It is time to recall Frank Martin! He is probably appointed, but if there ever was a conflict-of-interest in government this is it. Who do we as citizens need to assail to get this done?

We have idiots in high places.

Curious, please, everyone deeply appreciates the personal sacrifice the P&Z Commissioners make — did you not note the 60-plus responses to Commissioner Edgar on this site? That said, it escapes no one that this County is in deep trouble (yes, take a look out your window at that air quality) and for Commissioner Martin, credentials or no, to disregard the constraints of water and infrastructure when voting to vest development rights completely disregards not only the old Comp Plan, but the health and welfare of all County residents.

The precedent he sets is hideous: Infrastructure problems that this development will cause (and others lining up behind it) is such a mess that we should not interfere with vesting development rights and just hope it all gets taken care of with conditions of approval before a final (building) plat is issued. What? Are you nuts? That’s why this County is in such a MESS in the first place. His logic and your defense floor me. I could care less what accolades this guy has been given in the past — his justification for his vote is pathetic and part of the problem. If this is good planning, give me somebody else… with common sense.

Like Curious George, I too have heard of Frank Martin’s resume and accomplishments. They tell me Scooter Libby, Jeffrey Skilling, and Ken Lay also have great resumes. Realistically, we could shut down a substantial portion of the nation’s prisons if we could get the MBAs to keep their hands out of their company’s cookie jars. Regardless of alma mater, resume and social status, a liar is still a liar, a thief is still a thief, and a crook is still a crook.

And, please don’t pretend that people like Frank are not without fault. When they knowingly make decisions that lower the quality of the air you breath, the water you drink, your options for outdoor recreation, and so on, especially when they could have required the developers to reduce these impacts, they are, to some degree, enriching a developer at the expense of your quality of life. When they do that, they something from us even if it is not a material thing.

My only regret is that we are limited to throwing guys like Frank off their respective boards. Chasing them to the border, pitchfork in hand seems more appropriate.

One other thing,

Before you can be appointed to a county P&Z Commission you have to have lived in the county for at least two years.

A duly appointed commissioner can only be removed from a term of service by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Since it requires a majority vote to place the resident on the commission.

If a county resident is concerned enough about environmental quality to believe that a single vote by a supposedly anti-environmental commissioner shouldn’t be the deciding vote on any development – then it is incumbent on that resident to get appointed to the commission.

With a commission of twelve, following proper Roberts Rules, a tie vote would be nearly impossible. Six of the commissioners would have to live outside the various Areas of City Impact, leaving four that could reside within the various city limits and two that can reside within the Areas of City Impact.

It might be worthwhile investigating the current composition of the P&Z Commission to find out what demographic would be missing to flesh out a 12-member commission.

And, if a 12-member county P&Z Commission can’t be broad enough in its representation, then it is entirely legal in Idaho for a county and city(ies) to form a joint P&Z Commission. If we really want regional cooperation on land use, require landowners to seek approval from such a joint commission.

Though it might get you elected to office in Idaho, I can guarantee you that whining about existing members’ voting records, or about being “forced” to act within the bounds of the law, is not a way to get appointed to a judicial body (either by a city council or a county board).

Mr. L is correct. I am an Economist, and proud of it. My company is called Rocky Mountain Econometrics. And, I am able to work for a wide range of employers, ranging from environmental groups, public agencies and a few select private companies, because I refuse to bend the facts.

And, I feel pretty good about my credibility. In fact, I feel good enough about my credibility that I am the only one here signing his or her real name.

If any of you have questions about my clients, my code of ethics, the way I do business, or a list of references, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. My web site is http://www.rmecon.com. I look forward to discussing things we can do to improve the valley, and the process by which development applications are processed. I even look forward to helping credible developers produce legitimate applications. And, thanks for the chance to promote my company.

The said, Mr. L’s attempt to turn the discussion to me is a red herring. 

Please read the original post again. The main point of my story is about the PROCESS by which the county reviews projects. I genuinely feel sorry for Avimor, or any company that has to work with Ada County. More on this theme below.

Whether you are Avimor, Skyline, Kastera, or Joe Blow of the general public, you should insist that Development Services, P&Z, The County Commissioners, and the various other agencies in the area, process every application by a consistent set of rules.

All the facts should be explored. All the issues should be resolved consistent with the various ordinances. Everyone, businesses and individuals alike should insist that the “process” operate in a thorough, open, fair, and consistent manner. 

If Avimor, Kastera, Skyline, your clients, my clients, or whoever, can present a convincing argument that their development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that it will mitigate all its impacts, with a fair chance for examination and rebuttal by agencies, businesses, and the public, at a fair hearing by the various review boards, it deserves to go forward.

However, everyone, businesses, individuals, and other developers as well, should have a huge problem with things like: Commissioners meeting in secret to discuss applications; The county ignoring their own comprehensive plans and their requirements for declaring an application complete; Commissioners and staff having ex parte communications during the application process, even during the hearing process, designed to prejudice the final outcome; Staff and commissioners denying contestants their constitutional rights to due process; and on and on. 

You should have a huge problem when one of the principal hearing officers throws the entire hearing process into the dumper on the grounds that resolving the major issues is too “Messy.” (FYI, if you bother to read my Kastera analysis, you will see that I state outright that many of the infrastructure issues remain unresolved and that more work in that area needs to be done. I enjoy working through and resolving the “messy” bits.)

It is natural to want the people managing the review and approval process to cut your personal project a break. The trouble is, your break today, is your ox getting gored tomorrow, and the public’s ox getting gored time and time again.

In parting, let me leave you with this thought. Idaho in general and Boise / Ada County in particular, pride themselves on being a “Great Place to Do Business.” However, to the extent I talk strategy with current or prospective developer clients it is usually limited to the following: “If you have the option, go somewhere else. Don’t attempt to build anything in Ada County. Many of the people in county government, from development services up to and including the commissioners, will want to help you. And you, looking for all the breaks you can get, will want to let them. But in the process, as Mr. Martin so clearly demonstrated on Wednesday night, they will bend the rules, violate the code, and break the law. As a result, anyone in the county with $20,000 and a grudge (Can you say, “Retired Micron Millionaires?) can take the county to court, with your application in tow, where it will rot for years and your profit margin will fade from black, to deep…deep…deep red.” 

In economics jargon, a corrupt review process increases the developer’s risk. (And the public’s ire.) 

In English, Everyone wins when we play by the rules.

The county’s process has got to change. I think you’ll find agreement on that subject broad enough to include builders, developers, business entities, conservation groups, and the general public.

Regards,
Tony Jones

Logicskier,

I’ve read the Kastera Shadow Valley economic analysis — what Mr. Jones replies is correct. He acknowledges that the transportation issue is entirely unresolved and remains a huge question mark.

The developer-sponsored traffic impact analysis of the SH 55 corridor has not been made public yet, and therefore not peer reviewed, but you don’t even have to be a traffic engineer to estimate that the necessary upgrades will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Those infrastruture realities will enormously impact the economic analysis. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if developers began to think twice about the exhorbitant cost of developing in the foothills (and the denser they make it, the more infrastructure upgrades they have to provide). There comes a point when chasing your tail just makes you dizzy, and not a profit.

If Ada County Development Services tries to push the Kastera Shadow Valley application forward as complete without the traffic impacts acknowledged and mitigated, it won’t satisfy the Comp Plan and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, just as Avimor hasn’t. I suppose that if Mr. Jones doesn’t agree with that, then you have every right to impune him given his reponse to playing it both ways. Frankly, I can’t see the Kastera application nor any of the others eyeing the SH 55 corridor as satisfying the fiscal impact requirements of Ordinance 621 (neither ITD nor ACHD has the funds to provide infrastructure, and the Ordinance clearly states that all fiscal impacts are to be borne by the development and not the overburdened public).

I think that’s the whole point of the editorial. If good policy and ordinances were applied as written, burdensome developments (which would injure all of Ada County with inadeqaute public facilities) wouldn’t even come before the P&Z — and certainly not have a P&Z commissioner make excuses for them.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but two years ago when Mr. Martin was a Commissioner, I believe he recused himself and testified as a private citizen in favor of the Avimor application. I suppose now it’s just easier to cut to the chase and vote for it as a P&Z Commissioner. To the point, I don’t believe he disclosed any potential conflicts the other night, unlike Commissioner Hayes (and given Commissioner Hayes’ voting record, I would bet the farm he would have voted to deny this application, and therefore the vote would have been 3 to 2). Is something rotten in Denmark?

Tony, I’m so glad you’re such a noble creature and sign your name. But it doesn’t hide your hipocrisy.

Tony, you live in the worst possible example of sprawl. You live in the middle of a sensitive wildlife area, poop in the ground with a groundwater-spoiling septic system, befoul the air and water with a dirt road and have to drive 10 miles to find a store – in an SUV, no doubt.

Boise City even sent fire trucks last year, at Boise taxpayer expense, to bail you out with the range fires. Did you ever pay them back, since you are so concerned about growth paying its own way? You want others to adhere to planning rules, yet you live in an illegal subdivision. You work for developers, including Tamarack, and gladly accept their money. Your only response to all of this is duck and cover and say, “I’m just a humble economist. I have a Web site. There are public records.” But you won’t address the content of this information.

Yet you proudly stand up as a noble, square-jawed defender of all that is good. Puh-leeeze. You have no credibility. Even with a name.

This is all but comical–the pro-development gang is out in force. We’ve got Scrootaype (that’s the devil in the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis for those who miss the reference) and now Sprawler–I guess that’s to show what he’s in favor of!

But again, instead of defending “all that’s good” (the way Sprawler admits Mr. Jones does), they think that the public should care how Tony Jones earns his living and where he lives. Their venom really leaps off the page. Makes me think the quality of his argument have gored them badly.

Uh…hate to bring up the SUBJECT of this piece…but just exactly what does their finger pointing have to do with Frank Martin’s allegiance to Avimor? Commissioner Martin knew enough to recuse himself the first time around (see testimony links by Jus_the_facts above for some interesting reading). I want to know what changed? If nothing changed…was Frank Martin wrong to have recused himself initially…or is he wrong to NOT have done so this time around? And if wrong THIS time, doesn’t the public deserve that he act fairly at the next P&Z Hearing on Avimor?

Public officials, and I would include appointed officials as well, have a duty to declare when they have an interest, particularly financial, in any project that comes before them. This could be an affirmative interest, like I’m going to make kazillions off this, or a negative interest, such as this is going to cost me kazillions.

It must also be disclosed if a close family member or a business partner is going to have a financial interest. This is true if the interest is substantial or de minimus.

It is good form, though not required, that an official disclose other links such as I used to be a partner with one of the parties but no longer or that I own property two doors down or the like.

If Frank Martin has disclosed a conflict and nothing has changed in his employement etc, then he needs to declare that conflict again and recuse himself.

Oftentimes, those who serve on P&Z commissions seek those appointments because it can help their businesses. This is perfectly ok if they declare any conflicts and recuse themselves to avoid any impropriety and conflict of interests.

The hearing for Avimor Phase 2-6 was for recommendation to the BOCC for the Preliminary Plat. The entitlement of Avimor, all phases, has already been approved. Not a hearing for the project as a whole, but for the plat.

If the planned community has already been approved, should every subsequent phase be denied so that the phases including infrastructure(roads, utilities, water and wastewater systems), institutional buildings, commercial, etc.. not be completed. Then you have an unfinished project that will end up costing taxpayers more money. This usually occurs when the developer runs out of money and can’t move forward.

If you wanted Avimor or any other subsequent PC to be denied, that should have been done at the entitlement hearing.

I would have to agree with Scrootaype (I do enjoy the pun) that if the development doesn’t occur in Ada County, it’ll occur further out where ordinances and commissioners are less restrictive on such growth. Canyon, Elmore, Boise, Payette, and Gem are not prepared for what is being planned in those areas and are scrambling to have something to give developers. But until then, cheap homes will be built and will create the need for taxpayers to fund more roads, utilities, and deal with higher rates of pollution. More VMT=more emissions from commuters. The jobs will still stay in Boise, as there are plans for more office space in downtown.

I think there is opportunity for development processes to become more restrictive in Ada County…I don’t want to live in another large, sprawling city(especially one without zoning).
In my opinion, a planned community is much more restrictive, in what the county allows, than traditional subdivisions. Some commercial and institutional services allow for less trips onto major arterials and maybe even less trips using vehicles.