“Hey! Let’s be careful out there.” Those of us old enough to remember the 1980’s television series “Hill Street Blues” will likely recall that heartfelt admonition at the end of the shift’s roll call by Hill Street police precinct SGT Phil Esterhaus (actor Michael Conrad). Everyone in the Recall CdA effort as well as those who just as passionately oppose the recall and are intent on undermining it need to listen, too.
Lawful recall and anti-recall actions are protected by the Idaho Constitution and by Idaho statutes. Everyone involved in the recall or anti-recall efforts needs to be extremely careful to not violate the protected rights and privileges of others. Those violations may manifest themselves as criminal violations of law.
Idaho Code § 34-1714 clearly shows just how astutely Idaho’s Legislature recognized that in an election recall, both proponents and opponents could violate the law. That section is reprinted below.
TITLE 34
ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 17
RECALL ELECTIONS34-1714. Prohibited acts — Penalties. (1) A person is guilty of a felony, who:
(a) Signs any name other than his own to any recall petition;
(b) Knowingly signs his name more than once on the same recall petition;
(c) Knowingly signs his name to any recall petition for the recall of any state, county or city officer if he is not a registered elector;
(d) Wilfully or knowingly circulates, publishes or exhibits any false statement or representation concerning the contents, purport or effect of any recall petition for the purpose of obtaining any signature to any such petition, or for the purpose of persuading any person to sign any such recall petition;
(e) Presents to any officer for filing any recall petition to which is attached, appended or subscribed any signature which the person so filing such petition knows to be false or fraudulent, or not the genuine signature of the person purporting to sign such petition, or whose name is attached, appended or subscribed thereto;
(f) Circulates or causes to circulate any recall petition, knowing the same to contain false, forged or fictitious names;
(g) Makes any false affidavit concerning any recall petition or the signatures appended thereto;
(h) Offers, proposes or threatens for any pecuniary reward or consideration:
(i) To offer, propose, threaten or attempt to sell, hinder or delay any recall petition or any part thereof or any signatures thereon;
(ii) To offer, propose or threaten to desist from beginning, promoting or circulating any recall petition;
(iii) To offer, propose, attempt or threaten in any manner or form to use any recall petition or any power of promotion or opposition in any manner or form for extortion, blackmail or secret or private intimidation of any person or business interest.
(2) A public officer is guilty of a felony, who:
(a) Knowingly makes any false return, certification or affidavit concerning any recall petition, or the signatures appended thereto.
A careful reading § 34-1714 shows that its prohibitions apply equally to proponents’ or opponents’ conduct. I believe the Legislature’s intent was first and foremost to protect the integrity of the recall process rather than favor or handicap either side.
Moreover, one who merely encourages someone else to engage in some violation of § 34-1714 has very probably committed the inchoate crime of criminal solicitation. Idaho Code, § 18-2001 defines Criminal Solicitation thus:
18-2001. Definition of solicitation. A person is guilty of criminal solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he solicits, importunes, commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish complicity in its commission or attempted commission.
The mens rea for criminal solicitation is evinced by the words of the speaker or writer to encourage someone else to commit the crime. The mens rea is established by the entire utterance. Notice the definition does not require any further action towards the completion of the urged crime. Merely uttering the words (whether they be spoken, written, or conveyed electronically) is the actus reus.
And Idaho Code § 18-2004 states:
18-2004. Punishment for criminal solicitation. Every person who is found guilty of criminal solicitation to commit a crime is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for an attempt to commit such crime.
So if the attempt to violate Idaho Code § 34-1714 is a felony, then the criminal solicitation to violate it can also be punished as a felony.
Here is an example that may help explain criminal solicitation as it might be committed by someone encouraging violations of the recall election laws in an internet website post. Suppose someone utters these words (remember, the utterance can be spoken, written, or electronically conveyed):
I think everyone presented with the petition should sign it in a way that invalidates the signature… if you are a city voter, use a false name… if enough people living outside of the city limits or unregistered voters sign it, we could trip them up pretty good… the goal would be to keeping them thinking they have enough valid signatures… I plan to sign the petition every time I am approached with the opportunity…
Here is my opinion of how those words could be analyzed by law enforcement.
The words “… everyone presented with the petition …” is directed at a person — each person presented with the petition.
The utterances that each person presented with the petition “… should sign it in a way that invalidates the signature …”, “if you are a city voter, use a false name” , “if enough people living outside of the city limits or unregistered voters sign it, we could trip them up pretty good”, and “the goal would be to keeping them thinking they have enough valid signatures” define not only the specific illegal conduct solicited. The utterer goes on to say, “I plan to sign the petition every time I am approached with the opportunity.” S/he has formed specific criminal intent. The utterer has clearly familiarized himself/herself with the recall petition process in order to form a strategy of illegal conduct and actions to interfere or defeat it and to solicit others to engage in similar illegal conduct.
In total, the utterance is a complete urging for “… everyone presented with the petition …” to violate the law. There is nothing in it suggesting renunciation, jest, or anything other than a serious act to solicit a crime.
The preceding example shows how easily and quickly lawful and ardent advocacy could change to criminal conduct. It is very important that we not cross over that line. Whether it succeeds or fails, the recall action is not some cataclysmic event that will forever change the course of world history or likely even Coeur d’Alene history. Those on both sides of the issue should simply let the process work according to the law.
Remember SGT Phil Esterhaus’ admonition: “Hey! Let’s be careful out there!”
John what is the percentage value of the Dover URA compared to the value of the municipality? It appears to be much larger than the 10% maximum allowable that you stated earlier.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 12, 2012 @ 2:42 pm
Please John, every single time she was there? Never even a smile? That is really reaching for a defence. Nothing wrong with a dye job, I do it every month. But I also don’t claim the color is God given. And yes, I was being snarky. Patronising my intelligence rings my bell. And the anti-recall bunch is all over the place with absurdities. So I was indulging in comic relief.
John, it’s all about the vote. Had Bloem and Co. allowed vote, we wouldn’t be where we are today. John you have never wieghed in on why Bloem insisted on a vote when Hagadone wanted to put in a garden, at his expense, but refused when the cost was to be born by tax dollars.
LCDC is tax money!!!!
And that petition you try so hard to denigrate isn’t so small John. And getting bigger each day.
Comment by rochereau — April 12, 2012 @ 3:11 pm
Double: the value of the Dover URA began as less than 10% of the city’s total net market value in 2005. In the seven years since then nearly all of the growth in Dover has been in the URD. So, obviously the total percentage now is much higher, well excess of the 10% factor. The city is OK with that and for good reason. The developer built over $8.3 million in infrastructure for the city and donated land and buildings worth over $2 million more.
There was no advisory vote, Roch, because none was called for. All of the money is in place. For my part, I’m not an advocate of going to the voters every time a big issue comes up. Where do you draw the line? The Idaho Code draws it at the point where public debt is to be incurred and taxes are increased to pay for it. That is not the case with McEuen.
Sure, LCDC receives tax money. But, it is from a very few property taxpayers and yet everyone gets to benefit from it.
Comment by John Austin — April 12, 2012 @ 4:42 pm
So with most of the growth the value of the municipality contained in the URD doesn’t the potential exist for the tail to wag the dog? As an urban renewal district gets more valuable, it also gets more powerful. If a city wants a new police car instead of budgeting for it, since the urban renewal agency has a greater value, why not just ask them for the funding? Most URA boards are not elected and it seems wrong to have a city be subservient to an agency that they created.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 12, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
Johnny:
Well, duh.
Johnny:
Not so much. Everyone has to pay for the “missing revenues” that get sucked into the LCDC. See http://www.kcgov.us/departments/assessor/urd/urd.asp for the TRUTH that Johnny hates so much.
Johnny:
Again, not so much. A few, selected “Inside Connection” peepul get a whole lot of money to do the work, and sometime we all get to admire it. But benefit? Who benefit’s from the toxic waste lake in Stone Henge? Not the ordinary peepul, nope, they are not allowed to play on or in that lake.
So once again Johnny fails. Well excpet he is right, “…LCDC receives tax money.” Time to mumble about a blind squirrel maybe.
Comment by Pariah — April 12, 2012 @ 6:27 pm
John,
Thank you!
You just confirmed that the city is NOT finished with McEuen Phase 1 with your comment #49 in response to my comment #46. No matter if the city took the site down, there ARE more Phases to come and the TAXPAYERS are on the hook.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 12, 2012 @ 7:56 pm
I have no idea about ‘future phases’, CC because that funding is not identified. So, don’t put words in my mouth. The fact remains that the city has the funds to complete the current plan adopted by the council. Nothing else is anticipated because nothing else is funded.
Pariah, you will soon see from my meeting with Mike McDowell that all is not as it seems with your reference. That’s all I will say about that for now. Meanwhile, get a life and stop living mine.
Comment by John Austin — April 12, 2012 @ 9:54 pm
John,I draw the line at $39 million, in this or any economy! When you are spending this kind of money on a non essential, or even an essential, a vote is called for. And please, even if I believed that $14 million was all that would be spent (and I don’t) that amount also is a huge amount of money. Peoples money should be peoples choice.
An excellent My Turn this morning that succinctly pointed out what I have been saying all along. While technically LCDC may only take from (John’s favorite saying) 10%, the rest of us make up the needed difference for the entities that once received those funds.
Comment by rochereau — April 13, 2012 @ 8:51 am
Here’s my response to Mr. Hollingsworth, Roch:
‘…your statement ‘We have to make up the difference in taxes that would have gone to the local entities (county, cities, fire, highway district, etc) is not correct. Local governments impacted by urban renewal districts (URDs) are not allowed by law to ‘make up’ the difference in taxes being deferred to the URDs. The most any government may increase their taxes is 3% annually, no matter how many millions may be going to URDs. You could make the point that local governments are taking the full 3% instead of something less because of the deferred taxes, and thus taxes are higher, but the truth is the county’s biggest governments, Coeur d’Alene, Post Falls and Kootenai County, have elected NOT to take the full 3% in recent years. That indicates that they are getting along just fine without the taxes being deferred to URDs.
Finally, please note that when the URDs end (the Lake District ends in about eight years) each of the those governments will get a huge windfall of new taxes from properties in the URD. I will be curious to see how those new dollars impact taxpayers, as they can either be used to LOWER taxes or can be allowed to be added to their budgets for needed items (as I noted in my article, Post Falls used the closed Harpers URD to build a badly-needed police station.)
This is an important issue, Jim, and that makes the search for truth all that much more important as well.’
There’s no arguing the point, Roch, your taxes are NOT higher because of URDs and in fact could be much lower in a few years when the Lake District ends. Also, the city only has $14 million in available money. They can’t do the full $39 million because they don’t and likely won’t have the money to do the full deal.
Comment by John Austin — April 13, 2012 @ 10:50 am
Thank you John, I appreciate your explanation. All this being said, my property valuation remained the same, my taxes increased over $1000. I understand the “levy ” (or is it levie) thing in re property tax calculations. What I find confusing is, if tax payer A has always paid $100. in taxes prior to an URD, then the money going to the URD went elsewhere (prior to the URD). So some entity is receiving fewer tax dollars because of the creation of the URD. So, hasn’t Peter been robbed to pay Paul?
Comment by rochereau — April 13, 2012 @ 2:16 pm
Roch, the governments receiving the $100 before the URD was formed still get the $100. It is only the NEW taxes generated after the URD is formed that flow to the URD. So no one loses anything, they just see their taxes deferred to the URD for awhile. So Peter is never robbed. In fact when the URD ends Peter will be further enriched in ways he never would have been without the URD.
Comment by John Austin — April 13, 2012 @ 4:56 pm
JA, would you consider giving me your take on my post #54 from yesterday?
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 13, 2012 @ 5:33 pm
Well, another half truth. While those taxes are “deferred” the services required get paid for by everyone else in the taxing district and the rest of the County.
Again, at best a hope. When Paul gets paid waaaay too much for his land, and Paul’s buddies get overpaid to build on that land then Peter got robbed. The land under the library and the Ed Corridor leap to mind.
So how is Peter enriched by the toxic waste lake in StoneHenge? Or the fancy facade the LCDC paid for on Sherman? No, the Inside Connections folks make off like thieves. Peter gets poked. And Johnny comes marching in here again to spin, warble and mutilate the truth to confuse people.
Comment by Pariah — April 13, 2012 @ 5:57 pm
Pariah
What is wrong with you man. You are not thinking of your descendants descendants that will benefit from all of this. So short sighted of you. The words of Lord Farquaad in Shrek, “Some of you may not survive, but that is a sacrifice I (Queen bloem) am willing to take.”
It is easy to spend other peoples money eh John?
Comment by concerned citizen — April 13, 2012 @ 6:37 pm
Strong drink, the drink of freedom man. With circa 40,000 residents, the Silly Council of old wanted to spend $40,000,000 on a parking garage and accouterments. A grand a person, in a mainly blue collar city. Now that they have created so much anger that a recall is launched the rich and powerful and their arrogant children are calling their fellow citizens “UnAmerican”.
I am actually. Freedom matters.
That is how Johnny gets paid. OPM.
Comment by Pariah — April 13, 2012 @ 6:53 pm
Johnny:
BWAHAHAHahahahaha……
Comment by Pariah — April 13, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
Double, RE: your question in post #54. The urban renewal agency funds projects that the city council adopted in its urban renewal plan. So, if a police car is not in the plan the city cannot ask its URA to fund it. The plan before it is adopted by the city council is subject to review by all of the affected governments and by any interested parties and then a public hearing is held for that purpose.
So you see your elected officials have full control over their urban renewal agency, appointing its members and receiving updates on its activities. The appointed board merely works to secure the funding for public works projects outlined in the plan and authorized by the city council. It works, Double, and it works well in all the cities I’ve teamed up with.
Comment by John Austin — April 13, 2012 @ 9:23 pm
Well, no, not really. And Johnny knows better.
Comment by Pariah — April 13, 2012 @ 9:26 pm
John, When the city ura was created, I doubt that the taxing entities had any idea as to the financial impact the urban renewal agency would have on their agencies. In other states, taxing entities have the ability to negotiate percentages taken by the ura. That is not the case here. I wonder if it was a matter of specific exclusion or lack of knowledge on the part of those who authored the document creating the agency. It seems to me that lcdc should keep only the property taxes and exclude and/or return taxing district monies to the appropriate agencies.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 14, 2012 @ 7:23 am
Susie, if LCDC returned district moneies to the agencies there would be no increment left for LCDC.
I agree that maybe some portion should be exempt. In WA for example I think 25% of new construction still flows to the agencies while the URAs use the balance. For my part I’ve tried to include rebates to agencies affected by the URAs or tried to fund an agency’s specific need that we could outline in the plan. For example the city of Dover receives the first $30,000 annually from new taxes as a rebate from the Dover URA. The city also funded a fire station for the Westside Fire District that serves not only Dover but other area cities like Sandpoint and Ponderay.
Like all programs that are highly successful some tweaking of their operations is likely to come up. It is just curious to me that the Local Economic Development Act, which gave URAs their utlimate authority, has been around since 1985 and no one until now has been concerned with its provisions.
Comment by John Austin — April 14, 2012 @ 8:15 am
Simple John, with this regime its run-a-muck.
Comment by Ancientemplar — April 14, 2012 @ 8:50 am
In which ways, Ancient? Have they done anything not allowed in the Idaho Code? If so, that should be the point here with a full disclosure of the violations. Otherwise, if LCDC is doing everything as allowed by the legislature, and you still don’t like it, shouldn’t your focus be on changing the statutes?
Comment by John Austin — April 14, 2012 @ 9:06 am