Dave: Good deal…I hope the ITD will hold fast and not be sucked in by the sweet talking developers. These guys obviously think we are a bunch of idiots and I hope we will prove them wrong.

On a little side track, I noticed that Eagle mayor, Nancy Merrill, is upset that Eagle can’t take its own road taxes and do as it pleases with the money. She must think Eagle is a “planned community” where all the Eaglites live, work, and play in our little town, and never venture into the rest of Ada County. A story in Valley Times indicated she would like the city of Eagle to have more control over these monies, but then it went on to state that she was worried about stop lights on SH 55, otherwise known as Eagle Road, south of State Street, and just SH 55 north of State Street, (the two sections are connected by the State Street bypass, also known as SH 44) which highway is not controlled by the ACHD, but is controlled by ITD.

It concerns me that my mayor doesn’t seem to know who has jurisdiction over what roads. Or perhaps the article was wrong. Whichever way, we have to accept that Eagle is a bedroom community, not a planned community, whatever that is.

By the way, when I was at the County Courthouse for jury duty this month I noticed that Ada County is advertising for a “Planned Community Specialist.” Or something to that effect. We’re doomed.

Do we say maybe a bit of intelligence in the State of Idaho?

On the weekend, two people were killed on State Street near Eagle, apparently trying to turn left from the “suicide lane” onto a side street. And many remember the family that was wiped out on Beacon Light trying to get onto SH 55. This is what the planned community developers want to give us all along Hwy 55 heading north.

ITD needs to be commended for taking a stance (these developers have BIG bucks and BIG lobbyists). ITD need our support to continue to demand that SAFE interchanges be built before the homes. How many of us need to become road kill because developers don’t want to pay for the cost of road improvements?

Anyone interested in more detail of the looming SH 55 disaster can see the traffic white paper at http://www.nacfa.net, under “updates and alerts” near the bottom of the list.

As the NACFA member who generated the white paper, I point out that the traffic estimates are very conservative…assuming no impact from Gem County (1300 houses being built at Black Canyon Reservoir alone) because Gem planners assert all their traffic will use an expanded SH 16. Those who follow the issue will know that, as of this date, the state maybe has enough money to complete the environmental work for the 16 expansion. Funding for design fees and construction costs? Hmmm…where will we get that?

Furthermore, the traffic counts shown in the white paper assume 7.5 vpd per unit built (accounting for the asserted “trip capture” rate), when the standard measure is 10 and COMPASS estimates TV avg at 13.

The NACFA and DCRNA assns took the conservative approach in an effort to make the point bulletproof. And though every developer active in the North Foothills got a copy of the white paper, not one came squawking about the traffic being exaggerated.

This is real, people. Unless something happens fast, “gridlock” doesn’t begin to describe 55–even in the short term.

Massive growth is here to stay, so a long term fix is needed for handling these types of situations. This fix must come from the legislature, because ITD needs mechanisms for dealing with developers. so infrastructure can be paid for and built before the housing starts. Impact fees for ITD should be addressed to handle the downstream effects of the traffic.

Separately developers need to be able to create bonds attached to the lots, so they can pay for the costly grade separated intersections or bridges. We would probably have an East Parkcenter bridge if that were available to the Harris Ranch developers. Instead, we have a fancy subdivision. Just as ITD has required a performance bond of Suncor, make that part of the legislation for developers.

EDITOR NOTE–Probably no surprise that one of the SunCorp principals is the same guy who didn’t build a bridge at East Park Center as part of his Harris Ranch development. Sound familiar. “Trust me.”

So… when will the new ITD Director be announced, as part of Governor-elect Otter’s realignment?

ITD is just insisting the developer get his road access finalized before buidling. Sounds like a routing common sense requirement to me and yet it’s being treated like the Second Coming Of Christ. ITD is basically saying “resolve your road access issues or you shouldn’t build any homes.” Okey-dokey. Aside from the provocatively worded post, I don’t see what the big upset here is.

Congratulations to the ITD,N.ADA COunty foothills association and the Dry Creek rural neighborhood assoc. on their moves to stop Sun Cor ( Avimor) and their County Commish buddies from building another montrosity that will not have ” Safe” access to our public highways. The question in my mind is why didn’t Ada county development services and the County Commissioners have the safety of the community in mind themselves? Isn’t that what they were elected to do? Was there too much money there for our Commissioners to act responsibly? This scenario really shines a light on the continued irrresponsibility in our local government officials and how the people can send them a quick,much needed, WAKE UP CALL!!

EDITOR NOTE–This will no doubt get “worked out,” but the fact remains they are forging ahead with preliminary work without resolving the issues. Too fast with too little resolved.

After reading the latest updates at nacfa.net, I am a little confused. That organization reiterates 3 times in the Dec. 11 update that “Suncor is leading the effort to address the regional highway issues”. Obviously a project of this size is very complex and probably figuring out the government red tape is just as complex. The “white paper” goes on to explain in the lack of forsight by ITD and COMPASS for exploring this issue, as well as the lack of an ITD funding mechansim for dealing with developers.

Traffic will be the singlemost important issue/pain associated with growth. Instead of fighting many battles with each preliminary plat, why not just have one at the Statehouse. By providing ITD with impact fees and developers with bond creation for infrastructure, the money could be in place for the necessary infrastructure.

One note, I think the North Ada County Foothills Association should be congratulated on the cooperative and unconfrontational approach in working with developers and Ada County.

Have you ever Googled the word growthophobes.
Seems it’s a made up word only used in Idaho.
Thought you might be interested.

EDITOR NOTE–Welcome to the GUARDIAN. We also claim “growthophiles.” Although not original, we also use commishes, team dave, councilors, and guv.

ITDs position and the analysis by the G put a lot into perspective on this issue. Perhaps LOGIC is creeping into the process.

Clancy,
Bad, bad idea on the developer bonds. That only encourages development and growth by allowing the developers to finance their nefarious acts on the backs of future homeowners. It is inherently worse than credit card debt. Akin to allowing Ford to manufacture cars through loans (taxes, liens) on any future owners of said vehicles. Highly speculative.

Logic,

ITD’s position is not a new one. They have had the ability to “hold” building permits in any application that has direct access to any of the State Highways for many a year. I will give them credit for finally finding themselves capable of participating in the growth conversation. They have been absent for quite some time. Clancy’s idea of infrastructure bonding is a much better way of providing for “off-site” infrastructure than Idaho uses today. In Ada County (and state wide for ITD) the government is not allowed to condition developers with more than their share of off-site improvements. Meaning that ACHD/ITD can only require someone to improve the road that directly borders the development property. Creates a pretty disjointed approach to all infrastructure improvements. If you read the proposed public improvement district legislation, it would allow your local governments to require and control a much wider array of improvements. Will it be financed by homeowners, you bet. One positive for a homeowner, the property tax would be tax deductible as where principle on a loan with a higher lot price would not. Either way landowner pays for it. Of course, we all do seem to like the way we do business today…no need to explore something different.

Response to Robert on “Growthophobe,”

If “growthophobe” means anything, it means one who supports a living environment with a quality of life. “High quality of life” and “growth” are dichotomous; therefore, those who love and support the growth in Boise, ironically, should not be living here. Rather, they should be wallowing in love and admiration for and desirous of the city life and all its “growth” attributes (e.g., traffic, smog, congestion, crime and high cost of living) of NYC or LA.

Logic,
Can’t have a bond without a guarantee. Who goes broke more often…developer or local gov’t. This whole process would require a little faith in the bond market underwriters. I don’t even want to try and understand their formula for success. Just know I don’t see that formula fail too often (I’ve never seen it fail). The way that last years proposed legislation read, Cities and Counties would have complete control of where money is spent. The local gov’t becomes the “Commishes” for the newly formed Improvement District. They can still require the same improvements on site today, but could also pay for improvements off-site. Example…Avimor (SunCor) pays for all on-site improvements with their own capital (Lot Cost)…then County or City (which ever approves development) could require additional improvements like road improvements at HWY 44 and HWY 55 that developer pays for using the bond market (property tax to the subdivision). It enables the developer to provide more “front end” improvements than we get through today’s process. Probably not perfect by any means, but gets us closer than sticking our head in the sand.

Vik thanks I needed that.
Make’s me proud to be a Growthophobe.
Now how does one stop the destruction of our once beautiful state.

Once it’s gone all the greedy developers will be on to greener pasture’s

Naomi,
As far as I understand it, Hidden Springs was supposed to pave Dry Creek Rd as part of their arrangement with ACHD. Frank Martin, who is the developer in charge of Hidden Springs, stated this summer that the responsibility for paving that will now fall on another developer, presumably the developer of Dry Creek Ranch (JMM Dry Creek, LLC). I’ve confirmed that the Dry Creek Rural Neighborhood Association has had no involvement in this issue.

Welcome to the world of Community Planning Sleuth. SOP is to promise anything, and everything, to the public during the public meetings and then “do the real deal” after they go home. Fun isn’t it!