Public records library › 26-555 › 13_08_2026_mray@ci.moscow.id.us_RE_ Written copy of my public comment P&Z meeting of August 12 (Ordinance 2026-04).pdf

Extracted text

Machine-extracted text layer of the file above, shown verbatim for search and reading. Tables and slides lose their layout. The original file governs.

# 13_08_2026_mray@ci.moscow.id.us_RE_ Written copy of my public comment P&Z meeting of August 12 (Ordinance 2026-04).pdf
- path: 13_08_2026_mray@ci.moscow.id.us_RE_ Written copy of my public comment P&Z meeting of August 12 (Ordinance 2026-04).pdf
- type: PDF
- pages/slides/sheets: 3
- extraction method: text layer
- unreadable pages: none
## Page 1
Sent: 
8/13/2026 8:49:36 AM
From: 
Michael Ray <mray@ci.moscow.id.us
To: 
"Nichoel Baird Spencer" 
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Importance
: 
Normal
Subject:
RE: Written copy of my public comment, P&Z meeting of 
August 12 (Ordinance 2026-04)
During the public comment period. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nichoel Baird Spencer 
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 8:20 AM
To: Michael Ray 
Subject: Re: Written copy of my public comment, P&Z meeting of August 12 (Ordinance 
2026-04)
This was present at p&z? 
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 13, 2026, at 8:39 AM, Michael Ray wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Slagboom 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 8:16 PM
> To: Planning & Zoning Commission 
> Subject: Written copy of my public comment, P&Z meeting of August 12 (Ordinance 
2026-04)
> 
> CAUTION: This message originated from outside the City of Moscow's network. 
Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If in doubt, please contact 
Information Systems at extension 7004.
> 
> Commissioners,
> 
> Below is the text of the public comment I delivered at tonight's meeting, for your 
records and for the meeting record.
> 
> The two requests in it stand. First, the 111 plan sets staff told this Commission it 
reviewed: the property list and the review criteria. My records request for that list is 
invoiced at $242.68 which I, frankly, cannot afford. Each of you can ask staff for it 
directly. Second, the specific buildings behind the plan sets staff showed this

## Page 2
Commission in May and gave the Council before its July vote.
> 
> ---
> 
> Chair and Commissioners, my name is John Slagboom. I live at 924 East A Street.
> 
> A builder told me about a young father, about my age, whose family saved five years 
to build on Spotswood Street. The City said the permits would issue once the old 
building came down. It issued the demolition permit on October 6. The building came 
down in late October. It stamped the plans Final Reviewed Plans on October 29. Six 
days later, it stopped everything on that parcel, in writing. Seven applications sit there 
today. To my knowledge, the only permit ever issued is the demolition.
> 
> That family is young, like mine: single income, saving what we can, trying to get 
ahead. They did everything right. Their losses stand near $600,000, not including the 
daily opportunity cost of not having a building occupied with tenants.
> 
> Three questions.
> One: why did the City issue a demolition permit, then no permit once the building was 
down?
> 
> Two: if the plans did not meet code, why did the City approve and stamp them?
> 
> Three: if they did meet code, what gave the City the power to stop the permits? Plans 
stamped, demolition permitted, then nothing. This looks like a rug-pull.
> 
> I pulled the City's permit reports and the full public files behind these projects. This 
summer, a dozen duplex applications sat waiting. At least eight were withdrawn in the 
last two weeks. Meanwhile, the City issued permits for buildings with the same kinds of 
features. I ask staff to name the written standard, in force on November 13, that passes 
one and fails the other.
> 
> The standards codified by Ordinance 2026-04 were enforced for eight months before 
Council adopted them, through staff memos whose own text said the Code needed an 
amendment. Zoning law is written by this Commission and the elected Council, not by 
staff memo. If that was not illegal, it is still deeply concerning: zoning standards passed 
informally by memo, and seemingly applied unevenly.
> 
> I ask for two things. First, the 111-plan study staff cited to you: the property list and the 
criteria that were used to build it. My records request sits invoiced at almost $250, which 
I cannot afford. Each of you can ask for it at no cost. Second, the specific buildings 
behind the plan sets on the PowerPoint staff showed this Commission this May, and 
gave the Council in July.
> 
> The Spotswood plans passed two Fire Department reviews in the City's own records. I 
am not asking anyone to touch building safety codes, only the zoning rules that decide 
what housing people may build, and where. Please consider re-reviewing this zoning 
code and pull it back where you can, to make room for affordable housing. Thank you.
>

## Page 3
> ---
> 
> John Slagboom
> 924 East A Street, Moscow, Idaho
> [email withheld]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone