The ‘Cliffs’ must be stopped! I am a long time Boise Foothills resident and my entire family is researching every conceivable means of using our votes and influence in the community to bring this abomination to a halt. We are determined to preserve our heritage and protect the wild animals that use the land targeted for development. We’re taking good notes and were voting. Just say ‘ABSOUTLY NOT TO HAMMER FLAT’!!

Perhaps it is not too late to change the design of the State quarter.

The revised version would feature a giant toilet by which public funds are flushed, by agencies like the Idaho State Land Board and ITD, into the hands of the big land developers, cattle grazing interests, etc.

Both Ada County and ACHD Commissioners might take note of Judy’s unplanned departure before they plunge forward with a development under county standards (1,300 units) when the city would allow 500 units and wild life mitigation might support 200 units. With Harris Ranch coming back with approximatley 2,500 units, go take a look at Barber Valley’s future: Drive Eagle road at 5:30 Pm. Open a window and breath deep. Earplugs recommended.
Also agree with Val Isle that the Skyline Development’s traffic assumptions are way off base in assuming most traffic is headed toward I-84 or Micron.

It seems to me foothills developement is okay as long as it is in Boise City limits. Harris Ranch, Arrowhead Canyon, Becker Ridge, new portions of Somerset Ridge, and Boulder Heights Estates are all new developements in the Foothills and Boise City. Where has been the oppositions to these? Kastera Homes is looking at developing 270 acres in the foothills (Boise City).

Boise City has been the one to drop the ball on the Kastera property and Hammer Flat. They entered into negotiations on both of these properties for the Foothills Levy.

There are worse options for wildlife on Hammer Flat. It is called an 8 foot fence. The recreation opportunites -climbing in Carbox Canyon and paragliding- could also cease with the same 8 foot fence.

cman-
Not sure what you’re implying. Are you saying the landowner will use blackmail to get what he wants? “If you don’t let me build my mega subdivision I’ll build a wall around it and keep all of you recreationalists off it and starve the winter range animals to death that have inhabited this ground for 100’s of years.”

Is that what you’re saying? If so, WOW! If that’s the mentallity of the current land owner we’re in much greater danger than I ever could have imagined. Guess if that’s the way it going to be fine. Hope they can live with their conscience knowing they’ve destroyed 1000’s of people’s quality of life. I know I couldn’t, but then again I’m not a greedy snake in the grass. Doesn’t seem like a very smart way to run a business either. Know who I would never buy a house from.

Also, not that big of a deal if you take the Car Body Canyon climbing away. Have climbed there in the past and it’s not good. Way too hot most of the time and the rattlesnakes are too much of a nuisance to make it worth the trouble.

As far as the paragliders go, guess if they fear losing their hill, speak up now! All 5 of them.

The Cliffs development on Hammer Flats is so full of bad promises. Developer dollar signs do not promote good growth. Indeed, one wonders whose pockets the developer lines with green. Hammer Flats was initially zoned for 1 house per 5 acres; not 5+ houses per 1 acre. Where are the promises that the county initially made about controlled growth in the foothills? Remember the slogan: Idaho is too great to waste? We don’t want our foothills to be a memory and look like California. Please don’t waste Hammer Flats.

EDITOR NOTE–Our sources say Hammer flat is still zoned at 1 hours per 40 acres.

There are places where houses should not invade the landscape. Hammer Flats is one. How do we get beyond this “My land and I’ll do what I want with it, the deer and anteloped be damned” mentality. Build a fence…whats that, but a pitiful and desperate attempt to use private property rights to rape what most in our area feel is a community gem. What happened to leaving a legacy? To caring for our neighbors as we care for ourselves? Utter unfettered greed should be looked upon with disdain by everyone in Ada County who loves where they live and how they live.

cman- you don’t need an 8′ fence to keep cows in. Last I checked they don’t jump. Deer & antelope have no problem getting over a 4 footer. You’re not making sense.

EDITOR N OTE– Somebody get to the point please!! It appears “if ya aren’t for it, yer agin it,” to paraphrase a fazmous president from Texas.

I am adamantly opposed to the destruction of this parcel of land that has been a winter home for deer and elk for untold millenia. As a fourth generation Idahoan, I am disgusted with the development that is taking away our treasured way of life. Hammer Flat needs to stay as it is; no transfer of land for any amount of money for the annihilation of this animal habitat. Once our open spaces are gone, they are gone FOREVER. Keep out of Hammer Flat!

Anybody know why they want that particular stretch of land? There is some land slowly being developed on the other side of the canyon from there and which is surrounded by grazing. I may be wrong but it may have less of an issue with wildlife since it is not directly adjacent to the mountains.

Tony your point on the ITD condemned land is excellent. Was it acquired through direct legal action or the threat of it? They had to make a representation that the land was “necessary” for a public purpose. I would think that would undermine the credibility of the ITD in their next attempt to take land. It also appears our government is in the land speculation game.

Sisyphus,

Regarding wildlife on the opposite side of the canyon, you are right on. According to Fish and Game, the winter deer counts on the south side of the river are about one percent of what they are on the north side.

On your other point, ITD acquired the land through direct condemnation proceedings. I don’t have the docket number handy, but I can get it for you tomorrow if you are interested.

I also think your point about undermining their credibility in similar future procedings is excellent.

Consistent with this point, I have had several contacts with ITD over the last couple of days in an effort to find out if they have a procedure, a set of guidlines, by which they determine, and document, whether or not an individual property is no longer needed. Like the quest for the grail, the chance for success does not look promising.

Unless I get a better response in the next couple of days, I have to assume that the process is completely arbitrary, and therefor subject to abuse.

I did a quick check on line Tony. Go here:
http://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/rules/idapa39/0345.pdf

It appears the declaring of surplus is up to the discretion of the Chief of Highway Operations. But it also says that “[b]ased upon recommendations by the District Engineer and concurrence of the Materials, Planning, Maintenance,Traffic and/or interested headquarter sections, property no longer useful or usable for the needs of the Department is recommended for disposal.” Once that is done they get an appraisal and if its greater than $10,000 they have to offer it at the appraised price to State Agencies, County and City where the property is located and the Highway District in which the property is located. The state agencies are given first priority to purchase the property, county second, city third and Highway District fourth. If none of the above public agencies purchase the property, it will be offered at public sale.

I did not locate any regulations upon which the Chief must follow to declare property surplus. But you can take a stab at it here:

http://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/rules/idapa39/39index.htm.

I wanted to mention to Cyclops that many people and agencies are working hard to avoid making the historic district on Warm Springs the arterial you describe. The key is the bridge at Harris Ranch. I for one am doing all I can to discourage more traffic beyond the Mesa by supporting all traffic calming methods, like stop lights, stop signs and roundabouts along Warm Springs. You’ll see some of those changes in the near future. But that bridge has got to be built.

I may be giving ITD more credit than they deserve, but I assume they are aware of their own administrative rules. Their failure to provide a list of those rules to me seems to imply that they have been operating outside their own rules. I realize that in a one party system such actions are not news.

In my reading of ITD’s rules it seems that, short of a public sale, about the only way they can transfer the use of the land to Skyline is to have ACHD purchase the land from ITD, either outright, or with Skyline reimbursing ACHD for the cost.

Either way, it makes ACHD an agent of Skyline in the acquisition of Idaho State property, the primary benefit of which will accrue to Skyline.

Much as ITD, ACHD, Ada County and Skyline may hate it that brings up the Idaho Code again. (Pesky laws!)

EMINENT DOMAIN 7-701A. . . . . .
(2) Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire private property:
(a) For any alleged public use which is merely a pretext for the transfer of the condemned property or any interest in that property to a private party; . . . . . .

Maybe the attorneys could beat that rap, maybe not. One way or the other, it will take a couple of years.

What won’t take a couple of years is the November election. Two ACHD commissioners, John S. Franden, and a Sherry Huber, are up for reelection. Significantly, John S. Franden represents, sub-district 3, north and northwest Ada County, the area in which Hammer Flat is located.

ACHD elections are often low key affairs. However, watching Franden, and this issue, twist in the wind ought to make his race more interesting than usual.

Mr. Jones,

It sounds like you’re very familiar with the Hammer Flat area – you live there don’t you? Do you have a fence around your property – maybe just to keep your dogs from running wild? As I understand it the land is currently zoned to allow it to be subdivided into 40-acre lots. There’s still a lot of money that could be charged for those ‘primo’ lots (you should know, the views are pretty good). Of course, every one of those new homeowners will fence their property – with fences high enough to keep their horses and animals on their ranchettes.

Oops, no more wildlife habitat – but that’s the law.

If there were only some way to permanently protect the habitat – maybe use some of that ‘Foothills Levy’ money to buy the land and turn it into a publically-owned perpetual wildlife preserve. But Boise hasn’t lifted a finger to purchase the land, even when it was for sale before Skyline bought it, but the city seems to be in a hurry to extend its area of impact to include the Hammer Flat area. Anybody wonder why? If you think it has something to do with ‘wildlife habitat preservation’ you would be sorely disappointed. But please, Mr. Jones, your credibility would be helped if you sold your property first – and moved you & yours off the plateau.

Please remember that it was the last previous owner of the land that planted the alfalfa and set up the cattle watering troughs on the property that drew the deer, antelope, and elk to the Flat. This human intervention drew the herds, which you now have the pleasure of viewing from your kitchen window. Unfortunately, after three burns, cheek grass is the only thing left growing up on the Flat (except of course, the green landscaping around your house). The only thing that keeps the animals there during the winter is ingrained migratory imprinting, and that they aren’t being spooked by too many people (except those who already live there – and their dogs). Since cheek grass is such a poor source of nutrition, if the herds actually had to move around too much in the winter, the caloric demand would force them to the point of starvation.

I’m not trying to be too pointed in my comments but this land has been in successive private ownership since the Shoshone-Bannock were lied to in the 1863 Fort Boise Treaty (left unratified by Congress, but only after the Native Americans were ‘displaced’ – a nice way of saying they were run off at gun point). The aboriginal people of this valley had to wait until the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty before they received even a small portion of compensation for their relocation – and then they were never fully compensated for having been run out of the Boise Valley (because by 1868, they didn’t officially exist in the Boise area did they?).

So let me see. If the public doesn’t want to (or can’t afford to) buy the land, what are the choices left. 1) The land is parceled up into 40-acre lots, with fences, no public access, and no wildlife habitat, or 2) One half of the land is developed, and the other half (~350 acres) is permanently set aside as a rehabilitated wildlife area – at no cost to the tax payer.

Umm, choices, choices… where’s King Solomon when you need him.

Access. Access to and from this proposed development is what is important to the developer. Without access the project could die. It seems the ITD owned land is about the only land in the area which can provide reasonable access to the proposed development. The ITD parcel is located on the downtown side of the development.

The proposed development is surrounded by publicly owned land on three sides. Yes, there are some exceptions but basically it’s surrounded by public lands. That limits access to and from unless some type of easement is granted by public agencies.

If the developer is to unable obtain the ITD land, the only other potential access points seem to be either through the narrow road (about 20 ft wide) that meets Highway 21 near Sandy Point or narrow streets (about 20 to 30 ft wide depending on the street) such as Brian Way, Teresa Drive, or Eastwood Place in the subdivision on the downtown side of the development. It appears all these streets would need substantial upgrading to provide access to the proposed development. The residents would probably be thrilled to have all that new traffic in their neighborhood. Another option might be to purchase more privately held land on the downtown side of the project to create a corridor perhaps using Highland Valley Road as access to Warm Springs Ave. Expensive but an option.

Has any group looked into using federal (or state?) land conservation fund dollars to buy this property? Or finding some nice rich person to partner with the Nature Conservatory to buy the land? I guess Foothills levy money is an option but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

Perhaps the failure of Ada County to adopt the foothills policy plan is something that might be debated during the Commissioners race this fall. Sharon?

And Sis, that development (Cliffside Sub) on the south side of Highway 21 between the freeway and the river is surrounded by public land on the south and east (river) sides and private land on the west (freeway) side.

JQP

Access is the issue. Every land owner in the state is guaranteed access to a public right-of-way. This is true whether the right-of-way is owned by a local highway district or the state transportation department. But, these public agencies can’t be forced to pay for the road built on that access way. Skyline has to pay for all this.

Maybe letting Skyline develop the land using the city’s foothill ordinance is the best way to go, but check the math (the actual ‘ordinance’ has a very different density bonus formula than that proposed in the ‘policy plan’). If Skyline sets 3/4 of their 707 acres aside as ‘open space’ (even with no public access or habitat restoration) they will be granted a density bonus of 4 dwelling units per acre – in addition to the 17 homes they could build right now. This makes for 724 homes, a little more than ~300.

I believe the county did adopt the city’s foothills policy plan – but just for the land within Boise’s area of city impact. But I too would like to have this discussed during the election this Fall, but I imagine Paul Woods could provide a little fresher perspective.

For the record, I’m not even remotely related to Tucker Johnson – or anyone else with a financial interest in the development (including Tony Jones). Now, I’ve never performed a geneological search to prove this, it’s just not my sort of thing.

When looking at aerial photographs of this area on the Ada County Assessors web site, it appears there is some type of dirt driveway linking the house on the hill in the Guardian’s photo and Warm Springs Ave. This “driveway” seems to be at the far left of the Guardian’s photo.

Based on the Guardian’s description in this article of where the State land is located, this “driveway” seems to cut through State property to reach Warm Springs Ave. It appears to do what the developer seems to be asking to do – access Warm Springs Ave. From the aerial photo, the house also appears to have paved access to Brian Way. Does anyone know how this “driveway” got there? Does it cross State land? If it does, why and how did ITD grant access? Or did they?

Curious George

You mention “Every land owner is guaranteed access …”. Is there an Idaho Code section covering that? If so, what is it? Just curious.

Tony

Based on comments in this article, I assume you are “King of the Hill” :-). You mention “… especially if they already have access in a variety of other places.” Are you referring to the proposed Hammer Flats development? If so, where are the other access points that you feel are available? Just curious.

JQP

I would bet 99% of those who oppose The Cliffs don’t live in the foothills as a certain editorial this morning suggested. I oppose the raping of this land because it is sacred to the Sho-Ban tribes. Disturbing their cultural sites and burial graves would be a HUGE mistake. Mr Johnson, if you don’t think so, I suggest you spend a little more time studying Native American history & you’ll understand. And you know what? They lived here long before your family did, so drop the “I was here before you were and its my property so I can destroy it if I want” attitude.

Protect the foothills
Stop The Cliffs!

Note to John O Public.

It is my understanding that the driveway you mention is a revokable (sp?) easment. If ITD needs it back, the guy loses it with no compensation. He has “real” access through brian way subdivision.

The Hammer Flat subdivision has access on Highland Valley road, and into Brian Way subdivision. If may not be the “quality” of access they, or the Brian Way people, prefer, but they do have access.

PS. As of about 3:30 this afternoon, ITD reviewed the reason they took the property in the first place and decided their justification was still valid, and necessary.

They are keeping the land, and The Cliffs is checking plan B.

Tony Jones