What a beautiful view of CdA Lake in winter. We have national election impacts, County comprehensive plan efforts and local tax questions as possible items to discuss. Who wants to go first? Any ideas?
January 20, 2010
Open Session, Thursday
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Mayor Bloem told a Spokane TV reporter that if developers want to build a sports complex in Riverstone, they will have to use only private money or, if they ask for public dollars, the taxpayers will have to approve it with a vote. What a great idea. I hope this kind of thinking catches on!
Here’s the link to the interview, sent by an alert reader: http://www.krem.com/news/local/Still-no-stadium-for-homeless-Riverhawks-82123812.html
Comment by mary — January 20, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
Idahoans are going to have to pay very close attention to an effort to get a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution through the legislature this session and on the November 2010 ballot. It will be an amendment to Article VIII, Section 3, and it will essentially empower local municipalities and hospital districts to declare any long-term debt or liability to be “ordinary and necessary.” This is a blatant effort to further remove the taxpayer from having anything to say about how public money is obligated. In other words, public officials will be allowed to go deeper into debt with fewer opportunities for the public to object. This is an outcome of the Frazier decision in the Idaho Supreme Court.
Our own sneaky little urban renewal agency, the LCDC, is part of this effort to circumvent the taxpayers. After the Frazier decision, lawyers who don’t mind public officials incurring long-term debt and liability in the taxpayers’ name were wringing their hands about that decision. How dare the Supreme Court come down on the side of citizens and deprive public officials of their elector-given right to suck more tax money out of those electors! There was even an Idaho Law Review article written on the topic by Danielle Quade of the Boise law firm Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley. It is very noteworthy that Quade is identified as the attorney that our own LCDC will use to ostensibly make sure the LCDC doesn’t violate Idaho’s open meeting laws. At least, that’s the BS story the LCDC wants us to buy into. It seems far more likely that our urban renewal agency will be using Quade’s legal talents to spearhead efforts locally in support of that proposed constitutional amendment as well as support for Idaho Urban Reinvestment Act, also known as Son of Urban Renewal Abuse.
The amendment process is described in Article XX of the Idaho Constitution. Both branches of the legislature must approve any proposed amendment by a 2/3 vote of all members. Once that has been done, the proposed amendment must be submitted to a vote of the people who must approve it by a simple majority of those voting. The best place to stop this amendment is in the legislature. Unfortunately, Idaho’s legislators are feeling a lot of pressure to “create” money, and the only place they can “create” money is to take it from taxpayers. Passage of this proposed amendment will make that process much easier for municipalities and hospital districts.
These two proposed legislative actions may be why our usually less-than-candid mayor seemed willing to sound as if the proposed sports complex will go to a vote of the people. If the proposed amendment passes and they then seek a petition for judicial confirmation to declare the expense “ordinary and necessary”, it will have a public hearing. That is not the same as a public vote, but it’s probably as close as we will ever come to one if the proposed constitutional amendment passes.
Comment by Bill — January 21, 2010 @ 7:02 am
If that amendment passes, there will be unbridled spending by local elected officials. They will use the money to buy influence and spread intimidation against anyone who questions them.
No. Wait. They do that now. So who needs the amendment?
Comment by Dan — January 21, 2010 @ 8:42 am
Bill, your information is SO IMPORTANT. We need a post just about it. This constitutional change would be devastating for the rights of taxpayers in Idaho!
You’re right, Dan, but with this amendment to the state constitution, we couldn’t even speak up; we taxpayers couldn’t even try to make government fiscally responsible.
Comment by mary — January 21, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
In regard to the County Comprehensive Plan, it effects all of the county including the cities. If we lose the rural beauty of the county we will be living in just another big midwest town. Tourists do not come here just to visit the city. It is the whole package.
Presently there are two scenic entrances to the city. One is from the east and the other from the south. The southern corridor through Mica Flats area is constantly under attack by developers wanting special use permits to turn it commercial.
We in the county pay attention to city issues as it effects our quality of life. I contend that those living in the city who turn a blind eye to the countyside may wake up one day an be shocked at what has happened.
The Comprehensive Plan process was intended to reflect the wishes and visions of the people living in the various and diversified communities. I hope they finish the project with this in mind.
At times I see our commissioners becoming removed from the very local communities they serve. Recent decisions have been much like Washington decision making. An elite attitude that they know better than the people. I believe all 3 commissioners are good honorable men. I want them to get back in touch with the people. I still feel they will do the right thing in finalizing the Comprehensive plan.
Comment by citizen — January 21, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
God bless Massachusettes!!!
Comment by rochereau — January 22, 2010 @ 9:08 am
Amen to that, Rochereau. Incredible what impact one elected seat can have, isn’t it?
Comment by mary — January 23, 2010 @ 8:04 am
Looks like Jai Nelson is throwing her hat in the ring and is running against Rick Curry for commissioner. She believes the rural community is under represented. All our commissioners live in urban settings. Does anyone have any opinions on the subject?
Comment by citizen — January 23, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
I went to Tubbs Hill the other day and noticed that the Rotary tennis courts have been taken out at McKuen Field. I wonder what the city is going to build in that spot? I know the mayor whats to put in an events center down at McKuen and didn’t Nipp, want to put in a parking garage just across the street from his properties? The mayor and city council’s vision for McKuen Field scares me. LCDC was supposed to contribute to the renovation of McKuen Field this year. I don’t think most locals want the city to
drastically, alter the Field in any way, beyond maintenance and upgrades.
Comment by kageman — January 27, 2010 @ 10:37 am
The Mayor told me that there are no plans for McEuen field. I reminded her that there is a big attitude of mistrust on the entire issue and that it would be best that the city be open and honest with the public when it comes to any decisions on McEuen.
Comment by Dan — January 27, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Of course there are plans for Mc Euen Field. Does the city plan to hold yet more meetings on the development plans now that a number of years have passed since the Walker Macy plan adoption by the city? Best the people keep an eye on the former decrepit tennis court area. I find it curious that the courts are suddenly demolished as they certainly have been sitting there unused for months and months and months. They certainly were not an example of the city’s attention to detail for citizens and visitors.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 27, 2010 @ 8:02 pm