Mary Souza’s Newsletter
Way back at the start of the McEuen hoo-ha, the city made a deal with the baseball folks: The baseball people should be quiet and not make a big stink or write letters to the editor or speak out at meetings, and in return?…the city promised them “equal or better” for the ball field at McEuen.
But now it’s becoming all too clear that someone’s getting bamboozled, and it’s not the city!
The city plans to replace the ball field by moving it to new property on Cherry Hill, and the city council will vote tomorrow night on buying that land. Price tag: $550,000. We’ll see how that all turns out, because the city can’t afford to buy it right now; they don’t have enough money in their Parks fund. Will they just shove it through anyway? Come to watch in person or tune in on Channel 19 at 6:00 pm. But let’s move on to “equal or better”:
Right now the American Legion teams have a sweet spot on McEuen, and it’s one they love. They have first dibs on scheduling, they can run their own concessions stand, and they don’t have to pay to practice or play.
The proposed new field on Cherry Hill will cost an estimated $2.7 million to build. Who has the money? Not the city. Not American Legion. Can’t be LCDC because it’s outside their district. So who will pay?
The city introduced the Legion people to a professional fundraiser! How’s that for “we’ll provide you with equal or better.” Not only that, but this professional keeps 20% of all the donations, which makes the task even more daunting.
Another possible option in the works is a semi-pro baseball team that some private guys are trying to bring to town. Would the semi-pro team pay to build the field? If they did, they would get first rights to everything, leaving the American Legion teams to beg for leftover practice slots and unwanted game times. Legion would not get the concession revenues and they’d have to pay to practice and play.
Does this sound like “equal or better” to you?
Every member of the old city council, along with Mayor Bloem, promised that equal or better facilities would be in place before any services are removed from McEuen. In fact, Councilman Mike Kennedy wrote on a local internet blog, two years ago, in Feb.2010, ”I’m on the record supporting keeping the Legion ballfields on McEuen, their historic home. I’ll continue to support that.”
There’s another important reason to pay close attention to the Legion ball field issue, and that is the 3rd Street Boat Launch. If the city is willing to play fast and loose with its promise to the baseball folks, what will they do about the boat launch?
Well, listen up, people, they are not waiting for equal or better: The city is going to cut the boat launch down to only two lanes, and they’re going to do it very soon!
At the LCDC meeting last week, Deanna Goodlander and Doug Eastwood said the Third St. boat launch will be trimmed down to 2 lanes, instead of the current 5 lanes, and the trailer parking will be moved over near city hall. There were even comments that it might jam things up because people will have to leave their boats, after launching, to go park their trailers, then walk all the way back while other boaters wait for their turn.
Is this the city’s way of reducing the quality of the boat launch? They openly admitted, at the LCDC meeting, that they’ve purposefully withheld maintenance and upkeep on the launch. Will they then be able to replace it with “equal or better” compared to a cracking two lane launch with distant parking? (link below for more info on this)
Watching how the baseball people are being manipulated, it would not surprise me.
I hope the baseball and boating folks show up to the council meeting tomorrow night at 6:00 pm in the community room of the new library by city hall. I hope lots of other supporters show up too. It’s not time to sit down and be quiet, it’s time to stand up and speak out!
*****************
Planned Deterioration?: https://opencda.com/?p=10701
Who was the fundraiser, John Austin?
Comment by Pariah — February 20, 2012 @ 8:35 pm
Pariah, I read your comment and couldn’t help be laugh. Probably.
Comment by Ancientemplar — February 20, 2012 @ 9:15 pm
No, but I heard John Austin has submitted his name for the LCDC opening. All in the family?
Comment by mary — February 20, 2012 @ 9:34 pm
Mary,
It’s difficult to imagine that even the Mullan Avenue Gang would be dumb or desperate enough to appoint Austin to the LCDC. For one thing, his residence (according to voting records) is 25300 S. Evans Creek Road, Medimont. If this Google map excerpt is accurate, that puts him closer to St. Maries (21.8 miles) than to Corrupt d’Alene (33.5 miles).
Comment by Bill — February 21, 2012 @ 7:06 am
Mary, and he probably slept in a Holiday Inn Express the night before he submitted his name for consideration.
Comment by Ancientemplar — February 21, 2012 @ 8:04 am
Good one, Ancient! As you probably remember, John Austin was the City Treasurer when the LCDC was originally formed…he helped set it all up, back in the day.
Comment by mary — February 21, 2012 @ 9:49 am
What do you think of the city’s pledge for “equal or better”, and their behavior now?
Comment by mary — February 21, 2012 @ 11:34 am
Bill, if you spent as much time locating the Idaho Code section on urban renewal as you did my voting address you would find that there is no residency requirement to live in, or even near, the city where the agency exists. You could live in Mongolia if you wanted and still serve on any URA board in Idaho. For the record, I also spend a lot of time at our lakeplace on Echo Bay and our houseboat in Harrison. I also have offices in Coeur d’Alene and Hayden so I’ve pretty much got the county covered.
Meanwhile, Mary is right that I helped to create CDA’s urban renewal district in 1997, working to create the boundary and developing the feasibility study for the plan. I also served as the agency’s finance director during its first two years in existence. I have also created URDs in eight other north Idaho cities. I believe it is this experience and knowledge that makes me qualified to apply for the LCDC board position.
I discussed this briefly with Dan on Saturday (which is why I’m back here today) and expressed my feelings on the subject. It seems only appropriate that I give back a little to the city and its residents now that I am semi-retired and have time to give.
I get beat up on this site plenty for being highly paid by local governments and now I’m getting beaten up for wanting to serve without compensation on an agency I helped to create. How incredibly ironic is that?
Comment by John Austin — February 21, 2012 @ 3:02 pm
Thanks, JohnA, for pointing out another change that needs to be made in the Idaho Urban Renewal Law…all board members should live within the municipality.
You’re getting “beaten up” here? Give me a break!
Comment by mary — February 21, 2012 @ 3:16 pm
Mary, what do you make of Bill’s comment “It’s difficult to imagine that even the Mullan Avenue Gang would be dumb or desperate enough to appoint Austin to the LCDC”.
Dumb or desperate? And, that’s not getting beaten up? Give ME a break.
Comment by John Austin — February 21, 2012 @ 3:36 pm
JohnA,
Welcome back. Not to worry, it took hardly any time at all for me to learn your residence address. As Mary says, the law needs to be changed to require all urban renewal agency commissioners to live in the municipality that created the URA.
Actually, John, I think urban renewal agency commissioners should be compensated. That would definitively remove the exemption created by Idaho Code §18-1361A. I would also like to see Idaho Code §50-2017 explicitly criminalized and included in Idaho Code §18-1359.
Comment by Bill — February 21, 2012 @ 3:45 pm
I agree with Bill: LCDC commissioners should be paid a stipend. Not much. I think Highway Dist. Commissioners make $50/month. That seams reasonable for the LCDC, if not half that.
But I do have to agree with John as well: We’ve been arguing that LCDC impacts taxpayers county-wide. It makes sense for them to be represented on municipal urban renewal boards for that very reason.
And I do think John gets beat-up here. Face it: He is the only person I know of in the county who supports most of what the LCDC does yet has the courage to come on OpenCdA and share his thoughts. That’s pretty bold, and I have seen him take a modicum of flack for it.
Comment by Dan — February 21, 2012 @ 3:48 pm
Golly garsh John we’re so deeply humbled that you wanna ‘give us’ something back. I bow down and lick your shoes. Slobber. Slobber. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hey – leggo of my wallet…….!!!!
Comment by Wallypog — February 21, 2012 @ 4:28 pm
Heeees baaack! Again. Yawn.
Comment by Pariah — February 21, 2012 @ 6:14 pm
Yes John you have given so much to society. Please don’t think you have an obligation to give more. You’ve done enough. Maybe you would consider writing a book in your retirement. Something that could carry the title: I Gave So Much, Idaho’s Greatest Me.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 21, 2012 @ 8:31 pm
I am actually writing in my retirement, Gary, screenplays mostly but some short stories, too. Also documenting my dad’s war stories including flying the ‘Hump’ in WWII.
But, I could try a book, I guess, and then maybe I’ll be rich and famous like Dan. 🙂
Comment by John Austin — February 21, 2012 @ 9:29 pm
Local stuff aside, John I’m a big fan of true memoirs of the greatest generation. If you are published, I will look forward to reading your WWII book. I was a child during that war (yes, I’m that old) but I remember quite vividly the activities of the homefront. My favorite memory being of the troop trains that would stop traffic at crossings. Drove my father crazy. On more than one occasion, local school bands would play and most all of us had small flags that we waved at the military personnel. Would that happen today?
Comment by rochereau — February 22, 2012 @ 10:22 am
And re the relevance of LCDC, my opinion is well known. Frankly it doesn’t matter who is appointed. The status quo in CDA will continue until the tie can be broken. The unrivalled arrogance and hubris of Bloem and Goodlander will continue ad nauseum. Kennedy and Evers will do as they are told. My prediction, Bloem and Goodlander will not run again. Why? Neither of them want the embarrassment of being clobbered at the polls. They will retire accompanied by endless testimonials of their selfless didication, their never before witnessed examples of atruism toward the citizens of CDA. My eyes cross at the thought.
Comment by rochereau — February 22, 2012 @ 11:15 am
The 2013 elections are a long way away, Roch. The footprint of McEuen will mostly be completed by then, I believe, so it is tough at this time to gauge what the public’s reaction will be to the upgrade. There may either remain a backlash to the plan, or similar to the Kroc Center a great deal of amazement at what’s been accomplished. Only time will tell.
Comment by John Austin — February 22, 2012 @ 2:27 pm
Actually John, I agree with you. The public memory is (usually) very short. And 2013 is a long time away. But there are 2 differences here. Kroc was 3 million, not good especially when “no public money will be used”, was the city mantra. However, compared to 39 million plus, 3 million is not a large amount. And the Kroc is not a continuing drain on the public purse. McEuen, in this or any economy, is a huge amount of tax dollars and the costs will be ongoing for infinity. Kroc truly is for the everyday citizenry. Lets tell the truth for once about McEuen. It is for the tourists and the businesses who are in that vicinity. Not all winters will be as this one has been. It snows here. The locals do not use the park in the winter. They don’t play baseball or launch their boats in the winter. This gaudy, absolutely tasteless tacky design is for tourism. If it goes as planned, said tourists won’t ohhh and ahhh. They will point and snicker. As for McEuen causing amazement in the future, I agree…..except my prediction of amazement will be of the I can’t believe we have to pay for this obscenity for generations to come, variety. McEuen and Kroc are (rotten apples) and oranges.
One last thought, the tourists won’t be thrilled at having to rub shoulders with the unpleasant element we seem to deal with each summer. And lets face it John, the powers that (unfortunately) be, are lying through their teeth about the financing.
Still, I will look forward to your book!
Comment by rochereau — February 22, 2012 @ 3:32 pm
Is it often that the city uses the “rainy day” funds, to fund park projects? And on a side note to Mrs.Souza’s column, I know one councilman who will not support leveraging a bond to pay for the Dixon case!
Comment by lexacon — February 22, 2012 @ 4:54 pm
The financing for the footprint is already in place, Roch. LCDC has the future tax revenues gauranteed over the next nine years from ONLY property owners in the Lake District, and only from those whose property has increased in value since 1997. That is about 7% of the city’s taxpayers; amazingly, about 7% of city taxpayers (and about one in every hundred county taxpayers) will be paying for ALL of the $11 million footprint, and that’s from taxes they would have to pay anyway, just like the rest of us.
So, what does that buy? It is a new Front Avenue, complete with open space and on-street parking along its promenade, with parking on one level tucked underneath. Front Avenue is badly in need of help anyway so that part makes sense. So does removing five acres of asphalt that currently passes as parking, including that wasted space along the seawall where a few out of state boat trailers park mostly during the months of July and August. It means at the very least five acres of greenspace where now there is pavement. It’s the opposite of ‘pave paradise and put up a parking lot’, of that you can be sure.
Removal of the ball fields and boat launch will have to wait until (and only if) new facilities have been built.
There is nothing untruthful about the financing and the city has a resolution prohibiting the use of city tax dollars for improvements to McEuen Field. Dan can assure you he won’t stand by and allow ANY of the city’s funds to go for this project. It is as simple as that, Roch.
Comment by John Austin — February 22, 2012 @ 6:21 pm
I am glad to see JohnA back. Does he get beat up here? Yes. He is the only one with B@LLS to come here. For that I commend you sir although I TOTALLY disagree with you.
THAT BEING SAID —— banking on the tourist industry alone is an almost certain final nail in the coffin with over $5 per gallon gas prices coming.I believe that McEuen is a dumb idea AT THIS TIME and without a vote. Mary wrote somewhere earlier about letting private sector doing what it was supposed to do. John. if city government would have used their heads and figured a way to create jobs (and I don’t mean those sub-minimum wage slave jobs) and industry, we would not be feeling the hurt that we are are currently experiencing and that is going to get worse. Between Iran, gas prices, etc. I doubt we are going to get many tourists. Why not cater to the locals? Oh yeah, I forgot. They don’t get PAID enough to be part of the equation. But those like John have their lakeplace on Echo Bay and houseboat in Harrison, also have offices in Coeur d’Alene and Hayden so I guess that pretty much covers the fact that more is better and keep the masses at SUB-MINIMUM wage jobs.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 22, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
“Future tax revenues”?
A- How long into the future?
B- Todays taxes AND tomorrows taxes are supposed to pay for public services NOT private development.
C- 7% of the taxpayers- what % of the total tax base are those 7% expected to contribute? If these 7% pay 40% of the taxes, then 40% goes to the LCDC. What is this number today?
D- “The city has a resolution which prohibits the use of public tax dollars….” Absolutely EVERY LCDC dollar is a current or future tax dollar, John.
Comment by Wallypog — February 23, 2012 @ 7:12 am
I am glad that John has returned as well. And yes, he does get beaten up somewhat here. While I more often than not disagree with his stance, I hope we may remain civil in our discourse.
John, the 11 million that is “in place” for McEuen has been borrowed! And no matter how we coat it, and no matter what % of residents pay the bill, it is still tax dollars that have to repay the debt. There is lots of dishonesty going on here. Now that we have Dan and Steve, hopefully full and accurate disclosures will become the norm. And hopefully, the tacky, trashy, throw everything aat it design will become greaatly modified.
The bottom line, in this economy, it is obscene to spend this amount of money on a park for v
Comment by rochereau — February 23, 2012 @ 9:56 am
oops to finish….to spend this amount of money on a park that caters to a very small specialized special interest group.
Comment by rochereau — February 23, 2012 @ 9:59 am
Roch, if you look at LCDC’s balance sheet you’ll see a taxes receivable from the various developments in the Lake District. These are taxes that are required by law to be levied on those developments and will come to LCDC over the next nine years. It is these taxes that will pay the remaining debt of the Lake District over the next nine years. The funds are borrowed now so the whole McEuen Field project can happen now, rather than wait and pay for them year by year as the taxes are paid. It is far better to borrow today (at less than 4%) than to bid each phase over nine years, bearing the increased construction costs along the way. You also get the project now, rather than waiting for nine years. It makes sense, pure and simple.
These are not new tax dollars. They are dollars those properties will pay and not one dollar more. The point Mary misses about URAs borrowing money without a vote is that only projects that increase taxes are required to go to a vote, with two-thirds majority required. URAs are exempt because they don’t levy taxes and the taxes they receive are already in place. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled on that. No matter how many times that is refuted on this site it remains the law in Idaho. If you want to change the law then go for it. Otherwise accept the fact that the borrowing is not only legal but immensely practical as well.
You can also argue about the merits of McEuen but again the city and its URA are doing nothing wrong by proceding as they are.
Finally, in nine years all the taxes generated by the URA’s Lake District, around $4 million per year by then, will flow to the agencies in that district like the city, county, NIC, EMS and highway districts. It will be a windfall of epic proportions for those governments and it all happened because of urban renewal.
Comment by John Austin — February 23, 2012 @ 10:14 am
John, in a perfect world, it would be practical and sensible to borrow when interest rates are at record lows. I don’t argue that. Right now we are far from a perfect world and it is just wrong to be borrowing that amount of money for such a frivolous project. I have never said it was illegal. I have said that the council and LCDC often obfuscate the issue and much has been done sub rosa. That is dishonest. It is not illegal, under Idaho law, to not put this project out for bid. But it certainly is ethically questionable and does not pass the smell test. Urban renewal is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but doesn’t translate well in fact. There has been too much loosey goosey in spreading the wealth. Seriously John, paying for an awning on the mayors shop. Or paying for the brick on the penetentiary condos? I have awnings on my house and I paid for them. What is the difference? It improved the looks of the area and added value. Yes, I’m being a bit sarcastic, however it is a point.
I’m a pretty good wordmeister, but nothing compared to the “tax” explanations of urban renewal. Unless Tony is printing money in his basement, these monies come from the people. John, my sticking point is, if the taxes were already in place prior to UR, what were they for and hasn’t the original tax been subverted to a usage not intended originally?
Also, I believe you will find that most people are simply against spending this money on McEuen now, no matter how the money is obtained or how low interest rates are. This project is obscene when truly important public financial need is ignored.
Comment by rochereau — February 23, 2012 @ 2:26 pm
Very well said, Rochereau!
JohnA: You say “If you want to change the law, then go for it.” We DO want to change the law, John, and we have been working on it. But when regular people go down to Boise to talk to lawmakers about changing part of the urban renewal law, we have to pay our own way. It costs about $500 to go down for a couple of days, plus missed work income.
When Tony Berns goes down to Boise, the taxpayers pay his way and he gets paid for his work. Plus, LCDC has one or two paid attorney lobbyists down in Boise, who work on the lawmakers every time there’s an attempt to change the urban renewal law. All paid by taxpayer dollars.
How is this fair John? Do you think public entities should be allowed to use taxpayer money to hire lobbyists?
Comment by mary — February 23, 2012 @ 3:06 pm
That’s a fair question, Mary. Generally, when governments have issues with legislation it is because of attacks from well-funded lobbyists on the other side. A classic example was when Coeur d’Alene implemented a 5% franchise fees on utilities that use the city’s rights-of-way for their transmission lines. Instantly, WWP (at the time) and Idaho Power brought out their big gun lobbyists to convince the legislature to reduce the maximum franchise fees from 5% to 1%. CDA was up against professional lobbyists and it only seemed fair that we had our own. Fortunately, although the fees were capped at 1% CDA’s was grandfathered in at 5%. That was crucial because we had sold bonds to pay for arterials all over town and the franchise fees were used (instead of property taxes) to build them.
So, on the one hand governments need to be as fully weaponed as their opponents, while on the other hand it could be opposition from individuals who may not have a strong lobby. That makes it a slippery slope, Mary, as you may imagine. With so many personal agendas and self-serving businesses in Idaho it is important that your local governments have equal representation before the legislature so they can preserve the things that their constituents need. It would be like trying to defend against a lawsuit brought by high-powered attorneys and you try to win it with staff not acquainted with law. That’s not the best way to represent one’s constituents and believe you would support that position.
Concerning urban renewal the fact is that the issue is so misunderstood by the lugheads in the legislature that governments need to have their best staff and/or elected officials on hand to explain the benefits. Such an issue is at hand right now on legislation brought by a Nampa solon wanting to do away with URAs altogether. How can the benefits of URAs throughout Idaho be represented if we don’t pay for the costs of city officials to testify? It’s unfair in may opinion that testimony has to be in person but that’s the way it is, and is I believe one reason north Idaho’s interests are often neglected. The cost to speak is simply too high.
That’s my take on it from the city’s side. I certainly understand your point, Mary, but cities can’t afford to lose important provisions just because they can’t pay for their side to be heard.
Comment by John Austin — February 23, 2012 @ 3:54 pm
So, John, the people who actually operate these URDs are so limited in their knowledge about what they get paid to do that they cannot defend the purpose of their own so-called profession? They gotta hire gun-slinger lobbyists on top of their sumptuous salaries to talk for them? All of this on our dime? Who is the bigger lughead, our elected legislature or the appointed URD personnel unable to articulate the purpose of their own work?
Comment by Wallypog — February 23, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
Wally, I know many URAs utilize the URA association, the Redevelopment Association of Idaho (RAI), so those in the Boise area can represent those without the resources or the time to testify before the legislature. That association is made up of staffers and/or URA board members from throughout Idaho. It is a cost-effective way to spread the information about pending bills and to have our comments presented in Boise.
Comment by John Austin — February 23, 2012 @ 4:39 pm
So all of the URD folks in the entire state are SOOOOoooo busy that not one of them could act as a spokesperson? Or is it that ‘cost effective’ gets a pretty loose interpretation when the cost is bourn by people who have no choice in the matter? The LCDC has a part time PR guy here locally and pays for a Boise lobbyist and what all else, just so they can communicate? Then again when you look at how Berns keep his accounting maybe that does make sense. It doesn’t save any money but money isn’t a problem for the LCDC.
Comment by Wallypog — February 23, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
But that’s not what LCDC uses, is it John? They don’t use the basic URA association, they hire (with our money) one or two specialized, high-level attorneys who act as lobbyists only for the LCDC in good old CdA. We pay premium prices because our city has “big-time” urban renewal.
Did you realize, John, that according to the Idaho State Tax Commission as of Sept. 2011, Kootenai County has the highest level of tax increment property value in the whole state? More than Ada County in Boise. More than Canyon County.
Kootenai County has 26% of all tax increment urban renewal property value in Idaho!
Comment by mary — February 23, 2012 @ 5:15 pm
John, and all – So who does represent or lobby for the citizen taxpayers’ interests? I guess only their elected legislators. But wait, don’t the legislators also represent the local unit of governments who hire their own lobbyists anyway with the taxes they collect? Yes, so the legislators should consider that these local controllers are well represented and work for and protect the private citizens.
The Idaho Freedom Foundation is the only other voice in Boise protecting the taxpayer against the onslaught of special interests, especially the government lobbyists. John, It is We, The People, not We, The Government.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 23, 2012 @ 10:32 pm
Mary: “Did you realize, John, that according to the Idaho State Tax Commission as of Sept. 2011, Kootenai County has the highest level of tax increment property value in the whole state? More than Ada County in Boise. More than Canyon County. Kootenai County has 26% of all tax increment urban renewal property value in Idaho!”
Yes, actually Mary I did know that. And you know what that means? Kootenai County urban renewal agencies have done better to attract investment income than any other agencies in Idaho. To me, that’s something to tip our hats at.
It means we did all the right things many years ago to bring new tax increment to the county, from Post Falls and Harpers and Walmart and Cabelos to Coeur d’Alene and Riverstone and to a smaller extent Spirit Lake and Harrison. That means we as planners did the right things to make urban renewal work to create jobs and and to provide needed infrastructure throughout north Idaho.
That is the best testament to the success of urban renewal in Idaho. The best part is yet to come, Mary, when the districts close and all those new taxes flow to the county, NIC and the cities who created them. What a glorious achievement for all of those involved.
Comment by John Austin — February 23, 2012 @ 10:35 pm
Gary, you make a good point about our local legislators and their support, or lack thereof toward urban renewal. I’ve worked for many years to make sure our local reps know the benefits of urban renewal. Something happens, however, when some of them show up in Boise and fail to remember what the results in north Idaho has taught them. I’ve been the first to point out the successes of north Idaho URAs to the Noninis and Eskridges of our area and I hope in the long run that these meetings will be effective in showing a side of urban renewal that is sometimes missed: the role that UR has in the lives of small cities just trying to survive the federal and state mandates to clean up their wastewater and water systems
Comment by John Austin — February 23, 2012 @ 10:44 pm
So John, are you saying that you are for bigger government and less private sector investment? That WE have to bite the bullet to grow YOUR government? No pain, no gain? YOUR URD’s have done NOTHING more than provide temporary construction jobs, create SUB-minimum wage service jobs, drive out the only livable wage jobs, OH, and by the way, RAISE property taxes.
I see more vacancies in the downtown than I did in the ’90’s along with all the “NEW AND IMPROVED” growth that is ALSO sitting empty.
What we need in America is for those that “have” to invest their OWN and get the PRIVATE dollar moving again instead of telling minimum wage earners, “it’s ONLY the cost of one Latte’ a day. You can give that up can’t you?” In case you haven’t noticed, people aren’t buying Latte’s because you have not created industry but HAVE raised taxes.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 24, 2012 @ 6:58 am
You’re comments are spot on, CC! Private business taking on private risk and reaping private reward/loss. Any time I hear about public-private partnerships now, I realize the public is getting…used. (not the word I had in mind)
I’d like to get back to “equal or better”. Since JohnA is here, maybe he will tell us if he thinks the city’s promise of “equal or better” means they will replace the 5 lane, year round, deep water boat launch with one that is actually at least equal.
Comment by mary — February 24, 2012 @ 7:56 am
John, I repeat that I’m glad you are back. I don’t agree with you re LCDC, however I respect your right to an opinion as should all. A matter of what one wants, one should also give. But you didn’t answer my questions, which were asked because I truly don’t understand.
1.As the taxes were in place prior to the advent of UR, what were they for and weren’t they then subverted to a usage not originally intended?
2. Everyday there is a story in the Press about the crumbling infrastructure of our schools and roads. I think it is a no brainer to state that upgrading our roads (per Lake City roads) and the safety of our schools is far more pressing than this silly park.
3. The park is city land, it will not return tax monies to the coffers. This will be an ongoing money pit long after LCDC is retired…if it ever is.
4. The city is facing a multi million $ judgement that will necessitate floating a bond (without vote) if they lose on appeal (as they should). Still, the city insists we need this truly obscene expenditure for a park. John, at the risk of exhibiting a lack of humility, I am an intelligent person and I simply cannot come up with any justification for this expenditure. It will not benefit tax revenue, quite the opposite. It does not benefit the locals as it is not usable in the winter. It won’t benefit the locals as the boat launch and ball fields will be gone. It is not for us….we just pay.
5. And last but not least, how does one justify paying for the mayors awning, the brick for the penetentiary condos (which I believe, remain empty) and for Buetlers (a millionaire) commercial dirveway?
And now I must rush off to my pickle ball lesson. This week I learn what pickle ball is!
Comment by rochereau — February 24, 2012 @ 8:45 am
“Yes, actually Mary I did know that. And you know what that means? Kootenai County urban renewal agencies have done better to attract investment income than any other agencies in Idaho. To me, that’s something to tip our hats at.”
That is one way to look at it.
Since there was no “urban” to “renew” in Kootenai County, another way to say that is that the Pretty People saw growth coming, created a mechanism to move the tax revenue from that growth away from the elected, accountable political world and shift it into the shadowy, opaque world where the Pretty People and their friends in business can do the things with that former tax revenue that simply would not be able to be done within the confines of the open, accountable and transparent elected world.
And of course the myrmidons and janisseries of the pretty people are always going to sing the praises of this kind of twisted, frankly very nasty and Un-American end run around the intended spirit of the laws and Constitution of the State of Idaho. Why? Because that is where their loyalties and pecuniary interests lie. Very sad, very, very sad.
Comment by Pariah — February 24, 2012 @ 9:13 am
Roch, OK, here is some URA 101. Thanks for giving me the chance to respond:
1. As the taxes were in place prior to the advent of UR, what were they for and weren’t they then subverted to a usage not originally intended?
The taxes levied on properties in the URD went to the city, county, NIC, EMS and highway districts. Those taxes still flow to those governments. They cannot by law be ‘subverted’ to any other use. Only the taxes on the NEW construction in the district since 1997 flows to the URD, with the exception of schools, which still receive all of the new taxes approved by voters.
2. Everyday there is a story in the Press about the crumbling infrastructure of our schools and roads. I think it is a no brainer to state that upgrading our roads (per Lake City roads) and the safety of our schools is far more pressing than this silly park.
I’ve been a critic of how the state funds our schools, caving into big landowners by removing their M & O from property taxes and funding it from sales tax instead, including taxes on groceries. When the economy tanked so did purchases so the sales taxes decreased, hurting schools. Roads in the state haven’t kept up because their funding has decreased as well. The gas tax hasn’t been increased to keep up with inflation and the higher MPG of newer cars. So, concering urban renewal, school levies for supplemental and faciites levies are still funded from the growth inside a URD and roads in the district recieve a large share of the funding, so I’d say URDs do more for schools and roads, because of their growth in tax dollars and funding, than any other tool.
And, remember, LCDC has been banking this money for McEuen for 15 years, waiting until the growth in the district grew enough for CURRENT taxes to fund it.
3. The park is city land, it will not return tax monies to the coffers. This will be an ongoing money pit long after LCDC is retired…if it ever is.
I can’t think of a better way to use our park and rec fees, and impact fees from development, than to maintain and improve McEuen once it is built. Also, remember, in less than nine years the city will see a windfall of over $1 million per year in new taxes once LCDC’s Lake District ends. That’s a lot of money, Roch, so I wouldn’t worry about the city being able to cover any new facilities.
4. The city is facing a multi million $ judgement that will necessitate floating a bond (without vote) if they lose on appeal (as they should). Still, the city insists we need this truly obscene expenditure for a park. John, at the risk of exhibiting a lack of humility, I am an intelligent person and I simply cannot come up with any justification for this expenditure. It will not benefit tax revenue, quite the opposite. It does not benefit the locals as it is not usable in the winter. It won’t benefit the locals as the boat launch and ball fields will be gone. It is not for us….we just pay.
The Field is not usable in winter now but it will be if the skating rink is built. I can also see cross country skiing when the fences are removed. As far as the lawsuit let’s see what happens on the appeal first.
5. And last but not least, how does one justify paying for the mayors awning, the brick for the penetentiary condos (which I believe, remain empty) and for Buetlers (a millionaire) commercial dirveway?
I know this issue has surfaced in the past but I don’t have any info on the mayor’s awning but I do know the facade grant program originally provided one-half of the cost to upgrade the buildings downtown with the other half coming from LCDC. I don’t believe LCDC has funded recent facades but I’m not sure.
Finally, Mary, the developer in URDs bears the risk/reward and is only reimbursed IF and WHEN his property taxes go up and can be directed back to paying for public infrastructure the developer provided. Then, when the URD ends, those funds flow to the city, county, etc as I noted above. I think that is a good example of public/private investment.
Comment by John Austin — February 24, 2012 @ 9:48 am
John, I don’t appreciate my remarks being spun into your mindset. Who paid for your expenses when you were lobbying the legislators to “educate” them on heavenly URa’s
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 24, 2012 @ 11:40 am
Thank you John…I’m going to print out your answer to study closly. I admit openly to not being fully conversant with how URD works and is funded. I have more questions that popped to mind a I read your post. But I do want to re-read it first. I will say that you and I agree 1000% on the debacle that has become (the lack of) school funding. But that is another subject entirely. 🙂
As to the practicality of the skating rink, the Resort tried that one year and found that it was a magnet for hooligan mayhem. It never came back.
And that judgement was correct..
Comment by rochereau — February 24, 2012 @ 12:11 pm
Gary, I have not personally lobbied before the legislature on the issue of urban renewal. As I am under contract to two urban renewal agencies currently, I will travel at my own expense if I feel my testimony will help educate this legislature. That’s because this issue is greater for the smaller cities I represent, for whom no other economic tool is available to attract development and to deal with their deteriorating infrastructure.
I also keep up to date on the current efforts being made by the RAI as they testify before the legislature. The cities and counties have their own associations that I also follow as this issue is under debate once again.
Comment by John Austin — February 24, 2012 @ 12:37 pm
Well, that’s good to know, John. Our legislators are quite well informed by citizens groups who have researched and published primers on URA’s and how they abuse the taxpayer. Also good information is given regularly to legislators by the Idaho Freedom Foundation. All the stuff they get from your cohorts is mostly ignored. Sorry.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 24, 2012 @ 5:04 pm