Today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News features a front-page story on record-breaking growth in construction in both Moscow and Pullman. Michelle "Duped" Dupler followed her usual pattern on such stories and sought only quotes from only local government officials and a token anti-growth professor. She never makes any effort to contact anyone else in the community, giving the impression that the local governments are shoving this growth down the people's throats as they lust after tax revenue. Hogwash.
As is finally pointed out at the very end of the article, all this construction is addressing pent-up demand. It still isn't sufficient, as shown by the very tight real estate market. Of course people that move here with families want to buy single-family homes. No one with a family wants to live in multi-family housing and apartments in a college town if they can help it. What's wrong with that?
Moscow and Pullman are very desirable places to live. The scenery is beautiful. Our schools are great. Our economy is diversifying and growing. Should we just turn people away? Has Michelle Dupler ever been in a town that was dying? Is that preferable in her opinion? I wonder if other towns on the Palouse are envious of Pullman and Moscow or glad they aren't us. I'd wager the former.
The article states: "'I don't like anything that looks like sprawl,' said Mike Owen, a Pullman resident and Washington State University architecture professor." Who the heck cares what you think, Mike? Again, we have one of these WSU Brahmins pronouncing judgment on us. I'm sick of it. What he calls "sprawl," I call construction jobs, homes for young families with good-paying jobs, and potential customers for our local businesses.
Owen goes on further to enlighten us that he doesn't like subdivisions or anything that requires an automobile as that is not sustainable, preferring instead high-density development in the city. Where? There's no place to build or park in downtown as it is now. He wants Pullman to be like East Berlin or Leningrad I suppose, with all the high-rise socialist-style apartment buildings. Those were big "pedestrian cities" as no one had any cars there either.
Funny, I wonder if the cabin he built in Potlatch would be considered "sustainable?" Do you figure he walks or bikes up there from Pullman?
In very PARDesque language (he must be a member), Owen mentioned Duane Brelsford's name four times to try and give the impression of not being anti-growth. He thinks the city should encourage developers to design more projects like Bridgeway Centre in downtown. Those were luxury loft apartments designed for a specific clientele. The monthly rent is more than most people's mortgage payments. Good idea, Mike. Maybe on your professor's salary.
I see next week's article is going to be about how growth affects infrastructure issues such as water use. Ah, xeriscaping, here we come again.
1 comment:
What Mr. Ownen dreams of is on the front of the Travel section in the Oregonian: Amersterdam.
They have a huge picture with the text underneath: "A stately concert hall looks on as bicyclists and a tram glide by in Amsterdam. There are many ways to traverse the city other than by car."
The story is all about using any and all transportation (presumably to the prostiution district or the marijuana coffee houses) other than a car.
Post a Comment