The lack of transparency by Boise does not set a good example for other agencies. I understand the need for secrecy on the first transaction with the Johnson’s/bank, but this second sale should be the epitome of open. I don’t see a problem with the transfer as long as the like value properties that are trade are valued by a independent party.

Did you forget that your three commissioners were found guilty of violating the open meeting law?

Did you forget that one of your colleagues offered Skyline a quid pro quo for “taking care of the illegal subdivision”?

Did you forget that your department coached the cliffs, and charge the public for documents that you gave to the developer for free.?

Did you forget that your department once paid one of your colleagues to spy on a SaveThePlateau picnic?

Did you forget that you personally were on the receiving end of exparte communications with the developer during the hearing process?

That, Dean, is what illegal, secret activities at the county looked like during your tenure at Ada County. How dare you, in the absence of proof, pretend that this situation and yours are somehow comparable.

Say what?

Because of the ag exemption, Skyline never paid more than $300 per year on the $10 million property.

And last year, as Skyline went broke, they didn’t pay the taxes at all.

So the impact to other boise home owners is somewhere below $0.01 per year?

Never mind.

“The Committee’s meetings are conducted in accordance with Idaho Open Meetings Laws, however land acquisition negotiations, whether public or private, are usually done with the benefit of confidentiality. If the parties and negotiations were made public, other potential sellers would unfairly benefit from this knowledge. Recommendations from the Committee must be forwarded to the Mayor and City Council for approval, the details of which must be made public when completed, thus insuring accountability.”

In that same report, the Committee provided a list of levy expenditure priorities:

A) Preservation of important wildlife habitat and movement corridors;

B) Protection of riparian areas;

C) Protection of scenic views, historic properties, and
archaeological resources; and

D) Enhancement of recreational opportunities.

Notice how recreational uses came in last.

I know, I know — the only thing worse than people who write things down, are people who keep bringing them up.

Where public funds are involved, confidential private land purchase negotiations (and negotiations for private land exchanges) with the owners do actually benefit the public.

But the dealings (or negotiated terms) of any purchase of land between PUBLIC entities, of publicly-owned land, carries no actual public benefit — and should not be (and I believe cannot be) held in a closed session.

By definition, the Committee cannot act to “protect” the Boise citizen from an Idaho agency — any more than it can protect them from a County agency — by shrouding its negotiations with such an agency in secrecy. A Boise citizen is a County citizen, is a State citizen.

The need for confidentiality doesn’t extend to protecting the public from itself.

“Accountability” isn’t a status that’s earned when (after all the opportunity for public input has passed) you file a report with an elected body. It’s interesting to me that when The Cliffs developer was working with Ada County Development Services staff, as he prepared his application for submittal, Tony Jones and others alleged that the department’s staff was holding secret negotiations with the developer. This allegation was often repeated through the public hearing process — even though no decision regarding the application had yet been rendered.

Now that the parcel has been acquired by a public entity (Boise City), and it appears that the city has been in private negotiations with another public agency regarding the presumably favorable transfer of ownership of that parcel, those same parties who alleged some type of conspiracy during Ada County’s open process are mysteriously quiet. The Committee’s obvious attempt to thwart a Freedom of Information Request from a member of the press is a troubling development.

It sets a bad precedent, especially for an activity between two public agencies that should be so open, that it could have been held at an open-air table on the corner of Capital Boulevard & Main Street and live-telecast on KTVB.

The citizens of Boise will be in a lose lose situation. We paid out our tax money for open space… sure not close space… and then the city will end up with a worthless building or property that the Fish game own that they can’t sell.

And of course both properties will be off the tax rolls so our taxes will need to be increase again.

The only good news in this whole story that no one has reported is that Sky line will probably owe the IRS a boat load of tax on the deficiency of the Short sale.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Selling-at-a-Short-Sale-and-the-Possibility-of-Getting-a-1099-Income-Statement&id=942361

How anyone can make an argument against those who advocate for the transparent, ethical and efficient government we deserve is beyond me.

If it were up to y’all, we’d probably still be paying a Tea Tax to the Crown!

B-a-a-a-a-a…!