It’s a damn shame that somewhere out there, there isn’t at least one person running for office that even hints at the notion of planned, sustainable growth vis-a-vis more of the same ol’ c-rap. ; ) Or worse, the irrational exuberance and apathy ala narcissism that increasingly permeates our community and allows the status quo to continue to exist.

We’re all gonna get exactly what we deserve this November, and in years to come. We are not immune to the historical and contemporary threats to the very existence of whole towns, even cities. And if we chose to continue merrily along, ignorant, or in denial of history… You know… Doomed.

Great job digging into this one as usual. How do they come up with this crap?

Stupid on the City of Boise for allowing Brighton to proceed on a promise(note failed bridge) to work out the location for a donated elementary land. Smart of Brighton to get the tax benefit for donating back on the BSU purchase. And just plain silly on BSU and Boise Schools for purchasing the parcel with deed restrictions and thinking they could change it later.

Dave Bieter last year was a champion of schools when the big bond was passed. Now Team Dave is championing Brighton’s right to develop this property at the expense of the schools. GO DAVE

Who cares if there is a provision that blocks a school on the property or not? If Harris Ranch won’t wave their right to block it, the school district can condemn the property with eminent domain. Harris Ranch can not prevent a school from being built on the property any more than you can keep ACHD from purchasing some/all of your property for right-of-way.

Great comment by Curious. Maybe you can comment on something. My understanding was that the BSU Foundation wasn’t getting the entire EJHS property. Just the part of the property around the track.

Didn’t the University of Idaho try some “creative” stuff like this and they lost $20 million bucks and people got sued?

The University of Idaho got into trouble because it conceded to the UofI Foundation’s request to cover millions of dollars in accrued debt. There wasn’t anything illegal with the foundation going into debt (it was just stupid), but when the university gave public funds to cover that debt (without State Board approval) the law was broken. Then most everyone involved tried to cover up the illegal transaction.

Honestly speaking, the State does such a poor job in project management (design contracting, bidding, and construction oversight) that it bleeds tax money whenever it tries to build something. This isn’t the fault of state employees, who are more than qualified to manage capital construction projects. The blame rests squarely with the myriad oversight committees every politician insists on being in place. At every critical juncture in a project, the project teams are required to bundle up all the project information and present it to these committees for “review” – never mind that the politicians on these committees wouldn’t know a T-square from a backhoe.

If it’s frustrating for the project teams, imagine if you are a major contributor to a public building. Every such “review” creates project delays, which translate directly into cost overruns – can you imagine how a donor feels when the gifted money is wasted so a technocrat can feel like they’ve done their job.

It is out of this frustration that scholarship foundations have been co-opted to serve as “advancement” foundations. Turning such organizations into bricks-and-mortar non-profit corporations is a bad idea, but many local donors won’t gift capital funds if they know that the State will be managing the project.

The difference between these foundations and an urban renewal agency is the level of transparency. URA’s have a number of checks and balances written into their governance structures, whether these are followed is another question. But, non-profit foundations have no such parallel structure – and the temptation to violate ethical conduct is very great (University Place being just one example). And when these temptations are spread out over a board (which knows that it’s actions are cloaked in secrecy), very bad things tend to happen (especially when large potential donors sit on these same boards).

The litigation intrigues me. I’ve seen no mention of the District actually coming into ownership. So how do they have the power of eminent domain? Seems very contingent to me. And if the Court rules they don’t have the power and the litigation fails does Brighton lose their tax write off? I assume they got the write off for donating to an educational institution. Will that lead to more litigation?

If they do have the power, then what they seek to do is to pay the fair market price for the property’s highest and best use without the restrictions less, I assume, the amount they already paid. In other words, the district is asking a jury to make an award of damages to the Harris family for the district’s intentional (and arguably malicious since there is other property available) interference with their private property rights and upsetting their development plans when they could have just negotiated a simple fair market value to begin with. Sounds like a very risky course of action.

Who is the attorney for the District?

Gman, Mr. Bond makes a good point. The restrictive covenants from what I read don’t blatantly prohibit a school but rather any proposed use of the land is subject to the approval of the Harris family. I understand that they said no to a school upon inquiry but I think its overstating to say or imply that the district purchased a deed for land that prohibited a school. (Ed note-school and Harris have been negotiating since January and Harris has said NO SCHOOL and is defending their right to prohibit the use.)

Isn’t a condition of approval for this development that the Harris family accomodate a school? Maybe that was just an elementary school.

George you are a wealth of information. I agree that we are likely to take it in the shorts again on this one.

Good job, Guardian!

The Harris Ranch fiasco is but the latest in a series of fiascos that has plagued this bond issue.

We’ve seen the proposed new elementary site near Borah High fall through (another “deal”), the Harris Ranch site is dependent on its “deal” happening, and the Cole School deed restriction hadn’t been settled before the bond election even though the District claimed it would use proceeds from the Cole site land sale to offset new school construction costs.

The proposed Harris Ranch site is hemmed in by the foothills to the north, Warm Springs Avenue on the south, Harris Ranch and Golden Dawn Estates to the west, and more development potential property to the east. It also may sit very close to a 100 year flood plain. Surely there must be a better junior high school site in the area than the proposed one.

The District’s own documents show that it originally planned to outright purchase a junior high site in the Harris Ranch area. A specific location was not mentioned. Somewhere along the way (during the bond campaign if I recall correctly) the District and the BAA (or BSUF) developed a “partnership” and the current plan was hatched. We go from simple to complex. So another question is what happened to the millions of dollars the District “saved” by entering into this “partnership.”

Still another question is why the District is purchasing a 20 acre site for a junior high school when the District standard for Les Bois, Riverglen, and the relocated West Junior High has been 30 acres. A number of times in the past the District has partnered with Parks and Rec to have joint use parks built next to the school to gain additional acreage. That doesn’t seem to be an option this time.

Since the District has the opportunity to review, comment, and, if its wishes, impose conditions (my sources tell me it rarely does) on each development proposal in its jurisdiction, one has to wonder where on the original Harris Ranch site plan, and the changes thereto, schools were proposed and why those plans are not being followed.

I’m told that under the original Harris Ranch plan, an elementary school site was designated on the south side of Warm Springs. My sources tell me that other school sites were indicated on those initial plans and that there has been some site renegotiations since the original development plans were filed. If someone (Guardian?) has the interest, they might check the original filings with the City and/or County or the school district to see where the sites were proposed.

One must wonder about the District’s competence to plan for new schools. The District has failed both its taxpayers and the children this time by failing to nail down some significant details (like property ownership) before going to the people for a bond issue. In the past it has held property for many years before constructing new schools (think Timberline and Riverglen) with bond monies.

As par for the course, the District continues to march forth with its usual arrogance and lack of planning because there are plenty of tax dollars to cover mistakes. All the while proclaiming there is not enough money for the classroom.

It’s time for more scrutiny of the school district but don’t count on the Daily or other media to do that. At least we can count on the Guardian.

Sis – I’m with you. I’m not an attorney, but I have to wonder how the District can sue the Harris family when another party appears to own the land. Perhaps this is part of the posturing to get the restriction lifted as Stephen seems to suggest or it might be part of a breach of contract made when Harris Ranch first started to develop. Not to worry though, the District has plenty of our tax dollars to pay for all this. Board minutes for the April 9, 2007 meeting (http://www.boiseschools.org/board/meeting/index.html) seem to indicate that a John King and a Mike Ballantyne might be attorneys for the District.

Stephen, you raise good points about the subcontracting work. It might be interesting to see how the State Board of Ed was involved with any of those buildings, to what extent, and how the Board members voted on those buildings and the contracts affecting those buildings.

I looked at the deed of acquisition for the property. It was transferred from Brighton Investments LLC to “The State of Idaho, by and through the State Board of Education c/o Boise State University”

There doesn’t appear to be any involvement by the Boise State Foundation in the land deal so far. It also seems that the SBOE is involved so that Bogeyman can be put to rest.

EDITOR NOTE–Thanks for the research Blue. We fixed the reference. One of our sources obviously provided bad info.

The “look and smell” of this deal is just the Editor’s breath and reflection in the mirror. Go ahead and stifle my free speech Dave and squash my opinion. You haven’t yet been able to connect Mayor Bieter with this deal. YOU are a Dave Bieter hater – admit it!