Here’s a replay of a great Jimmy Barona cartoon from ’08. Sandi Bloem said NO VOTE on the Ed Corridor, and now, in 2011, she’s saying NO VOTE on the renovations to McEuen Field and Tubb’s Hill.
Our Mayor is trying to take away our RIGHT to a vote on major spending projects whose cost is beyond the yearly budget of the City. State law REQUIRES the City to get a vote of the people for any indebtedness beyond the yearly budget unless a judge rules the expenditure “ordinary and necessary”.
So, how can they get away with this? By using LCDC’s taxpayer money to bypass the voters. And LCDC can take out a bond without a public vote—the city cannot.
“NO VOTE FOR YOU! PAY UP, even though we don’t know how much it will cost. Dream Big!”
“This plan has been in place for a long, long time”. Comment by mary,from another thread.
It has come to light recently,that one of the main reasons for LCDC’s existence is: to help renovate McEuen Field and turn it into a destination park. The city, with the parks dept’s help has already begun changing the face of McEuen by:(1) removing the slide and merry-go-round,near the base of Tubbs Hill on the South side.(2)removing trees that stood on the east side of McEuen, near city hall.(3)removing the tennis courts on McEuen. The city has surreptiously,already begun the McEuen Field renovations several years ago imo.
Councilwoman,Goodlander has stated that one of the reasons for building the proposed McEuen Park is to help reduce the foot traffic at City Park(Independence Point),because the high volume of foot traffic at City Park are impacting the trees there etc.
Comment by kageman — January 15, 2011 @ 12:33 pm
Goodlander, has also, stated on the other blogsite that it wouldn’t be fair to just have the local residents vote on any proposed changes to McEuen Field and to not give a voice to out-of-towners, because the out of area crowd makes up more of the foot traffic at city parks, than do local residents. That’s one reason why local residents don’t get to vote on the McEuen Park proposal.
My question to Goodlander would be:”Just who do you think is going to have to pay for the renovations at McEuen Field”? Eventually, all the taxpayers of the county are going to have to pay for this massive project.Out-of-towners don’t pay property taxes here. The ones who are going to have to help pay for McEuen Park, are the ones who should have a say in the outcome of the park imo.
Comment by kageman — January 15, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
kageman,
Goodlander is being consistent. After all, she supported giving residents of Canada the right to vote in Coeur d’Alene city elections.
Comment by Bill — January 15, 2011 @ 1:36 pm
Goodlander is once again demonstrating that she has no concept of representing the taxpayers who are footing the bills for Mayor Bloem’s dreams.
Comment by Dan — January 15, 2011 @ 2:37 pm
This was posted over at the press wbsite comments section under;
McEuen: Pubic won’t vote
Paul Plummer posted at 1:25 am on Sat, Jan 15, 2011.
Here is something interesting about the LCDC and how it is funded taken directly from the LCDC website:
How is LCDC funded?
Beginning in the 1960s federal funds were the initial source of money for urban renewal projects in Idaho. As these funds were phased out in the 1970s, an alternative financing method was needed. In 1985, the Idaho state legislature adopted the Local Economic Development Act which authorized the use of tax increment financing. In simplest terms, under tax increment financing (or revenue allocation in Idaho), the taxes generated by increasing property values in an urban renewal District are used to pay for public improvements and other revitalization activities in that District. At the time an urban renewal District is formed, the county assessor establishes the current value for each property in that District. This value is referred to as the “base” value. Over time, as both public and private dollars are invested and development occurs in the District, property values tend to rise. The increase in value over the base is called the “incremental” value, or increment. The taxes generated by this incremental value are utilized for redevelopment work by the urban renewal agency, if the City Council or County Commissioners have created a revenue allocation area to go with the urban renewal District. In Coeur d’Alene, the City Council has created revenue allocation areas for the urban renewal Districts it has formed, and therefore the tax increment is allocated to LCDC. These funds must be reinvested in projects either within or which provide public infrastructure to the District from which the funds originate.
By evidence of the nearly 30%+ hike in property taxes, the property values within the City and County have been in a land side decline since 2007. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since there has been no incremental incremental increase in property values over the last three years, the LCDC should not be receiving any tax payer funds to spend on Mcuen or any other pet project. This wreaks of a misappropriation of funds unless there are private donors contributing to the kitty.
I would encourage our City leadership to explain exactly how the LCDC is solvent enough to afford any project at this time and who are these private donors might be. Following the money trail will likely pierce the smokescreen behind the Mcuen Park project. I also agree with several posts and find the mayor’s logic completely flawed regarding the council’s decision vs. a public vote. Love or hate the Mcuen project, the way the council is going about this is smug at best.
We are the constituency that elected these folks. If our elected leaders are not acting out the will of the majority, we definitely need to elect new leadership. I would be on board with forming a citizens coalition to raise money, hire lawyers and halt any further action on the Mcuen Park project until such time as we can understand how the LCDC is being funded. With any luck maybe we could tie the project up long enough to place fiscally new fiscally conservative leadership that serve the communities best interests. If interested please post and let’s work together to put a stop to all of the silliness.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 15, 2011 @ 2:52 pm
Regarding costs for the McEuen project: The Parks Dept. Master Plan of 2008 budgets $1,875,000 for McEuen (see online site). This figure was based on the old plan. Note that it covers McEuen: Not Front St., Third St, Fourth St, Tubbs, the Hagadone property, etc., which have all been included recently in The Plan.
Where is the money coming from, people ask? Well, obviously, they say, LCDC. But it’s possible, according to local scuttlebutt, that lots of money will come from the Hagadone Corp., partly because it will now have a place for its “memorial gardens.” Remember the money promised for that garden several years ago? Lots and lots. Note the gardens tucked in here and there on The Plan, including two that encroach on Tubbs Hill!
Tubbs Hill is not, nor never has been, a part of McEuen. It is not up for grabs and has been a separate entity since the first purchase in the late 1920s. It has a separate mission statement, separate management plan (approved by the city), separate board, & its own fund-raising and treasury. It has been treated as a separate entity by the city and Parks. It was not even mentioned or written about at the first public meeting in March 2010 as being part of The Plan. It was added after March.
The legislature will be looking into reining in urban renewal groups in this session. Thus, the rush to get The Plan approved before LCDC is restricted by our legislators.
Comment by beazmmr860 — January 17, 2011 @ 4:54 pm
Todays press:
“Cd’A City Council will consider LID”
CdA won’t pay to upgrade services to the residents that PAY taxes but will fund a pipe dream for out of towners that do not pay taxes. These people are out of their minds.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 18, 2011 @ 6:53 am