The city council meeting last night was packed. Every seat was full and people were lined up all around the sides and the back of the room. Almost everyone had a paper sign that read “McEuen Park PUBLIC VOTE”, and after every speaker was done with their 5 min. testimony, the crowd silently held up their signs. It was great. 13 people spoke to the council. I was last person to speak and I asked everyone who was in favor of a public vote to stand up…the whole room seemed to be on their feet. Most folks also held up their signs. it was a clear message to the council.
But NOT ONE city council member made a motion to put the subject of a public vote on the next city council agenda. They all chickened out. Even Ron.
If you are interested in the McEuen plan, and want to know more, the city council is meeting with the Steering Committee, for the first time they say, tomorrow morning THURSDAY, May 3rd at 7:30 am at the meeting room in the ParkSide Tower. I think that room is on the 3rd floor. The public is allowed to come to this meeting but will not be able to speak.
Why isn’t this meeting going to take place in the Library community room, so it can be on TV channel 19?
Here’s my testimony to the City Council last night:
Mayor Bloem and city council members, We are here tonight to ask you to put the topic of a public vote for McEuen on the city council agenda for your next meeting. I’d like you to know how many people are here tonight in support of a public vote. Would everyone who wants a public vote, please stand up?….thank you.
We are not asking for the public vote right now. We understand the plan is conceptual and changes will be made. We want the Steering Committee to do their work, make the changes necessary, research the costs, identify the funding and bring their best plan to you. We want you to do your job, make any changes, finalize the costs and funding then endorse the best, most beneficial plan possible. Then we want you to put the final, endorsed plan on the November 8th city election ballot for a public vote.
I have heard many of you say that you were elected to make these kinds of big, difficult decisions. You were not. You were elected to oversee the ordinary and necessary operations of the city.
So while you love to say it is your job to make these massive spending decisions, in truth, Idaho law was set up to require the voters to make the big spending decisions. You are just using a loophole in that law to get around the voters. Please let me explain:
Article 8 section 3 of Idaho law says that cities cannot go into debt beyond their one year budget without either getting a judge to say the spending is ordinary and necessary for city operations, or the city must take the decision to the voters.
There’s no way any judge would rule that below-grade parking garages, enormous fountains, ice skating rinks and underwater walkways, however beautiful they might be, are ordinary and necessary for a city. So, in the spirit and intent of Idaho law, you should take this plan to a public vote.
But here’s the loophole you are trying to use to avoid this law. You, the City are not going to go into debt for the McEuen plan, you are going to have LCDC go into debt for it instead. And LCDC does not have to follow Article 8 section 3 of Idaho law…at least for now, though there is legislation in Boise trying to fix that problem.
So we are here tonight to ask you to follow the spirit and intent of Idaho law and this huge spending decision to the voters, where it belongs. Please put the final, endorsed McEuen plan on the ballot for city election on November 8th. Thank you.
Comment by mary — March 2, 2011 @ 5:18 pm
Today’s Press contained a couple of items I found interesting: 1. “The council could schedule another public meeting on the plan once it gets the costs.” Could? 2. “This is a plan for 100 years out,” said Mayor Sandi Bloem. 100 years?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 4, 2011 @ 8:05 am
100 years is probably how long it will take Coeur d’Alene to recover from Mayor Bloem’s lack of attention to the city’s basic infrastructure.
Comment by Dan — March 4, 2011 @ 8:54 am