Earlier this month some people on blog called Voice of Eagle were bemoaning that lack of information on the three republican candidates for Paul Woods’ Ada County Commissioner seat. In response, I composed a brief list of foothills / growth related questions and got on the phone. My questions and their responses (paraphrased) are published below.

One minor caveat. The responses listed below are the result of my conversations with the candidates. My note taking skills are not the best. If I have inadvertently misrepresented their positions, I apologize a priori and suggest they post their corrections on this blog.

Regards,
Tony Jones

____________________________________________________

1. When they take office, commissioners have to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Idaho Constitution, and the laws and ordinances of Idaho and Ada County. Question: Will you enforce the Idaho State Local Land Use Planning Act?

Sharon Ullman – Yes

Steve Kimball – Yes

Jay Larsen – Had not read the document. Thought the commissioners needed flexibility and would not be bound by things like the State’s planning act.

2. Ada County recently spent thousands of dollars revising the Comprehensive Plan. However, as yet they have not written and adopted the necessary ordinances to convert the new plan (or the old plan for that matter) into enforceable law. As a result, land use law, and thus property rights, in Ada County is whatever the commissioners decide it is and it can change for each and every development application. Question: As commissioner, will you codify the plan and make it an enforceable document?

Sharon Ullman – Yes

Steve Kimball – Yes

Jay Larsen – Had not read the document. Saw no need to limit the commissioner’s options or place additional hurdles in front of developers.

3. Will you adopt the Foothills Policy Plan?

Sharon Ullman – Yes. She thought the density levels and density reward system embodied in the plan were reasonable and that the thousands of hours spent coordinating the document with the various federal, state, and local agencies should be rewarded. At the same time she thought the document might need to be revised to include a western foothills sub-area plan.

Steve Kimball – No. Preferred regulating foothills development on a more ad hoc basis. Felt that some development of the foothills was acceptable, even desirable. At the same time he saw the need to preserve 50% to 75% of the foothills as open space.

Jay Larsen – Had not read the document. Saw no need for such a plan. Thought development in the foothills was fine and that projects such as Avimor and The Cliffs were welcome additions to the area.

4. What is your position on Impact Fees such as improvements to Hwy 55 north of State Street to serve Avimor, etc.?

Sharon Ullman – Does not like impact fees. It is not necessary to extract more new taxes and fees, but rather to get the Idaho Legislature to redirect the money growth is already generating back to the local government entities that provide the infrastructure to serve that growth. Large projects that are far removed from available infrastructure, such as distant planned communities, are an exception. In these cases, requiring the developers to pay the added costs of service to provide the necessary infrastructure (roads, schools, fire, emergency medical services, etc.) should be required.

Steve Kimball – Does not like impact fees. Feels impact fees are often misunderstood and misapplied. Prefers local improvement districts to direct the costs of development onto the areas being developed

Jay Larsen – Sees no need for impact fees. Thinks planned communities such as the Avimor and The Cliffs more than cover their costs. Further, he thinks Hwy 55 has more than enough capacity to serve Avimor so it would be inappropriate to ask Avimor to fund improvements to the road system.

5. How strictly will you enforce the Planned Community Ordinance?

Sharon Ullman – Planned communities need to be reviewed in the context of all the laws, including the State Local Land Use Planning Act. The only way individuals and businesses, including developers, can make rational land related investment decisions is if the comp plan and associated rules and ordinances are rigidly, consistently, and fairly enforced.

Steve Kimball – We need to stop approving everything that is thrown at development services. If we are going to have a plan we need to follow the plan. If the plan does not work, we need to change the plan.

Jay Larsen – Had not read the document. Saw no need to place additional (existing? tj) hurdles in front of developers.

6. What is you position on Planned Communities?

Sharon Ullman – Does not dismiss the concept of planned communities out of hand. However, they need to be in, or adjacent to, existing urban areas and fully integrated into existing infrastructure, and need to cover all their costs. See answer to previous question.

Steve Kimball – He is accepting of the concept of planned communities. However, we need to be certain they can provide for their own water, sewer, traffic, etc. and prove they will not be a burden on other tax payers.

Jay Larsen – Likes the idea of planned communities. He is familiar with both The Cliffs and Avimor and would have voted to approve both projects.

So Sharon Ullman doesn’t play well with others!
That’s GREAT! What we don’t need is someone who will sell their scruples just to get elected. Sharon may not be the most amicable candidate, but she sure as hell is the smartest.

I think a debate would be beneficial and maybe entertaining. Growth is very important issue for most, but I would like to see how the candidates rank in other areas. I am disappointed the Statesman chose to take no stance in this race much less publish any factual information.

To be fair to the other candidates, Mr. Jones should of disclosed he has done some work for Sharon previously. Mr. Jones website is http://www.design4000.net . Here is a picture of the intial design for sharonu.com completed by Mr. Jones. http://i29.tinypic.com/2mw951.jpg

Who wants a “love fest”? Sharon Ullman will make it loud, noisy and disagreable and out of all this will come reasoanble solutions.

Give me smart, informed, and looking out for the taxpayers any day over the “can’t we all just get along” crowd.

Go Sharon!

There’s this thing called Robert’s Rules of Order, maybe the Statesman has heard of it. It’s what the commissioners use to “get along.” Does the Statesman have any evidence that Ms. Ullman didn’t follow RRO?

If not getting along means Ms. Ullman didn’t vote yes or no when the other commissioners wanted her to, what’s the big deal?

Do the current commissioners always follow RRO? Did the commissioners during Sharon’s previous stint always follow RRO?

My vote is for Sharon Ullman for reasons already stated.

To Tony Jones: Good job, thanks!

To Snoop: You say Sharon ” is at every meeting and every function that the commishes are at …” as if that were a *bad* thing! Wow!
If only more citizens cared enough to show up!

To Sharon: Go, Sharon, Go!!!

In response to Clancy, you are misinformed with regards to Sharon’s website. Her son designed and built the original site and any current changes – and that is a confirmed fact. So aside from the erroneous info, the point that the residents of Ada County would be well-served by a debate is what I got out of this.

Just wait until November and then vote for Paul Woods. He has earned re-election.

I like Sharon a lot, but after the last 7-1/2 years of Republican rule in this country, I will never vote for another freaking Republican, even for dog-catcher. Obviously local races are different but I think members of the Republican party should do everyone a favor and go throw themselves off the closest bridge. Perhaps the survivors can reform themselves into something that resembles a group which cares about something besides the already overrich. That being said, if I were to vote Republican, I would vote for Sharon. Not a very good supportive statement, but the best I can do.