Here is the Agenda for the Coeur d’Alene City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 7, at 6:00 p.m. Here’s the Addendum Agenda. Remember, agenda items can be added during the meeting.
One item especially worth noting is in the Adjournment. It reads, “Recess to […] May 20th at 12:00 Noon for a Council Workshop to discuss the Coeur d’Alene Lake Drive property transfer from ITD.
This answers the often-asked question, “Is our City still considering taking on this very costly white elephant?”
I think that this is probably a given. Didn’t the mayor state that this would add waterfront to the city? If so, I doubt that she has studied the map indicating property ownership and easements. Prior to voting on acquisition, I would expect that the city has an extensive cost analysis and extensive engineering analysis, and legal analysis by a land use attorney of this project. The question remains: why burden the Coeur d’Alene taxpayers to maintain something already maintained by the State of Idaho? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 6, 2013 @ 7:08 am
Susie,
It’s about immediate cash, not long-term benefit.
The Mayor and her cronies want the $3+ million they will get from ITD to be able to dump into the McEuen Hole. They have yet to explain how far (or not) that $3+ million would go toward maintaining the white elephant. They have yet to define any tangible and significant benefit to the City as a whole. They have yet to do their due diligence on either the cost-benefit analysis or the geotechnical engineering side. Objective Risk Analysis is non-existent at Corrupt d’Alene City Hall.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2013 @ 7:19 am
Does Cda still have a public information person? It seems that 1)the council has determined that the public does not need information, or 2) you have taken over the duties.
Comment by up river — May 6, 2013 @ 9:17 am
up river,
CdA appears to have more than one public information person. I believe the latest official Propagandist in Chief for the City is Kristina Lyman. P-i-C is a title I assigned to the position rather than any particular individual who happens to hold it long enough to collect a fee/paycheck and then bolt.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2013 @ 9:44 am
Fun facts:
The City Council normally has 9-meetings between the months of Jan. 01 and May 01 with the exception of 2013. The Council met 15-times for the same period of time this year.
Comment by LTR — May 6, 2013 @ 4:22 pm
That’s a good observation.
What, if anything, do you make of it?
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2013 @ 4:32 pm
What do I think of all the extra council meetings…My thoughts tell me it’s about pushing through McEuen before the Mayor leaves office. Creating another URA district on E. Sherman and onto Cda. Lake Drive is the next push, and wrapping up the plans for the 4-corner project.
I have nightmares about Bloem taking over urban renewal because Berns is not the right fit too. Ouch!
Comment by LTR — May 6, 2013 @ 8:05 pm
LTR,
Agreed. To the extent Bloem, Kennedy, Goodlander, and McEvers comprehend they are very likely in their last term, they will indifferently and arrogantly enter into contractual agreements the next Mayor and City Council will be unable to reverse.
I don’t agree, however that Bloem is going to become the executive director of the LCDC. She’s not smart enough, and she needs to earn money. My guess is that one of her cronies for whom she has done many favors during her terms will reward her with a profitable consulting position.
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2013 @ 7:56 am
I don’t see Lakeshore Drive as a “White Elephant Gift”. If the City takes ownership, a Pink Elephant comes to mind. The financial aspect of long-term maintenance of the road needs to be fully vetted and disclosed and then balanced with other pending “ideas” being floated by the Mayor and her yes-people.
The City can take ownership of the road without annexation, but that begs the question: Why should the taxpayers of CDA pay for maintaining a road that is outside City limits that they are already paying to maintain through State taxes? The Highway District wouldn’t take the deal, so what makes the deal pencil for the City?
On the other hand, the City can take ownership and then annex the road into the City regardless of any opposition because they would be the owner. This in turn would provide ample legal justification for the City to annex all lands adjacent to Lakeshore, with or without consent of the adjacent land owners. The City will of course have a carrot to offer those to be annexed–sewer connection (to the spankin new plant) and higher density on land that currently can’t accommodate more drainfields, and County zoning that is only going to get more restrictive.
I suspect that the Mayor’s “new” idea of forming an East Sherman Improvement District will include Lakeshore Drive, or at least set the stage for expansion of the district right down the lake along Lakeshore Dr. and up the hill to capture the view. The area is certainly similarly “blighted” as Riverstone was prior to the formation of LCDC, so why not areas adjacent to Lakeshore Drive after taxing all the property owners along East Sherman?
While pondering the possibility of annexation south, take into consideration that land is available for a new city boat launch, the possibility that hydroplane races could be a cash cow for the City, and the fact that the City cannot logically grow in any other direction. Also not to forget that CDA sees growth as the end all solution to its zero-balance-account method of bugeting. The motives for taking over Lakeshore Dr. then become clear.
Bottom line, Lakeshore Drive has the potential to cost the City way more than the $3-million being offered with just one landslide. How will the City pay for such a catastrophe? Annex, tax, and then defer taxes from East Sherman. And who will benefit? A small handful of property owners who have been sitting on vacant land and paper plans that cover the hillside with more condos. I would also suspect that the “Vision” project being contemplated by the City will be funded by this same handful of landowners and that is a whole novel story in itself.
Comment by Old Dog — May 8, 2013 @ 7:44 am