The first time I read the above post by the Guardian, I thought he was making a big statement about the problems of growth. From the comments, it seems others took it that way also. After reading it a few more times, I think the Guardian is only saying “let’s not spend any tax money on promoting metro Boise as a place to relocate.” Simple and fair enough, but why the demogoguery?

If it was an anti-growth diatribe, the Guardian doesn’t offer any input as to how growth should pay it’s way and for good reason, because that would mean advocating impact fees. Impact fees (for you non-library types) is another word for TAXES. I guess taxes are fine as long as they’re someone else’s taxes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for impact fees, but I don’t have the knowledge to address the issue reasonably. One thing I do know is urban planning is a very complex issue.

Regarding urban planning, I suggest you all study up on the “Portland Model.” It’s the antithesis of the “Boise model.” Portland for many years, IIRC, from 1973 until recently, has had the strictest growth controls in the nation. Recently, means Oregon voters recently voted for Prop 7 which demands compensation to rural landowners who have been “downzoned” and thus incurred losses via reduced value of their land. I may have my facts wrong here and I don’t feel like taking the time to provide the links, but they’re there. Google “Oregonians in Action.”

The point is, the anti-anti-growth movement in Oregon is gaining momentum because the very same problems The Guardian mentions about unchecked growth here are evident in the growth control capital of Portland.

Ed Note–Everyone is correct! GUARDIAN was saying we have a lot of problems caused by growth, so why do we want spend money to create even MORE growth? BTW Cynic, you got more space than the original posting!

There are too many people on earth
insipid, unsalted, rabbity, endlessly hopping.
They nibble the face of the earth to a desert.

Rod said (in 2006): It’s all about the money. Transferring money from the middle class to the rich, that is.

We should feel blessed that we live in an area that has growth as a problem. By the same token I don’t think its necessary to troll to attract more people to live here. We need to manage existing growth and plan for additional growth. Resources should be devoted to managing and planning. We should let places with depressed economies devote thier resources to attracting more people away from choosing Idaho as a new home rather than actively discouraging them.

On a tangent to liberal redneck’s post, will Idaho have to take down all the “Idaho is too great to hate” signs if the gay marriage amendment bill passes?

Elected officials and unknowing citizens; Do not confuse growth and progress.

Boise’s Blueprint For “Goofy” Growth is nothing more than an effort to shove the already decided plan down our throats. It is a classic example of a “plan” already decided and they just need a stack of paper to “justify” it and have something to hand to the media that they will not question or investigate.

The only solution I have found is to move my business and my family to Twin Falls and hope they have more brains there.