[
If you want to more clearly understand just how easily Idaho’s poorly written urban renewal laws are being exploited for private gain by public officials, read this letter from Idaho Deputy Attorney General Stephen Bywater to Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney Bryan Taylor. Bywater works for Attorney General Lawrence Wasden (shown right).[
[
[
Bywater’s letter makes three points:
First, the urban renewal laws make it legal for urban renewal agencies to pay grossly inflated prices for land.
Second, public money (that’s urban renewal tax increment money) can be spent by the urban renewal agencies to prop up private businesses.
Third, it’s just fine for public officials to use public money for personal gain as long as you can concoct some implausible excuse for doing it.
It appears from his letter to Taylor that Bywater/Wasden are very eager to not rock the urban renewal plunder boat in Idaho. Bywater says that while using public money to buy YMCA membership for several officials was illegal, they might argue in court if prosecuted that they needed those costly memberships to inspect the YMCA facilities. So he suggests prosecution would not be appropriate. Bywater’s rationalization is characterized by the photo shown left, above.
If the public officials in Canyon County needed to inspect a private project they had heavily funded with taxpayer money, they could easily have written in a right of inspection condition in the funding documents. Instead, they chose to use public money for personal gain.
But Bywater is right on in his last paragraph: Drastic and dramatic reform to Idaho’s urban renewal laws is needed to close the vulnerabilities to abuse by dishonest public officials who sit on urban renewal agencies and use public money for their own private gain.
(Thanks to Paul Alldredge of the Caldwell Guardian for uncovering the DAGs letter and publishing it on his own website.)
Ancient, URA statutes will never be repealed. That much is certain. We can expect, however, substantive changes to the law that will clearly define the role of URAs state wide. It’s my objective to protect the interests of my clients, all of which are small city URAs for whom urban renewal is the only tool they have to solve their massive infrastructure issues.
In closing, I’ll ask only this of you: while you take the LCDCs and CCDCs to task, please also pay a visit to the cities of Spirit Lake, Oldtown and Dover. You will get a different read as to the importance URAs have for small cities in Idaho.
Comment by JohnA — November 7, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
“It’s my objective to protect the interest’s of my clients”……….JohnA—– John, that statement makes believe you support UR only because it’s how you make your living. Before UR munincipalities that couldn’t survive on their became ghost towns. There is nothing wrong with that. To artificially sustain anything only prolongs it imminent demise. Look no further than the what the Federal Reserve has done to this nations money supply. The almighty USD is living on borrowed time, just like any little town in North Idaho that has been artificially propped up by UR.
Comment by Steve Adams — November 7, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
JohnA…….. Reread what you have written. Essentially your position is that a URD is a necessary business development partner of private enterprise. Since when is it the gov’t role to become any business partner for any business? That does not even address the conflict of interest issues when those running the gov’t bankrolling URD are also in the same line of business it ingratiates. The URD laws are sloppy and the LCDC, et al, are clearly abusing them to their own personal gain.
Riverstone Park as a ‘public amenity’ is a joke. It is the marketing center piece for Riverstone Inc. How will 4 picnic tables serve our entire community? Why place a 6 acre fake lake next to CdA lake? Dangle your toes in that fake lake and you are breaking the law.
It is curious that Hagadone can see loads of business opportunities here locally and makes them work w/o gov’t assistance. If others cannot, too bad.
Comment by Wallypog — November 8, 2010 @ 4:33 am
JohnA I also appreciate the time you take to join the discourse on LCDC. And yes, I do denigrate LCDC here and for good reason. Ironically, you hit the nail squarely with your comment, “issues that can easily be debated and, in turn, overcome”. And therein lies the basis for objecting to just how LCDC operates. The citizenry who fund LCDC cannot overcome the failings. We certainly can and obviously do debate the issues. However we have no way to overcome said issues. LCDC, driven by the annointed, skip along their merry way. The tax payer here is like a credit card with no limits. They spend, we pay…and pay…and pay!
Ancientempler, shame on you. You use that coarse “Californication” to blame all that is wrong here on Californians. Utterly absurd. Californians came her to escape what you blame them for. They certainly didn’t cause it here. Californians invested highly in the local economy and continue to do so. They pay taxes and support all levels of the local infrastructure (including the odious LCDC). Isn’t it time to cease the childish name calling and totally incorrect blame game.
Comment by rochereau — November 8, 2010 @ 9:20 am
Steve, URAs contribute less than 10% of my client income so that is not the driver here. I support urban renewal because it works, especially for small cities. Case in point: Harrison is faced with millions to upgrade its wastewater plant because its treated discharge is into a Superfund tributary. How do you propose for 287 residents to come up with millions of dollars of federally-mandated upgrades? The fact is, you cannot. So, with their URD, a developer will construct the wastewater facility, at no cost to city residents, and use the treated effluent to irrigate his land. Perfect solution in an imperfect world.
Now, you can argue that public safety issues like wastewater and water are more important than lakes and fountains, but the issue remains the same. Quality of life should be measured not just by public safety issues but also by parks and lakes and public transit systems. That’s why I have supported urban renewal, not just in the eight cities with which I’ve had to fortune to work but in all cities and counties with funding needs.
Comment by JohnA — November 8, 2010 @ 9:48 am
Interesting tidbit that John offers regarding the developer using treated effluent to irrigate his land. This is the same developer who approached the city regarding trading water rights – ostensibly to use lake water to irrigate his land. How much irrigation water will this development require? Best we keep our eyes on this critical issue.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 8, 2010 @ 10:29 am
Susie, as you may know from newspaper reports, the development involves up to three golf courses, so a large amount of water will be an important element. The important aspect is that treated effluent currently going into the Anderson Slough will instead be diverted to land application, which is a very good thing, not only for Harrison but for all of us who utilize Lake Coeur d’Alene.
Comment by JohnA — November 8, 2010 @ 10:43 am
Lamentably, Harrison needs to disincorporate and devolve into the ghost town that Steve mentioned in #52. That’s also a solution.
The Powderhorn development will kill Harrison. The developer will end up leaving town, and Harrison will accelerate what would have been a slow death. Thanks to the front-loaded URD, they won’t have any money available to plow the streets or even change the lightbulbs in city hall.
Comment by Dan — November 8, 2010 @ 11:18 am
One of the things the legislature could easily do to remove the financial incentive for the urban renewal predators would be to except urban renewal commissioners from the exemption in Idaho Code 18-1359(7). They won’t, of course, because that same exemption protects our “citizen legislators.”
Comment by Bill — November 8, 2010 @ 11:55 am
No single development should EVER increase the population of ANY city more than 10%. The people of Harrison that love their quaint little town will be out numbered and soon have no say as to the direction it is going. Again like Blackrock, the rise in taxes increase the surrounding properties to the point that the locals had no choice BUT to sell. I had friends that sold to Chesrown. They said his thugs would come out, get in their faces and tell them that they WILL eventually sell to Blackrock. Blackrock people KNEW they could not afford the rise in taxes and — they sold.
We need a prop 13 retroactive back to 2000 freezing taxes. Anythingthat sold since gets taxed from that year.
Ancientemplar, one cannot buy what is not for sale. Im not saying that all locals are greedy but you have to blame the ones that are.
Comment by concerned citizen — November 8, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Rochereau, I don’t use the phrase to denigrated Californians but rather the debacle they have place upon the landscape of that once beautiful landscape and we ARE doing it to Cd’A.
Comment by Ancientemplar — November 8, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Please don’t censor this – it appears that I being censored on other blogs for reasons unknown for perfectly acceptable commnets other than I hit some nerves.
Acienctemplar points out the old phrase called NIMYBY – NOT IN MY BACK YARD. In other words you have more to look at besides logs. Love it.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 8, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
Dan, the development agreement with the developer that the Council approved last month guarantees $50,000 per year to the city (note: not the URA) for consideration for the annexated property. That is a huge boost to the city’s budget. And, since very little of those funds will be needed at Powderhorn because there is no demand for service there at this time, those funds can go to ‘plow streets and for lightbulbs’ in old Harrison.
Meanwhile, the city can present a plan to DEQ for the upgrade of its wastewater facility. This will allow the city to renew its permit for the old plant, pending its future upgrade. So, the city gains on two very important fronts: a renewed permit for temporary sewer operations and $50K for city services. Then, if and when Powderhorn develops, millions of new dollars will flow to the city to upgrade its streets, sidewalks and recreational facilities. The new dollars won’t go to the Powderhorn development since it is planned as a private community.
The alternative was for the development to happen in the county, without any funds flowing to Harrison. It would have had the impact of the new residents without a way to pay for that impact. And, they’d have faced the prospect of a multi-million dollar sewer upgrade all by themselves. That’s why I’ve worked the last four years with the city to ensure they’ll have a viable partner in Powderhorn. It was their only option for survival.
Comment by JohnA — November 9, 2010 @ 6:44 am
I’ve got a novel idea, Have Powderhorn development fund the entire waste treatment plant themselves and no URD money. Let’s let them “give something back” to the community. This isn’t unheard of as it has been done in other parts of the country that the EPA has come down on. Three golf courses, Yea we need many more of them!?!
Comment by Ancientemplar — November 9, 2010 @ 7:52 am
Three golf courses are a necessity? We all know the importance of water. Permitting any entity to remove one million gallons per day to make something look pretty is, in my opinion, irresponsible and shortsighted. All developments should be required to fund waste treatment plants to serve their development. It is time to cease permitting settling ponds.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 9, 2010 @ 8:14 am
Ancientemplar…of course you denigrate Californians. We are not responsible for anything except improving the local economy. How is that a “debacle”. In reading your words, I am reminded of the saying, “you can lead one to knowledge, you cannot make them think”.
JohnA, just how can the citizens change that which is wrong wth the working of LCDC? You state that it can be done, but you don’t tell us just how. I ask this question most respectfully.
Comment by rochereau — November 9, 2010 @ 8:32 am
Rochereau, the 2011 legislative session promises to be an important one for changes to current urban renewal law. After several sessions of promising to make those changes, this time it appears something meaningful will come of it.
Indeed, the Association of Idaho Cities has formed an Urban Renewal Task Force with the specific purpose of crafting language that will make their URAs more accountable, while also defining their mission. In other words, they want to define clearly what public projects urban renewal dollars should be used for and how the makeup of URA Boards can lead to better accountability.
So, in answer to your question, although it was specific to LCDC, contact your local, recently-elected legislators and be a part of the discussion on how urban renewal law can be amended to meet your wishes.
This time, it should actually be time well spent.
Comment by JohnA — November 9, 2010 @ 8:59 am
Thank you John, your time and insight are much appreciated.
Comment by rochereau — November 9, 2010 @ 9:06 am
Ancient, no matter your opinion of golf courses, the real issue is the land application of treated wastewater. That’s a much smarter disposal of effluent than dumping it into the Coeur d’Alene River system, in my view.
And, to expect one developer to replace a city’s sewer plant is not reasonable. That would be the same as asking one developer to replace CDA’s $100 million plant. What actually happens here is that developers pay impact fees (called capitalization fees) for the impact their development has on the total operation.
It’s no different in Harrison, where the developer’s cost to replace the plant is reimbursed from taxes he must pay (via the URA), and then the developer turns around and pays an impact fee on each home that comes on, for future improvements to the new plant. It’s not reasonable to ask the developer to pay twice: once to build the plant and then an impact fee for future improvements to the new one.
In the end, the way it is set up is a good arrangement for the city, and one that will work for all parties.
Comment by JohnA — November 9, 2010 @ 9:10 am
John A. impact fees? maybe I’m beyond comprehension but I really haven’t seen any.
Investigate Sutter Creek, California for the plan to build a waste treatment plant in exchange for ONE and only ONE golf course and homes. Please don’t spew trivial words at an experienced developer. I can see through your smoke. I’ve been on both sides, that’s why I moved here.
My comment about 3 golf courses was in jest. If we build enough of them them the rounds will be so few that the divots will heal themselves before the next foursome plays thru. Right golfers?
Rochereau… have you seen the intersections in the Boise area. Everyone has a Community center or a strip mall on ALL four corners. That’s Californication.
Comment by Ancientemplar — November 9, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
I have no intention of further engaging with your vitriol Ancient. We don’t live in Boise and Californians came her to get away from strip malls, never ending traffic, too many people and crime, among other things. So why would they engender same? Absurd!
Comment by rochereau — November 10, 2010 @ 9:21 am
Ancient, impact fees are a way of life in every city I know of in north Idaho. They’re called capitalization fees for enterprise funds like water and sewer and they’re a vital resource for cities. It’s the way growth pays for growth.
I can’t imagine what CDA’s wastewater fees would be if the city hadn’t been charging these fees for the last 30 years, but I’m guessing they would easily be double what they are considering the huge capital costs the city is facing to comply with the TML regs.
Comment by JohnA — November 10, 2010 @ 11:11 am
I understand, thank you John.
Comment by Ancientemplar — November 10, 2010 @ 11:49 am
Why have Ancient and Rochereau drawn their weapons? I don’t read anything in their back and forth that amounts to much. Really.
Comment by Gary Ingram — November 10, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
Gary, The disagreement is just a visual interpretation of what the development community is doing to Kootenai County. I think it reeks of what has happened to California over the past 35 years. Nothing more than that.
Comment by Ancientemplar — November 10, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
I can speak for myself and it has nothing to do with visuals and everything to do with crass ignorant derogatory insults to an entire group of the population. A group, I might add, who have done nothing more than contribute to the Idaho eonomy and lift this area from the morass of a dying economy.
Comment by rochereau — November 11, 2010 @ 9:27 am