Comments on: Give Me More, Give Me Bigger!!

By: Krahn

Krahn — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:05:41 +0000

Sucks.
Sprawl is retarded. Don’t support it.
Boise can’t handle becoming almost a big town. . .

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:50:35 +0000

Hammer Flats is “below” Lucky Peak Dam. It starts at approximately the intersection of Warm Springs Avenue and SH-21 and is vertically above there and to the north. It ends at approximately Lucky Peak State Park and is vertically above there and to the northwest on the flats above SH-21. SaveThePlateau.org

By: Ron

Ron — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:57:05 +0000

All this growth reminds me of comments JR said many years ago about where the valley would be some years down the road. Everyone seemed to think he was way over his head with the comment, turns out he was low and the growth has been unabated since. Our current leaders do not seem to have a clue about what to do with the Growth for Growth Sake.

By: Ellen

Ellen — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:39:54 +0000

The mayor may appear to be “opposing” a couple of develpoments ONLY because he will not get the tax revenue.

We know he supports massive growth at Harris Ranch – a true “sprawl” project, as well as Hidden Springs – another “sprawler”; he supports 250,000 square foot projects in historic neighborhoods and would love to see rows and rows of row houses on every vacant lot in town!

Welcome to the City of Growth – not trees!

By: Porcupine

Porcupine — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:39:08 +0000

Tam….
We won’t have to worry, after the elections everything will be fixed…but only if the 10 Commandments go back to Julia Davis park.

By: Tam

Tam — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:55:56 +0000

Porc,
I am the first to admit a lack of understanding of “tax law”. Some might say that’s what allows me to retain what little sanity I still have (I also am an old fart). I do know that the farmers are not the ones pushing property tax reform, overall. Honestly, if I had 300 acres of prime farm ground and I could sell it for 50k an acre and retire at 58 yrs old, by helping convince the County P and Z and City Council to annex it, rezone it, and approve a final plat, saying it was “marginal” agricultural land….I’d have to think about it, but greed may win out. I mean who wants to work when they can sit on their butt all summer and head for AZ in the winter? Afterall, I don’t have to live next door to what I may have facilitated. Let’s all DO SOMETHING about REAL property tax reform. A 300 lot sub was just approved right across the road from my VERY rural home. Those who buy the homes don’t care a whit that my kids and I used to walk the ditchbank every evening collecting water skippers and listening for pheasants. But they’ll cry to the moon when my farm dogs bark at their kids on bikes or when the dairy odor from up the road wafts their way. I am no pollyanna and as much as I would like to live on Walton’s mountain…alas…! But, I do know that we have political offices full of people who can’t/won’t say NO, which would be a start. I still think sales tax on property as Dave has outlined is a good answer. Greed would still exist and realtors/developers would be crappin’ their proverbial drawers (which is why it can’t happen) but the land grab would cease.

By: Diana

Diana — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:25 +0000

Um – hey Guardian and everyone else. How about giving some credit where credit is due. You are always razzing on Mayor Bieter, but he opposes both the Hammer Flats and Spring Valley Ranch developments.

By: Porcupine

Porcupine — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:08:40 +0000

Tam
Your comment “Their children have farmed it and have made a good living for the entire family for several years.”

You are showing that you don’t understand tax law..

A family has 4 children. Land was bought at $500/acre in 1970. Parents die this year. 2 of the kids are girls that are married and live in a different state. Maybe 1 of the kids works in Seattle at a bank. Maybe the last kid wants to farm the ground. Surprise, Surprise, guess what the IRS says the ground is worth because of all the developement going around this property… $50,000 per acre. Last kid buys out the other kids… Can’t make interest payment farming beets on $50,000/acre ground. Only option left is to sell… Grow houses rather than beets. This is happening every day in Nampa and Meridian. My advise to the farmers in that area is to sell your ground so your kids don’t have to deal with it. Sorry Tam Boise is not like the TV show Walton’s. Have to live in reality.

But like I said I’m sure that some of our new City Council member will solve all of our problems…

By: Tam

Tam — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:03:56 +0000

I had an interesting discussion with a gentleman the other day. He was looking for land to develop in the west end of the valley. I was lamenting the very thing Guardian speaks of here. Only few deer, but pheasants, quail, otter, fox etc. I said how much I dislike seeing ticky tacky tan boxes being slapped up on farm land. How much I dislike sweeping annexation to the edge of area of impact. He began espousing private property rights and how these poor farmers can’t make a living off the land. I begged to differ at that point. These farmers, the ones he mentioned, have made a GOOD living for many years off this land. Their children have farmed it and have made a good living for the entire family for several years. They may not live in multimillion dollar homes and vacation wherever the rich and famous do….but they have always been among the affluent of the communities where they live. But now, they can make 60k an acre for bare land…..that’s not “poor farmers couldn’t make a living”…it’s “greed gets everyone in the end”. The same for the SunCor development. Smokey has had a wonderful life off that land. Others could as well, without raping the range and creating traffic nightmares. Bottom line is money rules the world and Guardian has it exactly right. Bigger and More are the order of the day.

By: osprey

osprey — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:47:02 +0000

Whoa there Guardian. While I agree with your lament over these developments and their impact on wildlife habitat; I disagree that the 66 percent of land in Idaho being public land is the cause. The 34 percent private land is 34 percent of 52 million acres, which is still a heck of a lot of land for 1.3 million people. I don’t have an almanac handy but 17.6 million acres of private land is lots more land than many states. Saying there is very little room to spread out and then mentioning Hammer Flats and Sun Cor is kind of a contradiction isn’t it? Those are developments outside the city impact areas, which in my book is like spreading out.

Porcupine makes a trenchant observation that we chased off the logging business without thinking through the implications. Valley County would not have approved Tamarack if the sawmill in Cascade was still running. After it closed people needed an alternative for economic development and they threw the doors wide open.

It ain’t too much public lands that put us in this situation, I think it’s because we have been discovered as a place with cheap land, electricity, labor and with public officials who don’t know how to say no.

Ed note–I agree with Osprey AND Porcupine. With our public ownership perhaps I should have said, “even spreading out takes place on only a third of the land.” Hey, remember Deer too.