Energy
Idaho Power, PUC Join Growthophobes?
February 4, 2009 
In what can only be termed a good move toward the common sense line of thought espoused by GROWTHOPHOBES, Idaho Power and the Public Utilities Commission are aiming to have growth “pay for itself” with a modification of rules and increases to developers.
Surprise to no one, Building and Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho, the City of Nampa, the Kroger Company and the Association of Canyon County Highway Districts oppose the move which would put the financial burden for GROWTH on those who create it instead of forcing current customers to pony up the cost for new power lines and moving power lines to make way for road widening to accommodate the increased traffic.
Currently, Idaho Power pays for the relocation when it is being required by a governmental agency such as the state Department of Transportation or county or city highway departments. When a third party requests relocation of distribution facilities, the third party must bear the cost. Idaho Power claims there have been recent instances where public road agencies have requested relocation on behalf of third-party developers. Idaho Power wants public road agencies to more clearly demonstrate that the relocation is for the public benefit and not for the benefit of a third party.
Idaho Power’s application, as well as testimony provided by company officials and intervenors, can be accessed on the PUC WEBSITE. Click on the electric icon, then on “Open Electric Cases,” and scroll down to Case No. IPC-E-08-22.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Feb 4, 2009, 7:40 am
Since “Growth Paying for Itself” was and is the mantra of Ada County Commissioner Fred Tilman, I presume he will submit testimony to the PUC in support of Idaho Power’s request.
Then again, roses may shoot out of his bum.
Feb 4, 2009, 8:18 am
Good job Idaho Power! We need to stop encouraging developers and make them pay the real costs involved so that their profits are not artificially increased.
There is a place that makes the developers pay the full cost of connecting to the infrastructure, I think it is San Diego, and if I remember correctly, it raised the cost of new development by 25%.
This huge cost was previously an ‘externality’ that was shifted to existing residents. The old way of doing things destroyed open land, and decreased the quality of life, while punishing existing residents with higher taxes.
Feb 4, 2009, 1:43 pm
I will be amazed if this passes. The growth at all costs (paid by taxes)crowd will tell us that passage of this modification of the rules will impact our Idaho way of life.
Feb 4, 2009, 2:02 pm
Growth creates a ton of tax revenue that more than pays for itself. The problem is that local governments aren’t very good at allocating that money to improvements that prevent the problems that Growthophobes and Growthophiles both detest.
I have a statistical report in hand that shows how the tax revenue generated by new homes, based on current market conditions, pay for their burden on society within one year. This is down from seven years to pay for itself that the same economic report showed in 2006. The current burden of a new home in the community is $15K. The tax revenue received is more than that. (I’ll forward a copy of this report to the Guardian to dissect)
Don’t just look at the property tax revenue for a new home. You have to look at the taxes and impact fees paid by the developer and the builder. Then look at the ripple effect of the taxes paid by the subcontractors and all of their employees. Then look at the steady stream of all the various taxes paid by the residents in the new home. All this adds up and proves that growth does indeed pay for itself.
Being that the agenda of this blog is to stop growth all together I’m sure you don’t object to Idaho Power increasing the costs to new home buyers.
I just want to make the point that the problems related to growth are not the fault of growth itself, but rather the problem of those holding the purse strings who decide to spend the money on other things at the expense of better transportation and education.
/Users/dave/Desktop/Ada County Idaho Net Benefits.pdf /Users/dave/Desktop/Ada County Idaho Report.pdf
Let’s hold our elected officials to task, not the developers.
Feb 4, 2009, 3:25 pm
Dear Growth Pays,
Any chance you could share the report that supports your statements?
EDITOR NOTE–We will try to link it to the post. It is from the Home Builders, so it is skewed from the outset.
Feb 4, 2009, 3:45 pm
Who wrote that report? How did they get access to data on impact fees anyone paid (to my knowledge, that information is not available to the public, at least not easily available? And how did the report writers value the income taxes paid by these hypothetical new homeowners, or the ripple effect of taxes paid by construction workers?
Elected officials and developers should both be held accountable. Electied officials (usually) cannot be corrupted without someone else to gain from the corruption.
Feb 4, 2009, 6:47 pm
Dear Growth Pays,
Dude, you must be some kind of genius. The Idaho economy was based on growth. The way you describe it our pro growth economy should be some kind of perpetual motion or money making machine. Did I say money making? I meant tax machine. So what happened? If I was a developer and I got rich should I care? The city is in the pockets of the developers otherwise we wouldn’t have un- restricted growth. The developers don’t care that the burn rate of of the tax money by the city is greater than the tax revenue. Not when it makes you a multi- millionaire. All the developers ever did was complain and get the city to make taxpayers pay more for the developments.
Feb 4, 2009, 7:06 pm
Growth Does Pay for Itself says: “The current burden of a new home in the community is $15K” and then goes on to name a litany of taxes that do not benefit the community impacted directly. Taxes paid by contractors and subcontractors is monies tossed into to the wind and is unlikely to come to earth in a manner that will benefit the community from which it was ripped, the same as with the developers and builders profits. Just a huge sucking sound of dollars moving out of the community.
Feb 4, 2009, 7:41 pm
I’d love to see a more “micro” analysis by Growth Does Pay than the overinflated Builder funded study offered up. Let’s start with say….the Avimor planned community. A $50M infrastructure investment which to date (well over 1 year into sales efforts)shows a whopping 6 homes sold. In the meantime the massive utility line extensions, substations, and roads in Avimor are being maintained and/or subsidized by the rest of us. (Not to mention that fancy sewer plant which Team Beiter hates….until 40 or so homes are hooked up the plant can’t be turned on, and instead Avimor wil dump sewage into other facilities.) Growth pays for itself only when and if it succeeds. Right now it is sucking big fat eggs and taking the rest of us down with it as it fails.
Feb 5, 2009, 9:30 am
Would someone please read the report that says growth pays for itself and supply Cliff Notes. I am way too busy looking for the Easter Bunny to spend much time on such an enlightening report!
Feb 5, 2009, 10:48 am
Growth pays for itself said: I have a statistical report in hand that shows how the tax revenue generated by new homes, based on current market conditions, pay for their burden on society within one year. This is down from seven years to pay for itself that the same economic report showed in 2006.
Oh really? and how does this system work in downtimes, like the current depression, with hundreds of new sub-div. homes unbought and other up for sale because owners lost jobs?
Feb 5, 2009, 12:22 pm
Serendipity,
I couldn’t agree with you more.
C’mon, Growth Pays for Itself, cough up the study… I’m dying to see this one. There was a time when you could sell this baseless BS to the Commission, but I think that time is fading fast. Reality has a way of doing just that. Nobody wants to subsidize you all anymore, get it?
Feb 6, 2009, 4:46 pm
Ericin,
Is that like the sucking sound you hear up in Donnelly from the
Tamarack fiasco?