Kootenai County Clerk Cliff Hayes has just issued a press release outlining potentially unlawful practices associated with the recall action underway in Coeur d’Alene.
This information was previously reported in our OpenCdA post on April 9, titled Hey! Let’s Be Careful Out There… . Our OpenCdA post went further and described how merely soliciting someone to commit the violations itemized in the County’s press release could be a separate criminal violation of Criminal Solicitation.
Again and again.
“You have been proven wrong.”
“You have been proven wrong.”
“You have been proven wrong.”
“You have been proven wrong.”
“You have been proven wrong.”
(Worth repeating!)
Comment by Pariah — May 5, 2012 @ 8:30 pm
I can’t explain it any further than I have, CC. I’m sorry you don’t understand it but I can’t be any clearer, either. In time you and others will come to see that I am right.
And, Pariah, posting something that has nothing to do with LCDC proves nothing. Not one thing. You, too, will see in the coming days that I am right. Stay tuned and good night.
Comment by John Austin — May 5, 2012 @ 10:25 pm
John,
I can’t explain it any further either. I’m sorry that YOU do not understand that your UR is STEALING from every taxpayer to pay for wealthy developers to profit.
Next time your contractor has work to do at YOUR house, please send him to mine but leave him on YOUR time clock. OK? It is the same thing.
I am REALLY sad that such educated people do not admit stealing when they are doing it. UR is no more than legal theft from taxpayers.
Comment by concerned citizen — May 6, 2012 @ 5:52 am
John, it’s not just spin, spin, spin, after you lead US astray and can’t back it up that makes you a enormous hypocrite after you fold and attempt to point at that wasn’t you. A couple of your earlier statements;
“Meanwhile I wasn’t involved with the 2003 plan amendment but I am sure with the enhanced scrutity at the time that the city conformed to every requirement.”
“So, check out LCDC’s amended plan to see what’s eligible to be funded.”
The 2008 amended plan not titled as such on the LCDC Web site simply addressed anticipated and assumed projects along with millions more that is available for discretionary funding. While at times you allude to not being involved after 1997 you many times have been steadfast claiming and supporting all was done right, AT ALL TIMES, without the slightest possibility of failing until the evidence unquestionably proves otherwise. When the facts come out, then and only then, do you default to – it wasn’t me.
When you were involved it was first the 1 extremely experienced attorney, then the legal team. Maybe all the laws were followed in the incredible 9 months of work, but maybe not. The fact is the legislature pulled the reigns in on UR at some point to protect the public because of how far away from doing that was obviously happening. Sad that common sense wasn’t applied to begin with to prevent that. IC 50-2905 does not contemplate or mention “long-term plan” anywhere, what a joke. When I addressed the lack of a detailed plan, that I feel the public deserves and the law requires, your first spin was the original LCDC plan was grand fathered not needing to do that is just plain bunk. Now it wasn’t me, not me, but again and again everyone did a perfect job in this highly charged problem that is not just a couple of people who are taking issue with this Statewide.
Another quote of John’s “LCDC qualifies as an ‘economically disadvantaged border community area’ because it is within 25 miles of another state’s border. So, please be reminded that urban renewal is not all about curing ‘blight’ (the word is now ‘deterioration’) but is also about economic development by developing and implementing plans to compete with neighboring states.”
You directed me to this when it is impossible to support lake and river frontage blight along with funding several projects that were already underway cannot equate to deterioration. Unlike Post Falls, reviewing the LCDC amended plan “economically disadvantaged border community area” is just not in there anywhere.
You pointed out that (the word is now ‘deterioration’) but then now “only that something other than deterioration (i.e. blight) is allowed to be included in urban renewal plans.” Not nearly the same John, you intended to spin it into something else until that also just plain failed.
Plenty has been brought to the attention of City Council that has arrogantly been completely ignored other then a few concessions as they continue to plow forward tapping this cash cow anyway. Another default suggestion that is a waste of time with the Recall effort a result of not taking the public seriously. You are sure they will address it – really?
Lastly, John knows this, he knows that for sure, including taxes have not been raised, but when he admits they have been raised it certainly is not because of the millions going to UR here – you know this for sure, how can you know that, just impossible and yet another spin. CC, bad idea for John to send a contractor your way even on his dime – they would never ever do something wrong if he hired them. He only deals with those beyond reproach. If anything John continues making point after point in favor of RECALL.
Comment by Appalled — May 6, 2012 @ 10:23 am
John, I missed one little thing. When you informed me that the LCDC qualifies as an economically disadvantaged border community well after your service with the City you didn’t disclaim, intend, or point to that merely being something additional that the law allows, you plainly used that to refute the total lack of blight in the numerous projects even to the point of how the word blight then became deterioration as though it was eliminated and was not. It would have to be the City not the LCDC that qualifies as an economically disadvantaged border community. With that said I could not find that anywhere and the term blight was still being used. This is far more then just misspeaking, rather instead making completely bogus claims. You never intended that to be a potential possible direction, you were speaking as the expert on what has and is happening here until you could no longer back it up, then it wasn’t me you next claim that some how makes it alright to make ridiculous and bogus claims such as this one. Then ultimately you default to take it to the City – isn’t that what is happening right now!
Comment by Appalled — May 6, 2012 @ 11:29 am
I don’t know what is wrong with you, Appalled. I answered a comment that ‘blight’ was the only reason for urban renweal with a corection that a disadvantaged border community was ALSO a reason for urban renewal. I never said CDA used that as the purpose. So, if you went off on some tangent not directed by me that was your own fault.
And, when you attacked the original plan, in 1997, as not conforming to CURRENT law I corrected you and stated that the city followed the Idaho statutes at the time. When you further pressed me on the amended plans since then I told you I was not involved with those plans but instead of asking those who WERE involved with the plans and how they came about you relied on me to explain it, and now you are admonishing me because I did so. There’s something inheritantly wrong with that and as far as I can see there’s something wrong with you.
I hope you can appreciate that the only reason I post here is to correct the mistruths being spread about McEuen Field, the recall and LCDC. If everyone in the community remained silent as the mistruths are spit out there would be no truth to come from this time and place. And, frankly, I don’t want to live in such a time and place.
Comment by John Austin — May 6, 2012 @ 10:10 pm
John, I remember some of the photographs the city used to substantiate their claim of blight. Where could those photos be viewed by the public? Thanks
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 6, 2012 @ 10:20 pm
The LCDC was established to correct what is better defined as economic blight. The people running this show seem to be people whose own economic stature will gain from the plans laid down. If the plans were not so outlandishly opulent and misplaced in this community, there would be less controversy. If the leadership shown was not so unyielding and arrogant, there would be far less controversy. If the methods used strictly followed every state and local law, there would be far less controversy. If the processes employed were more transparent, there would be far less controversy. If the businesses employed in the work were not so well connected, there would be far less controversy. If the general economy were better able to support the projects, there would be far less controversy.
Sadly, unquestionably, all of these things do exist and not just in small amounts – but in glacial terms. And Austin’s goal here is to keep all of these obvious controversies vague and as sugar coated and prettied up as possible. To that end he’d not admit his own pants were afire even as his nether regions turned to glowing charcoal. And so, after 200 some posts nothing new is understood and Johns remain just as entrenched. It will be the same at post #400.
Comment by Wallypog — May 7, 2012 @ 6:30 am
“I don’t know what is wrong with you, Appalled.”
That seems to be your shtick Johnny, when confronted with disagreement you claim something is “wrong” with the other party. Since that has been the case with multiple folks here and you react the same every time, maybe you need to ask yourself if you are not the issue? Maybe you are wrong.
Comment by Pariah — May 7, 2012 @ 8:26 am
Well said Wallpog and Pariah. John oh John, repeatedly you fuel debate with this and that then run from what you say attempting only to spin what you said when that fails. This is what you said when you were not able to defend the lake and river frontage blight;
“LCDC qualifies as an ‘economically disadvantaged border community area’ because it is within 25 miles of another state’s border. So, please be reminded that urban renewal is not all about curing ‘blight’ (the word is now ‘deterioration’) but is also about economic development by developing and implementing plans to compete with neighboring states.”
Your post begins “Apalled, here is the second leg of the urban renewal law, from the Local Economic Development Act in Title 50 chapter 29:” and ends “That’s a very crucial, and often missed, component of urban renewal.” Along with posting IC 50-2902 in its entirety. The context was that I MISSED this and what was VERY CRUCIAL.
You informed me what it is “ABOUT” and what the “LCDC qualifies” for not one word about a potential addition that could maybe be applied – NOT and I repeat NOT even close to that John. You stick to the facts – yah right – bottom line those were your words and I’ve not found that Cda ever used it – period. Only you went there not the City or LCDC.
In one post you mention all the City staff and engineers who worked on this and how experienced they were (but not in URD). “would have cost taxpayers a hundreds of thousands of dollars so no detailed cost estimates” that figures, and then after the money flowed in “they could develop a schedule for the improvements”. Of course you see nothing wrong with that, then also “That means whereas other cities spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on outside ‘experts’ there was no cost to CDA taxpayers to create the URA.” What happened to the experts that were not involved in 1997, fact is by your own words you and other city staff felt that was needed here. I will always be critical of the 1997 plan for that and a long list of other reasons.
It’s in the amended plan – it’s in there, wrong again. Your words John, also “only plans adopted after changes to the statutes are required to abide by them.” As clearly as it can be stated your position was changes in the law do NOT apply to the LCDC. Fuel it up then run because never again did you respond to the evidence where many changes did in fact occur when laws changed in the URD laws so how does the grandfathering apply – but you would not comment further. Some changes in the law were simply completely disregarded. You love to fuel up the NOW implications then refuse to attempt to back it up and direct me somewhere else to learn what YOU and only YOU have said and the position YOU have taken is true or not – cut and run.
You are here “to correct the mistruths being spread about McEuen Field, the recall and LCDC” all happening NOW and when you can’t backup your own words it’s don’t talk to me – point in case. How can anyone appreciate that? You want to take a stand on the so-called stated mistruths that are supposedly happening NOW but again and again you reply don’t talk to me – what hypocrite.
Comment by Appalled — May 7, 2012 @ 10:30 am
“I hope you can appreciate that the only reason I post here is to correct the mistruths being spread about McEuen Field, the recall and LCDC.”
That sounds like a paid mission Mr. Austin. Are you doing this under contract or is it pro bono?
Just asking. Just
Comment by justinian — May 7, 2012 @ 11:10 am
Pariah – an enlightening report linked at post 198, in depth analysis does matter. Again another great link at post 195 with real figures to support the facts involving a responsible public official in Idaho. Just outstanding! Kootenai County even reports the same tax shift verbatim that you linked at post 192. I myself am not interested in a meeting that John had with Mike and John’s perception of that result based on John’s one-sided information contributed to the meeting. Now had John arranged for Bill or Mary to the attend the meeting to validate both sides and see that real and ethical questions are responded to, that would be a whole different thing.
In addition to my previous post I would like to add this. John, you earlier commented “‘assumptions’ that is a common and recognized process when projections are included in plans and no long-term plan would be any good without them.” This was in response to Idaho law simply requiring – plain and simple – 50-2905 (2) A statement listing the kind, number, and location of all proposed public works or improvements within the revenue allocation area; and (4) A detailed list of estimated project costs;
This is where you also originally claimed there is no need to follow that law because it was grandfathered, so certain, that is simply bunk, and then now ‘assumptions’ is a common and a recognized process – more bunk. Then at one point the detail in this plan or that one, one more time bunk, this is your position again and again and when you just cannot back it up, hey – go to City council with that. City council and people like you is what got us here, by the way do you work for one of the redevelopment agencies?
To effectively get that question answered and perhaps with your connections lets get it done right and get the Attorney General’s office to interpret the law in this case, it can happen at no expense to the City just requiring a City official to ask for that. Do you know of any official who is willing to get a professional, ethical, and fair interpretation on the lack of identifying ALL proposed public works or improvements including estimated project costs as opposed to assumptions, possible future projects, and millions for discretional spending? Another good question for a higher authority is if the projects and spending that we have seen here are ones covered by the URD statutes and claim of blight. If the officials here really cared to make sure this all above board this can easily be accomplished with no cost.
My though, should have went with the experts back in 1997 instead of thinking you and the others involved were one! Doubtful hundreds of thousands were saved doing that when also a lot can and could have been raised and resolved with very little or no cost by turning to the Attorney General’s office. Now that millions are being regularly spent isn’t it about time to get unbiased legal experts involved.
And please John, no more pointed comments about the things happening now that when you can’t support it you just cut and run or spin, spin, spin, wasn’t you, and so on, that has become your method of operation.
Comment by Appalled — May 7, 2012 @ 4:38 pm
Thanks.
John has lost all credibility here. His threats of violence, his personal attacks on many posters, his frankly outrageous spin all add up to a desperate call for attention. I hope he has someone in his life who can help him.
Comment by Pariah — May 7, 2012 @ 5:53 pm
Appalled, I directed you to the state legislative site to see when the laws on urban renewal changed. So, please don’t say I did not do that when in fact I did. If you choose to not do your own research that’s your issue, not mine.
I also never said CDA utilized the disadvantaged border community designation. That was in response to the mistruth that urban renewal is only to correct blight. I corrected a lie with a fact. That’s all.
Just, I am not paid by the city or LCDC and I haven’t been since 2000, over twelve years ago. I have URA clients in Bonner and Boundary counties for whom urban renewal has worked very well. My response to Appalled’s allegation concerning the 1997 plan is aimed to correct his postings that something must have been done wrong somehow because the city’s attorneys and finance professionals couldn’t know how to construct a viable and legal urban renewel plan. I don’t need to mention that this plan set in motion all of the great projects city residents and many others use on a daily basis.
Boy, for what Appalled implies were ‘a bunch of incompetents’ I think we did all right.
Comment by John Austin — May 8, 2012 @ 12:07 pm
John SPIN Austin, where did I say you didn’t direct me to the legislature site for when URD laws changed? What I said plain and simple is you are completely wrong and far from fact when stating “only plans adopted after changes to the statutes are required to abide by them. Plans adopted before the date of change are not affected.” This you will no longer address and completely evade. Agreed the laws changed, a no brainier, and I covered a lot of that in depth here in this thread. When I pointed out what I see as real problems with the amended plan not conforming to the changes, you essentially rattled on, oh well they don’t need to do that.
OK John SPIN Austin, you “never said CDA utilized the disadvantaged border community designation” and in so far as the so called mistruth, I never said specifically that urban renewal is only to correct blight aside from the applicable statutes and actual statements within the various plans that do address blight. But you did say “LCDC qualifies as an ‘economically disadvantaged border community area’ because it is within 25 miles of another state’s border” we agree you went there when attempting to combat the lack of blight along with posting IC 50-2902 in its entirety. You also then stated, “That’s a very crucial, and often missed, component of urban renewal.” And “but is also about economic development by developing and implementing plans to compete with neighboring states.”
But in no way did John SPIN Austin mean that to be taken as being part of the Cities plan at any juncture rather only that it could be and of course you never insinuated they did any of that. Immediately following that post before I took issue with it, Pariah posted quoting you “but is also about economic development by developing and implementing plans to compete with neighboring states.” And it fails at that. Miserably. And expensively. Obviously he felt the same way that you insinuated that is what it was about. In the end what lie did you actually correct?
I’m glad your URA clients in Bonner and Boundary counties have worked very well with UR. It obviously is not working here based on plenty of effort to stop it. It works there and everybody here likes and uses the improvements – well then that makes it OK. You like to put the spin on what was specifically said, I never said who couldn’t know how to construct a viable and legal urban renewal plan, it was you who said this endeavor did not involve experts to save money, not a stretch to conclude those who did this at the time must have felt they knew more then the experts or simply just chose to avoid involving them.
This is just getting redundant when you bounce all over the place making big pointed statements that you horribly attempt to back up or completely otherwise evade. You think “we did all right” your opinion of course, I feel we deserve not just all right, but more so excellence beyond reproach when millions of tax dollars are being spent that the general populous has no control over. SPIN on John!
Comment by Appalled — May 9, 2012 @ 8:13 am
Appalled, I was responding to another poster’s comments about urban renewal only being about ‘blight’. You ran with that and said I was ‘spinning’ because you could find no mention of it in CDA’s plans. You are the one ‘spinning’ the truth because you and the other recallers believe people are so ignorant they’ll simply believe anything you say without facts to back it up.
I have challenged you to find one statute that requires any urban renewal agency, and there are over 50 in the state, to amend their plans to adhere to laws passed AFTER they were created. Instead you attack me, who is not posting anonymously as you are, as spinnng the facts. My facts are that I have worked with the best attorneys on urban renewal law in Idaho and I rely on their expertise to advise my clients on changes in the law. If that is not good enough for you I would advise you to do your own research or retain an attorney for that purpose.
If people like me and others did not correct those mistruths that are ‘spinning’ around the community, even at the expense of personal attacks and retribution, those mistruths would remain as ‘fact’ even when they are not. And, that is unacceptable to me. You can call me whatever you want but in the end the truth must prevail.
Comment by John Austin — May 10, 2012 @ 8:22 am
John, here we go again. First, I base a majority of my comment and perspective on actual public record not innuendos and guesses. That is one reason that I prefer to post under my original handle so to speak and for many other reasons, but can I back it up when it comes down to it. You have forgotten when laying the anon claim as a bogus defense to your baseless positions a while back as other blog sites where taking notice of the seriously unscrupulous activity surrounding several County officials my name was revealed on HBO tied specifically to Appalled. In addition to the mountain of irrefutable evidence I directed you myself to HBO to learn my identity and then never heard another word from you directed to me about the discussion and topic at the time.
Funny how URD’s are your clients and you are so steadfast to support everything they do and not budge on one thing being the least bit wrong – go figure. There is no law to be found when the legislature decides to make changes to current laws and reign in control over different entities. If the legislature intended to grandfather activity it would make that cite in its newly adopted course. Case in point is the LCDC making numerous amendments consistent with the new laws that passed however missing a succinct plan to identify projects that have not been approved and otherwise do not yet exist including millions of taxpayer dollars for discretionary spending. This in addition to the lack of blight I would hope some official takes this to the Attorney General to make sure the City and LCDC has it right. Any of our leaders that got us here can do that without charge to the City and ensure the path is a legal one – but no! These valid concerns have been addressed here for years well before I looked into it.
I have been in the same business in the City of Cda for over 21 years now that has experienced new paths directed by the legislature with many new changes in the applicable laws and simply because the business existed prior to these changes in no way means any of the new laws can be ignored as you continue to somehow insist they can based on simply pointing to a potentially missed URD change. You are steadfast and point to fact and correcting mistruth wrongly claiming if it didn’t exist before in law and does now no need to change is just plain ridiculous.
Comment by Appalled — May 10, 2012 @ 9:42 am
Appalled, any future plans or amended plans would of course have to comply with the new laws. But to go through the amendment process on previous plans that legally followed every statute found in Idaho law is a waste of resources. That’s like someone making you bring your house up to current standards when that house was constructed to the building codes at the time and is functioning just fine the way it is.
THAT’s what is ridiculous.
Meanwhile, all of my posts are based on facts as contained in public records and are not ‘innuendos and guesses’. You see, because of my business, everything I do and say is subject to public scrutiny. As such, it has to be factual. That’s what’s different about me and you and/or others who post here, either anonymously or under their own names. You don’t have to account for anything you say so you are free to post anything at all that you want. But, that’s OK, as long as the truth prevails nothing else matters in the end.
Comment by John Austin — May 10, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
“But to go through the amendment process on previous plans that legally followed every statute found in Idaho law is a waste of resources.” The problem is in so far as the LCDC there wasn’t a previous plan only speculative ones as even stated in their amended plans that was a result of changes in the law along with millions for discretional spending not identified as tied to any project. Not the least bit difficult to understand. Building codes apply to new buildings that are built after the code is adopted, not existing ones, your spins are spinning on some other planet – nice one. Nice fact John, but it has nothing to do with this. Where have I seen that before?
I have found a ton of facts and valuable information here no matter the name it was posted under, most easily verifiable, fully documented, and completely supported unlike one poster that comes to mind generally claiming it to be a fact because he simply says so.
Comment by Appalled — May 10, 2012 @ 4:29 pm
John, do some actual research that applies!
Idaho’s drinking age was raised from 19 in April 1987. But 19- and 20-year-olds already drinking legally were allowed to continue under a “grandfather” clause in the law, so many 19-year-old drivers could continue drinking legally until April 1988.
There a law that specifically includes a Grandfather cite. Here’s a section so titled in Idaho Code. IC 54-213. Grandfather clause. And you call THAT ridiculous for my perspective and understanding when at the same time you end up basing your support on building codes applicable to new construction. Building as in building projects, can’t find an already been built code for the City.
You specifically and wrongly challenged me to find to where Idaho law forbid Grandfathering. Completely off base once again and it just doesn’t, good call, what Idaho law clearly does is require conformance and if a Grandfather clause applied the law would so state that but it simply doesn’t in the URD laws. I would hope we could at least agree on that absent a spin or ten.
Here are some other Idaho Codes referencing Grandfather cites 56-108, 33-515, 33-515A, 33-516, 36-2203. I see the problem is that the State of Idaho and Legislature is not up to speed on the John Austin method of spinning and avoiding the law. Next you additionally claim it is a waste of resource to amend an existing plan, not if the law requires it John, which is just a horrible claim if not terrible advice that hopefully nobody is paying you for. And again what plan are you talking about that precipitated changes in the law that was applicable somehow to a project that wasn’t speculative or rather projects that were not passed or yet existed? Everything that I have seen thus far points to flexibility due to lack of a plan and assumptions in addition to discretionary millions not tied to anything.
Comment by Appalled — May 10, 2012 @ 8:27 pm
I have nothing more to post on this, Appalled. I’m sorry if you can’t grasp the fact that LCDC and the city have done everything legally from day one. You may not like the result, or even the process, but the fact is nothing is subject to challenge because it was all done legally.
It is time that you accept the fact that LCDC will continue as a legal entity and the decisions they make and the projects they fund will continue to be done according to the law. In the end you’ll see that they’ve been great stewards of the funds in which they were entrusted, evidenced by the thousands of people currently enjoying the projects they’ve funded.
If possible, with temps in the ’80s try to have a good weekend and leave the thoughts of LCDC at the curb. In the long run, you’ll be much better off for it.
Comment by John Austin — May 10, 2012 @ 10:20 pm
John,
The true question is, has the city and the LCDC done anything ethically or morally wrong? It is a rhetorical question. I was not looking for your spin on it thank you.
The LCDC will continue UNTIL the RECALL. Then it will be ADIOS!
Comment by concerned citizen — May 11, 2012 @ 6:10 am
John – It would have been legal to ask the citizens for an advisory vote. It would have been legal to ask them to vote on buying the corridor property and not worming a multi year structured debt through multiple parties to sidestep state law. It would have been legal to keep the mayors promise and not use tax dollars for the Kroc Center. Etc…….
There’s legal and there’s illegal. There are shades of gray between stark white and inked blackness. There is right and there’s wrong. There’s respect and balled a$$, in-your-face, disrespect.
The recall has this much steam only because, at the very least, your handlers have executed their jobs with impudent disregard of public sentiment. Maybe they have legally woven their way in and around laws to make their wishes come true, maybe not. We don’t know for certain because much of what they did is kept secret.
Now you want us to accept your word that it was ALL done legally. But we know it was not ALL done above board and fully transparent. Until we have eyes-on ALL of that info that are not well-connected eyes (like yours) we will reserve our judgement on that legal or illegal determination. You cannot deny us our collective skepticism.
I’m a thinking that your desperate hope is that you can keep a tight lid on the facts and prying eyes away from their dutiful examinations.
Comment by Wallypog — May 11, 2012 @ 6:32 am
Just the opposite, Wally. I would hope and certainly encourage that a full examination be made of all records concerning this issue. Since UR is at the heart of the recall I think that would be the prudent thing to do. I know I’ve got nothing to hide and neither does the city or LCDC. However, if you or your ‘handlers’ can find anything whatsoever that you think (and can prove) was done wrong you should bring it to the light of day.
Otherwise your rants and allegation hold no water.
In the meantime try to enjoy this beautiful day. It’s God’s way of saying there are better things to do than debate the merits of urban renewal.
Comment by John Austin — May 11, 2012 @ 10:00 am
Well John, unless the NIC foundation allows us to examine their contracts nobody has the details on the education corridor purchase but them. So until then your word is just that, and not worth the wind used to convey it. If our leadership had operated with more transparency, then our disgust could be based in just their lack of respect. But, they didn’t, did they? So there are no allegations, just unanswered questions which we all know makes you ecstatic. Because not giving clear answers is sort of your specialty John.
Comment by Wallypog — May 11, 2012 @ 11:14 am