“City Council member Jim Tibbs whiffed on the question [at the public debate that week]. He said the Foothills are a gem that should be preserved as much as possible through partnerships, but pointed out that much of the Foothills remains private property. “It doesn’t belong to city government.” Tibbs, running against Bieter this fall, never said whether he’d support continued Foothills development — one of a passel of Tibbs non-answers Wednesday.

To note Kevin further, “Bieter will gladly talk Foothills to anyone who’ll listen,” because his position is clear.

Second, there are a substantial portion of the population that still feel they were treated badly by city government during the last few rounds of forced annexation. They are still angry at the way they were ignored by “team Dave”.

The bottom line here is the cynical attitude that a candidate MUST be pandering to someone each time they make their views known. I find it refreshing that someone seeking office, Jim Tibbs, will actually tell the people how he feels about the issues we face. I would ask that you think about your own position that if Tibbs were “pandering”, why would he choose to “pander” to people who can’t vote? Kind of shoots your position down maybe?

It’s not just about sewer and taxes.

An Area of City Impact is granted by a county to a city through a public participatory process – it’s a “heads up” to those citizens who reside in the effected area (whether they own land in the area or not) that they will eventually become citizens of that community. These non-owner residents even qualify to serve on the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission.

When the annexation law was changed, a split was institutionalized between the Haves (those citizens who own land) and the Have Nots (those citizens who do not). The owner of an apartment complex outside of a city’s Area of City Impact could consent to annexation – subjugating all the residents in the apartment building (qualified electors, every one) to a set of municipal laws that they will have been denied an opportunity to craft. How is it legal, or proper, or moral, to accept a law that grants a single un-elected individual (the landowner) the power to substantially change so many people’s lives.

This violates the Equal Protections clause, and runs counter to any number of Idaho AG Opinions and court cases that reaffirm the authority of Article I, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution. To wit:

POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.

In other words, just because a person owns land they do not have any special right to usurp the rights of other citizens to participate in their representative government. When the “owner consent” loophole (Category A Annexation) is used to annex outside of a pre-agreed Area of City Impact, then the citizens who may live on that land (but who do not own it) will have been denied their legal right to participate in the discussions regarding their potential subjugation to municipal rule.

By closing that loophole (or by a city council adopting a policy that it will never utilize that loophole), real growth management can occur. Without such a commitment, we’ll get the Eagle, Star, and Kuna debacle all over the county – which is nothing more than run away, unregulated growth.

That statement was an unnecessary ad hominem attack. If you’re talking about the River Recreation Park, you should disclose that it will be much much more than a kayaking feature for 15 or 20 people. It will be a park without equal in the world. It WILL HAVE soccer fields. And guess what, it will be open to those who live outside Boise City limits and didn’t pay a dime for its construction. Forget all that though, most of the RR Park construction will be funded by private donations, as I currently understand it.

The kayak features will be cost between $1 and $2 million. That’s about 1% of the annual city budget and only a tiny fraction of 1% of the annual budget when extrapolated over its useful life of many decades.

I’m no fan of team Dave, but isn’t annexation an issue of the long term? Whoever is mayor will have to deal with it. Furthermore, I can’t believe people cripe so much over what amounts to be a few hundred dollars a year. If you’re so worried about a few hundred dollars a year then you have problems to worry about other than annexation.

One might argue about being forced to hook up to sewer which will cost several thousand. In that regard I favor limited grandfather rights.

Personally, I believe the benefits of annexation outweigh the detriments. What I’d like to see and what is rarely talked about, is giving individual neighborhood associations greater power. Such as; power over police personnel and what exactly they do in the neigborhood, veto power over developments, and the ability to charge park entrance fees to those who live outside city limits.

KEYPOINT:

Perhaps each neighborhood association president could have an automatic seat on the city council. Think about that! A newly annexed neighborhood will instantly get a seat on the council.

I guess I should change my name to BoiseIdealist. 🙂