EDITOR NOTE–Joe, glad you’re back and doing some research. The BPA ref was the supreme court test cast that was decided in July. The point we are making is that if a city gets obligated for 17 years, it sort of cuts into and other opportunities. Folks in Burley voted and handily approved the long term agreement. No telling who the next mayor or councilor mayh be, so it is wise to retain your oversight. If you choose not to vote that’s OK, but don’t take the right away from others.

EDITOR NOTE–Please indicate any factual errors in the report. We don’t have the benefit of $60,000 in public funds to build websites and pay dues to the highly partisan Association of Idaho Cities. Awkward, please let us know if you too are a sibling of Team Dave’s press agent.

EDITOR NOTE–You make a good case for allowing people to vote. If they make a deal like I.F. tried for 17 years, the people are restrained from the benefit of lower rates in the future. Matter of semantics, but you apparently wish to deny citizens of their existing right to oversee major financial decisions that bind them for decades.

EDITOR NOTE–Joe, HJR7 is a two parter. There is indeed a vote for CONSTRUCTION of power generating facilities. No problem. However the contract provision would allow a city to enter into open ended agreements obligating the ratepayers (who are also taxpayers in city-owned systems) to agreements like the one Idaho Falls tried for 17 years. With 200 wind generators coming online in the next couple of years in Eastern Idaho, it is only reasonable to allow citizens to weigh in. Burley had a vote on the issue and it passed handily. It is hardly an imposition to allow a vote every 17 years. Citizen oversight can prevent deals with cronies as well…politicos change with the wind, but the constitution shouldn’t.

User pay for governement services is something we all need to consider.

Growth needs to be paid for by those who generate the need for more and higher user fees.

“Seriously Awkward” obviously is of the Enlightened Minority.

Now [with a gentle pat on the head] run along, Dave, and don’t cause trouble. They know what’s best.

My big and legitimate fear is that Election Day will conflict with the finals of America’s Got Talent, so lots of folks will miss the opportunity to participate. (I’m sure you get my point, despite your obviously questionable capacity.) Of course, our City (and State and Federal) Fathers are counting on us NOT paying attention… it’s worked for a long time.

(Your viewpoints and involvement are sincerly appreciated by THIS reader, Dave. Thanks!)

EDITOR NOTE–Based on your information it appears Idaho is in a “leadership role” on the issue and shares the same rules as California whose economy is bigger than most nations of the world. I assure you kind sir the legislature did not represent the people. You will be hard pressed to find any “people” who wish to eliminate their constitutional right to vote. These amendments don’t seek to change the 2/3 requirement, they all seek to ELIMINATE THE PEOPLE from the equation period.

For better or worse the Rs made it part of their party platform to oppose the amendment after the majority of them in the legislature approved it…go figure.

EDITOR NOTE–We tried and it was an obvious intent of the legislative council to leave it deceptive. It may actually be a good campaign point for those cherish the constitutional rights we have.

EDITOR NOTE–Last time we heard the finance allegation Boise had to pay taxes on their privately owned fire stations. The courts also seem comfortable with our comprehension.