Comments on: Hyped Development Now Pathetic Footnote

By: Paul C

Paul C — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:41:32 +0000

Back to Legacy….
Wasn’t it supposed to have all kinds of schools to help-push your child to succeed in the sports world? (IMHO-a development for those parents who failed in their own mind about being some sports icon-who would live through their child’s success).

Also, I believe I heard someone was floating around some development here centered around some sort of winery.

There are some real crazy “themed” subdivision ideas floating around out there.

What ever happened to the “Sweetwater Junction”, Movie studio south of Boise, and the “World Class” NASCAR track that was going to be built near Blacks Creek? All colossal failures!!!!

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:33:05 +0000

Until our elected officials figure out how to mandate urban infill we are going to be stuck with developers going further and further out of cities to buy cheap dirt. Cheap dirt and the development projects create the need for more city services like police, fire, parks, schools, water, sewer, electricity, gas and commercial development and the list goes on and on. Nobody gives this much thought whent the approve these ticky-tacky projects. All they see in more tax base for their community.

It has been estimated that every house out in “Toilet Terrace” takes about one acre to support for streets, commercial projects and other uses.

By: dog

dog — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:10:30 +0000

I miss the ranters on this blog defending the “growth pays it’s own way” concept. It is true, but only with massive taxpayer finacial bailouts.
Where are all those pious “free market” bloggers now?

By: dog

dog — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:58:10 +0000

I think the giant hole downtown is a monument to the savvy minds of the development authorities in good ol’ Boise.

By: Tony Jones

Tony Jones — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:27:46 +0000

About the only point I disagree with in the last four or five posts is Edgar’s comment that, “the P&Z Commission has no legal ability to disapprove ANY project . . .” It seems to me that the utter lack of codified code allows both the P&Z and the County Commissioners to use the ““Public Safety / Health / Welfare” clause to approve, or deny, just about anything they want.

The State Land Use Planning Act requires cities and counties to develop comprehensive plans. Ada County spent about 6 months and $100,000 the last time they did a major update. However, after updating the plan, they neglected to codify it. As a result, even though the glorious, much debated, plan is in place, it has no teeth. It is simply “advisory.” The Commissioners can use it as justification to approve, or deny, applications. Or, they can ignore it altogether.

The currious thing is that they continue this charade knowing full well that they do a huge disservice to both rank and file citizens, and many developers as well. Ignoring the citizenry is common enough but, as reported here a couple years ago, attendees of the developer centric “Leadership Conference” in Sun Valley voted, almost unanimously, for the codification and enforcement of development guidelines by all the jurisdictions in the valley, cities and counties alike. A clear set of development guidelines, it turns out, makes like more predictable, and therefore safer, for the developers than does the current state of chaos.

All of which gives Cyclops observation even more poignancy. Turning down some, (most?) of these dogs of developments not only makes good sense, it is what almost everyone, except the developer of the moment, wants. You would think the commissioners could get on the right side of that.

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:30:01 +0000

Not only is the Crescent Rim Condo project a flop I hear that Mr. Clark is being sued regarding the Jefferson Place project. Just do a Freedom Of Information request from Boise City.

By: cyclops

cyclops — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:58:54 +0000

“Don’t blame the developer”. “Planning and Zoning has no authority”. Geez guys! At what point in the process is “common sense” applied? It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that HS had no prayer of attaining the projected trip capture that they forecasted. There was no way that the Fire station would justify it’s location. There was no possibility of making that development “cacooned” at any level! Both of the proposed additional developments have the same assurance of failure. Why are we discussing throwing good land after bad?

By: Steve Edgar

Steve Edgar — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:47:55 +0000

Antiphobe, Your points are well taken and valid. I also agree with your observation on the “lame rules”. If it was one thing I learned from my experiences in this arena, the P&Z Commission has no legal ability to disapprove ANY project if the applicant complies with the code for application. The body is only a “rubber stamp” on an application and the majority of public hearings only provide a venue for public support/discourse on projects, not approval or disapproval only a public pacification. Your assessment that the rules are lame is spot on. The only peg the P&Z commission can hang a project up on is “Public Safety / Health / Welfare”. Such as a lack of traffic control, fire protection or water issues.

Maybe we should eliminate the P&Z Commission (saving taxpayer dollars) and place the burden directly upon the elected officials, (read County Commissioners) so that the electorate has a body to hold accountable for the change in rules so desperately needed. In this setup if the public is unhappy and the County Commissioners do not respond, at least the public can vote them out/in as necessary to achieve public desires. As it stands now, the County Commissioners are shielded by the appointed P&Z Commissioners. At points in my tenure on the P&Z Commission I felt we were only another layer of screening to wear the publics involvement thin. So in short, the system is a huge part of the overall problem and in need of change.

By: Antiphobe

Antiphobe — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:03:57 +0000

My point is simply this…don’t blame Developers who play by the (albeit lame) rules to win approval. Change the rules, don’t hate the player. None of them (players) have done anything wrong. There always seems to be a misguided Growthphobe tone of disdain towards Developers, when in reality the venom should be spat on the system.

Counterpoint regarding Hidden Springs Charter School – it didn’t fail, it worked perfectly by bridging a necessary gap until being taken over by the Boise School District. Ultimate BSD will purchase a District quality school for half the price it would have cost them to construct a comparable facility…maybe less given what amounts to donated underlying land contributed by the Developer.

EDITOR NOTE– Of course there would not have been any need for a school had HS not been developed. AND there will probably be the need for another school once the Dry Creek development is built.

By: Steve Edgar

Steve Edgar — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:43:41 +0000

Antiphobe & Casual Observer, Both of you capture the essence of my point, while Hidden Springs is the ONLY Planned Community that attempted to meet the intent of the PC development, sadly, it fell short. The Charter School failed, the Post Office is barely hanging on and the FD was an unmanned facility for a number of years and yes, trip capture, due to a lack of commercial entities within HS – failed and actully increased the number of vehicles in and out of a remote community directly contributing to increased pollution. If I recall we had 7 PC projects on the books as approved and only 1 even came close; Hidden Springs, yet even HS still failed in total accomplishment of PC goals. The rest are failed hulks or never even broke ground. Ada P&Z Commission just approved the Dry Creek PC which is 3,500 homes on 1,415 acres sandwhiched between Avimor and Hidden Springs…is this really the answer at this point? The Dry Creek Ranch application for ammendment states “The proposed comprehensive plan includes a vision statement, a list of coordinated goals, objectives and policies, a conceptual land use map showing the proposed general land use patterns and circulation systems, economic feasibility study, infrastructure and financing plan, a natural features analysis, a narrative describing the proposed land uses and the design of the subject site, an assessment of the land use, public service, environmental and transportation impacts, a transportation and mobility plan, community services and utilities plan, an open space, parks and trails plan, wildlife mitigation plan, narrative and examples of central design concepts, a phasing plan, a letter from the school district, and a narrative of the storm water management plan.” Lofty goals that each and every PC must attempt to meet yet we have no enforceable code to ensure success. My issue is with continuing to approve these PC developments even when many have failed, stalled or simply are empty lots at this juncture. I believe we should work on these before we approve more. The dry Creek application is soon to be on our County Commissioners agenda, it will be interesting to see their comments.