Some comments on the Open Session Thursday post caught my eye yesterday. The discussion was about the tax impact of urban renewal being 4.2% more for every property owner in Kootenai County.
Commenter “reagan” wrote this: “…so that means that for about $134 per year i get riverstone movie theater and all the restaurants and shops, the pond where they have summer concerts in the evening, the new library, the soon-to-be kroc center. what a deal!”
So my question is this: Is it ok to bypass voter approval on major public projects?
What “reagan” doesn’t seem to realize is that Riverstone is a PRIVATE business. The movie theater is a PRIVATE business, as are all the restaurants and shops.
Commenter “reagan” also refers to the Kroc Center…again a PRIVATE business that anyone wishing to use will have to pay to enter. And the library?–that was the last time we voters were ever asked to approve a city bond issue, which we did by a very narrow margin, but that’s the way it is supposed to work: Ask the voters! The additional library money from LCDC and the city council went against the mayor’s promise that no additional public money would be spent for the library.
Comment by mary — November 9, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Of course, this is a rhetorical question. The obvious answer being a resounding NO! To buy something, one must have a willing seller. With absolutely no input, the tax payer is far from a willing participant, or seller, if you will. The question actually is, “can our rights be stolen”? Again, rhetorical. Clearly, the can be and, indeed are, on a regular basis.
And to regan, you are not “getting” anything. All of those businesses you claimed to be “getting”, require you to pay to use…except the library. When the statement that “I’m getting something” for a set price is used, it infers that no further expense will be incurred. Not applicable in this example.
Comment by Diogenes — November 9, 2008 @ 10:33 am
If the intent of a compromised or dishonest body of public officials is to circumvent the will of the people, then the answer is a clear, “No!” The defense raised by those officials is often, “We were elected to make these decisions,” or as the indicted sheriff of Orange County said, “I’m the sheriff, I can do what I want.” That defense is valid only as long as the public officials are putting the public interest ahead of their own pecuniary interest. When the public officials exercise lawfully granted authority for an unlawful purpose, that purpose being personal pecuniary benefit contrary to law, they abuse their authority and their position.
Comment by Bill — November 9, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
what “mary” doesn’t seem to realize is that we have a REPRESENTATIVE form of government and not a direct democracy. if all public projects required voter approval, it is possible that we would still be on private wells and septic systems with dirt roads and volunteer fireman. bill are making an accusation of criminal behavior?
Comment by reagan — November 9, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
I are?
Comment by Bill — November 9, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
I use quotes when referring to the commenter “reagan” because it is a fake name the commenter took himself/herself and the viewpoints he/she offers are nothing close to those of Pres. Reagan.
So, “reagan” let me repeat the question: Is it ok to bypass voter approval on major public projects? Please note the word major.
We voters were asked if we want a library–with the clear promise that no more public money would be used, over and above the approved bond. We said yes on the $3 million dollar bond. They went ahead and spent nearly 2 million more of public money.
We should have had a vote on the $3.5 million that went to the PRIVATE Kroc Center. And the list goes on…
Comment by mary — November 9, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Those who favor irresponsible government spending (because they either benefit directly or are somehow connected to those benefits) always use the argument that reagan presented. It’s bogus. No one is talking about roads, water, sewer, or basic government services.
We elect officials to make responsible decisions in the best interest of the public. While it would be ineffective for them to pass every decision on to the public, decisions that require public debt, long-term obligations, those that have a major impact on the public, and especially those that are controversial must be brought before the people for input.
In Idaho, it is in the State Constitution that public debt cannot be incurred by the government unless there is an approval of 2/3rds of the voters. Perhaps reagan is unaware of that. In fact, the way urban renewal in Idaho spends money is currently under review by the State Supreme Court. Perhaps reagan is unaware of that as well.
Comment by Dan — November 9, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
I must add that we do not elect officials as princes to have them deliberate in closed rooms. Our government must be open, transparent, and responsible to the people. Our founders recognized the problems of arrogant, self-serving officials, which is why methods of removing those officials are provided for at all levels of government.
Comment by Dan — November 9, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
“Perhaps reagan is unaware….” I have noticed from reading ‘reagan’ posts over a period of time that he is unaware of a lot things. That’s why I don’t engage him. This is not a personal attack as a pseudomym is a non person; like me:)
Comment by yabetcha — November 9, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
I cannot say better than Dan and Bill have done. However, I can add that LCDC is not elected by the tax payer. LCDC is clearly not answerable to the public and, it is painfully apparent that LCDC doesn’t care about the public. And by no stretch of the imagination, could one call LCDC “representative”. The CDA council has repeatedly broken their promises to the public. And when one is talking millions and billions of public dollars, you bet your posterior reagan, there should be a vote. Just because we have a representative form of government…it does not follow that we (the public) are being represented.
And, in my previous house I had both private well water ,mine, and a septic system. Both more cost effective and, in the case of the water, much purer and better tasting. Once again reagan, your choice of examples doesn’t hold …(forgive me people) water!
Comment by Diogenes — November 9, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Well said, Diogenes!
Comment by mary — November 9, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Mary,
Can you explain a little more specifically how you arrived at the amounts taxpayers are paying for the URDs? Its hard to comment without knowing how accurate the percentages are.
Thanks.
Comment by locogov — November 10, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Locogov (which is actually a funny moniker!), see:
http://opencda.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/lcdc4.pdf
I go into detail there to explain how property taxes are calculated and how the effect of URDs impacts them. It’s complex stuff, but I try to break it down soundly.
The impact figures for 2008 won’t be known until property tax statements arrive and the actual levy rates are available. Then it’s a simple request to get the data, plug in the values, and you have the amount.
Comment by Dan — November 10, 2008 @ 3:28 pm