I don’t recommend flying out of Spokane at 7:00, getting in Boise at 9:00, testifying before the special committee on Urban Renewal at 10:15, and then flying home to Spokane at 1:30, but that’s what I did today.
There are seven pieces of Urban Renewal legislation before the special committee. Here is how I testified for each one:
House 567 – This is the big one, sponsored by the LCDC’s counterpart in Boise, the CCDC and authored by the LCDC’s attorney. It’s massive and addresses many issues. Here is what I said:
I stand in opposition to the bill. This bill is essentially the fox guarding the henhouse. Not only that, I would like to add that it’s the fox designing the lock on the door and selling it to the farmer, that is the public. There are good parts and bad parts of 567, but I see it overall to encumbering for the legislature to give it required due attention in such a short time span.
House 568 – This modification is designed to limit the bonding authority of the URA. Here is what I said:
I stand in opposition. The people who are taking advantage of weak Urban Renewal law are a clever bunch. Specifically, the terms “exceed the amount necessary” is nebulous. Who defines what is necessary? The URA itself? A clever person could easily justify what’s necessary and, further, continue bonding for random or frivolous items as a way to skirt this legislation.
House 569 – This is a rather minor modification to the law that extends the time period required for public comment from 30 days to 90 days. Here is what I said:
With respect to House 569 I rise in support with the assurance from Mr. Hart that Paragraph E of title 2008 has been corrected so that any modifications to the plan must be subject to the same waiting period.
I was not allowed to hear from Rep. Hart as to whether the modification was made. I went on:
Having more time available to the public allows for more interaction between the elected officials and those they are paid to serve. The Urban Renewal plan becomes a sales job for them, not just a process where the public lacks proper time to be fully informed, which is how it operates currently.
House 570 – This legislation allows for people to vote their approval for any Urban Renewal plan. Here is what I said:
With respect to House 570 I stand in opposition. I understand the necessity for this legislation, and I’d like to support it. One of the weakness of the current law is that an urban renewal plan can be vague. A vote makes it necessary for the municipality to be upfront and accountable to the public about exactly they are doing. The weakness in this legislation is that Tax Increment Financing affects more than one taxing entity under current law, and it’s questionable whether only those voters from one taxing district can vote to affect taxes in another district.
House 571 & 578 – These bills allow for other taxing districts to sign off on any URD formed. That’s because the URD affects the taxing district’s income through the Tax Increment Financing. Here is what I told the committee:
With respect to House 571 and 578 I rise in support. Other states require that Tax Increment Financing arrangements require approval from those affected taxing districts. I believe taxing districts have the right to self determination, and therefore feel this legislation lets them in on a process that affects them.
House 572 – This is the law that requires URA commissioners to be elected, not appointed.
With respect to House 572 I stand in opposition. It’s true that I addressed this body 4 years ago on a bill very similar to this. While I feel that elected representation on URA boards would solve many issues, it also raises a host of others. For example, a municipality’s URD affects taxpayers in the county as well. How are they to be represented? If the election is county-wide, then what’s to prevent a smaller community from having a URA board where no member lives in that community? The issue this bill attempts to address, as do other bills, is really the topic of accountability. While it’s been said that the accountability lies with the mayor and city council, I firmly believe that’s not good enough. Another solution must be found
Overall, it was a good interaction. I’ll write more later, but I’m rather pooped now.
Dan, I did not realize you actually flew down and gave them some Gookin! Thank you so much for your testimony!
Comment by Stebbijo — February 23, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Dan,
Thank you for using your talent and time and money to try and do the right thing. It’s too rare for a citizen from up this-a-way to be able or willing to fly to Boise and testify. Were any of our elected officials or LCDC down there on the public’s dime to testify or twist arms? If so, I wonder if they flew down and back or if they’re wining and dining and spending the night. Regardless, thank you. I’m sure there are others as well who greatly appreciate your effort.
Comment by Bill — February 23, 2010 @ 8:42 pm
I assume that LCDC’s paid lobbyist was in the audience, but I don’t know what she looks like. Because I got in late, I sat in the back. (I attended with Paul Alldredge of Caldlwell, as well as two other gentlemen who are concerned with uncontrolled urban renewal.)
There were two people from the Post Falls URA there. They were the only people I recall who spoke in favor of H567 without modification. Others spoke in favor of H567, but had reservations about one part or another. Honestly, it’s a massive bill, which raises the potential for unintended consequences.
H567 also retains URD’s power of eminent domain. At one point, one of the reps asked why such a power is given to URDs in the first place. The answer was that it was needed, but yet no URD has ever used it. Further, they couldn’t justify how eminent domain plays a role in “economic development.” I would favor that part of the law eliminated entirely, especially since no URD has ever used it.
Comment by Dan — February 23, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
Dan,
The Spokesman-Review’s Betsy “Slant” Russell reported your comment this way: “Dan Gookin, an urban renewal critic from Coeur d’Alene, opposes the comprehensive bill because it’s akin to “the fox guarding the hen house.”
If she had any interest in accurately characterizing you rather than intentionally trying to discredit you, she might have better referred to you as “a critic of urban renewal abuse in Coeur d’Alene.” But of course, she and the noosepaper she reports for have no interest in accuracy.
Comment by Bill — February 24, 2010 @ 7:42 am
I don’t mind being called an urban renewal critic. There is a lot wrong with urban renewal in Idaho, as the current complaint before the Attorney General’s office demonstrates. At least I’m not an unabashed apologist who asks no questions, which describes 5/6 members of our City Council.
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/
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.
Comment by Dan — February 24, 2010 @ 8:28 am
Thanks, Dan, for paying your own money and taking your own time to fly down to Boise to represent the citizens of CdA!
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.
Comment by mary — February 24, 2010 @ 9:25 am
Well, I represented citizens who are outraged over urban renewal abuse, such as that practiced by the secretive LCDC.
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.
Comment by Dan — February 24, 2010 @ 9:32 am
On Monday, the day before the Urban Renewal hearings started, I sent a statement for the record to each member of the sub-committee. In it I urged the committee to recommend to the full Revenue and Taxation committee that they adopt a finding that there needs to be an interim committee appointed that will “conduct hearings in selected areas of the state for an in depth review and study of issues which have caused all these bills to be brought forward, with the goal of presenting to the next legislative session, a committee bill that addresses the concerns of taxpayers.” Note that my recommendation calls for concern of TAXPAYERS. I went on to say that if they adopt H-567, the revised 66 page, 3 part rewrite of current law, it will come back “to haunt you with a never ending spiral of more remedial fixes.”
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.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 24, 2010 @ 11:19 am
Tony Berns has not contacted me, nor has Mr. Sayler, to affirm that H567 addresses any of my issues with the LCDC.
Comment by Dan — February 24, 2010 @ 11:23 am
Betsy Russel is on the Idaho Supreme Court Media/Courts Committee and Rule 32. It would be nice if she represented an IDAHO paper but she does not – in fact she is a first point of contact next to Patti Tobias with issues in the courts. Other newspapers are not fairly represented. She has no business being on the Rule 32 committee – she is not an attorney or a judge. Just like some wives of judges who are sitting with judges here locally and working with the Idaho Judicial Council – they have no business being on them. It’s a mess, off the subject, but my specialty – and hopefully I will have the time to testify – maybe next year – so this mess can get fixed. We need public input and public hearings at that level of government and we don’t have it.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 24, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
Another off the topic but just wondering if any of you have seen this bill.
HOUSE BILL NO. 565
I knew it that the jerks were going to start messing with the Open Records Laws – 9-340C
I want the same privacy and I don’t want my first name on my Driver’s License any longer.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 24, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Dan: Thank you for standing up for the Kootenai County, as a whole. The revenue diverted into LCDC coffers greatly affects county services and revenues. When the County Commissioners again tell me they have no control or influence over LCDC, I will ask them if they spoke to the state sub-committee in Feb. 2010 in Boise. Their tickets and rooms would have been well worth taxpayer’s money. I believe LCDC should be a campaign issue in the county elections. I would like an opinion from people on whether this is an appropriate campaign issue for our county commissioners.
Comment by citizen — February 25, 2010 @ 7:53 am
My pal, Sharon Ullman, an Ada County commissioner, isn’t afraid of taking a stand. (She’s one of those things called a leader, which we seem to be lacking here.) She tried to get the Association of Counties to come out against the UR modification in H567. I don’t know whether she was successful.
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.
Comment by Dan — February 25, 2010 @ 7:59 am
We need to spark the debate in this BOCC election. It is an issue ripe for the picking. I agree that privately telling us concerns about LCDC is not adequate leadership. I would like some of our candidates to come on this blog and speak out. A loss of 10% of our county revenue to LCDC should be a major issue in this election.
Comment by citizen — February 25, 2010 @ 10:27 am