CC, I don’t see how you get taxation without representation since no one is taxed for URD capital projects outside of a URD. Only those within the URD pay for the improvements, and that’s only if their property increases after the formation of the URD.

So, to get this straight, only those INSIDE the URD pay for the improvements but everyone is entitled to use them, whether you are a city resident (or more likely) not a city resident. When you think of it, it’s awfully nice of them to let us use the facilities they themselves have paid for.

Developers NEED to fund their “for profit” ventures as the rest of us do, on our own, through a bank, with investors, etc. The only preservation is to the bank account of “THE” select few. What ever happen to the 3000 +- jobs promised by the LCDC?

I also do not see where the people of the county are responsible or even SHOULD be responsible for the “WANTS” (not needs) of the city. How is this even legal? Again, “TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”. JohnA, you can put your spin on it any way you wish but it is STILL rich developers getting richer off of the backs of the little people period.

And I don’t believe for one minute that folks, including the city council, had any true understanding of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and what problems it would cause down the road.

The Council directed staff to proceed through the process and have the issue to them before the end of 1997. They appointed an urban renewal agency to oversee the process. Suffice to say it was a huge task to get done in that timeline, including completing the annexation of properties the Council wanted in the URD. In any event, we had the urban renewal plan to the affected government agencies, including the County, Fire Districts, NIC and all four highway districts, early in the fall. I met personally with each entity to apprise them of the projects listed in the plan, as I had done the feasibility study showing the increment needed and the impact to each agency. We finally had the public hearing in December before a full house in the auditorium at Coeur d’Alene High School. Through the whole public process we had no negative comments on the plan. At the end of the public hearing the Council (all of whom were in attendance) voted unanimously to approve the formation of the urban renewal district.

And, even more recently, the River District was formed and the Lake District’s life extended. Again the entire public process I described above was followed and again following the public comment period, the Council voted unanimously to move ahead with the Districts.

As far as Ancient’s comments, CDA taxpayers have always footed the bill for the operation and maintenance of the assets used by everyone else. The only difference then is that CDA taxpayers also provided all of the facilities, or capital projects, as well. With the advent of urban renewal, the city has urban renewal to help pay for those facilities. This has removed a tremendous burden from city taxpayers, that I can guarantee.

Bottom line: try to imagine what the city’s taxes might be if they had to still pay for all of the capital projects funded by LCDC. Then, look at the great city you live in and all of it’s assets not only preserved forever but improved and added to at the same time.

As for our ability to weigh in with our votes on urban renewal, your reference to 1997 is pretty ancient. No one knew what urban renewal was back then, not even the city council. And it was a vote of the council taken in the middle of the summer, with several members absent. I believe, if memory serves, there were THREE whole votes: one council member in favor, one opposed, and Mayor Al Hassel broke the tie with a Yes vote.

I would not parade that process around as great involvement of the People!

My question is: where were the public and agency comments then? The fact is everyone was on the same page when the plans were proposed and the districts formed. If issues have arisen since then, and surely from the tenor of this site they have, the recourse is to seek changes from the appointing authority, which is the city. The city alone has the authority to disband the URD if that’s their desire.

Otherwise, you’ll need to have the laws changed concerning URDs, but be cautioned that too much debt has been issued statewide to expect any changes to affect current URDs. It won’t happen because that would endanger the bond rating of every governmental agency in the state, all 1,100 of them.

John, IT’S THE PUBLIC’S MONEY, NOT THE URD’S MONEY!

And the public was NEVER ASKED whether they wanted this or not. THAT’s the problem!