Comments on: Decision Due To Dissolve Developer Deadlines

By: TJ

TJ — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:06:24 +0000

I hope the planned community concept will be run out of the country. After 40 years in the real estate community I have seen so many scams that nothing should surprise me, but Hidden Springs and Avimor are just stunning examples of failure, along with the downtowm hole in the ground. What happened to real estate law? No recourse for the county or the seller or whatever entities have an interest in the property? There are some really stunning problems with the agreements that should control development. I guess it is the ignorance of the governmental agencies that stun me the most. Guess someone is making money off of all this crap.

By: Clippityclop

Clippityclop — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:08:28 +0000

O’Edgar ’08!

Former P&Z Commissioner Edgar,

I wish to hell you had run for Commissioner Yzaguirre’s spot this past year. The voters of Ada County adore you. (And your integrity, not to mention enormous stones.)

You bet Ada County will end up picking up the tab for the Avimor mess. Thanks for looking out for us, Ada County Commissioners.

By: Steve Edgar

Steve Edgar — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:47:34 +0000

Interesting…Seems I called for a moratorium a couple of years ago; as a sitting Ada County P&Z Commissioner…It was a lead balloon and no one felt the urgency to review my “radical” position. (I think it is archived with Dave somehwere) Ahhh, hindsight. Please understand that I am NOT saying “I told you so” I genuinely want what is best for all Idaho citizens no matter where they live. In these times we MUST protect each other. On another note and related to this issue, now that Avimor is walking away, I wonder who will pick up the pieces?

For that matter who will transport their sewage, provide their water, maintain their roads, maintain their common area’s, monitor and maintain their wildlife conservation program and trail system? My guess is that it will fall on Ada County to provide all these public services and more. The developer provided items will fall into disrepair and the nature conservation program will cease (if I remember correctly this was a condition of approval). Ultimately Avimor will fail and the folks who own up there will be left with ten open homes, ten occupied homes and an empty bag. If I were living there I would research my options.

Meanwhile I do believe and predict that Ada County will be the “owners” of the Avimor infrastructure and as County residents we will pay the bill….Planned Communities within Ada County have been an unqualified failure. There has been no “trip capture” and no successful commercial district (main selling points) in any PC in Ada County–ever! I do believe in the PC concept, just not in rural Idaho. I also very sincerely hope that the investments of the Avimor residents are not left by the wayside as this development dies off. I would be very interested to see where Ada County’s responsibility lies on this topic. Commissioner’s Your thoughts?

By: Rove Lives

Rove Lives — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:31:48 +0000

Once again, my sincere respects to Ms. Ullman. I may owe her an apology. The communication muddle was at the rear of the horse, not her end.

Her staffer, perhaps embarrassed to admit to a lay citizen that he was mowing the developer’s lawns, indicated that he was getting “direction” on this matter from the Board of Commissioners. That statement, while true, was less than complete. What he neglected to tell me was that the impetus for changing the code had come from the development community, and that it was he who had suggested the change to the Board, not the reverse.

Mystery solved: Problem remains. As Clippityclop observes, as long as development services staff is funded by development application fees, the conflict of interest will remain and the public will continue to get shafted in proceedings such as these.

By: Sharon Ullman

Sharon Ullman — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:17:36 +0000

Rove Lives and Samizdat ~ I checked again with Ada County Development Services and was told that this change originated with the development community and was brought to the Development Services staff. They, in turn, queried the Board about whether to pursue an amendment proposal. I believe that meeting predated my time on the Board. At that time, the Board apparently directed the DS staff to research the issue and provide a proposal. Again, no hearings have been held and no decisions have been made. There is still plenty of time for public input in the process.

By: Clippityclop

Clippityclop — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:10:59 +0000

I wonder if this extension request came from the Commissioner level or was instead commissioned by developers via Ada County Development Services staff. Anyone know? Hence my earlier comment re: the ridiculous conflict of interest which has been allowed to persist with that agency. Until this is addressed, expect more of the same. By the way, Ms. Ullman, this makes the public hearing provess a little lopsided, don’t you think? No wonder the public is frustrated with you all — this is hardly democracy in action. More like lip service. Care to be a voice for change? Clean up this mess, or at least admit it is far from impartial and fair to the County you represent. A five-year extension is ridiculous.

By: Samizdat

Samizdat — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:18:05 +0000

Like Rove Lives, it’s my understanding that this propoal to help the developers did not spring like Athena from the brows of the staffers of Development Services. Not one of them woke up one morning with a burning desire to change the regs to help the developers, but were “steered” shall we say, in that direction. So, has Ms. Ullman been deceived? Or is she giving a line to assuage the public? In any case, WHY would any Commissioner want to give up control over County land for FIVE years?? I think three years is too long! A lot can happen in five years, and the public interest says to keep control over land use.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:53:46 +0000

The flip side of my above comment is let their development agreements expire and let the ground revert. This will force urban infill and put temporary halt to all the sprawl created in this valley.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:50:35 +0000

Developers will go where they think they can make a buck. The challenge for cities and counties is to manage the growth and to get growth to pay for itself.

This last cycle all of the costs of new growth for infastructure was put on the backs of the locals. Either in the foms of Urban Renewal property taxes or levy increases.

If they extend the limits for developers to get their projects up and running it would be nice to have a clause where they agree to meet all new ordinances as they would apply to thier projects for infastructure, landscaping, design, police, fire, schools and my personal favorite TRANSPORTATION issues. This can be cone via exactments or impact fees.

You gotta give to get. Bringing a project forward is a costly process for developers and if they get an extension then some skin in the game is ok by me via some concessions back to the community.

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:06:06 +0000

GREAT! Now we will have an avenue that allows moving the concept of the 20 year hole in the ground downtown into the suburbs!!! Just how many times do we have to go through this before we learn that the developer’s plan is simple. Tell them you will build the bridge across the river and then after you are deep enough into the process, announce that you decided to not build it after all. Get the P&Z to approve your grandiose development and then put in some streets and curbs before you announce that the project is no longer viable without help from the government. Sell the idea of a self sustaning community with all the services built in, talk the county into putting fire and EMS on site, but don’t worry so much about businesses, the county will be forced to do that. And don’t forget to put a non-sustainable “charter school” in and then tell the school district you can’t make it pay to keep open, forcing the school district to absorb it.
Although, I guess when you have a mayor who wants to spend over 50 MILLION dollars on a trolley to nowhere, nothing else should surprise us.