The LCDC had a meeting last night about making themselves more open and accessible to the public. The meeting was held in the Old City Council Chambers and was not televised.
The article in today’s CDA Press isn’t on-line. It’s an important issue, however, so I decided to do my own write up, starting with this exemplary quote:
“Some of what we do is so technical, it’s hard for normal people to understand,” board member [and CdA City Councilman] Deanna Goodlander said.
Normal people? You mean taxpayers? Citizens? Obviously Lady Goodlander doesn’t appreciate the little people who pay the bills. Perhaps her stakeholder friends understand Tax Increment Financing (TIF) so well that they share ribald jokes about the process over pizza at Capones. Arrogance aside, why is the government involved in something that cannot be simply explained to the people who pay for it?
There is a saying that you don’t understand something until you have the ability to explain it to others. I wonder if Deanna herself can explain TIF? But don’t let me get sidetracked.
The LCDC’s priority now is to . . . update its web page! Woot, woot! They’re looking for proposals — obviously a bold step toward transparency there. Better web pages mean better government. I believe James Madison first said that.
According to the article, the LCDC’s efforts at public relations seem to concentrate on making TIF, DDE, OPA, and all their acronyms understandable to people. Mind you, they don’t want to change what they do, but merely the explanation of it to the public. They paid $29,000 for that advice. Here’s my advice: The LCDC is a diaper. Change it.
Citizen, and non-stakeholder, Lynn Schwindel is quoted in the article as asking why the board doesn’t explore term limits, rotating members, scaling back the to one city councilman on the LCDC board. (I wish I was there for that one, watching Deanna and Al Hassell exchange a fearful glance at the prospect.) I applaud Mr. Schwindel for having the guts to make such overt and obvious suggestions that would immediately move the LCDC out of the shadows. Don’t hold your breath, Lynn.
Mr. Schwindel is a good example of a concerned citizen, not afraid or intimidated. (Though who knows what’s was said about him later over pizza at Capones.) Still it’s easy to see why more people don’t show up, especially given the attacks laid against myself, Mary Souza and others for participating and asking questions. That brings up this jewel from the article:
Only a handful of people showed up to offer the board input. “To have so few people show up is a disappointment,” [LCDC Vice-Chairman Jim] Elder said.
Duh. People see the City Council meetings on TV. They see how brusquely and disrespectfully citizens are treated. The discourteous behavior of our Mayor and City Council toward citizens is so-well known that I’m surprised Mayor Bloem hasn’t implemented an official policy on being rude to the public.
We can’t all afford to buy matching t-shirts and take time out of our day to demand standard city services and insist that promises be kept. Rather than posture, Elder should have said that the LCDC is going to do more to encourage citizen input. I would suggest as a start that the LCDC write fewer angry and inaccurate letters to the CDA Press.
Two big things came out of the meeting. First, the LCDC is looking forward to planning on discussing the possibility of looking into creating a citizen committee to offer them opinions.
Hey! Wait a second! Isn’t the LCDC itself supposed to be a citizen committee? Why the overlap? Obviously, a citizen committee would be a waste of time. A better suggestion, as Mr. Schwindel implied, is to replace the board. That makes sense, and is more in the spirit of the law. So by having a “citizen committee,” isn’t the LCDC just reinforcing the fact that they are arrogant overlords and not mere citizens themselves?
Why not create a Stakeholder Committee while they’re at it? An “upper house,” so to speak?
Another priority on the arduous up-hill climb toward transparency is for the LCDC to meet with those pesky legislators, the elected officials who actually represent the taxpayers. The suzerains at the LCDC will try to convince our state representatives not to do any more urban renewal changes. But wait a second! Isn’t that why the LCDC has been paying a lobbyist in Boise for the past two years? Maybe the LCDC should first look into firing the lobbyist (paid for by our tax dollars) before they rethink their legislative influence. No, by meeting with legislators direct, the LCDC exposes another of their weaknesses: swagger.
The legislators the LCDC are talking about are brave and independent. I’m not referring to George Sayler, who does as he’s told, or John Goedde, who’s soon to be replaced by Ken Howard. The rest of the legislators are not fooled by the LCDC’s smarmy tactics. They’re definitely not stakeholders or City insiders who benefit from the LCDC’s largess, nor are they controlled by the LCDC’s allegiance money. It should be an interesting meeting as the LCDC will be on equal footing. Don’t expect any ring kissing, Chairman Nipp.
I hope that the LCDC holds their legislative tête-à-tête in public so that we can see the legislators hammer them. But, doubtless, the LCDC will hold that meeting in the Old City Council Chambers.
You’ve got to change your evil ways, baby. Before I stop loving you . . .
I was unable to attend the meetting. Originally, I planned on going. But at about 5:00, my son called and needed to be picked up from school. I made him dinner and helped with his homework. Family is a priority for me.
Comment by Dan — September 16, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Dan, great job. Except that song quote at the end, I’d change it to “you’ve got to change you evil ways, baby, before I start loving you”!
Comment by mary — September 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Those lyrics would make more sense, but Santana wrote “stop loving you” so I went with the original lyrics. I suppose I must confess that I have not loved the LCDC, not as much as those who want something from it.
Comment by Dan — September 16, 2008 @ 11:38 am
The OPAs (owner participation agreements) that LCDC uses are not that complicated. “Normal” people can understand them. The developer pays for the items up front, like the fake brick on the Sherman Lofts condo building or the fancy iron fence around the Ice Plant townhouses, then the LCDC uses the increased taxes to pay the developer back with interest (about 10%). It’s like a reverse loan with public money going to pay back the principle with interest. Nice money if you can get it!
Comment by mary — September 16, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Dan, Dan, Dan….you nailed it, However, there are two ways to look at this thing. We all need a bit of laughter in our lives and today Deanna, aka Alberta Einstein, gave me mine. At the risk of indulging in the arrogance I accuse Deanna of, my dear, I’ll match my intellect and comprehension abilities against yours any day of the week. And no charge for that information Deanna.
CDA council, LCDC and now the Hayden council (although they may just be stupid) equates to pure arrogance and hubris. Still, thanks for the guffaw Deanna!
Comment by Diogenes — September 16, 2008 @ 11:51 am
You’re wrong Dan. The LCDC is not a “diaper” in need of changing. They are a fouled diaper in desperate need of changing! Sheeesh!
Comment by Wallypog — September 16, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Here’s an email I just received from a citizen:
“I’m sure you have read the article in today’s Press, section A, page 2, entitled LCDC finalizes its to-do list. Here is an agency that is trying desperately to improve it’s public imagine when, according to staff writer Tom Hasslinger, board member Deanna Goodlander comes up with this brilliant statement “some of what we do is so technical, it’s hard for normal people to understand”. What a self serving statement of utter bull**** (excuse my language). She apparently then added that the information and meeting should come as a simple narrative, which everyone could follow. What is this woman thinking??? Is this the language to use when promoting an image?? I find her comments extremely degrading and further supports the fact that LCDC just doesn’t get it. And to think they are spending taxpayer dollars while publically criticizing our wisdom.
When does the nonsense stop?”
Comment by mary — September 16, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
For the Record: I understand the technical side of TIF and OPA’s. Therefore my thanks to Deanna for the reaffirmation of my perceived superiority. I always thought I was kind of normal, but informed. Also, for the record, I understand the language of statutes, especially the Open Meeting Law. As far as helping LCDC improve their image, I made two separate appearances at their board meetings, suggesting they try to do less of their deliberations on real estate acquisitions in closed session. Funny, that the image spinner didn’t recommend the same.
Comment by Gary Ingram — September 16, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Right Gary. And most of us (less enlightened and less intelligent folks) understand conflict of interest issues. The CDA Press is to be commended for letting Mary expose the tip of the iceberg. So much more to say, so much more to see. Stay tuned “normal people” and watch the shoes keep dropping!
Comment by Pariah — September 16, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Let me see, Deanna who cannot remember motions she made and has to be reminded of them by staff prior to voting, is talking about what she perceives as issues too technical for normal people?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — September 18, 2008 @ 7:25 am
Susie, well said for a normal person that you are.
Did you see in the paper that LCDC turned down financing a traffic light for the Kroc Center? I guess that there is no favorite contractor that can make money on this one.
Comment by Mama Bear — September 18, 2008 @ 8:49 am
I was watching the LCDC meeting yesterday. It was a comic riot.
First, the commissioners all apologized that the Kroc Center itself was not the direct cause for the need of a traffic signal. No, the need was there already. Then City Engineer Dobler took the stage and admitted that, yes, if it wasn’t for the Kroc Center there wouldn’t need to be a light there. Duh.
Second, Patzer mentions (I’m guessing much to the wincing of Mayor Bloem) that the Kroc has been a known entity for the past 2 years. Why didn’t the City see the need for a traffic signal before now? Hassell and Goodlander, who’ve been on the City Council for the past zillion years, said nothing. NOTHING. So much for responsible representation, not to mention how they continually crow about their “vision.”
Finally, the Kroc Center was able to muster only $75 in one donation for the traffic signal, plus a pledge for $5,000. That’s it. And that’s sad. Now they’re going to burden the neighbors with paying for the thing. That’s good community PR for Kroc.
Again, what’s happened here is that Mayor Bloem, in her zeal to get this thing, wrecked it. Where she had an opportunity to rally the community around something wonderful, she sullied it by shoveling over $4.5 million of public money without public comment or approval. Now no one is willing to privately support the thing. A terrible situation.
Comment by Dan — September 18, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Just remember the Kroc Center is private. Lovely but private. Not one bit of it will be owned by the public, no matter how much of our city’s money was given without our knowledge or approval. If any other private company came in with that big of an impact and needed a signal light, they would pay for it themselves.
Comment by mary — September 18, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
I wonder if Charlie Nipp stepping down as Chairman of LCDC,had anything to do with trying to avoid any potential’conflicts of interests’
that may crop up in the future;as the Education Corridor and other developments go forward?
Comment by kageman — September 18, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
The Chairman of an urban renewal agency should run the meetings and ensure that the policies and plans of the organization are moving forward at an acceptable pace. They should be a leader, and willing to listen. The position should be open to any qualified citizen, preferably a taxpayer in the municipality. They need to be familiar with the agency and have the time and dedication required to be successful. Ideally, the person should have no financial or personal interests in the urban renewal project(s), and no conflicts of interest. Any remote sign of a conflict must be reported immediately and publicly, and that person should recuse himself from voting on such issues. If there are too many conflicts of interest, then it is the duty of the Mayor on behalf of the citizens to ask that individual to step down and be replaced.
Comment by Dan — September 18, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Regarding the Kroc light…my guess is that JUB will design the intersection and ACI will install it.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — September 18, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
At 5:10 or so, it takes about 15 minutes to get from 95 up to Ramsey on Northwest Blvd. You have to stop at Lakewood. You stop three times at Seltice. You stop three times on the bridge. Soon you’ll stop again at the Kroc intersection. And Riverstone is not yet built out PLUS there will be the impact of the Education Corridor. Is this poor planning or has Mayor Bloem waived the rules one too many times for her friends?
Comment by Dan — September 18, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
I notice in the friday paper Nipp steps down and the article gave accolades for his wonderful contributions to the community one of which was the community center, does anyone know the whereabouts of said [community center]?
Comment by casper — September 19, 2008 @ 5:47 am
What are the chances of Mr. Elder and the board formally banishing the word stakeholder and the attitudes that accompany the word? I am not holding my breath…
Comment by Susie Snedaker — September 19, 2008 @ 7:47 am