“G.W. currently ranks as the most “ disapproved president in history”

Something to remember, just because the left says it over and over does not make it so. The test will be time. Truman had that claim till Carter and then Truman was resurected….I believe Bush has a long way to go to equal Carter for inept and Clinton for crooked and inefectual (name anything he did in 8 years he was not forced to do except raise taxes)

Perhaps I didn’t read carefully enough, but I was not aware, after reading mainstream media accounts of the Tamarack bond sale proposal, that IFHA was involved.

Your site and Betsy Russell’s “Eye on Boise” are two of the best sources of “Idahoans-need-to-know” news. Thanks for your diligence and good work.

Wow JimV, still a few of those G.W. supporters around eh. Most of my Republican friends have claimed that he has been a disaster for the party, of which I vehemently agree. Bush is a disaster for a president and will likely go down in history as one of the worst if not the worst presidents in American history. Really amazing that with all the crap coming out of this administration he still has supporters. Well, I guess he still has supporters in Idaho and some backwaters in the deep south.

Well Rivercity, if one simply believes all the empty headed slogans the left flings about as fact, then you would have a point, It, however, helps to have some knowledge of US history. It also helps to be able to define disaster. I recall that a few presidents have had problems. Nixon had Watergate, Carter his entire inefectual 4 years. Truman was demonized to the point he had lower poll numbers than Bush. Lincoln wass called every name in the book and then some. Jackson shot a fellow for insults. Harding turned a blind eye to perhaps the most crooked administration in history and his critics wrote of his speaches “an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea.” (not unlike Obama) Clinton was in a class of crookedness all his own. If one measures a presidency by what it does, Clinton raised taxes…period. He passed not a single budget and zero serious legialstion, He simply had the good sense not to get in the way of the economy and took credit for everyting from welfare reform (which he opposed until forced by public opinion to sign) to all pretty sunrises. No, Bush will be viewed over time and by folk not suffering from BDS. I suspect his reputation will go way up, especially when compared to Clinton before and Obama after.

EDITOR NOTE– Come on guys. This is about real estate scams. Bush has the lowest “approval rating” on record, hence the casual reference (swat). GUARDIAN hosts the forum, tries to keep it open, but for and agin GW belongs on right wing talk radio. Let’s try to stay on topic.

I have felt for the last 25 or 30 years that the now named Tamarack project would fail. As with your article about the Teton valley vacation place – with starting prices in the millions – just how many billionairs are there?

The biggest problem for the Tamarack development is and always will be Highway 55. The amount of traffic on the road has caused us to give up our annual trip to McCall to share a condo with family for a few days in the summer.

So, unless, like G. Bush, you can bring your own helicopter, you have no choice but to take 55. So I predict that Tamarack will remain pretty much a ghost town unless something dramatic happens with the economy. I doubt that PERSI would get involved with such a dubious project.

And I suspect that property values have fallen below what some purchasers originally paid during the “bubble” of the last few years.

One can only hope and pray that our state government doesn’t get involved with a bailout program for Jean Pierre and his partner.

Jon, please answer Sharon Ullman’s question!

Editor: I agree with RiverCity about you know who, as should we all.

Sharon, I would encourage you to look into the details of how IHF works. They are taking little or no risk here, but rather structuring a deal. They simply act as an administrator (and get paid for their services…they are not spending our tax $ on this). Once the bonds are placed, the private institution involved in the transaction assumes the risk.

Oh…and Rod. Calm down. No exclamation point is needed. Some of us take a few vacation days this time of year and try to get as far away as we can from our phone and PC. 🙂

Jon – Thank you for attempting to respond to my comment.

I do know how IHFA works. In 1997, I wrote a three-part investigative series about the organization that was published in the Weiser Signal American. At the time, I also won the inaugural Max Dalton Open Government Award for my successful effort to bring the organization under the Idaho Public Records Act.

IHFA was created by state statute and was originally known as the Idaho Housing Agency (IHA). The organization’s Board members were, and still are, appointed by our Idaho Governor. Their initial purpose was focused on the provision of affordable housing in Idaho. In its infancy, IHA did rely on state financial backing. They also did, and still do, sell tax-free bonds, thanks to a provision of our federal government.

In the mid 1990’s, the organization went back to the Idaho Legislature and legislation was passed that removed the state sales tax backing, while changing the name to the Idaho Housing and Finance Association.

Since then, IHFA has continued to increase its role in our State’s economy. For example, the organization now handles the sale of GARVEE (grant anticipation revenue) bonds for the State of Idaho.

My point with regard to this story and your initial comment was not about IHFA’s risk. You suggested that, “Simply put, this bond sale will either live or die based upon free market principles.”

I took some econ classes in college. My understanding of the free market does not include government (or quasi-government, in this case) bailouts or assistance when bad financial decisions are made by people in the private sector.

Additionally, we have unaddressed affordable housing issues in our community. People who live in manufactured housing are periodically displaced when the land they are renting is sold out from under their homes, but the aged mobile homes are unable to be moved due to cost and other factors.

Rather than butting it’s quasi-governmental nose into this Tamarack deal to help bail out wealthy land speculators, wouldn’t it make more sense for the State’s affordable housing agency to be assisting the often elderly, and sometimes disabled, folks who are displaced from their manufactured homes through no fault of their own but bad luck?

Sharon, thanks for the history lesson. 😉

I think we can all argue details until we are blue in the face, and while entertaining, it is probably not worth our time. However I will respond to a few things.

Regarding a “free market” I was using that term in the general sense, rather than the textbook sense. In general, totally free markets often lead to chaos and corruption. As free market economies mature, certain control and planning mechanisms are usually put in place to ensure the ride isn’t quite so bumpy. Most laymen would call our economy a “free market” economy, but we all know that a tremendous amount of planning and manipulation takes place, and usually we benefit.

As for Tamarack, I’m sure that they did a lot of things wrong, but I really doubt that they could have foreseen the direct impact that the housing implosion and the large European banking corruption scandals would have on their financial instruments. If they had, they would have been way ahead of the Fed and most of Wall Street. If you will remember, Tamarack’s troubles are a lot more related to their loans being called (due to bank cash needs in response to the aforementioned banking corruption scandal) than to any failings in their business model. They were still selling out most of their offerings when this all went down.

In essence, by “butting it’s quasi-governmental nose” into this deal, IHFA can directly benefit the economy of valley county by ensuring construction, retail, and service jobs are created by the completion of the resort. Any way you look at it, that helps the people in Idaho’s economy that need it most.

Oh, and BTW, I can’t disagree with you on the fact that IHFA needs to do way more than they are on the affordable housing front. Some tie in for this deal to affordable housing for resort employees would be a great start.

I do still stand by my comment. If these bonds make sense, there will be a buyer. If not, well…then all of you that have been rooting for Tamarack to crash and burn may get your wish.