<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009>That's good to hear that there are people interested in
working this land. I guess when various government bodies talk about
mitigating loss of agricultural land, they are speaking in a conceptual sense,
since if they were speaking in a legal sense, then they couldn't annex the land
they were mitigating the loss of.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009>I've watched a number of the hearings on this
development and read thru at least most of the staff reports, etc., and I would
have to agree with your perspective that it doesn't seem to make sense to build
a project that separates the ag land from the irrigation ditch, especially when
doing so places it against 7th street, which will someday (if it's not already)
be a rather busy thoroughfare. I understand that, on a comparative basis,
this is where the best land is, both in terms of soil and topography, but as
Helen said, it's all great soil. I also would think that things like water
and sewer would be best connected from 7th Street, not by coming down from
3rd.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009>I also wonder that if all the set-aside land is tagged
for ag use (and I'm assuming that there will be covenants that require growing
people food on this land lest it become, as Jon Wilkins reminded everyone
of the possibility, a pig farm) what will be the impact of having no common open
space for the residents of this development? Are the proposed 30 lots
going to be large enough to support individual gardening and recreation for the
residents of this subdivision?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009>When I look at that space, which I've only done
intentionally (as opposed to biking past it without appreciating that it's the
object of so much attention) using Google Maps and what's been presented before
Council and committees, I see a project where the open space runs along the
irrigation ditch divided by a relatively narrow connector to Stallion with
traffic calming in place. On the left would be common area open space for
pickup ball games, community functions, dog running, etc., and the big
cottonwood stays until it falls down. On the right (the NE) would be the
ag land (but only about 1/2 as now proposed because the other half went to the
open space on the left), but rather than bringing in an individual farmer, it
would be a community garden common area for the residents of the homeowners
association, and such a project could be partnered with local non-profits to
help educate people about the advantages of growing your own produce, etc., and
get them into doing it for themselves and having places for the extra to go
to. What's really needed is to connect the homeowners to the land;
separating a chunk of it and turning it over to someone who isn't a part of the
development is better than no ag land at all, but it perpetuates the disconnect
between people and where their food comes from and assumes that someone,
somewhere else will be there to grow the food for them.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009>To address the concerns of the neighbors, I would run a
very aesthetically pleasing fence typical of what one sees when they show the
horse farms in Kentucky on Derby Day around the three sides and on the inside of
this, again all the way around the three sides (like a 25' strip of common
area), I would plant various fruit and flowering trees to supply apples, etc.,
as well as aesthetics. Inside of this 3-sided box goes the actual
development, which would mostly present itself to 7th Street and transition from
its core to the boundaries in a graduated way.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=641130420-01032009>Of course, it's not my money, property, or decision so
it's easy to play philosopher king on the listserve. Good luck with
getting a solution that works well for everyone involved and thanks for your
reply.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>ERIN TURNER JON
TURNER<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, March 01, 2009 12:37<BR><B>To:</B>
missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [MissoulaGov]
Chickasaw<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Jed-<BR> <BR>Others have given their input on your second
question but I see no one has responded to your first question.
The eastern 5 acres, which were being farmed under a lease, were sold
to the current owner in the spring of 2006 and he discontinued the lease to the
farmer for the 2006 season. Two of the neighbors, in the northeast corner
(one of which is me), offered various times thorughout the last
2+ years to purchase 1, 5 and even all 10 acres for agricultural
purposes. But no deal was made. According
to Montana State codes, the city can not annex active agricultural lands so
it is my assumption (and I may be wrong) that the current landowner discontinued
the lease to the farmer in order to not have the land qualify as ag
land. I just want to clarify, since you inquired, that
there are persons interested in that land for agricultural
purposes. Obviously, for us and the surrounding neighbors who also
have active ag lands, we would prefer to see the ag land on the north boundary
(and it has been stated that ALL the land is prime not just a portion
of it) where it would be adjacent to the main irrigation ditch
and would flow into other ag activities thus putting human development
(houses)next to human infrastructure (e.g. 7th Street, services,
etc). But the governing body has the ultimate say on this decision.
Thanks for being part of the conversation!<BR> <BR>> From:
missoulagov-request@cmslists.com<BR>> Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37,
Issue 1<BR>> To: missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009
12:00:04 -0700<BR>> <BR>> Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions
to<BR>> missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>> <BR>> To subscribe or unsubscribe
via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>>
http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov<BR>> or, via email, send
a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>>
missoulagov-request@cmslists.com<BR>> <BR>> You can reach the person
managing the list at<BR>> missoulagov-owner@cmslists.com<BR>> <BR>>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>> than
"Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Today's
Topics:<BR>> <BR>> 1. A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jed
Taylor)<BR>> 2. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jim McGrath)<BR>>
3. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Geoff Badenoch)<BR>> 4. Re: A
question - or two - on Chickasaw (Eric Taylor)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
<BR>> Message: 1<BR>> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:07:13 -0700<BR>> From:
"Jed Taylor" <mcc@offthedial.com><BR>> Subject: [MissoulaGov] A
question - or two - on Chickasaw<BR>> To:
<missoulagov@cmslists.com><BR>> Message-ID:
<3E23390949004DD5BD284CABAA53F7F8@ryan><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"<BR>> <BR>> Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm a
big supporter of locally grown<BR>> food, and believe that increases in
transportation costs that we all will<BR>> experience in the future will make
local sources that much more valuable.<BR>> And it's clear from the testimony
about this project that the soil on these<BR>> lots, and especially the
eastern half, is great for growing things.<BR>> <BR>> So - if there's all
this demand for land on which to locally grow food, and<BR>> if this land in
particular is appropriate for that activity, then why hasn't<BR>> it been
farmed since 2005? Have there been people clamoring to farm it, but<BR>> have
been prevented from doing so?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> My other question is
more philosophical. Is the city really ready to annex<BR>> an individual
piece of property a good mile west of its current boundary and<BR>> create
this island of development surrounded by people who don't want it and<BR>>
served by an infrastructure that really isn't ready to support it? Is
this<BR>> how growth-by-infill is going to occur - in an ad-hoc,
patchwork,<BR>> one-project-at-a-time manner wherever they might pop up
regardless of how<BR>> far away from the current city limits they might
be?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _____ <BR>> <BR>> "Be the
change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi <BR>> <BR>>
-------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...<BR>> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/270ada54/attachment-0001.htm
<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message:
2<BR>> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:29:30 -0700<BR>> From: "Jim McGrath"
<jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org><BR>> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A
question - or two - on Chickasaw<BR>> To: "Jed Taylor"
<mcc@offthedial.com>, <missoulagov@cmslists.com><BR>> Message-ID:
<92B4830B2B5E6E43B04109A6DFB96F96A5B60C@mha1.MHA.local><BR>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> <BR>> I'll address the
second question -- the philosophical one, if you will.<BR>> First, annexation
is NOT infill development (except in the case of a spot like the old Champion
Mill site which has never been annexed because it used to be industrial). Infill
development is making use of what we used to call "committed lands" -- areas
within the city that already have services but have never been developed or need
to be redeveloped. <BR>> I used to refer to what you describe as "leap frog"
development-- annexing non-contiguous parcels far out from existing services. In
the case of development far past the airport, for example, I agree it is
problematic.<BR>> On the other hand, I don't consider this area that far
flung. If a parcel on the urban fringe (to use the current terminology) wants to
join the city slightly before another, that's okay, as long as the plan is annex
all of it (which I think we should)-- in fact, it makes the whole process easier
and cheaper for property owners and taxpayers alike. <BR>> The entire urban
area should be part of the city. Urban=city. <BR>> That doesn't automatically
preclude ag -- I'm a long time proponent of urban agriculture.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com on behalf of Jed Taylor<BR>> Sent: Sat
2/28/2009 2:07 PM<BR>> To: missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>> Subject:
[MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw<BR>> <BR>> Just so
there's no misunderstanding, I'm a big supporter of locally grown<BR>> food,
and believe that increases in transportation costs that we all will<BR>>
experience in the future will make local sources that much more
valuable.<BR>> And it's clear from the testimony about this project that the
soil on these<BR>> lots, and especially the eastern half, is great for
growing things.<BR>> <BR>> So - if there's all this demand for land on
which to locally grow food, and<BR>> if this land in particular is
appropriate for that activity, then why hasn't<BR>> it been farmed since
2005? Have there been people clamoring to farm it, but<BR>> have been
prevented from doing so?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> My other question is more
philosophical. Is the city really ready to annex<BR>> an individual piece of
property a good mile west of its current boundary and<BR>> create this island
of development surrounded by people who don't want it and<BR>> served by an
infrastructure that really isn't ready to support it? Is this<BR>> how
growth-by-infill is going to occur - in an ad-hoc, patchwork,<BR>>
one-project-at-a-time manner wherever they might pop up regardless of
how<BR>> far away from the current city limits they might be?<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _____ <BR>> <BR>> "Be the change you
want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
-------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...<BR>> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/27f9ec29/attachment-0001.htm
<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message:
3<BR>> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:13 -0700<BR>> From: "Geoff Badenoch"
<geoffb@ism.net><BR>> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two -
on Chickasaw<BR>> To: "'Jim McGrath'" <jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org>,
"'Jed Taylor'"<BR>> <mcc@offthedial.com>,
<missoulagov@cmslists.com><BR>> Message-ID:
<374ACC25DF8A420EB45E2B5D45C7DE65@Edradour><BR>> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<BR>> <BR>> If you want to read a thoughtful
book on the whole subject of "committed<BR>> lands" I suggest "Planning for
Small Town America" by Kristina Ford, Jim<BR>> Lopach and Dennis O'Donnell,
published in the latter part of the 80's and is<BR>> the first instance where
I heard the term. Kristina Ford was the Planning<BR>> Director of Missoula in
the mid-80's, and Jim Lopach and Dennis O'Donnell<BR>> are professors
affiliated with the University of Montana. Not only is it a<BR>> book of
uncommon sense, it lays out just how communities which are growing<BR>>
should think about planning for growth. I believe it was available at
one<BR>> time through the American Planning Association.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Geoff Badenoch<BR>> <BR>> P Please consider the
environment before printing this email. <BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com<BR>>
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath<BR>> Sent:
Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:30 PM<BR>> To: Jed Taylor;
missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two
- on Chickasaw<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I'll address the second
question -- the philosophical one, if you will.<BR>> First, annexation is NOT
infill development (except in the case of a spot<BR>> like the old Champion
Mill site which has never been annexed because it used<BR>> to be
industrial). Infill development is making use of what we used to call<BR>>
"committed lands" -- areas within the city that already have services
but<BR>> have never been developed or need to be redeveloped.<BR>> I used
to refer to what you describe as "leap frog" development-- annexing<BR>>
non-contiguous parcels far out from existing services. In the case of<BR>>
development far past the airport, for example, I agree it is
problematic.<BR>> On the other hand, I don't consider this area that far
flung. If a parcel on<BR>> the urban fringe (to use the current terminology)
wants to join the city<BR>> slightly before another, that's okay, as long as
the plan is annex all of it<BR>> (which I think we should)-- in fact, it
makes the whole process easier and<BR>> cheaper for property owners and
taxpayers alike.<BR>> The entire urban area should be part of the city.
Urban=city.<BR>> That doesn't automatically preclude ag -- I'm a long time
proponent of urban<BR>> agriculture.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>> From: missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com on
behalf of Jed Taylor<BR>> Sent: Sat 2/28/2009 2:07 PM<BR>> To:
missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>> Subject: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on
Chickasaw<BR>> <BR>> Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm a big
supporter of locally grown<BR>> food, and believe that increases in
transportation costs that we all will<BR>> experience in the future will make
local sources that much more valuable.<BR>> And it's clear from the testimony
about this project that the soil on these<BR>> lots, and especially the
eastern half, is great for growing things.<BR>> <BR>> So - if there's all
this demand for land on which to locally grow food, and<BR>> if this land in
particular is appropriate for that activity, then why hasn't<BR>> it been
farmed since 2005? Have there been people clamoring to farm it, but<BR>> have
been prevented from doing so?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> My other question is
more philosophical. Is the city really ready to annex<BR>> an individual
piece of property a good mile west of its current boundary and<BR>> create
this island of development surrounded by people who don't want it and<BR>>
served by an infrastructure that really isn't ready to support it? Is
this<BR>> how growth-by-infill is going to occur - in an ad-hoc,
patchwork,<BR>> one-project-at-a-time manner wherever they might pop up
regardless of how<BR>> far away from the current city limits they might
be?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _____ <BR>> <BR>> "Be the
change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> -------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...<BR>> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/0bfa8337/attachment-0001.htm
<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message:
4<BR>> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:16:09 -0700<BR>> From: Eric Taylor
<ectbo@hotmail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two
- on Chickasaw<BR>> To: <geoffb@ism.net>,
<jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org>,<BR>> <mcc@offthedial.com>,
<missoulagov@cmslists.com><BR>> Message-ID:
<BLU104-W6BC95D04896DF30BB6AB0B0A80@phx.gbl><BR>> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> All,<BR>>
<BR>> I appreciate the perspective, that the current discussion before the
council is one that planners, property owners, and developers have been having
in the valley since the mid-80's.<BR>> <BR>> The other day I was upstairs
in city hall. There are a couple of great photos of water works hill, one taken
in the late 1800's and the other taken in the early 1900's. Both of these photos
show how heavily tracked the path on the hill was over 100 years ago. In one of
the photos there is a big area that has been excavated, it is approximately 300
yards from the current trailhead, on Water Works hill. I think this is the cut
that is today, the transition from the road to the footpath, where wood steps
have been installed on the trail. Trees have grown in the cut giving it a much
more natural look today.<BR>> <BR>> I suspect the discussion of developing
the urban fringe has been going on in Missoula for quite some time.<BR>>
<BR>> Another observation I had, was how the interstate running at the base
of the North Hills, affects the transition from urban to fringe environment. The
interstate is like a DMZ- a no mans land if you will, separating the town from
the country. In the early photos you could walk out the back door of the
highland brewery, and right into the rattlesnake wilderness!<BR>> <BR>>
Jim, what do you think the deal is--with the city not wanting to annex
industrial land? Are you saying the Champion mill site os still not annexed into
the city, kind of like a little island of county land in the urban core?<BR>>
<BR>> From: geoffb@ism.net<BR>> To: jmcgrath@missoulahousing.org;
mcc@offthedial.com; missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009
23:01:13 -0700<BR>> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on
Chickasaw<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> RE: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on
Chickasaw<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> If<BR>> you want to read a thoughtful book on the whole
subject of ?committed<BR>> lands? I suggest ?Planning for Small Town America?
by<BR>> Kristina Ford, Jim Lopach and Dennis O?Donnell, published in the
latter<BR>> part of the 80?s and is the first instance where I heard the
term. <BR>> Kristina Ford was the Planning Director of Missoula in the
mid-80?s, and Jim<BR>> Lopach and Dennis O?Donnell are professors affiliated
with the University of Montana. Not<BR>> only is it a book of uncommon sense,
it lays out just how communities which are<BR>> growing should think about
planning for growth. I believe it was<BR>> available at one time through the
American Planning Association.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Geoff Badenoch<BR>> <BR>> P Please consider the environment
before printing<BR>> this email. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>> <BR>> From:<BR>>
missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com [mailto:missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com] On
Behalf Of Jim McGrath<BR>> <BR>> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009<BR>>
8:30 PM<BR>> <BR>> To: Jed Taylor;<BR>>
missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>> <BR>> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A<BR>>
question - or two - on Chickasaw<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I'll address
the second<BR>> question -- the philosophical one, if you will.<BR>>
<BR>> First, annexation is NOT infill development (except in the case of a
spot like<BR>> the old Champion Mill site which has never been annexed
because it used to be<BR>> industrial). Infill development is making use of
what we used to call<BR>> "committed lands" -- areas within the city that
already have services<BR>> but have never been developed or need to be
redeveloped.<BR>> <BR>> I used to refer to what you describe as "leap
frog" development--<BR>> annexing non-contiguous parcels far out from
existing services. In the case of<BR>> development far past the airport, for
example, I agree it is problematic.<BR>> <BR>> On the other hand, I don't
consider this area that far flung. If a parcel on<BR>> the urban fringe (to
use the current terminology) wants to join the city<BR>> slightly before
another, that's okay, as long as the plan is annex all of it<BR>> (which I
think we should)-- in fact, it makes the whole process easier and<BR>>
cheaper for property owners and taxpayers alike.<BR>> <BR>> The entire
urban area should be part of the city. Urban=city.<BR>> <BR>> That doesn't
automatically preclude ag -- I'm a long time proponent of urban<BR>>
agriculture.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> <BR>> From:
missoulagov-bounces@cmslists.com on behalf of Jed Taylor<BR>> <BR>> Sent:
Sat 2/28/2009 2:07 PM<BR>> <BR>> To: missoulagov@cmslists.com<BR>>
<BR>> Subject: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm a big
supporter of locally grown<BR>> <BR>> food, and believe that increases in
transportation costs that we all will<BR>> <BR>> experience in the future
will make local sources that much more valuable.<BR>> <BR>> And it's clear
from the testimony about this project that the soil on these<BR>> <BR>>
lots, and especially the eastern half, is great for growing things.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> So - if there's all this demand for land on which to
locally grow food, and<BR>> <BR>> if this land in particular is
appropriate for that activity, then why hasn't<BR>> <BR>> it been farmed
since 2005? Have there been people clamoring to farm it,<BR>> but<BR>>
<BR>> have been prevented from doing so?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> My other question is more philosophical. Is the city really
ready to<BR>> annex<BR>> <BR>> an individual piece of property a good
mile west of its current boundary and<BR>> <BR>> create this island of
development surrounded by people who don't want it and<BR>> <BR>> served
by an infrastructure that really isn't ready to support it? Is<BR>>
this<BR>> <BR>> how growth-by-infill is going to occur - in an ad-hoc,
patchwork,<BR>> <BR>> one-project-at-a-time manner wherever they might pop
up regardless of how<BR>> <BR>> far away from the current city limits they
might be?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> _____ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "Be the change you
want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>>
Windows Live? Contacts: Organize your contact list. <BR>>
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009<BR>>
-------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...<BR>> URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/7c6b0e4f/attachment-0001.htm
<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> -------Please delete
extra content when replying to messages--------<BR>> Note: This list is NOT
an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be
entered into the public record. <BR>> Subscribe or view archives at
Missoulagov.org <BR>> List Serve hosting provided by
www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. <BR>> <BR>> End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol
37, Issue 1<BR>> ******************************************<BR><BR>
<HR>
Windows Live™: Life without walls. <A
href="http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009"
target=_new>Check it out.</A> </BODY></HTML>