City Government

Ada Beats Boise Again In Supreme Court

In a 5 zip decision, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that Boise City must provide courtroom space for the magistrate court handling Boise cases.

State law says district court judges have authority to order cities to provide adequate quarters and equipment for the magistrate division and those costs can be offset by court-imposed fees.

Boise and Ada County signed an agreement in 1980 outlining the city’s obligations. The city contended when the new Ada County Courthouse was completed in 2002 they no longer had to pay.

The city stopped payment of the court imposed “rent” in 2007, prompting the lawsuit and decision from the Supremes that was released today.

Once again, Boise’s legal beagles have cost the citizens thousands of dollars in staff expense and perhaps millions in “back rent” due the county.

We can’t help but note the irony of the city’s efforts to provide city ambulance service already provided by the county, but refusing to provide court ordered magistrate facilities, claiming the county should do it.

Check out Boise vs Ada County decision at the SUPREMES.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. I am wondering how this will apply to the city of Nampa and their non-payment to Canyon County for court services and the costs associated with running the Nampa Court Annex.

    Message to Mayor Dale..get out your checkbook..

  2. Mr. Watcher
    Aug 25, 2009, 5:57 pm

    This money not paid to Ada county was in hopes of Boise being able to spend this money on pet projects that seemingly always have a way of being able to be seen as helping the people in power.
    If a person looks at it from the view of the people in power. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain because they will never have to deal with the situation if everything goes sour. Being said these people never have to deal with their own messes. This kind of demeanor is only found in government.

  3. Brianthedog
    Aug 26, 2009, 7:56 am

    I sure hope we find out how much this will cost Boise folks soon. I say sell the library!

    EDITOR NOTE–We hear it will be about $2 million.

  4. Mr. Watcher thinks “this kind of demeanor is only found in government.” Right. You’d never see executives at the top of a corporation walking away from bad situations they had created where everything goes sour. M-K and Albertsons sure never saw anything like that?? This isn’t a government demeanor, it’s a societal demeanor reflected by some of those in government.

  5. Idaho Native
    Aug 26, 2009, 10:47 am

    Good for Ada County. Mayor Bieter, a lawyer, seems to think that because he is “THE” Mayor AND a lawyer he should get his way on every issue. On many issues where the City of Boise has decided they’ll go to court rather than sit at the table they have lost. The only people who pay for their lack of common sense and arrogance are the taxpayers.
    It’s time for a new mayor.

  6. Snarky, Petty and Snarky
    Aug 26, 2009, 12:32 pm

    It is hard to see a winner in this situation. Either Ada County collects the taxes to pay for the court. Or, Ada County collects the taxes, and gives them to Boise, who pays Ada County for the Court.

    Sounds like BG is getting snarky because the Supremes suggest paying the fee with our left hand instead of our right hand.

    The only way the people could have won is if the lawyers would have stayed out of it.

  7. Goobs222, you miss the point and are talking apples for oranges.
    Lets take Albertsons where another ex GE big wig took the helm of another company to see it lose a lot of money. This CEO is not running Albertson any longer. The stock holders received an offer and they took it. The mess cost that CEO his job in the big picture and the employees suffered as well. In government that’s simply not the case. No employees are let go and the big wigs just keep moving on. The unaccountable demeanor is found in government to degrees that can not be found in the private sector. Government doesn’t produce anything to keep the front doors open and the lights on. Which is simply not the case in the private sector. If government loses a lawsuit do to misconduct of a government employee, so be it. In the private sector that employee is gone. Take a look at St. Al’s and the last CEO they had. That little 64 million dollar lawsuit that the hospital lost was not a prety picture or her conduct in the witness box. I got to see her lack of remembering and so on that without question had the jury double the amount that was being asked. If this hospital was owned by the county, my hunch is if she was in the loop with the power brokers she would still be the CEO of St. Al’s. Get the picture?

  8. Watcher: Maybe I did miss the point — or you missed mine. I just happen to think that government reflects more of society as a whole than you appear willing to admit. I think having the same $64 million problem in government would have cost the St. Al’s CEO her job there too. Apparently you don’t. And it’s true that the Albertsons CEO isn’t running the company any more — but he sure damn well got a heckuva golden parachute for screwing things up. I don’t recall a lot of multi million dollar payoffs for government officials in circumstances like that. At least the governmental environment gives the hell raisers a chance to seek change (which I don’t think is often the case with big business when rich stockholders and not the consumers make the decisions).

  9. Mr. Watcher
    Aug 26, 2009, 4:17 pm

    We do not agree, not even close. As far as “government reflects society” I have no clue what you do for a living but you surely do not understand people who do productive work and must make a profit, do not think anything like people in government. I do not know one business owner or manager that thinks or acts like a government employee. Even the people that I know that are in the board rooms of very well known companies can’t stand government people because they feel the government folks thought process is deranged and non-productive for real world thinking.

  10. Goobs, you miss the point. Sure politicians and the political “biggies” don’t get the golden parachute as private business does. They just open a lobbying group in DC and make HUNDEREDS of millions of dollars peddling their influence.

  11. I was about to comment that Boise should get a lawyer who can read, and have him or her read the laws that apply to all the various things the city gets nailed on.
    But then I read the exchange between Mr. Watcher and Goobs222, and began to wonder whether *anybody* can read.

  12. Grumpy ole guy
    Aug 27, 2009, 3:51 am

    The discussion among Watcher, Googs and Cyclops interests me. The PURPOSE of business is to make a profit, the PURPOSE of government is to govern, they have different goals and objectives. Hopefully both achieve their goals and hopefully both do so in a systematic and efficient manner. BUT the fact remains that comparing the two is never going to work because the underlying goals of the two are at such a variance.

  13. My “government reflects society” comment was more in reference to ethics and the work ethics of people — not the basic functions of each entity and their respective purposes. I’ve worked in business, government, education and the nonprofit sector at one time or another and found there are good people and not-so-good people and hard workers and not-so-hard workers in them all. Grumpy Ole Guy is right (the function and purpose of each is different and can’t be strictly compared). I just don’t find the demeanor of government to be all that different or deceitful over all than can be found in business or other aspects of society when it comes to the way people function as a whole.

    EDITOR NOTE–And of course we can choose who we do business with, but not who we do government with.

  14. For the most part you’re correct in your note, Mr. Editor. Still, not being able to choose is even true in some cases with business — such as with regulated entities like Idaho Power, United Water, Intermountain Gas, etc. On the flip side, you do have some say in the choice of who you do business with in government through the ballot box. Of course, having all those other members of society involved in that process means that, after an election, we end up in a situation where “government reflects society.” And it’s possible it’s a reflection with which some of us don’t agree. (Doesn’t that take us back to where this debate all started)?

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: