LCDC Executive Director Tony Berns
One of the myths that Denny Davis, Jim Elder, Rod Colwell, Charlie Nipp, Dave Patzer, Deanna Goodlander, Al Hassell, Brad Jordan, Scott Hoskins, and Tony Berns desperately need to propagate is that Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal agency, the Lake City Development Corporation, does not increase taxes for those who own property outside the urban renewal district. This is the statement from the home page of their LCDC website:
“LCDC does not raise property taxes; LCDC’s impact is “neutral” to the property tax payer.”
It appears that the Canyon County Assessor doesn’t agree with the LCDC’s self-serving propaganda effort. Follow the link and pay particular attention to the section captioned “How Urban Renewal Affects All Taxpayers.”
Of course, there is no particular requirement that the LCDC Commissioners and Executive Director tell the truth on their website. After all, unlike the Canyon County Assessor, they are not elected to their positions on the LCDC and are not accountable to the public or to the Coeur d’Alene City Council. As a matter of fact, the recent Idaho Supreme Court decision in Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Rexburg v. Kenneth W. Hart raises a real question whether Idaho’s urban renewal agencies are accountable to anyone.
Bill, what the Canyon County Assessor conveniently doesn’t mention is the property value growth that happens OUTSIDE the urban renewal district, but would not happen without the existence of the URD. That is evident throughout downtown CDA and along the NW Boulevard corridor. Those additional values help to keep levy rates where they would have been without the URD’s creation.
He also doesn’t mention the fact that all those taxes currently going to the URD will eventially make their way to the other districts, as was seen in Post Falls recently. Those dollars would not have occurred with the URD, or likely would not have occurred in the amount that they have.
I’ll admit it is an interesting take on urban renewal and not unexpectedly from a county assessor. It’s just unfortunate that the full story is left untold.
Comment by JohnA — December 23, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
John,
I suggest you contact the Canyon County Assessor with your speculation.
Comment by Bill — December 23, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Bill, it would do no good, I’m afraid. Like many elected officials he can only measure the merit of a program in four-year increments. It’s a shame he can’t see the long-term viability of URDs to Canyon County and the remarkable effect they’ve had in bringing growth to his county. If you had visited the non-descript little towns that were previously Nampa and Caldwell and compared them to the urban successes of today, you’d wonder how their Assessor with his opinions was ever elected in the first place. Unfortunately, like many others, he forgets that his county was there for a hundred years before him and will be there for centuries after. And, it’s what happens in between that will shape his neck of the woods far into that future.
Comment by JohnA — December 23, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
John, with all due respect to your historical perspective, I’m thinking that perhaps it gets in the way of an objective analysis on your part on how urban renewal is used today. Your argument says to me that the end justifies the means. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that property taxes are not increased. Some citizens, a lot of us, would like more attention paid to the perception that so much of what happens presently is taxation without representation. Bill’s observation that there is a real question whether Idaho’s urban renewal agencies are accountable to anyone deserves serious thought. Once created, the mere appointment of URA commissioners does not appear to provide accountability.
Comment by Gary Ingram — December 23, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
John,
You are quite correct. Towns were there long before urban renewal was enacted, and they will be there long after its demise. Doesn’t that suggest that the towns’ persistence is due to something other than the meager or even nonexistent value of urban renewal? Only time will tell if Coeur d’Alene and Kootenai County are able to withstand the predation by the LCDC.
The Law of Political Mortality says that programs such as urban renewal can be foisted on the public, glowing results promised, and counted as successful in the present, because its originators and supporters will all be dead long before the unintended consequences become known and the proponents can be held accountable to those harmed by their actions.
Comment by Bill — December 24, 2009 @ 6:16 am
First, Merry Christmas Bill and Gary, and thanks for providing this forum. I’d like to keep the discussion positive in light of the season so let me share what I see as the successes in the urban renewal districts I have helped to form. With the exception of CDA, they are mostly in small Idaho cities where no other relief can be found to meet their burgeoning demands, many imposed by the federal government.
In Dover, a small town was facing discharge violations from its wastewater plant and its water system was insufficient in terms of fire flow. Also, the town had few paved streets or parks, no city hall or the fire equipment capable of dealing with its needs. Since the formation of a URD in 2005, and the infusion of $100 million in new tax assessments, Dover now has all of those things, including paved streets in its old town and a four-bay fire station to store its 160-foot ladder truck. Its city hall is the pride of the region and 1,000 feet of donated Pend Oreille riverfront is its new park. All told over $8 million in new improvements and $8 million more in donated assets have transformed that small town into a resort destination.
Other small towns are at the ready. In Riggins and Spirit Lake, despite only small increases in new value due to the economy, park improvements have been made, and with development pending, improvements they could only have dreamed of are on the table.
Oldtown and Harrison are the newest URDs to be proposed in north Idaho. In the former the city has sought a way to expand across the Pend Oreille river so its business district could be improved along Highway 2. A URD will make that a reality in 2010. And, in Harrison, some $31.5 million in improvements are proposed, including millions for a wastewater facility that has seen over 200 EPA violations based on its discharge into the CDA river drainage. Can you imagine the impact on 269 residents if they alone had to deal with the magnitude of just their deteriorated sewer plant? Elsewhere in town, Frederick Avenue simply fell off the hillside, condemning with it two homes under construction. The URA has proposed funds to fix that issue, which is not only a deterioration but also a very dangerous public safety factor for its residents.
These are but a few of the great things URDs are bringing to cities in north Idaho. More great things are in store and, with all due respect, we won’t all be ‘long dead’ before we see them come to fruition.
Again, Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Comment by JohnA — December 24, 2009 @ 8:38 am
Note to John A. perhaps you should come down and visit the dying city of Caldwell. Urban Renewal agency purchases of property in downtown Caldwell have raised the assessed valuations of property to the point where the current owners are closing up shop. URA purchases at outlandish prices have put the County Assessor in the position of having to use those purchase prices to value all commercial property in Caldwell at unrealistic prices. The URA Deciders took immenient domain off the table as they “negotiated” prices for the property they bought to uncover Indian Creek. The owners kept saying NO! until it got just plain crazy what they paid for the property. I have a brother inlaw who got nearly $48/square foot for a 9,000 square foot lot with a worthless building on the property. They hide the ball with the cost of the property along with a “relocation allowance” to get the deal done at any cost.
Nobody has control or oversight of UR agencies. They cost every taxpayer in every county where they exist all the money they suck out of the property tax pool that would normally dilute all property tax bills. In my case that amounts to about 30% of my property taxes. Put another way my property taxes would be 30% lower if UR went away tomorrow in Caldwell and Nampa.
Boise CCDC now wants to use local option taxes to fund a streetcar that will run a two mile loop and they want Canyon County taxpayers to help foot the bill for this boondoggle. All they see is $40 million in stimulus money from the federal govt. and all they need is another $20 million to make this two mile dream come true.
Urban renewal has lost its way. The original intent of removing blight, public health and safety, etc. have gone away when they figured out how to put new development in a urban renewal district. Developers call it “ENTITLEMENT MONEY” to subsidize their projects on cheap dirt they bought out of town.
Property taxpayers are getting fleeced for pet pork projects by UR boards all over the state. The problem needs a legislative fix. Frankly speaking, a total shut down would not offend me at all.
Comment by paul — December 24, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Paul, I admit I don’t have very much knowledge of URDs in sourthern Idaho. The eight districts I have created are all north of Riggins, and mostly in Kootenai and Bonner counties. I’m sorry if the URDs don’t seem to be working in Canyon County but I can assure you they do work up north.
Whereas Coeur d’Alene remains the largest, I have equal pride in the smaller cities’ URDs. Our concern is that changes in laws meant to deal with larger districts can only impact small city URDs negatively.
Chief on point is the proposed elimination of so-called ‘shoestringing’, where agencies reach to outlying ares to include in the URD. In small cities, running along roadways where improvements will be made to those outlying areas is the only way to ensure growth dollars will be generated and can be used in deteriorated downtowns. It would be uncommon for a small city to see significant assessed value growth in their downtowns, instead realizing it from a short distance away.
Again, I’m sorry if URD law is being stretched in your area to include things never intended by law. If clarifications to that law need to be made, I say let’s do that. Better that than to just throw the baby out with the bathwater, as many have suggested.
Comment by JohnA — December 24, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Merry Christmas!
A great answer to government fans of ‘urban renewal’ is this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw
Liberalism destroys cities, businesses and people.
Comment by Pariah — December 24, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
John A.
The explanation you offer presumes that property values rise only in the presence of a URD. You can assert that a URD does impact property values but you cannot assert that they are the only mechanism to do so. In fact one could presume just the opposite, that naturally shifting economic trends would bring attract private developers and investments to a community realizing the same or perhaps better increases in property values as might from any URD. It is also facetious to suggest that a URD must be sustained in order to sustain the growth in property values. Many communities have seen revitalization without any government sponsored URD whatsoever. In some communities a URD ‘kick-start’ would be quite sufficient to snowball such revitalization. But a 20 to 25 year URD plan used as the sole method of growth is inflexible and maybe even counter productive. The unifocal upscale approach of the LCDC is not reaping such grand rewards for the community or the developers.
Comment by Wallypog — December 25, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Wally: The unifocal upscale approach of the LCDC is not reaping such grand rewards for the community or the developers.
Well, let’s suffice to say there will always be swings in any economy. Since LCDC’s creation in 1997, the city has seen both explosive growth in and near the URD and also some slowdowns. After 9/11 Riverstone slowed down, much like it has today. But before that and immediately thereafter, growth was explosive and led to dramatic increases in tax increment, not only in the URD but also in properties near the growth. How else can one explain the 40% vacancy rate downtown in 1997 and nearly full occupancy rate today. Businesses, like governments, have to maintain long-term strategies or they will suffer. I learned this early when I was a fresh-faced cost accountant at the old Bunker Hill Company. The new owners of the company, Gulf Resources, saw only the near-term possibilities of the company and used those revenues to invest elsewhere, ultimatedly ruining a great company and sending thousands into unemployment.
The economy will eventually rebound nationally as well as locally, and the success of the LCDC in maintaining and attracting businesses will remain. That’s the beauty of commerce and the long-term commitment to economic development via urban renewal.
Comment by JohnA — December 25, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Urban Renewal (a/k/a central planning a/k/a taxation without representation) fails, often. Detroit is documented above, here is Brooklyn:
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/24/nyregion/urban-renewal-lesson-in-failure.html
There simply is no excuse for Tony Berns to be paid what he gets paid and for the cronyism that exemplifies LCDC – none. Those who defend it are those who make a living from the fruits of the ill gotten gains hidden inside LCDC. The rest of us recognize a scam when we see one.
Comment by Pariah — December 26, 2009 @ 12:29 pm