I know what the commishes were thinking… “lawns deserve to be bigger than that!”

4,300? Why not 43 thousand homes? Why build the worlds largest skyscraper there to enhance our wonderful view of the foothills, and make us a ‘world class’ city?

This will be just another place where they destroy the valley, then build 5 homes and go out of business.

Actually, according to the MLS, Avimor hasn’t sold a single home. I suspect that anyone living up there is a ‘plant.’ As for Dry Creek Ranch, I was stunned that the Commissioners balked on density but very glad. Further, outgoing Commissioner Paul Woods made it clear that he wanted to see a more detailed plan in place with both ITD and ACHD for funding of infrastructure improvements, particularly along SH 55. The rest of the Commissiones agreed and that, too, was rolled into the motion to delay.

I do not believe this developer has any intention of moving forward with this project and is looking to sell it, as well as any municipal water right they may be granted by IDWR, as soon as possible. They unfortunately bought this piece of land at the top of the market and frankly, I’ll be amazed if they even make that money back.

Maybe its time to kill the planned community ordinance at the County level altogether. Follow the Blueprint for Good Growth and put them in city Areas of Impact only…and only “if” the city wants to deal with them. Leave the County land rural.

Growth is not necessarily a bad thing. Au contraire.

Boise~Angles style sprawl, crime, pollution, degeneration of infrastructure and a quality of life that is slipping away as I hunt-and-peck, are.

Along with a Downtown controlled by a shadow government (CCDC) and rackets (DBA) answerable to no one. Not even to the City Attorney’s Office apparently.

Interesting how the perception of the foothills has changed over the years. My family moved here 31 years ago. When I was kid, the foothills were all private ranch land…it was pretty barren and the native flora and fauna had already been severly impacted by a few generations of cattle and sheep ranching. We thought of them as barren wastelands…good for nothing but the cows…some even called them “the boonies” or “the badlands”.

After a decade of NIMBY’s moving into the Treasure Valley and when evil out-of-state developers express interest in the barren wastelands…suddenly everyone thinks of the foothills as some lush and pristine paradise for wildlife that must be preserved in its native and natural state.

Let’s get this straight folks…the foothills are in terrible shape. They are being restored to their more natural and native state by the developers and at their own expense. The foothills are now more open to the public than ever before for all to enjoy their re-emerging pristine-ness. Riparian areas are being restored, native plants are being planted, wildlife migrating cooridors are being preserved and protected against development, grazing animals-for-food are slowing being moved off the land, densities are being condensed and confined to small areas.

If all we environmentalist and quality-of-life enthusiasts were to sit back and take another look at it…foothills development is exactly what we would have wanted for the valley floor decades ago.

Roberto, I am confused. How can it be bad for ag land when you cover it with houses, and not be bad for wild life when you cover their habitat with houses?

Wildlife a hundred years ago didn’t much concern the pioneers and settlers of this valley. They were more concerned about eking out a living by tilling up the land and running their animals on it. Now that we are “enlightened” and environmentally aware of the importance of the ecosystem and all it parts, we are learning to be better stewards of the land. As an avid outdoorsman I have witnessed that animals, insects and plants generally stick to the unbuildable areas of the foothills. Migration corridors on the flat areas must be provided and preserved. I’m not saying that all the foothills developers will do everything perfect and I am sorry to hear when they muck it up. I guess I’m saying that many growthophobes can’t see past the blood squirting out of their eyes to see good things happening when they indeed are. I guess I’m saying that I see a lot of duplicity in the growthophobic position. You claim to be the intellectual elite and most cultured of all mankind, but your personal development has come to you because of growth and development of communities and society. If you want a sleepy little town without all the luxuries, this is not the place. Sleepy little towns have their charm, but most of you wouldn’t be here if this was a sleepy little town.

I’ve been visiting Boise for 44 years, moved here in 1990 for good, and it was a pretty sleepy little place in 1990. It took 3 tries for the phone company to hook up my phone, and customer service in stores was slow and sleepy to say the least. I LOVED IT!

I moved here from Orange County, CA. It used to be the best place in the world. When I moved here, it literally took 4 hours of crawling freeway traffic to leave town on a Friday afternoon.

Why must people think that the logical thing to do is grow, when growth always ends up changing the character of a place for the worse? What’s logical about that?

Roberto,

You seem to be saying two different things. In your first response you claim that residents thought of the foothills as worthless and no one cared about preserving them until developers started showing interest in them, and correspondingly, have either elected or have been forced to use conservation strategies in their developments. You seem to imply that developers have not only led this movement, but are the ones responsible for the foothills’ repair.

In your next comment you refine that thought by saying that “we” have learned better land stewardship practices, and then assume that none of us would be here and care without growth.

It’s not hard to spot the fallacies and disconnects in both comments. I do agree that as a society “we” better understand land stewardship, and that yeah, some developments have been somewhat progressive in their open space and native lands repair work. But I won’t make the stretch that development has lead the charge for the preservation and repair of the foothills, or of stewardship attitudes anywhere.

I simply find it hard to believe that you think that placing thousands of homes and roads up and down the foothills slopes’ is in any way a benefit to the land, vegetation, and wildlife there, simply because it has removed the grazing that might have once occurred there. I mean, that’s more than a little silly.

Roberto,
So if what you say is true, how come the outdoorsman in me can’t seem to find a pheasant to hunt anymore in this valley except at a pay to hunt bird lot? Is huntin up deals at Cabelas considered outdoorsmanshiping?