Comments on: What To Do With The Big House On The Hill

By: Gordon

Gordon — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:55:46 +0000

“erico49
Dec 10, 2009, 7:29 am
The government should not be in the entertainment business. That includes leasing party venues, horse tracks, raft rentals, and yes, fairs.”

And the Legislature.

By: New Him and Liked Him, Glad He's Gone.

New Him and Liked Him, Glad He's Gone. — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:09:28 +0000

I too knew, and worked for Jack. Found him to be an incredibly personable and enjoyable man. However, this latter day tendency to paint him as a saint is amusing, perhaps even distressing. It may bet true that he earned most of the dimes he made. It is also true that he could have made a lot more dimes if he had not angered so many of the people from whom he made earlier dimes. You don’t have to shake many trees to find people that, having done business with Simplot once, will never do so again.

I like the idea of the state keeping the house on the hill, as a shrine to corrupt Idaho politics and the go along to get along good ol boy networks that range from Rupert to IF, from Ada County to Boise City Council, and the “hauls” of the State Legislature.

EDITOR NOTE–Much of this comment was deleted as it was too offensive even for the GUARDIAN.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:47:04 +0000

Cyclops- Amen. A hard worker from the start. He was a true Idaho pioneer.

By: cyclops

cyclops — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:33:31 +0000

I had the pleasure of knowing Jack Simplot. Not that we shared the same social circles(I worked for someone that did share that circle) That part doesn’t matter because it made no difference to Simplot. He judged everyone he met on the same level. Some here need to know the difference between “making” money and “earning” money. Jack always looked for opportunities to “earn” more money, and he earned every penny! From a hand lined irrigation ditch to a gold mine in South America, he earned it. Jack spent as much time and effort, especially after he became so successful, trying to find ways to help his community and the people in it. Anyone who says otherwise is being just plain ignorant of the man and his contributions.

By: erico49

erico49 — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:07:52 +0000

Jack gave a hell of a lot of money to this community and employed a ton of people over the years. He lived in that “dump” for 25 years himself. To say that he “never gave away anything of value” is outrageous.

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:05:44 +0000

Ericn: The government should not be in the entertainment business. That includes leasing party venues, horse tracks, raft rentals, and yes, fairs.

The libertarian in me agrees 100%.

However… does that “entertainment business” extend to parks (city/state/national)? Should they be privatized? How about recreational pursuits in forests and other open places?

It’s complicated.

My vision of leasing the property to professionals would be similar in concept to the national parks leasing concession rights to professionals… or on a much smaller scale, the city leasing the concession rights to they guy who runs the little paddle-boat thing at Julia Davis Park. The good citizens retain ownership of property that can never be sold for its true value… but a little revenue is realized at the same time.

By: Dump the Dump

Dump the Dump — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:47:46 +0000

Let us remember that Jack did not exactly “give” the house to the state. It would be more correct to say he sold it to the state for the amount of the tax credit. In that light, simply giving it back has an unfortunate odor.

It is also important to remember that Jack never gave away anything that had value. Point being that keeping the dump was costing him more than it was worth. Same story for the state. If it is costing the state more to keep it than it can possibly bring by waiting (months? years?) for the market to improve, it should be unloaded. The sooner the better.

As for the idea of using it to cater out weddings and the like. Great idea. That must mean it has a high market value to catering companies. Sell it to one of them. Soon. One way or the other, it is time this turkey went back to private hands and back on the tax rolls.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:58:25 +0000

It was given to the State of Idaho as a residence for the Governor in good faith by the Simplot Family. If the State no longer wants the place then they ought to give it back to the Simplot family. Let them decide what is best for the place.

By: ericn1300

ericn1300 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:00:11 +0000

Bikeboy had it right, here’s what i posted on Kevin Ritchert’s blog at the Statesman:

Keep it for now

Selling in this market is plain stupid.

The Governor’s residence was free to the the state but should still be considered an investment and why would you cash out at the bottom of the market? Keep it and see if it’s needed in the future. If not the market will get better.

It was really stupid to sell the former Governor’s residence on 27th street and provide an allowance instead since costs of renting will always go up but with the residence most of the costs are fixed.

If the Governor chooses not to live there then start renting it out for weddings and other occasions to cover costs. The place was remodeled to entertain large groups. If the allowance is removed from the picture then the possibility of a profit renting it out exists.

By: kr7

kr7 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:46:44 +0000

I do not think there are hard feelings between Buch Otter and the Simplot family but there could be disjointed feelings between Mrs. Otter and the Simplot family. Get over it Mrs. Otter—you got him