Looks like NIC is going to go it solo on the Education Corridor purchase. Read the article in today’s CDA Press and then comment on whether or not you believe this is a responsible decision.
April 25, 2008
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The new Tubbs Hill? That one amazes me. How dumb do they think we taxpayers are? Tubbs Hill is a park with completely open spaces, views and vistas. The DeArmon Mill site will be full of big buildings, streets, parking lots and students arriving and leaving constantly. There will certainly be a public trail along the river, but this kind of trail would also be possible if the land was privately developed because in the Annexation process (the mill site is not technically part of the city yet) the city negotiators can require public access along the water. And private development could be kept low-level and low density if the city zoned it that way upon annexation.
Comment by mary — April 25, 2008 @ 9:04 am
This decision is being made behind closed doors by a very few people with zero public input. But we, the taxpayers, will be on the hook for the money now and for decades into the future. Mayor Bloem, Trustee Mic Armon: Open up the process! If you don’t want “the public” to “mess up your deal”, as Deanna Goodlander said about the Library, then at least invite other elected public officials from the area to participate in the process. NIC is required to serve ALL of North Idaho, not just Coeur d’Alene.
Comment by mary — April 25, 2008 @ 9:11 am
The Mayor is quoted in this article as saying that the corridor has been “wanted” by the citizen of this community for along time (or some such). Is she a mind reader? Put it to an INFORMED vote. 17 acres for $10 million, with limited access, or $3.2 million for 136 acres on the nearby prairie with unlimited access. Tough choice there.
Comment by Wallypog — April 25, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Oh, and one more…Mayor Bloem’s quote about how the citizens have wanted the Ed.Corridor for years and that’s why it was in the Comprehensive Plan? I was part of the Comp Plan re-write from start to finish and I can tell you that it was the Mayor who has wanted this project for years and has been pushing it through. Everyone at city hall knows not to even question the Ed. Corridor because it is Sandi’s baby. Even LCDC people have said openly that they don’t know why Sandi is so stuck on this idea in only this location. And the Comp Plan is written in very flexible language, so almost any outcome can be compatible with the concepts.
Comment by mary — April 25, 2008 @ 9:22 am
This is such a terrible thing for a public official to say, ever! “We cannot afford to wait”? What about what’s afforded to the public who is paying for this fiasco? We are being asked to front money for a project that they do not have a “fleshed-out vision” on?
Vision?
Sounds like an utter lack of vision, not to mention bad, bad public policy.
Since when did the college motivate itself by the needs of a developer and not the needs of the students? Doesn’t NIC have a charter to educate? Sounds like they’re more interested in pleasing Marshall Chesrown than with serving the community!
Comment by Dan — April 25, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Has anyone done a calculation of the total costs to the average citizen in Coeur d’Alene for the proposed new taxes, foregone taxes, county assessment errors? Oh well, I guess that I can always get a third job or stop eating.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 25, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Doublesee…don’t forget the water rates going up too! How can our officials be so out of touch with real life?
Comment by mary — April 25, 2008 @ 9:43 am
It seems that all governmental agencies are totally clueless as to the local economy. If I understand it correctly, the median income determined by the Feds includes both earned and unearned income which really doesn’t show the true income status for the community. Assuming this is true and assuming the economy is less than robust, how is it that the city talks about collecting foregones, the college talks about collecting foregones, and the school district asks for an expensive levy?
Do these people not understand the financial reality for many of us? The cost of living is skyrocketing yet they want to ask for more taxes? In light of their spending habits, it is apparent that their vision was macular at best.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 25, 2008 @ 11:20 am
The $9.4M figure came from county Treasurer Tom Malzahn. It does include non-real estate business property taxes. The actual assessed value of the properties (there’s more than one) is under $5M. Assessed property values in Idaho must be within 15% of the actual sale value. Giving NIC the benefit of the doubt, that means that they’re paying close to half a million dollars more for this land than they would otherwise have to.
Why isn’t NIC negotiating directly with the mill?
Comment by Dan — April 25, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Why was Chesrown even allowed to be in the picture? If this has been a “vision” for so long, why didn’t the school and the city and the five northern counties get together and buy the Mill before Chesrown ever entered the picture? Or, if they are so committed to education and vocational training (as opposed to simply trying to develop an “Educational Corridor” to create a market for downtown Coeur d’Alene), why didn’t they all pool their funds and look at other more spacious areas?
This has nothing to do with improving the quality of education and vocational training in northern Idaho. This is about marketing downtown Coeur d’Alene.
Comment by Bill — April 25, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Given the downturn in the economy, what would likely happen if no one offered to buy the property Chesrown owns? Would he be able to get $10M from someone else? Who?
Comment by Bill — April 25, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I think you answered your own question. Chesrown, like everyone, is most likely with a downturn in the economy. I’m certain that he could sell the property to someone, but it’s a safe bet that he wouldn’t see $10M for it. You can only get that kind of deal from elected officials who do not act accountably toward the public.
Comment by Dan — April 25, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Because Chesrown already knows NIC will pay whatever is asked, and in fact, is in a panic to do so, one can wonder if $10,000,000 is a bargain or an extortion. It would be revealing to see the details of the deal and how much is land value and how much is remediation. Remediated, undeveloped waterfront acreage with a sewer plant smack dab in the middle at $588.235.29 per acre, is not a bargain. Show me any such parcel anywhere in the State of Idaho that has sold anywhere near that amount. Ever.
Beyond that, other reasonable questions need answers. How about our need for expansion? A couple of buidings and in a few years NIC will be wondering again where to expand. How about safety? Major expense and acreage is needed for streets, traffic flow control, fire and emergency access. How about density? More people and activities in a relative small annexation does not make for a good lifestyle. How about parking? Some acquired acreage for a parking garage? Good for cars, bad for educational facilities. How about the lost property taxes from private developement? A valid concern especially with the limited end use and the cost to get it. How about the impact on the taxpayer? It’s not just the $33 per homeowner per year of new taxes from the NIC forgone balance. It’s also about the prospect of a multi muillion dollar school levy, a multi million dollar jail proposal, increase bugets of various taxing districts. The cummulative projected increased taxes will be closer to $200.00 per year per household and this scary prospect is not lost on the taxpayer.
The news account states that a bond election is not on the table. No surprise! The NIC board does not want to know what the voters want, which of course, a bond election would decisively reveal.
Yes we do need to look far into the future for our college’s need for expansion. The so called Education Corridor is a tiny infill project that will meet needs for a very short time at too great a cost. Note, I have not commented on the public use of water front, upstream or downstream of the sewer plant. I thought this was about education, not recreation.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 25, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Oh! another thing to consider. How could have I overlooked the lost tax revenue to the City when LCDCs gets their fangs into this and uses TIF to front the money for infrastructure which will also benefit non city taxpayers in the county? Except the TIF won’t come from the project because it is a public project and so the TIF will be city taxpayer money already salted away from TIF from existing URD’s. As Alice would say, “things get curiouser and curiouser”.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 25, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
You also know that Mr. Chesrown WILL want in return ANY property that he owns close to or next to the ED corridor to be “shoestringed” into the current URD thus EXTENDING the diversion of tax to the LCDC for an additional 20 or is it 24 years.
You KNOW the average tax payer WILL have to pick up the slack for infrastructure, or should I say, current lack of it.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 26, 2008 @ 8:55 am
It’s plausible that the LCDC can extend their expiration date whenever they modify their district. As their attorney has no doubt informed them, “the law is silent on this issue.” My guess is that they wouldn’t because it would attract even more negative attention to them, attention that they’re trying to avoid.
When the final Sorensen/Winton shoestring plan is finally revealed to the public, it will be scrutinized for any monkey business. The LCDC knows this, so my guess is that no monkey business will occur.
The real question, and where Chesrown and the entire Ed Corridor thing comes into play, is with the Atlas site. The first step in a long process would be annexation into the City. That has begun. After annexation, Mr. Chesrown will (no doubt in my mind) show up to the LCDC hat in hand asking for modification to their River District for inclusion of the Atlas site. It is, after all, a $70 million parcel of prime river-front real estate and, therefore, obviously blighted.
And so the game goes on.
Comment by Dan — April 26, 2008 @ 9:08 am
You can bank on that one, CC! Chesrown certainly wants his 70 acre Atlas Mill site to be included in the LCDC River District and recieve urban renewal money for the upscale development he is planning there. Remember, Chesrown is a very smart businessman and successfully lobbied Spokane for huge urban renewal dollars for his big Kendall Yards development right on the river near their downtown.
Comment by mary — April 26, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Are there plans and/or permits for the Chesrown upscale condo tower in Riverstone?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 26, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Just a thought: What is the possibility of the URA extending across the river to develop the property on Blackwell Hill? Don’t forget that the city did not annex the well at the old Central Pre-Mix site that crosses the river, runs up Blackwell Hill and then south to Cougar Ridge. This well is owned by Mr. Radobenko. (Details about the well at a later date.)
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 26, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Susie, I heard that Chesrown has pulled back on his plans to build that Condo tower in Riverstone…but that’s just the word on the street, I haven’t confirmed it. If true, it is probably driven by the market downturn and he may be overextended with Kendall Yards in Spokane and the new Atlas Mill development plans.
Comment by mary — April 26, 2008 @ 10:40 am