What a surprise! We all woke up to a big headline about the County announcing a major facilities plan for a 7 story parking garage, a $20 Million dollar “Justice Center”, expansions to the current Administration building, and an additional parking garage on the south side of the building. Commissioner Jai Nelson says she’s “determined to implement it”.
I looked and looked through the article to find some sort of saving grace, but it was not there. I wanted any/all of the commissioners to say this is just a long-range facilities plan and that they realize these are difficult economic times and they will not raise taxes nor will they ever do any major capital improvement without putting it to a VOTE of the people.
But those statements were not to be found. I’m very disappointed.
How do you think the county employees, who had their pay and/or benefits reduced due to budget woes, feel after reading this in the paper today? What do you think of this whole thing? Why would they announce this right now, with two commissioners up for re-election this November?
Parking is always a problem. The courthouse complex is no different. But a 7 story parking garage seems a bit much. That structure will obliterate the view of the park at a minimum, I would think.
Our new Republican commissioners we thought were conservative, I guess are really progressive conservatives. (We love to label everything in this town, ya know) Watch them continue to morph into…liberal progressives, if they are not already there.
The evidence is starting to show; continuing to restructure government structure with proposals for highly paid officers to hear assessment appeals in spite of legal opinions to the contrary, proposals to restructure county government with highly paid managers and replacing elected officials with appointed ones, hiring outside consultants to rewrite our planning ordinances who have gone amok with legalese beyond comprehension. Did I miss anything?
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 20, 2012 @ 11:13 am
Ole Jai, is using $ instead of common sense. I think she’ll be gone the next election.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 20, 2012 @ 11:54 am
She’s not up for re-election until 2014, Ancient. They rotate terms and she got a 4 year.
Comment by mary — March 20, 2012 @ 12:01 pm
And I didn’t even mention the County going hat in hand to the LCDC and the City of CdA, looking for “partnership”, which we all know means $$$$…taxpayer money….without having those pesky taxpayers VOTE!
Comment by mary — March 20, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
It appears that the only ones financially able to undertake major development projects in this economy are the gubbermit entities. I acknowledge, but include, the recent North Shore rennovations because its owner may as well be the gubbermit. If Jai is so bent on leaving a legacy of her limited time as a commissioner, couldn’t the county seek proposals from private developers to build, operate, and maintain the garage on the developer’s dime? I am sure that she could finagle a nice plaque with her name on it, as part of the deal, to memorialize her position of prominence, at one time, in the community. I have been down to the ‘campus’ to get a vehicle license and other licenses over the past few months. I never felt that the parking, waiting areas, or the work areas that I entered were ‘busting at the seems.’ I guess the gubbermit believes that it has a long term, and guaranteed, income stream to finance its wish list of projects. Whatever happened to the thoughts of making due with what you have in tough economic times and that ‘less gubbermit is best?’ Jai’s ‘its going to happen’ announcement, coming on the heels of McEuen, leaves me wishing I would wake up from this bad dream.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 20, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
I realize the timing Mary. Not this Election,the next one.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 20, 2012 @ 1:05 pm
Yes, Ancient, I think Jai’s tiara is starting to show.
Comment by mary — March 20, 2012 @ 1:24 pm
I saw this and was waiting for you folks to weigh in on this new development. Interesting – I wasn’t sure if I mixed it up with the new parking lot also slated for McEuen Park. I guess we are going to be a HUGE lakefront development. I bet there are “visions” we have not even seen, yet.
I have some thoughts on this and they are not really pointed toward the commissioners who are just place holders for things already decided, but it appears that most of these folks who are voted in as “new” and you thought they were on your page in curbing expenses ect. actually have no problem spending money. Jai is a “patsy” along with Dick and Harry, and if you go against the establishment you will bite the dust, if you are good and try, you will probably get appointed to another position or run again for something different and still carry on to be a good “Patsy.” This is how it will always work in Idaho. Our elections are a joke whether they are ran legally or not. “Justice” has one color here and it’s green.
Comment by Stebbijo — March 20, 2012 @ 2:16 pm
Speaking of parking garages, does anyone recall what happened to the City of Spokane’s parking garage problems?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 20, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
Joe Six-Pack,
Jo Ellen Savage is still dead. Betsy and Stacy Cowles are enriched daily on the proceeds of the instrument of her demise, the River Park Square parking garage. The taxpayers in Spokane will be paying for years to come for the tax fraud that the IRS characterized with the statement, “The casino was rigged.” And Jo Ellen Savage will still be dead.
Comment by Bill — March 20, 2012 @ 4:03 pm
It does seem like there is a parking problem near the county offices. How should it be addressed? Building a parking structure at the county offices is a far cry from wrecking McEuen Field. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy by the way!!
Comment by pu — March 21, 2012 @ 7:43 am
If it just seems like there is a parking problem, is that sufficient reason to spend millions of taxpayer dollars in this economy? I don’t feel that just because a person, on a busy day, might have to walk a couple of blocks to get his/her busines done comes close to being sufficient justification.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 21, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
The problem with parking at the Courthouse/Administration building started when the County requested and then was granted a variance from the City to the parking standards prior to construction of the now current Administration Building. This variance to the parking standards allowed the County to build and occupy the new admin building without providing adequate parking even back then.
This is similar to the variance to parking lot requirments when the last huge batch of student housing was approved within or adjacent to NIC. Fort Grounds neigbors wonder why they now need a permit to park in front of thier own homes – look no further than the numerous “variances” to City parking standards that were waived by the City. It is as if the County, in concert with the City prematurely caused the need for this “high-rise.” They made the problem by looking away from, err ignoring prior plans/studies and the rules regarding parking. It now will cost you and your choice will be limited because “the plan” is already 50% done.
It is also novel that now all of a sudden that consolidated, more effient, court rooms and employee parking are needed when our Sherriff has been telling the Board for at least the last 6 years that our jail is over capacity and he can’t keep good cops because the Board consistantly hamstrings the Sherriff’s budget. Instead, this administration has prioritized tourist/employee downtown CDA parking above issues that will cause a whole lot of problems with The Fed and the State.
Back to the County facility improvement plan related to parking – Drive by in the early a.m. and watch how many parking spaces within 50-600 feet from the front doors of County buildings are quickly filled with County employees. I don’t think it too much to ask if County employees(including elected officials) exercise not only their bodies, but their service to the public by giving-up their high rent parking space to the public, who normally just need a quick in-out. I do business at the County on a daily basis. I do not believe parking is a problem–relative to other long lasting facilities problems that the County has ignored, ignored in my opinion because they are difficult issues or over the head of this and past administrations. Off-site employee parking is a quick fix that cost nothing, short of a new employee rule. But then since the Commissioners can’t seem to find money for staff raises, maybe this is a compromise that staff should expect in lieu of fair, comparible wages.
Today the Press reported that the County’s budget is woefully underfunded to pay the cost to cover short-term, emergency indigent care (at risk alcholics and our most mentally disabled). The County is mandated by Idaho Code to provide this most elementary form of social responsibility and care. The County is not obligated to provide parking to tourist or lazy staff. But then, maybe the tact of the Board is to make the County “justice” system more “efficient” which will in turn exacerbate jail overcrowding – in turn force another tax to pay for a jail because the County just spent all their resources on a garage with a view.
Lastly, I have the most respect for County Commissioner Jai Nelson – but it should have been disclosed long ago that the chosen designer for the project is her dad (R.G. Nelson). He is the Principal Architech in the firm hired to design this 26 million dollar deal and typically, architects get between 5-10% of constuction cost – if my assumption regarding fees is even close to correct, this is alot of money. Then add in the fact that R.G. Nelson works for Hagadone, actually designed the Resort and several other high-end projects around town for Duane. A precarious situation for an otherwise good Commissioner.
I would encourage the County to take care of our own, most desperate residents before investing in multi-million dollar facilities obvously intended to serve tourist and the downtown crowds. I would also encourage the Commissioners to ask why the County spends so much time drafting plans than following them–err, even knowing what the last 2,3, or 4 Plans proposed were not followed, or why those last plans failed to be implemented. Unless the Board understands the “corporate” history of our County, they are all doomed to repeat, at what cost, to whom then becomes the question.
Just an old dog getting old.
Comment by old dog — March 21, 2012 @ 8:01 pm
Old Dog, Welcome, and thank you for adding your experience to the conversation here! Your thoughts are quite interesting, and troubling, especially the issue of lack of disclosure. I’ve got an email in to Commissioner Green to ask that question, and will await an answer.
Comment by mary — March 22, 2012 @ 8:27 am
Boy, is that going to be papered over, big time! Isn’t there anything straight up in this county?
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 22, 2012 @ 11:52 am
Woof, woof! Good old dog, glad to see you here. Now that this blog is becoming the new voice of North Idaho those who bark like you add a great deal. Welcome!
Just my thoughts. Just.
Comment by justinian — March 22, 2012 @ 4:26 pm
I received a response from Dan Green. He says that Jai Nelson’s dad, RG Nelson, is now in his 80s and has not worked for several years. RG apparently never worked for the planning firm contracted, he has only worked with them at times over the years.
Dan didn’t directly address the other issues raised by Old Dog, but Dan did admit the commissioners made a mistake and should have been more clear with the public about their planning process.
Comment by mary — March 22, 2012 @ 7:07 pm
Interesting response, considering R.G. Nelson is currently listed as a “Principle Architect” for RAC Architecture on their website. His bio (copywrite, 2012) says nothing about him not working for the firm or being retired. He even has a contact link (via RAC) website. He must have some value to the firm, maybe its just roping clients in. This being an election year, Green’s repsponse is no real surprise.
Comment by old dog — March 23, 2012 @ 6:58 am
Oops – its NAC Architecture
Comment by old dog — March 23, 2012 @ 7:12 am
They’ll probably start mincing words regarding conflict of interest with things like,”well she didn’t have any direct benefit or gain” or “its not her immediate family.” Its her father.Its still NONDISCLOSURE and it smells considering that the plan is “ONLY” 50% complete. Maybe in 2014 she’ll run for city council.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 23, 2012 @ 8:08 am
“Maybe in 2014 she’ll run for city council.”
Or get on the LCDC Board.
Just sayin…
Comment by justinian — March 23, 2012 @ 9:04 am
Just another case of “the monkeys and the banana”.
Comment by rochereau — March 23, 2012 @ 12:02 pm
It appears that two sentences within a relatively long post have misdirected my unerlying issues. It seems most have glommed onto the fact that a County Commissioner probably did not disclose that her Dad is a Principal in the firm that the County hired to develop a “Master Facilities Plan” for the County. The reason for noting that point was not to imply that Jai Nelson has a conflict of interest, but rather, to make the point that as a general political practice, it is alot more prudent to disclose a potential conflict in some form of recorded public document in the beggining of any process–than wait until [it] hits the fan after the fact.
It really doesn’t matter to me whether or not a County Commissioner’s old dad gets a little spiff from a Seattle company to walk them to the gates – the bigger issue is: Why do so many of our local politicions choose to refrain from speaking a simple sentence or two pertainent to “disclosure” prior to actions that have the ability to cause more distrust in our government?
I for one would like more elected officials to open-up a bit, but they’re not going to do it if the public (including blogs like this) pound on each other for every little quircky misdemeaner dating back from High School (although, ha, ha, I got some funny stories on that one).
A question that should be asked–How can and should we act so that our appointed and elected officials can freely, honestly, and fully disclose in an open, honest, public forum any issue of the day? This blog, and others that are littered with stories that would scare away even the best, most honest policians of our times from running for offfice and often prevent existing politians from opening their mouth during a drill-session hearing because they know every word will be taken literally–is only half of the equation. Wow, old dog, long sentence.
At the same time forums like this are equally filled with great, sometimes prolific ideas that would solve many of the City’s and County’s problems. Unfortunately, even our politictians and staff are affraid of logging-on to see the good, the honest, the unadulterated. The political impasse seems to be that it is easier to either neglect a fractured populace; look away from the bad foundation, or tear down buldings and start over from dirt, rather than to enhance historically relavant buildings that we already have and enjoy.
At times I do think of myself as an “old dog” living in a house with two young cats, but we must co-exist or the fur will fly and we’ll all become scarred. I gave-up on chasing those damm cats long ago. I now am dedicated to teaching the little brats that it is My House (my County) and I (who let them sleep on the couch sometimes) still have much bigger teeth than them (the vote of many). A couple of deep barks and perhaps a snip or two and these cats, just like bad or inexpericenced politicions will learn to sit, stay and roll-over, or be eaten alive.
Don’t get me wrong – I am not saying I want to be a couch dog some day. Rather, we can–should form and teach our elected officials to act so we don’t need to bite them all the time. But, at the same time if they are untrainable, too inexpericenced to deal with the complexities of the cat-dog relationship, or refuse to listen to real growls – bye, bye, another feral cat released back to where it came.
I hope and will work towards promoting more articulated solutions to the real, verifiable problems with City and County issues, and hopefully OpenCDA will not only continue to read my long-winded old dog whine, but help to provide an equal balance of real solutions (with excpetion to my spelling). In order to effectivley remodel a house, you got to build and tear-down at the same time. Oops, lost count of all my mixed metaphors.
Back to the the “County Master Facility Plan”–How do you only have 50% of a Plan done, but you already know the estimated cost of 26.1 million? That’s like hiring a contractor to build a garage in your back yard and before he even knows how big you (and your wife) want it the contractor has a cost estimate down to a $100 increment of a $25,000 total. This is illogical, more is at play. Whoof.
Comment by old dog — March 23, 2012 @ 7:50 pm
I agree Old Dog, that Jai should have disclosed, but I doubt there’s any conflict of interest; it’s just better to over-disclose than have it come back on you later.
Comment by mary — March 23, 2012 @ 8:17 pm
I think the “old Dog” made some good points. Along those lines I think the local officials that are striving for growth and development should realize that with that end that the good ol’ days are changing. The way the good ol’ boys got things done in the past is and will continue to be more difficult. Not only are there more knives but some are probably sharper.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 24, 2012 @ 8:21 am
old dog,
The issue of disclosure came up this past week in the state Senate ethics committee hearing of Sen. Pearce. Here is a link to a news/views/skewspaper article that explains about midway through the underlying cleansing effect of disclosure.
Comment by Bill — March 24, 2012 @ 8:36 am
Good article, Bill, it’s well worth reading and not very long. Here’s the “cleansing” part you referred to:
“The sunshine of disclosure cleanses your interest, because now it puts everyone on notice that you have competing interests within a piece of legislation, meaning you have interests as a private citizen, and you also have interests within the public trust. It lets everyone know, ‘This is where my legislator is coming from.’ And then they can make an appropriate decision as to whether the legislator has appropriately quantified and represented … that interest.”
Comment by mary — March 24, 2012 @ 11:33 am
And the next paragraph reads
It isn’t really that the sunshine of disclosure “cleanses” the interest; it’s more that the sunshine of disclosure exposes the interest so the voters can decide at the next election if the official behaved properly. The voters will decide if the official’s action is something that needs to be cleansed or if it is so bad that the official must be punished. That’s why voters have to pay attention to what the hired help is doing.
Comment by Bill — March 24, 2012 @ 2:39 pm