"We called them 'chicken'"

As you know, outspoken liberal Lewiston Tribune columnist and apparent Pullman/Whitman County hater Jim Fisher, has been bashing the Hawkins development and the Whitman County Commissioners. The latest subject of his ire, in a column last Sunday, was the WSU golf course. Fisher implied there should be some sort of linkage between the golf course and the Hawkins development:

Next for Palouse water talks: WSU golf course

Now that a reconfigured Moscow City Council has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with other Palouse governments on water use, it is in a position to seek reciprocity on one of the least defensible projects to threaten the region's underground water sources.

That project is the new 18-hole golf course that Washington State University is building, and watering, before the water reclamation system intended to keep it green is even begun. The school projects it will pour 60 million gallons of water on the course each year, and until the system that is years off goes on line, each of those gallons will come from the aquifers whose sustainability is in question.

The school's rush to complete the course without a wastewater irrigation system like the one the University of Idaho uses has raised objections from more than local water watchdogs. It even became an issue in the election that seated new Moscow City Councilors Wayne Krauss, Dan Carscallen and Walter Steed.

All three ran in opposition to the former council's reluctance to approve substantial increases in water consumption.

During the contested election, Krauss told people attending a candidate forum he objected to "the idea for us to try to save water here in Moscow so it can be used downstream." And a newspaper advertisement for the three candidates said, "In Pullman they're developing a new golf course. In Moscow we've raised water rates to cut consumption."

The promise to help end such a disparity no doubt helped elect the three challengers. And the other day, all three helped reverse Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney's objection to providing water to a new shopping mall on the Washington side of the state line along the Pullman-Moscow traffic corridor.

None of the three has claimed the Palouse sits on an infinite supply of water, however. And their willingness to negotiate a water agreement with Whitman County for the mall for which county commissioners have obligated taxpayers to the tune of $9.1 million in bonds gives them the right, and the credibility, to seek discussion of other water issues in the region.

The first of those issues should be WSU's rush to waste water.

I could rebut Fisher's arguments, but Idaho Rep. Bob Nonini (R- Coeur d'Alene), another target of Fisher's temper tantrums, did it best in a "Turnabout" column from Tuesday's Tribune:

Turnabout: Cheap shots, no warning

As some of my colleagues tell me, if the editorial writers at the Lewiston Tribune are criticizing you then you must be doing something right.

Well, I must be doing something right. In the last couple of weeks, I've been branded as being anti-education, and more recently the Tribune editors lend the impression that I'm leading a one-man crusade to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The criticism doesn't bother me. Anyone who serves in this body, or in any other elected office, is subject to criticism. What is troubling is the methods employed by the editorial writers.

I don't know Jim Fisher or Tom Henderson, and they don't know me. All I know about them is when I pick up the Tribune and occasionally read editorials taking me to task. Again, I don't mind the criticism. I'm only disputing the antiquated method.

Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henderson are living examples of why newspapers are dying, and why newspapers are losing credibility. They read what somebody else writes, dish up a few cheap shots and present them as "cutting-edge" editorials. The tactics might have worked during the 1960s or 1970s, when Bill Hall was writing editorials. But the method strikes me as outdated by today's standards.

During Bill Hall's day, when the only practical way to contact someone was by telephone, contacting an individual was not always possible. But in 2008, when e-mails are used at least as much as telephones, there's no excuse for not making that effort.

It's my understanding that some of the nation's leading newspapers, including the Washington Post, have a policy to make every effort to contact an individual before criticizing him in print - if for no other reason than to give that person a heads-up. A conversation with a source may or may not change the direction of an editorial, but giving a fair warning shows that a newspaper has professional standards and a degree of class.

I'm sure that nothing I said will make a difference, so Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henderson can criticize me all they want. That's OK. I was born and raised in Wallace and put up with a lot worse than that in the school yards.

But in Wallace, we had a name for people who said or did something without first confronting you.

We called them "chicken."

"No free lunch, or Whitman County retail mall"

Petitio principii is Latin for "begging the question". It is a logical fallacy in which an argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. Take Jim Fisher's latest anti-capitalist rant in today's Lewiston Tribune. Fisher asks us to assume that private developers somehow belong in the water and sewage utility business. In his mind, the only conclusion is whether the Hawkins Companies should pay or whether Whitman County taxpayers should be bamboozled into paying for Hawkins to get into the utility business.

Clearly, Fisher's argument is absurd. Since the Classical Age, it has been the government that has been in the water and sewage utility business. In the case of the Hawkins corridor development, the county is contracting with Hawkins to build the infrastructure, which the county will then own and operate. The only question here is how all this gets paid for, as there is no "free lunch" for anyone. The county has to pay for this necessary infrastructure and Hawkins has to pay to construct its shopping center. Does every county taxpayer have the cost added to his/her property tax bill or does the cost get paid voluntarily by those who choose to shop at the Hawkins development through sales taxes, many of them likely not even residents of Whitman County? Of course the latter is the best possible solution.

And Fisher's contention that somehow county taxpayer's are being robbed of $9.1 million is also completely fallacious. Imagine that you buy a stock for $500, then you sell it for $3,500. Your original investment has been paid back and you have received a six times return. But according to Fisher's logic, that would be a bad deal, because you could have an additional $500 to spend if only the company issuing the stock had just given it to you for free. Luckily for everyone, Fisher is only a newspaper editorialist and not a businessman or government official.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

Seen one way, the assurance from Whitman County officials that county-issued bonds financing infrastructure for a new mall near the Idaho state line won't cost county taxpayers anything is completely accurate.

The trouble is, in order to see it that way you have to be wearing blinders. If you aren't, you might cast your eyes at the services that tax dollars from the Hawkins Companies of Boise could be used for other than repaying the bonds.

Seen that way, the deal county commissioners approved Monday will cost county taxpayers the price of the bonds themselves, $9.1 million.

If Hawkins were doing what other developers have done in paying the cost of its own development, county revenues from sales and property taxes on the new mall would begin flowing immediately into county coffers. There, they could be used for essential services like roads, parks and law enforcement.

Thanks to commissioners' largess, however, the first $9.1 million in taxes from the development, plus interest, will go to redeeming the bonds.

That makes the so-called public-private partnership the deal represents less cost-free than Administrative Services Director Sharron Cunningham makes out, when she says it "won't cost taxpayers anything." It remains a public subsidy to a private developer, and there's no getting around that fact.

That does not automatically mean it's a lousy idea, of course. The argument can be made, and county commissioner Jerry Finch has made it, that without the subsidy Hawkins would not build in Whitman County at all. And maybe Whitman County residents are, like their commissioners, so eager to see additional retail development, even if it is closer to Moscow than to Pullman or Colfax, that they are willing to help pay for it.

But those residents should not be gulled into thinking they aren't paying part of the cost. They are paying in forgone tax revenue, and that's assuming Hawkins is able to deliver the revenue being projected. Only after the 20-year life of the bonds, or only if tax revenues exceed what is needed to repay them, will county government benefit financially from this arrangement.

And by then, who knows how many other developers will have their hands in county taxpayers' wallets?

"Pullman Wal-Mart decision months away; Court of appeals hears final arguments from giant retailer, PARD"

Today's "news story" in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News about the Wal-Mart appeal hearing reads more like a PARD press release.

The reporter let stand, without any rebuttal whatsoever, propagandistic statments from PARD's union hired gun overexaggerating the amount of time that it will take to reach a decision, telepathically reading the judges' minds, conjuring frightening images of dead school children in the streets, and the outrageously false assertions that Wal-Mart will somehow steal business from non-existent Mom-and-Pop retail stores and that sales tax revenue will not increase. But my favorite quote is when Bricklin, who lives in Seattle, arrogantly states, "I think the citizens of Pullman deserve more than that." What we deserve, Mr. Bricklin, is the truth behind who is paying your fees and forcing the REAL taxpayers in Pullman to waste our hard-earned money on this fight.

And at last TV Reed finally 'fesses up about the whole Bishop Blvd. location red herring when he said: "I can't imagine a worse site to build on, but I can't imagine many better, either."

Sure, Chuck Maduell (of the Davis Wright Tremaine law firm - what happened to McCullough Hill?) had nothing to say. But what about contacting the city or the grassroots group in Pullman backing Wal-Mart, Businesses & Residents for Economic Opportuniy (BREO). Certainly there was time to do that. Speaking of the city, why didn't Laura McAloon present oral arguments? That's something that could have been covered in the article besides giving PARD even more space to spout their lies.

Oh well. Luckily, biased reporters don't decide if we get Wal-Mart, the Court of Appeals does. And I am confident they will make the right decision. Let us remember the words of Epicetus:

Nothing great is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig. I answer you that there must be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen.

From today's Daily News:

SPOKANE - Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development attorney Dave Bricklin said it could take three to six months before a decision is rendered by the Division III Court of Appeals regarding Wal-Mart's plans to build a super store in Pullman.

Bricklin and Wal-Mart attorney Chuck Maduell voiced their final arguments regarding the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on Bishop Boulevard in front of a panel of three judges in Spokane on Wednesday. Each side was allowed 15 minutes and no new information was permitted, as only facts outlined in previously submitted briefs could be argued.

Bricklin said he hopes the judges' silence during the 30-minute proceedings were a good sign.

"They didn't say much, but maybe that's because they favor our side," he said.

Wal-Mart announced plans to build on Bishop Boulevard in October 2004 and a site plan for the store was later approved by Pullman Public Works Director Mark Workman. PARD appealed the city's approval of the retail corporation's environmental checklist and site plan on the grounds that the store would impact stormwater run-off, traffic and negatively affect Pullman's local economy.

Washington state law allows only one public hearing on a proposed development. Spokane attorney John Montgomery - who acts as Pullman's hearing examiner - was called to oversee PARD's initial appeal. Montgomery compiled a findings of fact document from Wal-Mart, PARD and Pullman and concluded the retail giant's site plan and environmental checklist was sufficient. Montgomery's decision was upheld by Whitman County Superior Court Judge David Frazier and PARD's appeal was dismissed.

PARD then took the case to appellate court.

Bricklin pointed to Montgomery's findings of fact document Wednesday to show the store would have significant effects on traffic, the environment and the local economy. Bricklin argued that Montgomery's document was not comprehensive, as a Wal-Mart-sponsored traffic study was taken at face value and was not questioned.

As examples, Bricklin said the traffic study focused on weekdays only and provides no results on potential customers accessing the store on weekends, "Wal-Mart's busiest shopping days." He noted that the study also did not identify how the increased traffic would effect police, roads or pedestrians, particularly students from nearby Franklin Elementary School and Lincoln Middle School.

"There was no mitigation of the effects on schools and no analysis of it," Bricklin said. "We don't think the impact on 800 school kids is inconsequential."

Maduell also pointed to Montgomery's findings of fact and said despite the absence of some facts - such as how much traffic the stores generate on weekends - Frazier found the document to be adequate.

"It may not have been perfect, but the code does not require that," he said.

Maduell said it is up to PARD to prove Wal-Mart's plan would not meet Pullman codes.

"The burden is on them," he said.

Maduell declined comment after presenting his oral arguments.

Bricklin said the fact that Maduell admits Montgomery's findings are "not perfect" should be a red flag that the corporation didn't do all its homework.

"I think the citizens of Pullman deserve more than that," he said.

Bricklin also argued that Pullman Financial Director Troy Woo's "assumption" that the city would benefit from a Wal-Mart store is insufficient.

Wal-Mart may generate sales tax for the city, but would do so by taking away revenue from current Pullman businesses, he said.

"While Wal-Mart may benefit, the city's tax revenue will not increase," Bricklin said.

PARD Spokesman T.V. Reed said he's glad the case is back in motion.

"I'm glad things are moving along," he said. "Now all we can do is wait. We'd like to win and get this over with."

Reed said he hopes judges will side with PARD, which would force Wal-Mart to conduct more extensive studies of the store's impact on traffic and the environment. He would not say whether PARD would accept the retail giant locating at a different site in Pullman.

"It does not make sense on Bishop Boulevard," he said. "I can't imagine a worse site to build on, but I can't imagine many better, either."

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"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?"