Sue Thilo, our only North Idaho representative, was the lone “yes” vote on the 99 year lease for the Harbor Center by the University of Idaho. Sue was quoted in this morning’s Press as saying, “There were other documents other board members were not familiar with. Those we didn’t have access to until 10 minutes before the meeting started and rightfully so, some board members thought they needed more time to review the remaining documents,” Thilo said.”
So, did Sue know more than the others on the board? If so, why didn’t they get the same info? If Sue didn’t know more, why would she vote for this measure without enough investigation?
Here’s an interesting comment posted on a different site:
” Here is the LCDC connection for all you common folks.
Charlie Nipp, Steve Meyer and Tom Thilo are all board members of Mountain West Bank. Sue is married to Tom Thilo. This is definitely an interesting gaggle of players. Oh, yea let us not forget that Mike Patano is also a board member of Mountain West Bank. “
Comment by mary — June 25, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
For people outside Coeur d’Alene, here’s some amplification on the interpersonal connections.
Charlie Nipp is also the chairman of Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal agency, the Lake City Development Corporation (LCDC). Steve Meyer is Nipp’s business partner (they’re developers). Steve Meyer is also on the Hayden urban renewal agency board. Steve Meyer’s wife, Judy, is on the North Idaho College (NIC) board of trustees. Coeur d’Alene city councilman Mike Kennedy’s employer is Steve Meyer.
Comment by Bill — June 25, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Just to clarify a bit, Mike Patano is the architect the school district paid $818,000 to design the plans for the new Lakes Middle School, before the levy was approved. Mike is also one of the developers of the Sherman Lofts condo building downtown…the one with the fake brick siding and no side windows that LCDC urban renewal gave over $400,000 to subsidize.
Comment by mary — June 25, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Does it make for ‘GOOD GOV’T’when everybody in Gov’t and indirectly involved with our local governmental
entities,are mostly connected with each other?
My guess is:While it might make for a more efficient Gov’t,it makes you think about conflict of interest and peoples influence being pandered to.
Somehow,I don’t think mayor Bloem could give a hoot.(the only thing that matters to her is the bottom line.)
Is our local gov’t the model for bad GOV’T?
Comment by kageman — June 25, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
I also wondered if Sue was given information ahead of time. By the way, Mike Patano is a friend of Sandi Bloem.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 25, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
did lcdc give 400,000 dollars to that building? In cash?
Comment by reagan — June 25, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Reagan,
According to the LCDC, it gave $405,000 in partnership funding.
Comment by Bill — June 26, 2008 @ 6:46 am
Clarification: Mr. Patano has an OPA with the LCDC on his downtown lofts project. No money has been given to him. Yet. The money that comes from the LCDC is in the form of tax increment financing. Presently, the building is unoccupied and, therefore, no property taxes are being collected on the building. When they are, then the amount collected will be used to pay for the $400,000 (or whatever value) improvements to the property Mr. Patano and the LCDC agreed to. But until then, no money has been given to Mr. Patano.orrections
Tony Berns likes to refer to an OPA as “reverse loan.” In a way, it is, and Mr. Berns is correct when he says that the taxpayers are not on the hook. If a project fails, then no money will exchange hands.
The issue for me is that the “public value” of the building is in those phony bricks on the sides. That was the reasoning LCDC commissioners like Dixie Reid and Deanna Goodlander gave for offering public money to the project. So, folks, enjoy that siding!
Comment by Dan — June 26, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Yes, an OPA (owner participation agreement) is not cash up front, but it is still money to the developer. The developer essentially gets to use their own property taxes to pay themselves back for the items approved by the urban renewal agency (ours is LCDC). So, Patano, when and if he does sell his condos, will be able to keep $400,000 of his own property taxes over the next 13 years.
I’d like to do that. We paid $5000. for our new roof last year. It looks a lot better than Patano’s fake bricks. I’d like to take our property taxes and repay ourselves for the roof. Oh, and we built a new deck too, and that’s definitely a “public amenity” because we like to have company over to sit out on the deck…I think tax dollars should go for that too!
Just remember, for all the money the developers are NOT paying into the system, the rest of us pay more to cover the services from the city and county. Everytime a cop has to go downtown, the rest of us pay for it, not the building owners down there, because their property tax increment goes to LCDC.
Comment by mary — June 26, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Dan,
Here’s the wording from the LCDC website:
Though we both know it was an OPA, that is not clear from reading the LCDC’s content. And when it comes to facades, everyone knows there’s no one better at facading that the LCDC. “Facade” is its middle name and mission.
Comment by Bill — June 26, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Facades and opaqueness are bad words when applied to any government, especially so to one that spends large amounts of taxpayer money.
Comment by Pariah — June 26, 2008 @ 6:43 pm