Our BOCC could be more vocal. They could be leaders and take a stand and go public with what they’re more than willing to share with me in private. They fail. That’s why we need to replace two of them this Fall.

HOUSE BILL NO. 565

I knew it that the jerks were going to start messing with the Open Records Laws – 9-340C

records are exempt from disclosure:
10 (1) Except as provided in this subsection, all personnel records
11 of a current or former public official other than the public official’s
12 public service or employment history, classification, pay grade and
13 step, longevity, gross salary and salary history, status, workplace and
14 employing agency, provided that such records shall only list the last name
15 and first initial of the public official. All other personnel information
16 relating to a public employee or applicant

I want the same privacy and I don’t want my first name on my Driver’s License any longer.

After listening to the live audio streaming from 2 days of committee hearings, I am convinced that my recommendation should be considered seriously. From the very few questions asked by committee members it is evident that there is a serious lack of understanding of what and how Urban Renewal works.

First of all, Dan Gookin did good job of informing them of things that are important and it is to his credit that he took the time and expense for a quick trip to Boise and back for his spot on the hearing schedule.

As might be expected, advocates for the rewrite of the current law on Urban Renewal were the people who work in the enterprise, such as various URA board chairmen and executive directors, their consultants and lobbyists, who basically recited the “but for URA none of these wonderful things would happen” argument. Among them was Tony Berns, the executive Director for Coeur d’Alene’s Urban Renewal Agency, the Lake City Development Corporation, (LCDC)who was against all the bills except the anointed one.

His testimony was presented with such rapid fire speech that it was difficult to follow, even for me a somewhat seasoned observer of URA issues, such as me. It was amusing when Representative Barrett asked him to explain the meaning of a definition about deterioration and he said he didn’t know and would have to ask counsel, whereupon Rep. Barrett said, “You do your work in this field and you don’t know what is meant by this?”

Testimony questioning the anointed bill was presented by former members of the legislature Rachael Gilbert and Maurice Clements who served with me back in the 70′s. Also presenting useful information was Wayne Hoffman from the Idaho Freedom Foundation on language that conflicts with the Open Meeting Law and mandates all cities to adopt URA’s

Our own Representative from District 4, George Sayler, in reference to Rep. Phil Hart’s 4 bills, asked Tony Berns whether or not H-567 (the anointed bill) resolved those issues that have been the subject of much criticism locally. Bern’s response was an outright lie. He said, “YES. it does.” But the way Rep. Sayler asked the questions was more like he was asking rhetorically.

They will wrap it up tomorrow and decide what to do. I’ll be on my way to Boise as they do and will be at the Statehouse Friday and Monday.

One legislator, Democrat Rep. Ruchti, gave your argument about why it’s so important to appoint “experts” to the URA board. I would have countered (had I the time), that given that position, why not have the Governor appoint an expert legislature? Further, why not have the President appoint all the Governors and the Pope appoint the President? Then again, this is not the middle ages and we are a republic.

It remains true that all public money in Idaho — taxes, fees, fines, permits, the whole lot — is spent under the direction of elected officials. All public money that is, except for urban renewal. That is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

I agree with Rep. Phil Hart about having elections for the urban renewal boards, instead of having them appointed by the mayors. Right now, supporters of appointing the members argue that the people on the board need to be professionals in their fields of banking, real estate development, etc., and that these people would probably not go through an election process (too elite?) Elections would end the problem of “taxation without representation” and it would also help ensure that citizens’ rights are protected much better than they are now. If “expert” information or advice is needed, the appropriate experts can be brought in to testify before the board.

Other articles relevant to yesterday.

This one basically reprints the Russell story. http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12030564

This one is kinda nice: http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/3135/

Former Coeur d’Alene city council candidate Dan Gookin was concerned about HB 572, part of which would limit urban renewal agencies to three members. “If an election is county-wide, it will result in smaller communities having an urban renewal agency board with no members who actually live in that community.”

The Statesman parrots Russell’s story, even though Dan Popkey himself was at the meeting. (Of course, Popkey may write something later this week.)

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/02/23/1091883/idaho-subcommittee-tackles-urban.html

Here I’m called a “self-appointed watchdog”:

http://www.topix.com/city/coeur-dalene-id/2010/02/idaho-subcommittee-tackles-urban-renewal-reform

That’s obviously a take on Russell’s spin that I’m a “self-styled watchdog.” It’s too bad no one reads the Spokesman any more. Of course, The Press has nothing and is getting better at having nothing every day.