The first question (of many thoughts) was about the Ada Courthouse and the indication of Boise Guardian that it was subject of ongoing criminal investigations, had disgraced lawyers, had ousted a university president, and that ground floor space remains vacant. Is it possible there’s confusion about the difference between the Courthouse and the University of Idaho project — which are in close geographic proximity to each other but not the same projects? (Just wanted to maintain credibility by being sure of the accuracy of the info).

EDITOR NOTE–Good point. The projects are inextricably linked since the county owns the underlying land, CCDC has ownership of most of the buildings with leases to Civic Partners, and subleases back to the county etc. In fact, both the prosecutor and his assistant have been provided personal legal counsel at taxpayer expense. A virtual worm nest.

Pleased with comments on Grove Hotel which is an unneeded intrusion on an otherwise charming downtown. Going against the wishes of voters is very much a campaign issue that should be used against politicans who pull these stunts. Who benefits? Probably big business.

One way to see when government forces an action that goes against the market is when you see government buildings that were suppose to be leased out and are not. Ala the courthouse and the apartments aound it.

The fact is that the location and access to the courthouse is bad and so it sits unleased. Putting the space there in the first place had nothing to do with market needs – it was just someones grand scheme to justify it.

The same thing will happen with the not needed convention center expansion. While there are self promoting, manufactured studies that GBAD says support their cause, the voters frankly know better and have voted as such.

The only way GBAD can expand is by going around the voters and creating their own grand scheme.

If one-third the parking at Bo-do is dedicated to the hotel then the hotel should pay tax on it – Or they should at least pay the tax to the CCDC.

This situation smells like “rental car parking at the airport” – just a different public agency.

And another thing Guardian! Who cares that the hotel pays no taxes on the parking spaces? The people who park in those spaces are MORE than paying their way in the local economy. They land at our airport and they pay a fee in addition to their ticket. They rent a car and pay tax on that car. They spend money in our restaurants and pay tax on that food. They stay in the hotel room and pay a room tax. For the most part this is money being brought into the state from outside. The fact that the hotel pays no tax on those spaces is a boon to the vitality of downtown.

In addition, the hotel generates jobs that run the gambit from minimum wage to six digit general manager jobs. Those employees pay taxes not only on their income, but on the goods that they then buy while downtown.

The whole concept of tax incentives is to generate revenue and taxes tactically by cutting taxes strategically.

EDITOR NOTE–Read again Jon. My problem is mostly with the unfair competition angle. The hotels at the airport, town square, Vista, ALL pay for their own parking. They don’t have taxpayers footing the bill for capital expense of covered parking. They may rent the spaces, but they don’t have any investment or taxes. Meanwhile the competitors pay for the parking, the cops, the fire etc. Also, hotel tax never reaches citizens at all.

Editor, I respect your logic to a point, but all the hotel owners had a fair shot at the space that the Hampton will be in. Everyone (even the Ameritel guys)could have tried to get the management contract for this property. This advantage is really a function of the location (as you said) and frankly I don’t see a probelm with that.

I guess my “buying the line” of pro-growther’s is no worse than so many of you “buying the line” of the out of state anti-tax lobby!

In truth, I think what I see mostly on this board is a lot of people that care about Boise, but we just have a different vision of how to get to utopia.

I mostly have to side with Jon (maybe not a surprise given my other posts). I may be mistaken, but the developers of BoDo still pay taxes on all the land they built up, but true to the tax-increment financing process, the tax proceeds are diverted to retire the private-sector debt acquired to build the surrounding public amenities. These include improved roads & signals, sidewalks with street trees, rehabilitated underground infrastructure capacity (not all of which is required by the development), not to mention removing and cleaning all the contaminated soil on the site (this site was a rail freight transfer yard for years, and during that time there were thousands of gallons of diesel fuel & oil dump on the ground).

Once this debt is retired, the tax income is re-diverted back to the public’s coffers. These improvements were badly needed today, but rather than wait until all the tax funds were saved up (and dealing with the misery of decrepit infrastructure in the mean time) the developer pays for (and builds) it all today. Because the FREE MARKET upfronted the money to make these improvements – and rightly requires that the money be paid back over time – the public benefits today, and realizes an increased taxable land base as the debt is retired. Otherwise, with no improved infrastructure and no way to finance it there would be no private-sector reinvestment in the area – with no such investment, the public languishes under the oppressive debt of deferred infrastructure maintenance & capital improvements, and a contaminated environment. And, the public never realizes an increased tax base.

Does such financing tilt the level playing field that all private business is suppose to be playing on? To believe that, you would have to first believe that such a level field even exists. Hint, hint. nudge, nudge, wink, wink… it doesn’t.

Is the redevelopment of a city’s downtown city core a necessary component of a vibrant community? Only if you treasure a vibrant downtown. I suspect many who oppose an urban renewal agency & its core mission don’t burden themselves with this belief.

Is the use of public taxes to intice private-sector reinvestment a legitimate expense? It depends on 1) the terms of the deal, 2) the size of the public benefit, and 3) the number of people who will benefit from the reinvestment. To answer the first factor – the deal makes sense if the amount of interest the tax-increment financing arrangement pays is near-equivilant to the interest on bonded debt. To answer the second factor, the deal makes sense if the physical size of the improvement and the demand for the improvement match a previously published infrastructure deficiency report. To answer the third and final factor, the deal makes sense if the residential and employment base which will enjoy an improved urban fabric is large enough. As for BoDo (a seriously crappy name, the developer’s PR group should be fired), it appears to meet all these criteria.

Access to the north side of Front Street (the Courthouse Corridor area and points west) is very restricted. This is because it is served by a five-lane, one-way arterial – access onto which is further restricted by the Idaho Transportation Department (not ACHD), because it is a state highway. This alone is enough to scare private businesses away. Any development that has service & customer access to both Front AND Myrtle at least has a chance at survival – look at Winco, and the office building in which George’s Bicycle is located, and maybe BoDo (if the financial projections are honest). This benefit would also hold true for the proposed Convention Center – and why the current “single-loaded” CC site suffers so poorly.

The very fact that the existing CC was built at “Center-on-the-Grove” was an act of extremely poor urban planning. That Boise’s Chinatown was condemned and demolished to make way for the “Center”, by CCDC’s predecessor (the Boise Redevelopment Agency), was urban renewal at its height of criminal arrogance. And, that the couplet was extended into the heart of downtown is nothing more than a knife at the juglar of the city. These events have all come to pass, the best we can do is correct the mistakes of the past and do so in the most cost effective way possible.

EDITOR NOTE–George, you got it right for the most part. However, these people don’t play fair. The continue to expand their horizons, create new “districts” and then refinance the debt and extend it. Greed drives their development decision–hence mega plans like the defunct tower because they figure it will yield more revenues. You could have a “vital retail” outlet with two stories of offices over the Boise Pit, but CCDC holds out for grander plans. I am no longer willing to pay for all the services they consume.

Well, I’ve heard that both U-Haul and a national moving company (United Van Lines?) have listed Boise, Idaho as one of their “top destinations” in the country, based upon sales and rentals.

I’m glad there are so many people left in the US with that ol’ pioneering spirit. Remember the stories that grandpa used to tell about pulling up stakes during the 30’s and looking for prosperity? Its seems that a few generations on and grandpa’s decendents have gotten a little too comfortable and would prefer that things never change. Isn’t this just another form of undeserving entitlement? In my way of thinking, these emigrant-phobes are even worse than “welfare queens”!

What’s wrong with progress and change? What’s wrong with our community inspiring a little yankee ingenuity and why wouldn’t we open our arms to newcomers? I can guarantee you that those who are moving to this area are willing to work, and willing to invest their hard-earning money in this area – to become members of our community.

And remember, no matter how hard you wish, you don’t have the keys to the city gate. Playing ostrich and refusing to confront & facilitate growth will only result in a socioeconomic calamity of such epic proportions that it would make the financial doldrums of the 70’s seem like a walk in the park. Does anyone think that we’re that comfortably insulated from the possibilities of race riots, rampant unemployment, run-away home foreclosures, or urban decay?

Trying to turn away emigrants, or adopting policies and laws that make our communities unattractive to newcomers, is the equivalent of cutting our nose off to spite our face. Personally, I don’t think we should be hoping to carry the full tax burden of fixing all our communities’ problems by ourselves. I look forward to spreading the load.

How about you?

When the most recent vote for the convention center came around, my sage father pointed something out: If the convention center is such a good idea, and such a guaranteed money maker, they should not need taxpayer money at all; a private investor should be more than willing to foot the bill for such a sure thing. The fact that private investors have not stepped up to the plate suggests to me (and my father) that maybe it’s not such a sure deal and we might consider other uses for the land.

If you’re not a part of the solution, there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem.