City Government
Citizen Rights In Jeopardy
March 8, 2008 
If a proposed amendment to Idaho’s constitution passes, citizens will be denied the right to approve certain long term debts. The constitution MANDATES that local government ask permission of voters.
The cities and counties have steadfastly refused to take ANY bond issues
to the voters since this decision. I believe BLAINE county passed a bond
for a new jail facility after the so-called FRAZIER decision came down
from the supremes, but locals don’t want to risk a “no” vote on pet projects.
For the advocates of the amendment to call it, “Clarification of ORDINARY
and NECESSARY” is simply spin.
The proposal is nothing more than an end run around the voters and a
blatant attempt to limit the rights of citizens to control the purse
strings of government–rights mandated by our Idaho constitution.
One of their arguments is that since PROPERTY taxes are not impacted,
citizens have no right to approve–or disapprove–multimillion dollar
projects. If these amendments (amendment?) were to pass, it would allow
local governments to literally go into business “SELLING” everything from
hospital medical care to jail cells…with no citizen oversight.
(Canyon county wants to build and rent jail cells to the state, there is a county
hospital issue in Pocatello that I am aware of at present which deserve
citizen scrutiny. Also, Nampa is attempting to build a multimillion
police facility and call it urban renewal and get a judge to “confirm” it
is an ORDINARY and NECESSARY expense.)
All the local government folks need to do is ASK PERMISSION from the voters. Pretty simple. It is the constitutional requirement and it is the law.
Important to note that I advocate only protecting the citizen’s right to
vote on long term debts by local government. I make no judgement on any
individual projects or the need for them–the local citizens have the
right and responsibility to do so.
Finally, I would be astounded and dismayed if 2/3 of our legislators chose
to deny the citizens the right to vote on long term debt on the part of
local governments–regardless of the revenue source.
If the legislators were to show such disregard for existing citizen constitutional rights, I can’t believe the citizens of the state would pass–by simple
majority–an amendment that takes away their right to approve major debt
incurred by their local officials.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Mar 8, 2008, 9:33 am
I am not familiar with the case referred to here but courts are notorious for letting government do whatev er it wants regardless of the constitution, state or federal. Remember the Kelo decision in New London.
Our Robed Masters are a danger to the republic.
EDITOR NOTE–The Idaho supreme has come down strongly in favor of the rights of citizens…local government wants to change the constitution to suit the desires of the politicos.
Mar 8, 2008, 10:37 am
Now Guardian, why on earth would you be either dismayed, or astounded, at anything the legislature would do, or not do? After their cowardly, self serving vote on immigration this last week, I am no longer, in any way, willing to assume that these jerks are not capable of doing ANYTHING.
It is painfully obvious that they feel we are not capable of making such decisions, and given the intelligence of some that have been elected to serve, I cannot think of a logical arguement to counter them.
Anarchy looks a little better every day!
Mar 8, 2008, 12:27 pm
Dave, does this ammendment have a name like a proposed bill would have, like SB-1 for Senate Bill number 1, or HR-5 for House Resolution number 5? Knowing the ammendments name makes it easier for us to e-mail our senators and representatives to oppose it. And am I correct in assuming that an ammendment to the constitution has to pass both house and senate and then go before the voters, statewide?
EDITOR NOTE–Once again I was away and had to rely on e-mail. Yes, here is the bill for the constitutional amendment. http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/SJR106.html
Mar 8, 2008, 1:02 pm
Dave, I answered my own question, on the Legislative website (You can delete my first comment before publishing it if you want). It is SJR106 and it is:
RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL INDEBTED-NESS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY CITY MAY OWN, PURCHASE, CONSTRUCT, EXTEND, OR EQUIP, WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY REVENUE-GENERATING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND TO ALLOW REVENUE BONDS TO BE ISSUED IF APPROVED BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE.
Sounds like the city of Boise could open a “revenue-producing facility” (a business) anywhere (like a casino in Las Vegas) and issue bonds to do so with the approval of 2/3rds of the voters.
But then within the same gigantice run-on sentence is says: “PROVIDE THAT ANY CITY OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE MAY OTHERWISE PURCHASE, CONSTRUCT OR REFURBISH WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SUCH CITY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, OTHER REVENUE- GENERATING PUBLIC FACILITIES, TO ALLOW REVENUE BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR THESE FACILITIES IF APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING.
They contradict themselves in the same sentence, as to 2/3rds and simple majority. The whole thing is poorly written and a judge would send whoever wrote it back to school for remedial English classes.
EDITOR NOTE–Rod, the language is intentionally confusing. If you read the last sentence it calls for NO VOTER APPROVAL for “revenue bonds.”
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/SJR106.html
Mar 8, 2008, 1:27 pm
Now I fully understand Mayor Tom Dale’s OP-ED piece in the IPT a few days ago. He thinks the Super Majority is overused to control his bad spending habits in Nampa.
$68 million is on the table (Ordianary and Necessary) for their new library and police station. All to be funded without voter approval.
Mar 8, 2008, 1:37 pm
Is this the amendment you are so upset about?
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/SJR106.html
EDITOR NOTE–Thanks for the link and specific title…I was out of town and using borrowed computers. This is the bill.
The danger is in opening the door to spending without voter oversight. We will expand on the pitfalls if it gains traction.
Mar 8, 2008, 1:43 pm
On Thursday 3/6/2008, the City of Nampa filed a petition in Third Judicial District Court for Judicial Confirmaiton (reads no voter approval) of the Police and Library projects. If unchallenged they will get approval to issue $15.5 million in revenue bonds with no voter approvals or oversight in this matter. This will be for the land purchases with more bonding for the actual buildings to the tune of $52.5 million.
The law firm of White Peterson is handling the legal work for the Nampa Urban Renewal Agency, the case# is CV-2008-0002431-C. Intersted parties have 30 days to file any objections to this sleight of hand assualt against the taxpayers of Nampa and Canyon County.
Mar 8, 2008, 10:02 pm
It is critical that all who read this blog contact their legislators and tell them that you oppose ANY amendment to OUR constitution.
Our founders meant to limit the taxing authority of local governments – this was so important that they specifically included it in this sacred document.
Please do not allow the flood gates of taxation to fling open. Even though some will say that local officials will always listen to and repect the “voters” we have seen too many current and past attempts to “get around” letting voters have a say..they will not change their ways.
Please contact everyone you know and get them informed on this issue.
Mar 9, 2008, 10:34 am
“EDITOR NOTE–The Idaho supreme has come down strongly in favor of the rights of citizens…local government wants to change the constitution to suit the desires of the politicos.”
I obviously do not understand this issue. I was of the impression the legislature was tinkering here because a court had advised that tinkering was fine.
Does anyone have a link to the Frazier decision?
I am not sure I understand the issue from the posts so far.
Mar 9, 2008, 12:41 pm
JINV, try this link for the decision.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:XUfLGj2tN-kJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/sc/1064/boise.pdf+idaho+supreme+court+david+frazier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari
It appears to this logical thinker that cities and counties need to hold elections for citizen approval of debt in excess of one year’s revenues. They have refused to do it, have violated the law and now they want to change the law.
Seems the G-man has them so far. Bad side is the politicos are spending lots of OUR $$$ fighting him so we won’t have a voice.
Mar 9, 2008, 4:45 pm
Not sure it much matters what we do, since our judges apparently pay no attention to the constitution.
Look at any of the “ORDINARY and NECESSARY expenses” they have approved by confirmation — not one of them is “ordinary” (or they would have been covered in the normal budgeting process), and every one of them is debatable about whether it’s “necessary.”
Seems any city or county can go to court and say, we want to spend a bunch of money for something that’s out of the ordinary and may not be necessary, so let’s call it ordinary and necessary, and the judges say, duh, OK!
Every judge who approves these things without at least a detailed investigation including citizen polls, citizen testimony etc. should be booted out for malfeasance.
EDITOR NOTE– Judge Cheri Copsey made the point that judges had a responsibility to look at financial as well as the other merits of any project in a decision she rendered against Boise City’s attempt to go around the voters. Gordon, your message is a good one since a single judge is given the power of 2/3 of the voters under judicial confirmation.
Mar 9, 2008, 9:02 pm
That is my point, judges are to enorce the Constitution and laws as written, not as fixed by the judge for an agenda.
As Jefferson noted, the judges are divorced from the people.
Mar 10, 2008, 6:45 am
“It is critical that all who read this blog contact their legislators and tell them that you oppose ANY amendment to OUR constitution.”
Citizens, I can’t agree. The ability to amend is what makes our constitution great.
EDITOR NOTE–The will of the people should prevail. If the people wish to ask for an amendment that is fine. Currently, a host of lobbyists all funded by our tax dollars are working to deprive us of our constitutional right to approve long term debt, plain and simple.
The power of government to use OUR resources against us is frightening and must be stopped.
Mar 10, 2008, 10:12 am
While many projects might not impact property taxes there are two scenarios where it will. 1) constant development has the impact of increase property values (most cases) and therefore property taxes as well. Increased property value is only a beenfit when sold, until then it is a painful liability. 2) Much government debt is secured by a general obligation, meaning should the government default on the debt, all tax revenue is considered on the table to meet the obligations.
Mar 11, 2008, 4:01 pm
eric – I agree that it is our right to amend but in this case it will cost you (and everyone else in Idaho – dearly.
Mar 11, 2008, 5:24 pm
Property values are more affected by supply and demand. Decrease supply, increase demand.
It is a citizen’s RESPONSIBILITY to dictate what level of indebtedness the society shall incur. If our elected officials can show a true need for long term indebtedness and present it to the society well, it should be incurred. If they don’t truly show the need, or if they do a poor job of presentation to the society, it should be turned down. Either way, the citizens MUST exhibit control by their involvement. To have 20% of the electorate control the direction is not acceptable.
Mar 12, 2008, 11:41 am
Please, please call or email your legislators to stop this abrogation of democracy. This is their little trick to get the new Boise Convention Center (Centre?) built. They can do an end run around the voters. No wonder the deciders are so bent on spreading democracy around the world. It’s so easy to corrupt.
Mar 12, 2008, 1:46 pm
Speaking of agendas, JIMV, you seem to have one. You make sweeping generalizations regarding the judiciary like they are the enemy, not public servants. I suspect your animosity is borne from ignorance, not being too familiar with judges or their jobs. Its the kind of lack of informed reasoning I usually hear from talk radio.
As Dave has patiently pointed out, it was four justices on the Idaho Supreme Court that collectively decided that the cited provision of the Constitution means what it says and that the people need to be consulted on these types of expenditures. And it took a concerned citizen like Dave to carry the ball, even when no attorney would take his case, and it was a thoughtful judge who agreed with him. Most judges are responsible practioners in the law who are very mindful of their place in governement and their responsibility to its citizens. So your axe to grind against the judiciary seems to need a different subject. They did thier jobs quite responsibly without a patent agenda.