For us common peasants…can you explain how the urban renewal district are exempt from other taxes and levies?

EDITOR NOTE–They are not exempt. Property owners pay same taxes as anyone else…BUT IT ALL GOES TO THE CCDC and not the city, schools, county, and ACHD! Those agencies that provide services get their funds from us common peasants ONLY!

Exacly what is the CCDC? Wasn’t it some Federal mandate that had to be formed as a seperate tax entity. Had to do with the Urban renewal Money the city recieved.

EDITOR NOTE–Robert, you get it half right. Fed agency Housing and URBAN DEVELOPMENT gave money for urban renewal some 40 years ago, but mandated a “depository” for the money so it wouldn’t just get mixed into city budgets…that’s what is happening now with federal transportation funds.

All that was PRIOR to Idaho passing the Tax Increment Financing scheme which diverts taxes on improvements away from needy cities and toward EXPANDING and perpetuating the CCDC which has no taxing AUTHORITY while garnering millions in diverted taxes to a board of UNELECTED members. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

Is it safe to assume that at some point in time the CCDC loses the tax revenue from this land and it reverts back to the city? I would hate to see the schools, roads, infrastructure, etc lose out forever.

EDITOR NOTE–tax (which is minimal) on land stays with city and county. The tax on the IMPROVEMENTS and appreciation goes to CCDC. It is usually 20-30 years, but they “renegotiated” and EXTENDED the period. They also keep creating NEW districts, so it is truly a self perpetuating thing. The more grandiose the proposal the more potential income for CCDC.

I have to agree with .m.r. on this one. I think your energy should be channeled towards tax reform. I see these buildings as good growth. The air might be bad but at least at that height you’re indoors, right? What major downtown core in the country doesn’t have bad air?

What is your idea of good growth, because all I hear is that everyone else’s ideas are bad (and no growth is not an option on this question?) It seems like there is never an alternative to this GROWTH problem, except elect new people that agree with you. What about if you were those new people, how would allow growth, clean up the air, reform the tax system, and stay elected? Much easier to sit back and comment just like I am doing, right?

EDITOR NOTE–Simple answer, IF they can pay their way without tax breaks, financing schemes, or publicly funded assistance not offered universally, welcome aboard. If they adversely impact others, they have to correct it.

If the taxes for the structures goes to CCDC, won’t any additional taxes from the residents (i.e income, spending, etc) all go to Boise, Ada, or the State to support all of things you mention. More of a quesiton than a comment I guess.

EDITOR NOTE–Boise, Ada, ACHD primary source of revenue is PROPERTY TAX. Residents generally CONSUME services for the TAX they pay…new roads, state police, education, social services, etc. In the case of CCDC, residents consume, but they don’t pay to the city which provides the bulk of the services.

Regards your note to Robert. Are the CCDC’s books open to the public? Are they accurate, even if open to the public?

As you wrote:
“…CCDC which has no taxing AUTHORITY while garnering millions in diverted taxes to a board of UNELECTED members. Dirty, dirty, dirty.”

WHEN is some investigative reporter going to lift the rock…and shine a light on the slithering vermin that hide beneath all of this?
John

EDITOR NOTE–Books are indeed open, but hard to understand. try the court house for example! It is owned by CCDC, county owns the land, Civic Partners leases it to county, etc, etc.

Whoops! I meant “our” city. Missed that morning cup of coffee!

I don’t understand why these condos won’t generate property tax.

You pay property tax on the fee (fee simple absolute) of the property. Whether that fee is the property rights to ground or airspace you still must pay property tax.

To read “improvement” to mean all property rights contained by an “improvement” seems to be a strange reading.

Seems to me building up is the best way to get lots of tax dollars from the smallest space possible.

EDITOR NOTE–Once again. Downtown owners of new buildings or condos (“improvements” on the land) pay property taxes. NONE of the taxes on the value of the buildings or the appreciated portion of the land go to the city. ALL those taxes go to CCDC. It has nothing to do with fees or airspace.

Development and/or infill development in downtown Boise will actually create a healthier city for all. If downtown were left to die and compete with cheaper retail/business developments going west or to the desert, you would see more traffic like the vicinity around the mall or the retail on Eagle experiences.

You are justifying the sprawl with the delusion that condos in downtown Boise are going to create more cars in the downtown. By having more inhabitants in the downtown core;, more business will spring up since they can now be supported. With the creation a healthy business’s in the downtown, residents will be less likely to get into their cars to go sit at stoplights spewing exhaust into the air on Fairview or Milwaukee.

Developers do end up paying for some of their way in impact fees. There are sewer, ACHD, Boise Parks, etc….. I know of some developers would love for CCDC to disappear. More often than not CCDC is a hinderence to development. They could not even give clear direction to the developers going after the River Street project. http://www.idahobusiness.net/archive.htm/2007/01/23/Hosac-objects-to-CCDC-design-evaluation-criteria.

From reading another article on the IBR website, CCDC will have nothing to do with the parking at the condo development by C-Squared on Front St. between 6th and 5th.

EDITOR NOTE–Clancy, you shoot yourself in the foot! We don’t justify sprawl, we hate it. However if you aim to get more people living close to their “suppliers,” downtown isn’t the place to encourage residential development. More people equals more cars downtown. Meanwhile Eagle, Milwaukee, and Cole/Overland will still be a disgrace. Realistically, given your stance we should be looking at creating COMMERCIAL outlets amongst all those houses the councilors and commishes have created in the outlying areas. THEY are the cause of downtown problems.

Treva, ten bathrooms I can almost understand, but five kitchens as well strikes me that polygamy is actively engaged here in the Treasure Valley.

Or it’s just conspicuous consumption without any other purpose. And they got that five million dollars from the studio they just sold in San Francisco.

I’m pursuaded somewhat on the boondoggle of urban renewal districts in the way they are currently set up in the state. They are self perpetuating with limited accountability. But they do serve a necessary planning purpose to focus efforts in making otherwise centrally located blighted areas more useful and attractive. And that is a goal of better planning. I strongly disagree that that going vertical downtown is a bad thing. I think Dave’s point is that if CCDC is killed then the allocation of tax money into urban renewal will again be done by city leaders who are accountable to the voters, rather than to feeding the beast that never stops growing. But either way tax money will be going to developers, won’t it Dave?

EDITOR NOTE–You guys are really making me work for free today! We encourage planning, and a healthy city, including downtown. Do away with diverting taxes and it would be a much more level field of play. The city is so much MORE than just downtown. Boise spends an inordinant amount of time, money, and effort devoted to downtown. Vista, SW, and old south Boise deserve equal treatment.

Most of the builders in the treasure valley (and developers also, began doing business after 1985. That means they have never seen a downturn or weathered a market storm. I personally don’t see a downturn coming, but a correction at least.

While rural 2 acre estate lots and highrise condos may continue to be hot, hot, hot, it will be interesting to see how they manage inventory with entire subdivisions of new homes sitting with “for rent” signs in the front yards. This is the case in many new subdivisions. Even the out of state speculators who came in and bought the homes last year and turned them into rentals are smart enough to know a glut in the market when they see it.

Someone recently told of a deal where an out of state buyer had a million dollars of non-refundable money on the table for land at 75k an acre and he walked away, because it is no longer financially wise to pay that much for land here. In the end, we all get what’s coming to us.

EDITOR NOTE–Tam or anyone else, walking away from $1 million seems a stretch. If you can tie it down, we would love some leads. You know where to reach us.

It is amazing how much people give away about themselves by their posts. Likely birth places, growing up places, age, income, politics, etc.

Boise and the valley used to be a wonderful place. We have allowed too much crap to happen and accumulate for too long.

Great coverage in few words,Oh Sage Guardian! Bieter and council are using CCDC to hide behind. As Kushlan’s developer buddies get rich Mayor and Coucil can say ,” Oh, we are not responsible for all the condo’s, cars and pollution, that’s CCDC.

Well,Mr. Mayor and Council ,You created CCDC, and they are getting richer and fatter off of tax-payers dollars. Team Dave just increases our tax levy-CCDC keeps every penny of taxes they pull in- to pay for our basics!( Police,Fire,EMS )

SOLUTION-
It’s right out of COMMON SENSE !! Come November vote Mayor and Coucil OUT OF OFFICE!! Let them know NOW what you are planning to do and WHY. I will volunteer for the people of Boise to work for candidates for Mayor and coucil who WILL WORK FOR THE PEOPLE OF BOISE not CCDC! Joe Moran,208-426-8097 [email protected]

I really don’t know a great deal about CCDC, but just knowing it exists is more than most people in Boise are aware of.

I am concerned that CCDC does create an unfair competitive advantage for downtown developers, especially with regard to west downtown or upper Vista, less than a mile away physically, but outside of CCDC’s district and a million miles away in many other regards.

I beg you to create a separate page that is always available with as many facts as you (or we) can come up with regarding CCDC, then maybe we (all of us) can discuss CCDC in a more enlightened way. Call it the CCDC FAQ.

What really bugs me are your comments such as “citizens have to pay an INCREASED TAX LEVY to make up for the revenue shortfall to fund police, fire, and roads.” EXCUSE ME, but roads are already in place in downtown Boise, as are fire stations, parks, water, sewer, gas, electricity and geothermal.

It is we, the residents of downtown and the northend and the bench, that are subsidizing suburban developments. Guardian says it himself in his EDITOR NOTE to kevin: “Residents….consume… new roads.”

And there’s the gem of a comment about pollution which easily fits the –appeal to emotion logical fallacy– better known as a red herring.

EDITOR NOTE–First, here is your FAQ http://www.ccdcboise.com/faq.htm

Second, all the things you cite are in place throughout the city. It is the cost of day-day operation and downtown owners simply pay NOTHING for public services. Can you not UNDERSTAND that is the central issue. Roads must be maintained, paint striped, re-engineered, firemen and cops have to be paid. Funds for all that comes from those of who live OUTSIDE the urban renewal district run by CCDC.

Your comments are simpoly in error and not true.

Mr Logic – comparing my comments here to Eldon Anderson (is that his name?) alienating the ENTIRE UK is absolutely ridiculous. Exaggeration to THAT degree is nothing more than sensationalism. I do any name calling either… but nice try.

You could try responding to the content of my post…? Just an idea.

(And yes, everyone, my words came in response not only from this article from Dave, but from this ENTIRE website, which I consider a waste of otherwise good bandwidth. That nonwithstanding – I dont intend to offend anybody – unless that’s what it takes to perk some people’s ears.)

Leave it to a retired NIMBY postal worker to launch into personal affronts at my first appearance. I’m glad my meekest posts raise his dander. Well, at least the post office gave him a place to work and think deep logical thoughts.

My fixation on the logo is no greater than the Guardian’s fixation on urban renewal. As long as the Guardian brings up urban renewal, their use of urban renewal accomplishments on the masthead is fair game.

I will continue to post here, despite the efforts of some to keep this an anti-growth echo chamber.

Woooweee! Guardian, you sure woke some folks up.

Settle the whole problem by just changing the city limits signs to “Welcome to New L.A.” — or maybe “New NYC.”

Lotta dreamers among the bloggers this time — those who think all the folks in the downtown highrises will just stay there and not go driving around. Highly unlikely.

As for downtown being a good walking-to-work area, it is. But whether the folks who can afford to live in those new places would actually ever walk farther than from their door to the elevator to their Mercedes or Rolls or Hummer or whatever … I kinda doubt it.

I’ve seen them drive to a health club a few blocks from home, then circle the parking lot repeatedly, looking for a space within a few feet of the door so they can go in and exercise.

As for downtown smog; yep, it’s the location — so let’s block the smog in with rows of high-rise buildings and keep it from blowing out (to Oregon or Wyoming or wherever we usually send it when we get tired of it).

OK, so I don’t have any answers either. I don’t know how to create peace throughout the world — or even in Iraq, Iran or anywhere else.

I don’t know how to prevent cancer, AIDS or child- and spouse-abuse.

So does that mean we should just give up one everything? To me, the defeatism of saying growth will continue and we can’t do anything about it, kind of falls into that kind of category.

A co-worker once overheard some of us griping about the constant inflow of Californians.
He asked, “Why do you hate Californians?”
I said, “We don’t hate them; we just view them like coyotes, grasshoppers and jackrabbits: A few of them around are fine, but when they start coming in by the thousands, you gotta start shooting them or spraying them or something.”

Well, OK, maybe that’s a (tiny bit) of an exageration or something, and I’m not really advocating shooting them, but there must be some way to legally and safely at least slow the growth. At the very least, we can quit encouraging it, and disband the various agencies whose primary job seems to be to finish wiping out what’s left of the Idaho lifestyle.

(OK, you woke me up, too. Damn!)

Mom,
What make believe world do you live in? Downtown is not an asphalt jungle, thanks for the good laugh. Maybe the burbs where you live may be an asphalt jungle, but then maybe you don’t live in the burbs. Do you ever get downtown?

From Idaho or Main Streets a person can be in one of the many large city parks within a 5 minute walk. Boise has some of the best parks of any city I have seen and the best are right downtown and along the river. The Northend has many beautiful smaller parks as well. In fact the best of Boise is all downtown and in the immediate area.

Once again, do you ever get downtown?

My Dog Lucy is a barker. Some dogs dig, some chew I am blessed with a barker. Barkers are great as they warn us of danger and alert us of potential news we should be aware of. Dave reminds me of Lucy, he does a good job most of the time alerting us to potential noise that may or may not be trouble. In addition to that I appreciate how hard he works to collect information and bring it to all of us, this is contributing to public good if for no other reason it gets us talking. In this case he is clearly barking at the friendly neighbor with a scary looking beard. I’m not sure how he developed such an evil view of CCDC but I don’t understand why Lucy barks at the wind, it’s a swamp and I was taught to stay out of the swamp. Why am I posting, I don’t appreciate the tone of this forum and many of you are flat wrong!

I will disclaim this is right from the Tigers (CCDC) mouth, it’s public record and I beg someone to explain if I am misguided.

How CCDC works; “In simplest terms, under tax increment financing (or revenue allocation in Idaho), the taxes generated by increasing property values in an urban renewal district are used to pay for public improvements and other revitalization activities in that district. At the time an urban renewal district is formed, the county assessor establishes the current value for each property in that district. This value is referred to as the “base” value. Over time, as both public and private dollars are invested and development occurs in the district, property values tend to rise. The increase in value over the base is called the “incremental” value or increment. The taxes generated by this incremental value are shared by the school district and the urban renewal agency. In Boise, the City Council has created a revenue allocation for each urban renewal district it has formed, and therefore a portion (A PORTION) of the tax increment is allocated to CCDC. These funds must be reinvested in projects in the district from which they came. Only revenues derived from the increase in property values within an urban renewal district after its creation go to support activities of the agency, and only if a revenue allocation area has been approved. These revenues must be spent on revitalization projects in that district.”

I do not know what percent of this “incremental” tax CCDC receives vs. the city, school system, fire, police and would be curious to know. I think there is room to debate this and using the language of the “Local Economic Development Act” our City Council has the ability to adjust this. HMMM, does this give our city council elected officials control of CCDC’s activities? There is absolutely no need to elect CCDC board members as it is clearly regulated by elected officials, has two sitting board members and would cost taxpayers a huge amount to hold more elections. I for one like the fact our Mayor can place people on the board by appointment ensuring good chemistry and competence. Ask Sharon how some of our elected boards function when you get the wrong chemistry. CCDC is not perfect, name one human/company/board that is. They have however been quite effective on a large number of projects that would only be dreams without the tools they provide us. A strong Urban Core is smart/important for so many reasons; it seems silly anyone has to defend this idea. Arguing that adding density to downtown is somehow bad reminds me of George Bush telling us Global Warming is a myth. As a steward of our place I am seriously concerned about which third world country we will be depending on for our food when our community uses all our productive farmland for Mr. Logics mansion in Eagle. How will we ever develop a transportation system that does not consume and pollute without urban centers. Dale, I hope I know you because you are my hero. You are right on!

This is a war, eat food grown locally it’s fresher. Our local economy spends over one BILLION $ importing food from out of State. Don’t tell me how much we export, one fifth of our countries fossil fuel consumption is to support our food system and almost half of that is for the purpose of transporting food. Let me repeat, we can keep one billion dollars in our Treasure Valley economy if we buy food that we produce here. Or we can keep building subdivisions on our farmland. Let’s replace Sugar Beets with food we can put on our dinner table. We need people living downtown. It’s one step out of 500 that will help our community have a better tomorrow.

Keep up the good work Dave, nurturing heroism requires education, inspiration, and opportunities for reflection, we can’t always agree but forums like this inspire and educate me.

For Sharon, I disclose my Dad is on the CCDC board. For the record he is the most decent, humble, selfless person I know. He is a great example of why we don’t want every important civic position elected as he is far too humble and decent to participate in the dirty world of politics. Many men like him would never run and we lose when we don’t put them in position to participate.

Dave Krick
Just a guy

EDITOR NOTE–Thanks for your support, I think!
Dave,
Downtown density is not the issue with me as I have repeatedly said. The big issue is forcing me to pay for the services our city provides to downtown while those merchants pay NOTHING toward the operation of police, fire, etc.

Your explanation is flawed because it comes from the CCDC. ALL the increment– including most if not all the school taxes (thanks to the tax law change last fall)–goes to CCDC. Decent, well intentioned people like you and your dad have been sucked into believing CCDC is a noble calling when the truth is, the retired widow on the bench pays more for police and fire at the Grove hotel than all the merchants in downtown COMBINED!

I will bet you dinner for two at Bitter Creek that I am correct.

From the CCDC website:
“In simplest terms, under tax increment financing (or revenue allocation in Idaho), the taxes generated by increasing property values in an urban renewal district are used to pay for public improvements and other revitalization activities in that district.”

The increased value comes only in the form of new construction and appreciation.

Finally. I want the same authority over the CCDC use of my taxes that I have over Boise City–elect those who have authority/responsilility to spend tax money. You say the city calls the shots. Here is what the CCDC website says:

“CCDC is legally and financially separate from the City of Boise. CCDC has a nine-member Board of Commissioners appointed and confirmed by the Mayor of Boise and the Boise City Council.”

Dave, if they are LEGALLY and FINANCIALLY separate from the City of Boise, how in hell can the city have any “oversight” other than initial appointments? Jerome Mapp and Paula Forney were voted out of office by the citizens and remained on CCDC long, long afterward.

As long as the general population is unaware, it works just fine. I see this as a major city election issue.

Can CCDC Board Members be removed by the Mayor and City Council?

If so, how is it different than a Department Head who handles millions of tax dollars, but is unelected? I am asking, because in some cases (Nampa and others) the Urband Renewal Board IS the City Council. In others the City Council appoints the Board. I think if the City Council and Mayor wanted something CCDC does changed…they could change it.

I don’t agree that they necessarily should be elected. Any more than I think the Police Chief, Fire Chief, or Airport Director should be elected.

EDITOR NOTE–CCDC claims their budget is separate from Boise City. The Ada Treasurer sends taxes DIRECTLY to CCDC–they don’t do that with city departments. This agency is much more than an “advisory board” like Boise’s parks, airport, public works, planning and zoning, etc.

We would all be perfectly happy if the council took over the CCDC. They can dissolve the board with a simple ordinance to appoint the council–as in Nampa. That way we would have an ELECTED body which answers to the voters.

When Bieter wanted the CCDC to get involved with a convention center funding deal he was turned down–so much for who runs the CCDC show.

Bottom line the funding and ultimate authority need to be reformed and clarified. The big stickler is the use of property taxes–that came AFTER the original law was passed.

Dear Guardian;

When I asked for a CCDC FAQ, I didn’t mean their FAQ, I meant your FAQ. Like this: Here’s what CCDC says and here’s the rest of the story.

How about a thought experiment, let’s say we disband CCDC, then what? Before we answer that, how do we even go about disbanding CCDC. This is what should be in your FAQ, and is certainly not in CCDC’s FAQ. Even more important is human psychology, people are afraid of change. CCDC opponents might do well to assuage those fears and ensure that the new and untested course of action will be a good one.

But, aren’t you chasing one bogey-man and completely ignoring others. Let’s take S-16 Partnership for example, they own several vacant lots downtown. One became an impromptu campground last summer, until the squatters were “told” to move. Those lots are investments from which they are going to make a fortune, yet very few if any of us “average” people will share in that fortune. Since those lots are vacant, potential tax revenue is lost, irrespective of the collecting agency.

How long should the citizens tolerate a vacant usable lot? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years?

I’ve thought that there should be a vacant lot tax after a certain number of years, that would provide a disincentive to speculative holding, and an incentive to selling at a price (to a willing developer) that would make development feasible. Of course, this idea is fraught with problems, but might be worth some discussion.

I don’t have the answers, but I don’t think the guardian or its contributors have really come up with much either, other than appeal to emotion arguments.

EDITOR NOTE–Convention center proponents want to take land off the rolls FOREVER! It is vacant now because the Auditorium District owns it at present. It is public land not subject to taxes. Is this the parcel you refer to?

Just one more question (at the moment, anyway):

Do y’all who favor CCDC, Chambers of Commerce, nationwide promotions, etc., really think this is such a crappy town that nobody (visitors or new businesses, for example) would come here if we didn’t spend a lot of money enticing them?

I have never written a comment in a “chat room.” However, I feel compelled after encountering this thread. I recently moved from Connecticut to Boise with my family. Downtown Boise is a potential jewel in the making, certainly compared to the urban blight and suburban sprawl I was used to in the Northeast.

I agree that development needs to be done in a measured and fair way, and some of the questions regarding CCDC need to be addressed (as Dave Krick is attempting to do regarding how much of the incremental value goes to CCDC). However, anyone as dogmatic as this site’s editor appears to be gives me the proverbial “willies.” Apparently, if he and other “Idaho is for Idahoan” types had their way, I would not be allowed to be here, even though Boise has been wonderful for me and my family and a “soft place to land” after a difficult move from the East. And without giving too much a way, I provide a valuable service to this community in a specialty field with considerable shortage. Since growth is a fact, the best solution against sprawl is higher density communities amenable to foot traffic and public transportation. Downtown development is exactly what this area needs. It creates a vibrancy lacking in the shopping corriders along Eagle Rd. and Milwaukee. Concentration of people is well known to lead to less overall environmental impact, including usage of energy resources.

You are certainly accurate in your subtitle: a different “slant” on the news. Boise and I don’t need or want you as our “Guardian.”

EDITOR NOTE–Doc, you got it wrong. I agree with most everything you said. I just don’t want to be the one to make a bunch of developers rich at my expense. The whole deal is diverting taxes that should benefit society, not just a few developers.

I welcome you–or any anyone else who wants to make a life here–as long as you pay your own way.

Bill said alot of good things that put it simply what a good downtown means. I don’t agree with his assessment of the BG’s intentions.

I fully understand the diversion of taxes from the normal channels to CCDC. CCDC takes the money to improve streetscapes, parking and purchase land for future uses. The developers then purchase land from either private parties or the CCDC to build upon.

Please explain to me how the developers are subsidized by the CCDC, if the property is purchased at fair market value. The only subsidy I see is CCDC building parking structure instead of the developer. Some developers though are building their own parking (C Squared). Developer subsidized housing is even in the works. There maybe more subsidizing in the funny arrangements with govt’ and developer (Ada Courthouse, Library Blocks). But I fail to see a direct cashflow to developers on standalone buildings.

It seems to me that there are numerous question about how the CCDC operates and how it directly effects citizens and developers alike to the readers.

EDITOR NOTE–There is no cash payment to developers and we have never claimed it.
–First subsidy is the land which CCDC sells at below market rate to encourage development.
–You are correct about parking. New Hampton Inn gets to rent 1/3 of the parking spaces for their exclusive use and pay no construction costs…Ameritel can’t get a deal like that.
–Parking spaces were removed and sidwalk widened for new Spaghetti restaurant near city hall.

In short, we would all like to have the taxes on our homes and the appreciated value of the land stay on our block and get someone else to pay for schools, police, fire, and highways and perhaps build us a covered garage to park in.

The Why is because govt. cannot loan money. The excerpt you point out is merely a reference to the desire (read practice) of attempting to disperse low income dwellings among higher income dwellings in subdivisions and neighborhoods to prevent concentrating ONLY low income and creating “projects” as some larger Cities have done. And the answer to the PERSI question is NO, the employees are not eligible for PERSI.

Idaho Code section 67-6202. “IDAHO HOUSING AND FINANCE ASSOCIATION CREATED. There is hereby created an independent public body corporate and politic to be known as the Idaho housing and finance association.”

IHFA (originally the Idaho Housing Agency) was created by the Idaho Legislature, much like CCDC was created by Boise City.

IHFA and CCDC were both given the authority to sell bonds and incur long-term indebtedness, despite the fact that the Idaho Constitution prohibits such debt without a proper vote of the people.

Since that time, the Legislature has removed the state financial backing of IHFA’s bonds. In other words, if IHFA fails to pay on the bonds it sells, state taxpayers are no longer responsible for making up the difference. That probably helps their case, as far as the constitutionality of the organization’s activities.

It’s been a few years since I was investigating IHFA, but to the best of my recollection, IHFA employees are NOT members of PERSI but do receive other retirement benefits.

IHFA is subject to the Idaho Open Meeting Law, and after a lot of work and a long struggle in the late 1990’s, it is now subject to the Idaho Public Records Law as well, except for salaries of all but their highest level employees. (I would still like to see that exemption changed so that the rest of the salaries were also disclosable but getting them covered by the Public Records Law at all was a big victory at the time.)

IHFA Board members are appointed by the Governor of Idaho, and the Board has two Legislative liaisons who are members of the Legislature.

The differences between IHFA and Idaho Pizza Co. are pretty obvious.

Tam, no doubt IHFA is a creature of statute. It is not just another corporation because such does not require an act of the legislature to become a legal entity.

It enables the government to do what is prohibited by the Idaho Constitution. Since it was originally designed to fulfill a needed public policy goal, low income housing, I assume people have had little problem with it.

But lately it looks like this ability has gone far beyond just supplying low income housing. In fact it looks like the GARVEE bonds are sold through IHFA. And the new amendments to the statute vastly expand the entity’s ability to sell bonds for just about any economic development.

To me it looks like they are gutting the Constitutional prohibition on government going into debt. The stated public policy purpose of the bill is almost laughable if it wasn’t so scary when it talks about the necessity of this measure to fill the “urgent need” to expand the economy here in Idaho.

Dave, I completely comprehend the point. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they lack critical thinking ability. Using your logic then I would contend the message you and the Ameritel boys send is: “Do it our way or we will tie you up in court until you loose the will or lack the resources to move forward.”

What I was stating above is that they have made a CHOICE not to participate. No one has forced their hand. All I’m asking for is that they be responsible enough as corporate citizens to live with their choice and be willing to accept the consequences of that choice.

Last time I looked, both the CCDC and GBAD were conducting business in a manner that is both general accepted in the business world and legal under the Idaho Constitution.

EDITOR NOTE–The supreme court apparently sees it differently.

Quote–“The supreme court apparently sees it differently.” Dave, while you did win a hard fought battle in the case of the airport parking garage, I haven’t seen any blanket of that same interpretation of the law to the practices of the CCDC. If that were the case, then there are a number of projects that stop work orders should/would have been issued for.

EDITOR NOTE–Let’s see what happens next time they go to sell bonds! If the CCDC is NOT part of the city there is no problem. But the city can’t claim control or oversight if the agency is NOT city.

Conversely, if the CCDC turns out to BE a city agency controlled by council, they MUST obey the constitutional prohibition of long term debt without a vote of the people– which trumps the Idaho Code.

They can play it either way, but not both.

Guardian – maybe Tam and I need to take this conversation offsite! 😉 Tam (or anyone else, for that matter), feel free to e-mail me at [email protected].

IHFA is the Idaho Housing AND FINANCE Association, and lately, they have been doing a lot in the finance realm. Someone already mentioned that IHFA handled the sale of the GARVEE (transportation) bonds, but they have also handled the sale of bonds for charter schools, college dorms, and the Shakespeare Festival.

I’m not knocking IHFA here. They have a very capable Executive Director and competent legal counsel. Some of their board members are very capable as well. I only mean to point out that IHFA is hardly just an affordable housing agency these days.

I’ve got to agree with the Guardian’s interpretation here, since the Statement of Purpose of the proposed legislation says:

“These amendments will permit the financing of industrial, commercial, and other projects to promote economic development throughout the state in partnership with private financial institutions and state or local economic development entities and will allow the pooling of loans for such projects to save financing transaction costs.” There’s nothing in there that says, “other than high-end housing.”

I am prepared to be majorly slammed, but why are so many posters such bad spellers? (Did I misspell something?)

EDITOR NOTE–Treva, it is much worse than you can imagine. Sometimes I have to admit I don’t take the time to correct them–especially when thay disagree with me! 🙂

I think Treva has hit on something that older folks like me notice, particularly since spelling was a subject of importance in the “good old days.”

Among the worst (from the standpoint of my willingness to be unforgiving) are the media web sites — particularly TV since they don’t have to spell on the air but only speak for the most part. Fox 12’s site referred to people being “soar” about Eagle’s decision to require a restaurant meet its building code instead of allowing the violation unchallenged.

Even the little headlines that pop up periodically on the screen have misteaks in them. (Just kidding. Make that mistakes). I can overlook a typing error or two, but it does bug me when common words are consistently wrong. (And thanks, Treva, for letting me get this off my chest).