This is Dan during last winter–doesn’t seem much different now, does it?
In sports, the Zags play in the “Battle in Seattle” today against U Conn, the #2 team in the nation and lots of local folks are braving the drive over for the 1:00 pm game. (we’ll watch on TV)
On the national & world front, yesterday saw interesting news about the donations to the Clinton library. Huge money from Arab countries and connections in Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Also from US companies asking for taxpayer bail-outs: AIG, Lehman, Merrill, Citi Group and General Motors. Can Hillary be independent? Any other thoughts or comments?
Read more good stuff in George Will’s “Last Word” in Newsweek.
Comment by Dan — December 20, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Read More.
Comment by Dan — December 20, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Read More
Comment by Dan — December 20, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
No word on whether it will be called the “Education Corridor” or not.
Read More
Comment by Dan — December 20, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Here’s a shot from today, Mary. Brrrrrrrr!!!!!!
Comment by Dan — December 20, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
the courts and the legislature have made a mockery of the constitution. idaho housing issues bonds all the time sans vote. the people no longer have any voice. sad so very sad.
Comment by TheWiz — December 20, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Well Dan considering that winter starts today I think we’s in for some kind of winter this year.
Comment by Wallypog — December 20, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Wallypog, looks like Thursday was just a running start. Oddly enough, one of the long-range forecasts for our area done late last summer predicted a warmer than normal winter here. Thank goodness meteorologists don’t design airplanes.
Comment by Bill — December 20, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Don’t talk to me about airplanes. Our youngest son has been stuck in Omaha because his flight was canceled Thursday after he was already on the plane. They had to get off, get their luggage and wait two days. Now they are trying again. They were in the plane, again, taxied out to the runway, again, and were ready to take off, but there’s just been an accident in Denver, their connecting airport, so they came back to the airport and are waiting, again. This is crazy!
Dan, the only thing different in your photos from last year to this year is how slim you look. Way to go!
Comment by mary — December 20, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
I’m working on gaining weight this Christmas. Woo! Eggnog!
Comment by Dan — December 20, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
This just in from the Wall St. Journal:
What? The LCDC isn’t everywhere?
Comment by Dan — December 21, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Mary Dan and/or Bill,
Could you tell me how this $10,000 parking tax is going to affect business owners in CdA?
Who has to pay, business owner/property owner, and how is it determined?
Comment by concerned citizen — December 23, 2008 @ 6:34 am
concerned citizen,
On January 6, 2009, the City Council has scheduled a public hearing on the fees in lieu of parking proposal. During the week of December 29 to January 2, the city should post the council agenda and packet for that meeting on its website. If you go to the website next week and click on Council Meeting Agenda & Packet, you can download the packet and read the staff report as well as the other stuff for O-8-08, the fees in lieu of parking ordinance.
If you don’t want to wait, you could go to City Hall and ask the clerks office for the information. All of your questions should be answered at the public hearing, but to be sure, you might want to go to the meeting, sign up to testify, then ask your questions during public testimony. They’re good questions that deserve an answer.
Comment by Bill — December 23, 2008 @ 6:55 am
I wouldn’t have an issue with the parking tax — if the money was actually going toward something. It’s not. As I understand it (and, remember, there is no code yet) the money just goes into the General Fund. If instead it went to fund a downtown parking structure, I might change my mind. But it looks like that’s not the case.
Regardless, the City has made the quirky move to approving the fee without yet discussing or voting on the ordinance that enforces the fee. This is backward. Yet, when they approved, City Finance Directory Tymesen said that by doing so it would be “easier” on him. Or did he use the word “convenient”? Either way, the approval of the fees before the ordinance shows that process is not important to the Mayor and council.
Comment by Dan — December 23, 2008 @ 7:07 am
concerned citizen,
I wasn’t trying to avoid answering your question, but as Dan points out, until the Council discusses and adopts the ordinance, we won’t know the answers to your questions. It’s not that the Council hasn’t already deliberated and decided, because they have. The January 6 Council meeting just “ratifies” the decisions already made behind closed doors.
Comment by Bill — December 23, 2008 @ 7:11 am
Surprise: The Caldwell URD is holding a public vote on whether to float a $8.5M bond to build a new home for a community college. The vote is non-binding, but they’re holding it. Regardless, the bottom line issue is that it is the BOND itself that needs to be voted on — and approved by 2/3rds of the voters, per the Idaho State Constitution. Yet, urban renewal agencies can legally skirt that law somehow.
Not a surprise: the money will be given to a developer, who will build the facility and then lease it back to the college.
Same ol’, same ol’. Link.
Comment by Dan — December 23, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Dan,
What they’re asking for is judicial confirmation, another mechanism the Idaho legislature provided for urban renewal agencies to circumvent the constitutional requirement for a bond. I doubt there will be a public vote; the law only requires a public hearing.
Comment by Bill — December 23, 2008 @ 8:55 am
The judge will turn them down. The Frazier case in Boise dramatically narrowed what is considered an “ordinary and necessary” expense by a unit of government. The judge is asked to make a finding that the proposed project fits the consitutional requirement. Before Frazier, maybe. After, no.
Comment by locogov — December 23, 2008 @ 9:11 am
the fees in lieu of parking is not a parking tax. the fee of $1,000 or $1,500 has not risen since it was first adopted in the 90’s. it has only been used once, by the chamber of commerce. the new ordinance will reduce the number of parking spots that can be paid for from 50 to 20. it will require a developer to pay $10,000 per spot. the money goes into a separate fund to be used for parking related issues like a parking structure. there is nothing wrong with the process that has been followed, if the city council votes to approve the fee hike, after the public hearing, then the ordinance is in place. if they vote it down, then that voids this particular fee increase. no harm, no foul. if this is voted down then a developer could buy 50 parking spots -that really do not exist– for $50,000. how will that help downtown businesses or residents?
Comment by reagan — December 23, 2008 @ 10:21 am
I have a problem with the fees in lieu of parking. Increasing the cost does not bother me, I think Reagan has a good point when he said “if this is voted down then a developer could buy 50 parking spots -that really do not exist”. Even with 6 years on P&Z, I was unaware of this ordinance–it never came up that I can recall. My concern is for the other businesses or residents near the new construction without enough parking spaces. They are the ones who will be negatively impacted. Their nearby on-street parking or even their own parking lots may be congested by customers/residents/visitors for the new building.
Very close oversight is needed before anyone should be able to buy their way out of the parking requirement; it should be a rare exception with low level impact only. This is not something staff should decide, it needs to go to P&Z and the city council.
Comment by mary — December 23, 2008 @ 10:53 am
That’s good to hear that the money goes toward a parking structure. That’s how it should work. Still, I’d keep an eye on that money as the budget crisis in local government comes to a boil this coming year. Buying something that exists works for me. The downtown parking structure proposed by the LCDC seems like a good project and I’ve heard them speak of it. I shall watch this all carefully.
Comment by Dan — December 23, 2008 @ 11:53 am
No, Dan, reagan didn’t say it would go toward a parking structure. He said it would go into a separate fund to be used for parking related issues like a parking structure. Who will determine what constitutes “parking related issues?”
Comment by Bill — December 23, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Reagan, actually the issue has surfaced prior to the chamber building: once when Mc Donald’s opened a franchise downtown and another time when Jim Loeding wanted to develop what was the Antler Building on Sherman. In Jim Loeding’s case, I recall an ordinance that permitted him to enter into a contract with the Presbyterian Church for the shared use of one of their parking lots. The building was demolished.
I found it unfortunate that the city chose to vote an ordinance for fees prior to the public hearing for the acceptance of those new fees in Midtown. The problem with fees in lieu of is that they are one time only and may be applied to parking issues in areas other than the area in which the fees are collected. In the case of Midtown, this ordinance is directed primarily for properties on the east side of Fourth Street where all street parking will be eliminated. Parking on the LCDC owned parking lots will probably be paid parking operated by Diamond. It is important to note that the city is not requiring the existing property owners to preserve at least two on-site spaces so as to protect the adjoining residential neighbors from what will no doubt be a parking nightmare.
Mark Hinshaw seems to be the author of parking ordinances that decrease the requirements for on-site parking whether it be for granny flats in our historical heart of town neighborhoods or downtown or midtown.
Taxpayers should not have to subsidize parking for developments. Providing adequate on-site parking is the cost of development.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — December 24, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
“Providing adequate on-site parking is the cost of development.”– that is true. but there are times when on-site parking is just not physically possible, in which case in lieu of parking can permit some development, otherwise some areas of midtown and downtown will remain as they are. economically, that would hurt midtown.
Comment by reagan — December 25, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Buying a parking space that isn’t there doesn’t fix the problem of a parking space that isn’t there. It doesn’t help the customer who needs that space. Those people still have to park, which means they park in the neighborhoods. That might be good for development, but it sucks for the neighbors. I would like to see our city respect that part of the community, not just a developer who is building something where it shouldn’t go in the first place.
Comment by Dan — December 25, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
There are a LOT of downtown business owners that do not want to pay the OUTRAGEOUS fee of a whole $20 per month to use the downtown lot. These cheap skates park and walk two and even four blocks farther to save that money. How about parking permits in the residential areas for the home owners. Then start towing these people that continue to park in the res area.
Comment by concerned citizen — December 25, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
Permit parking works only when there is full-time enforcement.
Comment by Dan — December 25, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
Happy Boxing Day! Merry Christmas, Day Two (of Twelve)! And for any resident pagans, Snappy Saturnalia!
Comment by Reality — December 26, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Reagan, You did not address the issue of preserving existing on-site parking on existing properties. Rather than developing high density properties, perhaps development should be limited to the number of on-site subterranean parking spaces. Granted they may be expensive, but then it is the price of development. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers to subsidize parking for developments. The one time fee does not include perpetual maintenance and operation funds. One might consider the Riverpark Square issue as well when discussing subsidized parking for businesses. In the case of Midtown, this is a midblock issue as well where the impact of the proposed developments to the properties sharing that alley must be considered in the parking issues.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — December 28, 2008 @ 7:48 am