City Government

State Rep Joins Amendment Opposition

Another legislator has taken a public stand opposing the proposed constitutional amendents aimed at abolishing the right of voters to approve public debt at airports, public hospitals, and public electric utilities.

In an Op-Ed piece in the Twin Falls TIMES-NEWS, Rep. Stephen Hartgen pointed out the pit falls in the proposed amendments and vowed to vote NO. He mentioned the airport amendment would open up just about anything “deemed to be in the public interest” for financing with no voter approval.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Chris Mitchell
    Oct 13, 2010, 9:26 am

    I have a little more respect for Rep. Stephen Hartgen who voted against it the first time around and didn’t pull a “Moyle”.

    I realize this is your bully pulpit and you’ll post what you want but how about Brad Little coming out IN SUPPORT of the amendments.

    EDITOR NOTE–When the cities and hospitals run all the press from my side, I would consider running the Little stuff. When he went to Europe with BoDo developer do you think they talked about amendments?

  2. Although I am pleased that another legislator has seen the light, the question still needs to be asked. Don’t these people acually read, and understand, the constitution of Idaho and understand the ramifications of senseless amendments? Don’t they realize that when they “knee-jerk” put things like this out of the legislatuer, it only serves to prove that they are not representing the wishes of the citizens? For those of you that think this is a good idea, let me offer the following. Let’s cut to the chase here. Take all the smoke and mirrors out of this issue. Show me a poll that shows the response to one question. “Are you in favor of giving up your right to vote?” Show that 51% of a significant sampling is in favor of that, then we can talk.

  3. we do not need constitutional amendments to give elected officials more power to create debt.
    1. They can do some capital planning and pay cash for the stuff they want

    2. They can run a serial levy like the one used to preserve the foothills. Two years of higher taxes and only a 50% + 1 vote to pass this.

    3. Bond elections with the full faith and credit of the people.

    They want to put public assets into hock for debts (more taxes) that will be paid by ratepayers (taxes for people to pay) for stuff we perhaps didn’t want in the first place.

    A “FIELD OF DREAMS” mentality has taken over prudent fiscal planning and that is the exact safeguard we now enjoy with our constitution. We’re not in a constitutional crisis and need to keep the budgets balanced, no matter how painful to any number of sacred cows.

    Easy credit is beneficial only to the banks and bankers. We all end up paying more for pork projects we never wanted or asked for in the first place. Live within the means of taxpayers ablity to pay for all the stuff we get shoved down our collective throats.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: