I don’t think so. Susie has some serious questions about the City of CdA’s plans to build “workforce” housing. Keep in mind that workforce housing is not the same as “affordable” housing, which is for low-income folks. Workforce housing is for employed people like nurses, teachers and fire fighters. Is the City really trying to convince us there are not enough rentals or houses available in the moderate price range? Have they noticed the real estate drop of the last two years?
Here’s what Susie Snedaker said: “I read that the city will be purchasing a property from the school district for an amount determined by a 2009 appraisal. It appears the city is unaware that property values have tanked this past year… It seems that “decent rents” are difficult to find. ”
What do you think? (Link to the CdA Press article here)
Does anybody believe anything the council or Tony Berns says? Why the 2009 appraisal? Just another wink wink nod nod sub rosa deal going on between the council, LCDC and greedy contractor. A better question is, what else is new?
Comment by rochereau — June 10, 2010 @ 8:16 am
I am uncertain that the article said that the appraisal was done in 2009. It refers to a most recent appraisal and says the property ‘went out to bid’ in 2009. $75K per acre doesn’t seem too out of place. But, once again, any gov’t purchase should be managed the same as a private transaction with at least 2 new appraisals from separate independent appraisers. Anyone aware of land in this immediate area selling or listed for under $75K per acre?
Comment by Wallypog — June 10, 2010 @ 8:30 am
Where is the money coming from? Think about that when you watch Mayor Bloem and the head-nodders dip into foregone taxes later this year.
Comment by Dan — June 10, 2010 @ 11:27 am
It is ridiculous to think that firefighter, teachers and nurses can’t afford “decent” housing in our community! There are tons of houses on the market right now and the prices have been slashed.
Dan’s right…follow the money. NIC just took the maximum tax increase they are allowed by law, and just wait for the City of CdA to do the same. They City will be crying about how they don’t have enough money, and they might even have to take Foregone taxes (like NIC did last year to buy the mill site for twice as much as it was worth).
Then remember what they’re doing now, using big money to build subsidized housing for people who don’t need it. Our tax dollars at work!
Comment by mary — June 10, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
There are 715 houses currently for sale, listed for $180,000 or less, in CdA, Hayden, PF and Rathdrum. (This does not include mobile home parks)
Why do we need our city government and LCDC to subsidize more?
Comment by mary — June 10, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
Dean Haagenson and Contractors Northwest, Inc., need the money.
Comment by Bill — June 10, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Didn’t they write some of the incumbents some big checks last election cycle?
Comment by Dan — June 10, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Wallypog, Thank you for the comment. I stand corrected as the appraisal was recent. Why is the city preparing the property for development? What does that include and at what cost
The poorly located low income senior housing on Seltice will receive CDBG funding for $200,000 for land acquisition and another grant will fund $40,000 for architecture and engineering. Please note that this property is located 2.7 miles from the nearest grocery store and pharmacy. The nearest sidewalk on the north side seems to be located in front of the Honda dealership. What thought was given to the location of this project? Far better to build this housing in Midtown where facilities are available and the residents will be able to participate in community activities.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 10, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
I don’t know, but, it seems like we have complained for some time that this over funded entity was too focused on higher income property projects. Now they are bringing some middle and lower end projects to fruition and still some dissect out the problems. Not that the concerns are invalid but maybe need clarification.
I think that Seltice corridor needs an overhaul anyway and sidewalks would be in order. Maybe this is part of the overall plan? There are a lot of older homes in this accessible price range but they come with their own set of problems which can be very costly. And any person new to their career and not in the housing market will require some help getting started in home ownership.
No doubt we would all be a lot happier with the character of these decisions if the decision makers were more transparent with their activities. Clearly many of their actions target projects from which they collaterally will benefit. But, it at least appears as if they are trying to deliver on some of their promises and some of our requests. For all I know (which isn’t much) it could be a ruse and I still retain a skeptical and critical mind. Yet persistent critiques in light of some headway can seem petty and blush of ‘doth complaining too much’. These projects will certainly have their problems but for these people they represent a fundamental course change and that is significant, at least to some degree.
Comment by Wallypog — June 11, 2010 @ 4:17 am
Part of the problem is the nature of the decisions. It’s obvious (transparent, actually) that decisions made by elected officials at City Hall, NIC, and SD271 are made in secret, behind the scenes. A public meeting is merely an annoying statutory requirement, a pesky formality. So when we hear these announcements, we accept them as done-deals, which they are 99 percent of the time. Therein lies the rub.
Whether the City does high-end condos or so-called “workforce” housing or whatever, the problem is in a process that is secretive and obviously benefits well-connected insiders and cronies. It’s corruption and it’s rampant here. So until they change, or we change them, there is always concern now matter where their efforts are directed.
Comment by Dan — June 11, 2010 @ 7:11 am
Very well said, Dan.
Comment by mary — June 11, 2010 @ 7:21 am
A prime example of done deals is the city/school district agreement regarding Person Field. Council minutes reflect a vote taken without any discussion. An agreement to ultimately convey public land without any discussion? Mayor Bloem, Dixie Reid, etc., never did explain their actions.
Regarding the low income senior housing, my objection is to the location. This might be a good project, but the location is inconvenient for necessities. I think it far better to put this housing in other areas in the LCDC district – Midtown or Riverstone.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 11, 2010 @ 7:42 am
And your concerns about location would have been noted, valued, and appreciated in any other city by its government, Susie. But not here.
Comment by Dan — June 11, 2010 @ 7:46 am
I think that Wally makes an excellent point. As I see the problem, and I go back to my original comment, there have been so many underhanded, opaque dealings that, any thinking persons immediate thought is, here we go again. When any group behaves as the council and LCDC behave on such a continuing basis, they lose credibility for anything they may do.
Comment by rochereau — June 11, 2010 @ 8:15 am
You’re absolutely right, Rochereau, Wallpog brought up some strong points. But my Dad used to have a favorite saying that seems to apply to the general attitude of CdA residents (certainly me) toward their city government in light of all their past antics: “Once bit, twice shy”.
Comment by mary — June 11, 2010 @ 10:05 am
Absolutely Mary. I might add that the citizenry have been bitten so many times by the council and LCDC that we resemble a sieve….which is exactly what they intended. We’re so full of holes that we leak money. 🙂
Comment by rochereau — June 11, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
Very funny, but oh so true!
Comment by mary — June 11, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
“There are a lot of older homes in this accessible price range but they come with their own set of problems which can be very costly. And any person new to their career and not in the housing market will require some help getting started in home ownership.”
Comment by Wallypog — June 11, 2010 @ 4:17 am
Wallypog, We all have had to start somwhere. My first car was a rusted out 1954 Buick Special that I bought for $35 dollars. I am no machanic, but I DID manage to keep it running to get me to work til I could afford a better car.
My first home was a 1948 900 sq ft fixer upper. It taught me pride in ownership and I “worked my way up” from there.
I am sure you all have your stories also.
The key word is WORK. All of these people knew what their job paid before entering it and must live within their means. It is an individual responsibility but, not for this government I guess. SAD !
Comment by concerned citizen — June 12, 2010 @ 7:05 am