Last week, 4th District Representative George Sayler spoke out against HB616, the anti-shoestring bill before the Idaho House. I admit that Mr. Sayler made an impassioned plea against the proposed law, which would have added accountability and openness to Idaho’s Urban Renewal Agencies. He spoke out twice against it, and appeared to be the legislation’s main opponent. George did a good job in defeating the bill. Now let’s look at some key political contributions to his 2006 campaign.
| Name | Position | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Denny Davis | LCDC Board Member | $100.00 |
| Jim Elder | LCDC Board Member | $200.00 |
| Helen Elder | Wife of Jim Elder | $200.00 |
| Mike Gridley | CDA City Attorney | $100.00 |
| Charlie Nipp | LCDC Chairman | $61.87 |
| Susan Nipp | Wife of LCDC Chairman | $161.88 |
| Mike Kennedy | CDA City Councilman | $75.00 |
That’s nearly $900 on the record. Remember, campaign contributions totaling less than $50 do not need to be reported by the name of the contributor. That’s okay with me; people should be allowed a degree of privacy when supporting a candidate (especially given the retributions that can come locally from making a wrong move). Even so, I find this list telling.
Remember, this list is about openness. The State calls the report that contains campaign finance information a sunshine report. That’s because government must be open if we are to avoid tyranny.
References. 10-10-06 report. Pre-General report. Post-General report.
You’re right Dan, the new legislation would have increased the accountability of the urban renewal agencies. Right now, city officials are forbidden, by law, from using shoestringing to annex new areas, and this new legislation would have forbidden urban renewal agencies from using it too. It’s amazing to me that George Sayler would fight against this important legislation that would protect the taxpayers.
But I think list of campaign contributions explains the whole thing. Sad.
Comment by mary — March 16, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
I’m unclear about the need for shoestringing. If an area is blighted, why wouldn’t the URA simply create another URD for that area? Connecting a new area with an existing URD doesn’t make sense. The new area’s blight might be remediated more quickly than the district to which it will be shoestringed. If the URA’s motives and methods are honest and benevolent rather than self-serving, wouldn’t they want to remediate the blight as quickly as possible and return the URD to the tax rolls? That assumes, of course, that the URA’s commissioners are honest and not trying to create blight where none exists to increase the value of dishonest commissioners’ property holdings or business interests.
Comment by Bill — March 17, 2008 @ 7:41 am
It should be noted that Rep. Sayler misspoke the truth when, in his second debate in opposition to H-616, he said that urban renewal efforts in CDA were supported extensively by the community and that it was not true that our urban renewal agencies were subject to problems and criticism. This bald face lie was in response to previous debators who would preface their remarks with something like, “Well, you may be having problems in the north, but we are ok with our URA in my district”, or words to that effect, which is of course, BS!
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 17, 2008 @ 8:49 am
And I understand the Nipps have held multiple fundraising events for George Sayler at their home, which by the way is not in CdA and is not even in George’s district.
Comment by mary — March 17, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Whether you support one candidate or another isn’t the issue here. This is openness. People must know who people in important decision making positions are supporting. If someone is upset by this, I would argue that they are more concerned with keeping things concealed from the public than being about openness.
Comment by Dan — March 17, 2008 @ 11:59 am