and April Coggins, to express support for the proposed Hawkins development infrastructure bond.

Nothing extremely earth-shattering was divulged, although it was interesting to hear that the the water rights Hakwins receives will be turned over to the county as part of this deal. That has not been reported previously. Ed Schultz, chairman of the Whitman County Water Conservancy Board, stated that this would necessitate another formal transfer approval process.


Whitman County residents give comments to the commissioners; Whitman County Public Works Director Mark Storey is in the doorway.
No one present was in opposition to the project, but some citizens had some probing questions such as: Was the meeting legal?; Would this set a precedent for all future development?; Why didn't all developers get this help from the county?; etc., etc.

Commissioner Jerry Finch said that in a perfect world, Hawkins would pay for the infrastructure all on their own, but the time has come that if the county doesn't partner with Hawkins on this, they will walk. April and others pointed out that the infrastructure is a valuable investment in the county's future, as it can be used for future development in the corridor. If Hawkins owned it, it couldn't be. A developer from Pasco, who owns land in the corridor and was on hand to voice his support, said this kind of public/private partnership is becoming more and more common.

I was glad to see that Paul Kimmell of the Greater Moscow Alliance was on hand. I made a comment to the effect that hopefully his presence at the meeting was indicative of future cooperation between our two governments. Paul, who works for Avista, is no longer executive director of the Moscow Chamber of Commerce of course, but he was instrumental in getting at least one of the new Moscow City Council members elected and I'm sure one reason he was there was to report back to them.

If Moscow drops its water rights transfer appeals and extends water service to the Hakwins development, its a win-win for everyone. Whitman County wins by getting a piece of the Palouse sales tax pie and Moscow wins by also getting a piece of the action (a little of something is far better than a whole lot of nothing), as well as benefitting from spillover business attracted to the new mall, including Lowe's, which would be a new store for the Quad Cities.

Much more later. Rory Curtiss of KMAX, Evan Ellis of KQQQ, Devin Rokyta of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Joe Smillie of the Whitman County Gazette, and David Johnson of the Lewiston Tribune were all on hand, so expect this to be well covered in the media.


Daily News reporter Devin Rokyta in the foreground; Gazette reporter Joe Smillie is visible over his left shoulder in the far back of the room; Paul Kimmell (wearing glasses) is on the extreme right, with David Johnson of the Tribune barely visible to his left.

Spinning the Moscow Liberals' Defeat

The Lewiston Tribune continues to put their leftist spin on the total defeat of the Moscow Civic Association in Tuesday's election.

Jim Fisher writes in his column today:

Tuesday's city council races were nowhere near as decisive. The results again displayed the centrism among voters that leads them to switch back and forth between opposing factions in city politics. In electing Wayne Krauss, Dan Carscallen and Walter Steed - running on a slate endorsed by the Greater Moscow Alliance - they turned the council away from the restrictions on big-box stores and water use of the councilors endorsed by the Moscow Civic Association.

But in giving the biggest number of votes to Lamar, longtime executive director of the Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute, they sent a message to Krauss, Carscallen and Steed.

That message? Remember what happened to Gary Young. Swing wildly to the right, and you can be replaced too.

And David Johnson reports:

Mayor Nancy Chaney said Wednesday the previous day's city council election rendered a modest pendulum swing back to the right, but not a political mandate.

You keep believing that Nancy. I've got an oceanfront fishing village in Kansas I want to sell you for a sustainable development.

Here are the salient facts, as I see them, even if no one else wants to admit it:

1. I would not read too much into Tom Lamar's victory. Remember only two GMA candidates were running in the "Vote for 3" category versus three MCA candidates. It was therefore inevitable that one MCA candidate was going to win a seat. However, that leads to Point 2.
2. Whenever two incumbent council candidates with the MOST years of service receive the LEAST amount of votes, I call that a mandate. Lamar has only been on the council for a few months. He is the least known to the voters. This was no doubt a "throw the bums out" election.
3. Whenever one side has a 5 to 1 margin, I call that a mandate.
4. We have now seen in elections in Moscow and Pullman that when council candidates, be they incumbents or challengers, are against Wal-Mart, they go down in defeat. I call that a lesson. Oppose Wal-Mart at your political peril. Two university towns or not, there is enough of a agricultural/small business community on the Palouse that we have little tolerance for elitism. That lesson has been learned in Pullman already. No candidate in our mayoral or city council elections this year was against Wal-Mart, even though the issue of Wal-Mart is still up in the air.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Moscow City Council takes a sharp turn as GMA-backed candidates sweep into office"

Goodbye, Citizen Ament. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Moscow politics took a drastic shift Tuesday with the election of three new City Council members and leaving only the newest incumbent left.

Cheers and shouts of victory echoed through the Eastside Marketplace as Greater Moscow Alliance members learned all three of their endorsed candidates won seats on the council.

Dan Carscallen and Wayne Krauss won four-year seats, and Walter Steed won the lone two-year seat. All were endorsed by the GMA, which was established in 2006 to promote free enterprise and property rights.

Tom Lamar, who was appointed to council in June, also won a four-year seat on the council with the highest total number of votes.

Lamar was endorsed by the Moscow Civic Association, which was established in 2002 to work for progressive and sustainable communities. The MCA also endorsed incumbents Linda Pall and Aaron Ament, who placed fourth and fifth, respectively, in the four-year race. Evan Holmes, who was not endorsed by either group, was defeated by Steed.

"This shows me that many people in Moscow are not happy with the way things have been handled and are looking for some fresher ideas on the City Council," Krauss said.

Carscallen, Krauss and Steed agreed voter turnout played a major role in their success. This year, 37.82 percent of voters went to the polls. In the 2005 election, 30.52 percent of voters cast ballots.

Krauss and Carscallen said they were thankful for the GMA's effort to get people to vote, as well as the group's support for their campaigns. Steed said he had been largely on his own when he ran in the past, but "this time there was a lot of people that really wanted to make a change and worked to make it happen."

The GMA candidates' victories brings the council to more "middle road," Krauss said.

"I think that we're pretty much just a moderate, centrist group and I think we're going to bring that centrist look back to the City Council," Carscallen said.

Carscallen thanked his competitors for running a clean campaign. He said he looks forward to hearing from Ament, Pall and Holmes as they stay involved in city government.

Krauss said now is the time for people in Moscow to find common ground.

"We all have the same goal of keeping Moscow the community that it is and still remain economically viable," he said. "We can do this by working together."

Lamar also spoke of working together and dedicated his victory to John Dickinson. Dickinson, who was elected to council in 2003, went missing in January after a traffic accident. His body was recovered from the Columbia River in July.

"As a City Council member he operated with a spirit of community-building and teamwork and good decision-making," Lamar said. "I feel like that's what we need to have in this community."

Lamar thinks he will work well with the new council members. He said they have been involved with city government, but have not attended council meetings frequently or worked at that level.

"I think that probably the major thing right off the bat is that there's going to be a steep learning curve for new members of the council," he said. "But that's happened in past elections, too."

The new council will face the same issues as the current council, such as water use and lack of sidewalks.

"We're going to have to step up as a council, as one unified group, to solve these problems," he said.

Lamar attributed his success to many volunteers and his community experience as director of the Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute.

"There were hundreds of people involved in my campaign, and I think it shows," he said.

Pall said this election drives a wedge further into Moscow politics. She said "electoral comments" and the presence of Dave Glasebrook, the independent picketer who accused her, Lamar and Ament of being bigots played a role in the election.

"That wedge is something that I had been working on for four years to heal, and this seems to go in the opposite direction," she said.

Pall said she plans to continue working on projects such as the dog park and Paradise Path. Her advice for the new council members is to look outside Moscow for education and ideas.

Pall, who has been a councilwoman on and off since 1977, said she may run again in the future.

"It has been a real honor to serve the city of Moscow for 18 years, and I look forward to doing it off the council as well," she said.

Ament declined to comment. Holmes could not be reached by press time.


Moscow City Council

Four-year seat

x Tom Lamar 2,847

x Wayne Krauss 2,768

x Dan Cascallen 2,579

Linda Pall 2,451

Aaron Ament 2,285

Two-year seat

x Walter Steed 2,529

Evan Holmes 2,307

"Moscow council makeup changes"

I laughed reading how the left-wing Lewiston Tribune was sputtering over the Moscow election story. City split down the middle? Uh uh. Not when pro-growth forces enjoy a 5-1 margin in the city council chamber. Funny Tom Henderson and Jim Fisher aren't weighing in on the conservative triumph in Moscow. From today's Tribune:

Tom Lamar, Wayne Krauss, Dan Carscallen and Walter Steed won election Tuesday to the city council here.

The results mean the political pendulum in this Latah County town has swung back to the right of center and limited Mayor Nancy Chaney in the power she enjoyed under the current council makeup.

Voter turnout was 37.8 percent, compared to 30 percent in 2005. A total of 5,022 out of 13,280 registered voters cast ballots.

In a five-way race for three four-year seats, Lamar received 2,847 votes, Krauss garnered 2,768 votes, and Carscallen totaled 2,579 votes. Linda Pall, an incumbent with a total of 18 years on the council, narrowly missed re-election with 2,451 votes, and incumbent Aaron Ament came in last with 2,285 votes.

In the two-way race for one two-year term on the council, Steed tallied 2,529 votes, while Holmes received 2,307 votes.

Final results were not available until shortly before midnight after officials struggled with the counting process, said Latah County Clerk-Auditor Susan Petersen. The city contracted with the county to do the counting. Because of the late count, candidates could not be reached for comment.

Prior to the vote, many people said Tuesday's election could decide Moscow's future. The town has long had a reputation of being a stronghold of liberalism in a state known as a bastion of conservatism. And city government has for years swung back and forth between the two viewpoints. But never before had the battle lines been so clear. But because of the closeness of the vote, Tuesday's return to the right seems to have left the town still divided down the middle.

Other issues aside, the election hinged on economic growth and the role government should play. Lamar, Ament and Pall, the three incumbents, along with Holmes, said they encouraged growth but within guidelines geared to ensuring Moscow's unique small college-town character. The three right-leaning challengers, Krauss, Carscallen and Steed, touted free enterprise and said government should keep only a loose reign on the economy.

The partisan flavor was underscored by the formation of two citizen groups. The Moscow Civic Association and the Greater Moscow Alliance assumed politically left and right postures, respectively, and endorsed candidates.

The MCA backed Pall, Lamar and Ament, while the GMA gave the nod to Steed, Carscallen and Krauss. Holmes waged an independent bid for office.

"The GMA wins," Bruce Livingston, president of the MCA, said shortly after the final results were made official.

The election actually being fueled two years ago when Chaney rode an endorsement from the MCA to a 294-vote victory. Chaney's opponent, incumbent Councilor Peg Hamlett, sized up her defeat by saying, "You do the best you can, but it's tough when they have an army going door to door."

One year later, the GMA was formed with President Steve Busch all but saying the citizen group was an antidote to the MCA. "I don't think we'd admit that," Busch said. "We are free-market oriented. We can't stand back and let government fix all our problems."

Riiiiiighhhhhtttttt, Face!!

It looks like Moscowans have had enough of the liberal "smart growth" experiment of the last two years. With 17 of 18 precincts reporting, all three candidates endorsed by the pro-growth Greater Moscow Alliance, Dan Carscallen, Walter Steed, and Wayne Krauss, have won city council seats, joining pro-growth incumbents Bill Lambert and John Weber. After the ugliest election ever on the Palouse, the only "progressive" that will sit on the new city council is Tom Lamar. Now the bitter recriminations, accusations, and recount demands from the leftists will begin.

We can only hope that Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney will see this for what it is: an outright repudiation of her failed left-wing policies and hopefully put a halt to her meddling in Whitman County.

My congratulations to the GMA for taking their city back!

Meanwhile, in Pullman, Al Sorensen leads Nathan Weller 153 to 144, with several hundred votes yet to count. Could be an interesting race, but we won't know anything more until Thursday.

"WSU makes itself issue in Moscow council race"

I love liberals. They engage in every form of logical falllacy known to man. For example, in today's Lewiston Tribune, leftist Jim Fisher, engages in the fallacy of "begging the question" in his editorial. "Begging the question" or Petitio Principii is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

Fisher just ASSUMES that their is a water crisis on the Palouse but offers no proof other than a quote from a raving anti-everythinger
and a letter to the editor. He makes no mention at all of the science conducted by the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee that has concluded there is no consistent trend in aquifer levels. Nope. According to Fisher, there's a water crisis, so therefore Queen Nancy and the Moscow City Council are right and the Greater Moscow Alliance and WSU are wrong. Fisher also left out the rest of the GMA ad which states that "Forward thinking on water means a smart conservation plan, cooperation with neighboring communities, sound research to identify the extent of our situation, and creative ways to use surface water." Fisher is an unabashed left winger, but he often does make salient points and is not afraid to sometimes go against conventional liberal groupthink. But he should be ashamed of this pathetic propagandistic defense of Queen Nancy.

The Washington State University administration should have seen this embarrassment coming. After many years looking for ways to conserve Palouse water across campus, WSU's prodigality in irrigating its new golf course has become an issue in the Moscow City Council election.

That prodigality is being used by pro-growth candidates as evidence that concern for declining water supply is no reason to limit development.

"Water? The anti-growth politicians are all wet," the headline on a newspaper ad supporting candidates Dan Carscallen, Wayne Krauss and Walter Steed reads. Carscallen, Krauss and Steed are running with the endorsement of the Greater Moscow Alliance to counteract the current city council's reluctance to authorize new big box stores and new big water users.

"What does Moscow's current city leadership know that water experts and neighboring communities don't?" the ad asks. "In Pullman they're developing a new golf course. In Moscow we've raised water rates to cut consumption. Soon we'll be cutting down water-starved trees."

Last week, during a candidate forum sponsored by the Moscow Chamber of Commerce, Krauss also pointed to the WSU course as he said he objected to "the idea for us to try to save water here in Moscow so it can be used downstream."

WSU's new 18-hole course, which will replace the school's former nine-hole course, will indeed use a lot of water, at least for the first two or three years of operation after it opens next year. The school plans to employ a water-reclamation system to use treated wastewater for irrigation, as the University of Idaho already does at places like its aboretum, but it is awaiting money for the project and predicts it won't be online for up to three years.

In the meantime, WSU is already pouring gallon after gallon of water on the course's new turf.

It is not doing that with the unanimous consent of the Pullman community, however. Several Pullman residents have raised vocal objections to the school's determination to move ahead with the course before the water-saving system is in place. One, Cheryl Morgan, has accused the school of displaying "unconscionable disregard" for its neighbors in doing so.

WSU administrators might prefer that, however, to politicians from nearby Moscow using their extravagance as reason not to safeguard water, and to elect policy makers who will pursue growth with scant regard for the region's aquifers. It makes them look less like leaders of a center of enlightenment than just another set of property developers.

Contributing to that appearance was a Sept. 4 letter to the Moscow-Pullman Daily News from U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Wayne Olson of Moscow. Lamenting WSU's failure to find alternatives to high water use at its new golf course, Olsen asked if it were possible for the school to "think a little more outside the box, do a little research here, at a research institution?"