Cleaning House

The back story on the purchase of land for Christ Church’s cathedral is interesting. 

The property Christ Church is purchasing is due west of Gritman where the gain silos used to be. It looks deceivingly small. Douglas put a mock up of the field house on the property map. The property is located in the central business district. Parking restrictions apply only to residential property. There is plenty of parking in the area. A year or two ago, because of the climate in town, we decided that we could not talk about what we’d like to do in a normal manner. We had two potential purchases denied because of the climate in town. The feedback from the congregation was that the elder board should pursue purchasing property for the congregation.

The price at first was unreasonable. As a result of negotiating, the price came down to $950,000. We have $550,000 in the building fund. And we have Anselm House free-and-clear. Anselm is worth ~$650k. So we had enough assets to cover purchasing the property. We wanted to commit to purchase from the buyer, negotiated from a 3rd party. $I00k will be held in escrow until one remaining easement is removed (owned by the Railroad Company). These are water and mineral easements. Once a building is put there, the easement cannot be exercised. The elders wanted a toxic report on the property and a letter from DEQ confirming that.

The closing date is 2 August. We had a dessert get together and raised $26k; and then the following week we raised just under $80k. That brings the amount we need down to $320k. Out of that $80k, over $22k was from church officers.

If we didn’t raise the entire amount, we would approach private lenders who would give us a note for $I00k each or approach a bank with Anselm as collateral. We want to build the church debt free, but were willing to encumber Anslem House this way while we raise the money. We wouldn’t start building until the land is paid off.

Douglas answered questions.

1. Parking wouldn’t have to be supplied for everyone who attends service. We would like to I,000-I,200.
2. Banks don’t like collateral on dirt. So taking a loan out on Anselm is easier than taking a loan out on the lot.
3. A church cemetery would have to be out in the country.
4. Construction is off in the distance. That’s a function of money. When we had the property on the edge of town, we had 8 acres (this property is 0.7 acres). The plans for that property crazy extensive because we had to build our own road, utilities, sewage, and parking for I,200. Building eight acres of asphalt is expensive.
5. This property is evangelistically strategic. When you crest the hill from Lewiston, the first thing you see is the steeple.
6. Bebee and Germer are part of the consortium who owns this property.
7. This is semi-public and would be hard to blow apart. This is a sealed-deal as far as we’re concerned.
8. The use of third party buyer was because of our previous two experiences.
9. The third party buyer has already signed the commitment to purchase. We’re putting together our money so that we can buy it from him immediately.
10. The Daniel Lee architectural plan would have to be modified for this property. Or we may want to start from scratch.
11. The plans we have are late Roman with touches of early Gothic. It looks like a historic Christian church.
12. The whole complex (including the fellowship hall) would be consistent looking.
13. There would be a beautification plan during that 2-3 year wait. We could use this property for NSA parking.
14. The Intoleristas might try to work through the current city council to stop the purchase.

Douglas closed the meeting in prayer

–>

FOR COMMUNITY-WIDE DISTRIBUTION:

With its proposed “Party House” ordinance, City Council seeks to redefine family and alter boarding laws

A proposed ordinance that would change the definition of a family and impact boarding families will be discussed at the next Moscow City Council meeting, Tuesday, Sept. 4 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Public comment will be taken at the meeting. New Saint Andrews College has submitted testimony in advance of the meeting. Enclosed please find a copy of the NSA letter.

— Bob

Bob Hieronymus
New Saint Andrews College
Executive Vice President
P.O. Box 9025
405 S. Main Street
Moscow, Idaho 83843
PH: (208) 882-1566 ext.114
FX: (208) 882-4293

405 S. Main Street, P.O. Box 9025, Moscow, ID 83843, Phone: 208-882-1566, Fax: 208-882-4293, www.nsa.edu
An Accredited Member of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools
NEW SAINT ANDREWS COLLEGE
MOSCOW, IDAHO
August 30, 2007
Moscow City Council
City of Moscow
P.O. Box 9203
Moscow, Idaho 83843

RE: Written testimony for the Sept. 4 Public Hearing

Dear Madam Mayor and Honorable City Council Members:

On behalf of New Saint Andrews College, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Moscow City Zoning Code related to the definition of family and boarding houses. While we whole heartedly oppose “party houses” and agree that any behavior which disturbs the peace of our neighborhoods should be prohibited, we believe the proposed changes to the code will not correct these behavioral problems and will unjustifiably encroach on the property rights of the vast majority of people in Moscow, who are not now part of the problem.

Consider how the proposed ordinance will affect five nuns living next door to a party house of four young men? The nuns will be told to get a conditional use permit, but the four next door continue to throw parties, make noise, park on lawns and litter yards. What’s been accomplished?

We ask you to reject the proposed zoning changes for following reasons:

1. The proposed zoning changes will not correct problems identified.
The proposed changes supposedly address behavioral problems limited to a few individuals at even fewer houses in our community. The current law-breakers who ignore the noise ordinance or act thoughtlessly toward their neighbors will not suddenly become sensitive renters and neighbors. Adding new, more complicated sections to the zoning regulations will do nothing to change the attitude and behaviors of those inclined to disrespect their neighbors and their neighborhoods. Neighbors will still need to call the police when the four unrelated students next door throw a drunken party. Unless the code addressing the current behavioral problems is enforced, nothing will change. The proposed changes will be ineffective and should therefore be rejected.

2. The proposed zoning changes are overbroad and create new problems for law abiding citizens.
Not only will the proposed zoning changes not fix the real and perceived problems, they will erode the rights of all Moscow property owners. In effect, the changes will turn many families and renters who are currently law-abiding citizens into potential law-breakers or force them to seek special governmental permission for just doing what was never a problem for anyone else in the first place. The proposed changes not only smash a gnat with a sledgehammer, it is the wrong gnat. Moreover, the proposed changes needlessly push the nose of city government under the doors of all Moscow homes to address a small and isolated problem. The proposed changes are to zoning what DDT is to pest control. They are overbroad and over-reaching, they multiply problems, and should therefore be rejected.

3. The proposed changes will likely result in arbitrary and selective enforcement with discriminatory motivation.
Unfortunately, those of us at New Saint Andrews are all too familiar with zoning regulations being used against the College by those with anti-religious and ideological motives. The abuse of zoning regulations for discriminatory reasons has a long and ugly history. We believe the changes proposed will almost certainly be abused — arbitrarily and selectively — via citizen complaint in a way that has nothing to do with behavioral problems that the changes were originally intended to fix. Our suspicion is that the proposed changes, by their over-reaching nature, have less to do with fixing a party house problem than with giving handles to those who would seek to harm those associated New Saint Andrews and members of Christ Church. Let me remind the Council that a certain citizen in Latah County has already filed a blanket discriminatory zoning complaint against all the members of Christ Church and Trinity Reformed Church who have had a New Saint Andrews student live with them, not because of any bona fide reports of behavioral problems, but simply because the students and families were associated with the College and Christ Church or Trinity Reformed Church. The proposed changes before you open the door for further unwarranted and discriminatory action against us. Unless that is your intention, I urge you to vote against these changes.

4. The proposed changes will actually magnify the kinds of problems it claims to fix.
As many in Moscow know, for the past 14 years New Saint Andrews has, in harmony with the current law, encouraged its students to live with local families when possible and appropriate. We believe this encourages responsible behavior among college age students better than them merely having them live in apartments or shared rental units on their own. Almost by definition, New Saint Andrews students who live with families cannot become the creators of the “party houses” that the proposed zoning changes claim to address. Yet many of these students who now live quietly and peaceably with local families will, if these proposed zoning changes pass, most likely move into apartments or rental houses together. That will expand the potential for more, not fewer, “party houses” in the absence of more senior adult supervision. Parental oversight and maturity will give way to more groups of 18–21 year olds trying to oversee themselves. While most will continue be quiet and peaceable neighbors, the proposed change will actually encourage more, not less, of what is perceived as the problems these changes seek to correct. We urge you to reject the proposal for it will potentially undermine what has been an excellent environment for our students, and exacerbate, not fix, the problems it purports to correct.

To summarize, the proposed zoning changes:

1. Do not address the principal problems of behavior in “Party House” neighborhoods,
2. Unnecessarily intrude city government into families and homes that are not now and never have been a problem,
3. Will likely lead to arbitrary and selective enforcement with discriminatory intent, and
4. Will actually encourage housing arrangements that will potentially lead to more of the kind of problems the changes are intended to solve.

For these reasons, I urge the City Council to reject the proposed zoning changes. As an alternative, I encourage you to enforce — and strengthen if necessary — the existing disturbing the peace laws.

Thank you for considering our comments and concerns,

Sincerely,

Roy Alden Atwood, Ph.D.
President

–>

Recently I have been asked by readers about Reformed theology. Although I have a layperson’s understanding of the fundamental doctrines and church organization associated with Reformed denominations I am not competant to discuss the topic in a truly knowledgeable way. I have added a link to someone who is. Pastor Lane Keister is. He has graciously allowed me to put a link to his site, GreenBaggins. There you will find lively, informed debate on Reformed Theology including many threads that address the current ecclesiastical disputes between the majority of Reformed church members, and our local pseudo-reformed thinker, and PCA pot-stirrer, Doug Wilson.
Rose

–>

–>

Our laundry room is a very utilitarian room with very high ceilings. I decided to cheer it up a bit. In “true life” the wall hanging is not distorted – it really is 32.5 inches square. I’m going to check with Melynda and perhaps do some more decorating.

–>