Now all we need is Armstrong, Pechennino, Cook and Wall to come crawling out of their coffins, like a bunch of un-dead environmental destruction vampires. Walking around with their arms out, proclaiming in monotones, “The best way to save the foothills is to destroy the foothills. The Cliffs was environmentally sound. It was. It was. . . . . ”

I’m leaving, before someone starts believing this tripe.

Avimore isn’t in the portion of the foothills Boise City identified in its Foothills Policy Plan. That is, even if the County would have adopted the Plan, there isn’t anything in the document that would have stopped Avimore.

One of the concerns I had when I work for the County regarding the Foothills Plan was the odd way the foothills were carved up. The Plan excludes foothills west of SH 55, and Ada County foothills north of Shadow Valley Gold Course. Nor does the Plan include any foothills south and east of the Boise River. You can see this for yourself in Figure 1-1 of the Foothills Policy Plan (page 3).

The Plan wouldn’t have prohibited development on Hammer Flats either — though it would have increased the amount of acreage being “preserved” from 315 acres to 473 acres, it would not have required the developer to remove any invasive plant species, let alone require him to restore any wildlife habitat.

One of the more pressing concerns regarding habitat restoration on Hammer Flats is the area’s lack of water. This is one of the reasons deer migrate from Hammer Flat, down to lower elevations to cross Warm Springs Avenue to get to the Boise River. As part of the habitat restoration plan for The Cliffs, the County ensured that native plant species forage, and a permanent source of water, would be provided on the 315 acres that were to be permanently preserved.

Skyline Development also obligated itself to a perpetual 1% transfer fee on all parcel sales at The Cliffs; which would initially go towards habitat restoration on Hammer Flat — and once the habitat there was restored, the proceeds of the fund would have been spent on habitat restoration projects and easement acquisition or fee simple ownership of Open Space throughout the region.

I voted for the levy the first time it came up for vote, and I would vote for an extension. But, I would like the public planning community to leverage the meager public purse by engaging private land owners in its bid to restore and preserve wildlife habitat.

There is never a good time to raise taxes. However, and it certainly wasn’t as bad as this one, but it is worth remembering that the original Foothills levy was passed during the recession of 2001 -2002.

On the legacy media’s online story of the purchase of Hammer Flat, the comments were about 10 to 1 in favor of the result. I would vote for another one in a heartbeat. Bring it on.

EDITOR NOTE–The convention center votes were AFTER the Foothills levy.

BTW – GREAT Photos.