Isn’t the purpose of handicapped parking specifically for convenience? I understand the concern for not allowing parking too close to a government building, but why are handicapped spaces so very far from the entrance. How did this get by the American’s with Disabilities Act?

When people began parking on the street to avoid the fees, they planted parking meters all up and down second and third. Now, if you can’t afford to pay to access your government services, you have to park several blocks away and walk.

Also, the parking system’s “first 10 minutes free” is an insult. When was the last time any of your business at the courthouse took less than 10 minutes? On a busy day, you could spend more than 10 minutes just going through security.

I surmise that the whole system is clogged like 90 year old galvanized water pipes. Perhaps it’s time to rewrite the Idaho Constitution itself. 90 years ago those water pipes were fine, 90 years ago the Idaho Constitution was fine, but times have changed.

Boiseguardian has made some very compelling arguments in favor of the 2/3 supermajority for bond elections, but is it really a good idea. I don’t know about courthouse space, but I know we need roads but it seems that we are hamstrung by that nearly insurmountable supermajority obstacle.

There’s something that just doesn’t sit right with me about the argument that the supermajority is to protect absentee land owners who would have to pay more but are unable to vote due to their out of jurisdiction status.

They chose that position and they should have to bite the bullet when we the locals vote (in a simple majority) to raise our taxes because when want a better freeway or whatever.

EDITOR NOTE–Roads are not in the equation for bond elections…most of the funding is state and federal and they are not funded by local property taxes. I heard a recent query about having simple bond majority, but for no more than 5 years. Worth looking at.

Our elected Public Servants would NEVER have any interest but that of their adoring constituents in mind.

Just because their smoke-and-mirrors get-around-the-voters schemes are so convoluted that they’re impossible for ANYBODY to understand (even their authors), doesn’t mean that the public interest isn’t being served. Or that “Civic Partners” (quotation marks used very deliberately) would ever have the intention of enriching themselves at the public money spigot.

One of my favorite “Simpsons” episodes is the one where the fast-talking salesman (think Professor Harold Hill in “The Music Man”) comes to town and convinces everybody that they need a monorail in Springfield. Naturally, the monorail salesman makes out like a bandit, and the citizens end up sadder, wiser, and poorer.

(I like the automatic-transmission / school-financing analogy. Perhaps “making sausage” should also be on the list. You’d rather NOT know how it’s done.)