If the property values go too high in the 30th St. neighborhoods as a result of all of these improvements, those people can just move in to one of those 1,200 sqaure foot condo’s downtown, if they can come up with a half a million or so!

Or, we can create a new affordable neighborhood in close to Garden City where we can move those displaced by this progress and we can call it “Homeless Boise” or “HOBO” for short.

It’ll never happen, of course. But if it did, everybody who lives there now would have to move out as their property taxes skyrocket based on the increased “value” of their homes — a value which, of course, exists only if they sell the houses … and go where? to HOBO, I suppose.

And if that picture at the top is the “vision” and “dream,” I’d say it’s more of a nightmare!
Could they possibly jam buildings any closer together? Looks much like some much older cities’ slums.

And what a fire trap!

To me the “failure” here is in making the plans available and an explanation of the rationale for such a development area. I’d like to have a fuller discussion, made openly and honestly, of ALL facets of this proposal.

EDITOR NOTE–In defense of the city (did I really say that?) they are aiming for citizen “input” with the solicitation in the Daily Paper and at hearings. However, they truly have dropped the ball when it comes to telling us about the financing…like a car dealer. “I will talk to the sales manager because I know you really want it. We can work something out.”

Why does the guardian seem to be fixated on “financing?” The 30th St Master Plan is more a scenario than a mandate and has to do with future land use. That is, should property X or Y or Z be up-zoned and for what purpose. As far as I know, nobody in the city government has said anything about a new urban renewal district for the 30th St area as the guardian seems to imply. Does the guardian have some inside info on this?

However, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if such a proposal was made, probably after the election. I did hear something to that effect (new URD) and that it may be coupled with the sunsetting of CCDC’s downtown district.

Shirley Randolph, former Veteran’s Park Neighborhood Association President and others have been working on making the old Consolidated Concrete plant property into a park for 15 years. Parks and Rec acquired some of that land as far back as 1993, but the last piece to fall into place was purchased with the aid of a $1 million donation by the Simplots back in December 2003.

Here’s an interesting essay from the law firm that facilitated the transaction :

http://www.hteh.com/news.asp?eventid=134

ACHD has had plans to construct a 30th St extension for years. It was on their 5 year plan back in the 90s and then fell off. Then it was back again and then delayed at the request of Boise City. Kind of funny that Bieter and company complain about ACHD spending money outside of Boise when ACHD would be spending several million on the 30th Extension right now if they hadn’t delayed it.

With respect to the property tax issue, correlation is not causation! Why can’t we have lower property taxes as well as higher property values? We can. How? It’s beyond the scope of this comment and maybe someday I’ll get around to writing a detailed essay on the subject. Or better yet, those of you who are paid to handle such matters should write about it. Anti-tax legislators, are you listening?

EDITOR NOTE–My inside info is about the same as yours. I agree totally with you that a new road, adjustments to the zoning and a new park will increase property values. I just want the taxes from those increases to go to the general fund instead of diverting the revenues to the likes of CCDC or a similar agency. Other commenters raise valid points about displacing current residents.

I seem to remember reading an article in the last year or so about CCDC. The article talked about how their mandate was nearly complete in the original area that CCDC was responsible for (downtown) and that they were looking to expand to the renewal area to the west. That dovetails nicely with this new plan. If I am correct, that does imply public financing of this new “Vision.”

The Guardian’s jumped the gun.

The “vision” of the 30th Street area is just that – a vision. It isn’t even the beginning of a plan until it’s adopted. That the city opted to cooperate with the Statesman’s article (perhaps even prompted and encouraged it) isn’t a surprise given the high quality of the work.

The city has staged the planning process to first secure public support for (and the public’s participation in the creating of) the vision. It’s premature to narrow down all the potentially viable financing mechanisms that could be used to catalyze the re-development of the area.

If the vision does get approved by the city (P&Z Commission and then City Council – both bodies taking public testimony at their hearings), the next step is to start into the specific masterplanning of the individual redevelopment nodes – that is the time to start looking at the financing options. That’s the time for Guardian-like groups to ask questions, when there’s answers to provide to those questions.

Give Credit’s comment that we are all already subsidizing bad planning rings true. Because bad planning buries the costs (and increased tax implications) in agency O&M and incremental capital improvement budgets, it makes a small target for critics. Here’s a potentially worthwhile project – and the planners, volunteers, residents, and agency officials involved had the guts to hang a huge target around their neck knowing that at this point it is very easy for naysayers to sabotage such an effort.

How does bad planning happen (bad planning that forces the creation of special agencies & efforts to deal with the long-term negative impacts of such bad planning misdirection – like an Urban Renewal Agency, or Special Taxing District)? One aspect of the answer is obvious – it’s the critics of laudable efforts (like this one) who cry chicken little when any agency tries to do competent planning.

If the Guardian wants to ensure a perpetual presense of CCDC in Boise (or anything else that will require a special influx of public money to correct years neglect), continue being critical of efforts like this and demanding answers to questions before those answers can possibly be prepared – and then cite the lack of answers as “proof” of some conspiracy. Your article implies that there’s some secret financial plan that has yet to be “revealed” (as if there’s one one ready on the shelf and there’s a hide-the-ball conspiracy against the “photographer and his blog”). This isn’t the case (though I can’t speak for Alan Shealy).

I’ve lived in this area for the past 15 years, I attended the Open House, and was afforded the opportunity to participate in the public work sessions to create the vision (but like many folks I couldn’t due to a too-busy schedule). I like the plan, but more yet I like the participatory way the plan was put together – I even like the way the city is carefully considering the vision BEFORE it starts into the detailed masterplanning process (when all the financial questions will recieve their due attention).

My one big concern is the potential of displacing the poor and lower-income residents in the area. Too much of the planning efforts in Idaho (not just Boise) focus on protecting the rights of property owners – as if they are some separate (special) class of citizen. Guess what, they aren’t – and further, it’s a violation of the Idaho and U.S. Constitutions to treat them as such. When the project gets to its next step we’ll need all the accountants (and investigative reporters) out their to make sure that every citizen in the area gets a fair shake.

The whole concept can be summed up in two words:

PIT WEST