Some examples of our corrupt ACHD:

An ACHD commissioner who uses her position to further a feud with a neighbhor.

An ACHD commissioner who when presented with information on growth in the Overland/Eagle area and a potential lawsuit says ” I don’t care about that just tell me how many impact fees we get”.

A commission who continually denied the City of Eagle info on revenues/expenses relative to their City and who had their main spokesmouth Quintana say they didn’t have info like that. Turns out it was a lie since a study just like that was done in 2003.

That self same study does not account for around $50,000,000 (yep that’s million) in an 8 year period. No wonder the study has not been updated.

Need I say more?

Thanks for your post which identifies only the Boise School District located within the CCDC boundaries. In the past, did the Boise SD seek voter approval for any type of school district levy, most likely yes? Did the ballot disclose the fact that the CCDC receives tax money as a result of the passage of the levy election? My understanding is that levy election ballots must have full disclosure of all taxes and taxing district for the ballot to be valid.

Additionally, did the CCDC produce a Financial Impact Statement for the Boise SD which must include the full life of the URD? See if you can obtain a copy of the statement which it is shocking the impact the URD has on the school district.

The president of the NEA is quoted as stating that TIFs shortchange school districts.

In my dictionary, there is some latitude in the definition of corrupt.

I don’t think many people will disagree with the statement that ACHD’s decision to use taxpayer money to fund the $20 million East Parkcenter Bridge is a corrupt version of the original plan that required it to be paid for by the Harris Ranch developer.

Sara may have other issues in mind but the preceding example is enough to make her point.

EDITOR NOTE–We missed the “corrupt” ref. All citizens have an obligation to reveal corruption in government if they have knowledge of same. The GUARDIAN doesn’t mind sharing facts, we hope others will do the same.

Additionally, all school district tax levy ballots must disclose all taxes imposed by each taxing entity. Meaning the ballot must read the school district is asking for a specific budget and the CCDC will receive a percentage of that budget as a result of the ballot passage. The reason for the ballot is for voters to impose specific taxes on themselves to specific taxing districts. Full ballot disclosure must be demanded else the passage could be invalid.

Voters must be made aware of the tax impact of all URDs. An audit of the CCDC must identify the amount of tax dollars owed to Boise school districts.

EDITOR NOTE–The law changed with the shift in some school taxes to the sales tax increase in November as a result of the special legislative session.

I agree with you that an audit is a good first step in sorting out some of the problems associated with CCDC.

I also like the idea of a citizens committee having the final say on the agency’s future. The difference between you and me is that, instead of a rubber stamp committee hand picked by the council, I prefer the conclusions of a much more elite citizens committee. Namely, the opinion of the general population as measured by the ballot box.

As to the evidence that CCDC has been good for downtown Boise, it is at best underwhelming. By CCDC’s own estimation they were a failure under their original incarnation. (See http://www.ccdcboise.com/about/history.htm)

They claim to be a great success under their revised vision. However, if they actually have a visioin and mission statement that guides their actions, I am at a loss to find it on their web site. The closest I could find is they seem to want Boise to be, “traditional urban style, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented”. Exactly how that differs from the Boise of decades past is a mystery to me. And, couldn’t that goal simply be rolled into the city’s comp plan at a tremendous reduction in cost?

The thing that CCDC does for absolute certainty, is subsidize businesses in CCDC’s ever-increasing territory at the expense of tax payers with businesses and residences outside their area. If the mayor and the council are as sure of CCDC’s benefit to the area as their rhetoric indicates they are, they should welcome the vindication that a referendum on the subject would provide.

You’ve made it very clear that you believe it’s time for the CCDC to be dismantled. The overwhelming evidence is that, overall, CCDC has been good for downtown Boise. Meanwhile, the Mayor and Council seem to believe that the benefits of CCDC far outweigh the negatives. However, it’s clear that they also believe it’s time to re-evaluate the mission and role of CCDC. The audit is the logical first step. Second, there needs to be input on what should happen to CCDC. Would you really be content if it was only the Council and Mayor who decides the future of CCDC? Wouldn’t you feel better if there were also stakeholders from all walks of life involved? Your belief that the final decision should be made by the Council based solely on an audit without citizen input seems illogical when–on the very same blog page–you’re calling for a public vote on the logistics of a new police station.

EDITOR NOTE–Nick, if you are suggesting a vote of the public on the issue (perhaps including the tax increment financing scheme) I would certainly welcome that. If you are in favor of a committee hand picked by the mayor, I oppose that. Given your logic you must endorse my 20 year plea to have police and fire commission(s).