Comments on: State-Owned Private Business Venture Draws Split Decision From GUARDIAN Readers

By: sparky

sparky — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:24:50 +0000

Idaho may be opening another very interesting “can of beans.” In many States, the ability to foreclose on liens is predicated on the premise that nonjudicial foreclosures do not involve state action and consequently is not subject to the constraints of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Storage facilities normally sell delinquent tenants property by following the state lien foreclosure procedures for our state as private entities as long as they follow the lien law strictly. Imagine if they were required to sue every delinquent tenant just to foreclose on our liens in order to protect their due process rights. After all, we are depriving them of their property without judicial oversight.

However, in the case of this State owned facility, a tenant who has had their property sold to satisfy the lien held by the facility could argue that they were denied their due process rights since the facility is owned by the State of Idaho and would be acting in that capacity. In other words, a customer could allege that this facility is required to bring suit in court so that their due process rights are protected since the State of Idaho is a “State” actor in the foreclosure. There are many cases that cite this legal conclusion Nationwide; it will be interesting to see if this facility forecloses on liens the same way other Idaho operators do.

Bottom line is the state has NO BUSINESS being in a competitive business position with private business. We (the local taxpayers) have to pickup the lost tax revenue from every one of the properties the state takes over. Our fire, police, paramedic, and other necessary services provided for by the city and county lose important revenue.

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:04:32 +0000

Uh, 8th street. For me its the hypocrisy that makes this significant. These clowns in office having been screaming for over a year now about socialist takeover. They’ll gnash their teeth and rend their garments over insurance mandates forgetting that they imposed similar mandates years ago over Idaho college students. Its just a bright clear example of the vapidity of their talking points and again illustrates their lack of solutions. They seemed to have misplaced their mirrors.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:18:18 +0000

The winner in this deal is the guy that just made 2.7M.

By: ya right

ya right — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:10:07 +0000

What a socialist JOKE reading this article makes me want to PUKE seems to me basically the political types said “shut up and take it!” and “$%#@ you! if you don’t like it because we are in charge.”

So proud to be an american and proud to be a business owner! I hope they don’t decide MY PARTICULAR business would be a good money maker for them or I am toast, contrary to the line of BS they are spewing taxes ARE one of the most obscene costs involved in running a business, anyone who states otherwise is a BOLD FACED LIAR!

One other little tid bit for thought, they claim they don’t compete with other businesses by charging “the market rent” IF THE SCAM IS RUN LIKE EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITY THEY ARE CLUELESS AND CHARGE WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT TO, AND SPEND MORE MONEY CHASING THEIR TAILS DETERMINING MARKET RATE THAN THEY MAKE RENTING UNITS.

Arrrggghhhh I am one FED UP and ANGRY tax paying business owning VOTER!!!!!!!

By: Gordon

Gordon — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:44:14 +0000

Congrats, Guardian. Once again you woke up The Statesman, and it plays catch-up.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:06:43 +0000

I don’t see any unfair or competitive advantage if “Affordable Storage” is charging the market rate. I only see the state is able to put more in their pocket(endowment fund) and local tax districts are out $$$$.

Now how can we get the Land Board to buy the Boise Hole. It might have a good chance of getting developed that way.

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:34:37 +0000

8th Street, While it would be my preference that the state not compete, I have no problem with the state competing, where there is a level playing field. But when the state does not have to pay income and property taxes on a business venture, the state has the ability to pass those savings onto the customer, and thus create an unfair comeptitive advantage. If the state wants to operate a storage business, fine, pay the taxes, impact fees, and other charges private business does and play fair.

the state also benefits from lower insurance costs due to tort limitations to the benefit of the state. If private buisnesses had the same advantage to never be liable for a tort claim in excess of $500K, there would be some added savings as well. This lower overhead from statute protections is yet another unfair competitive advantage in the favor of the state.

By: cyclops

cyclops — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:12:24 +0000

I believe that some of the politicos store their campaign items there. Billboards, large signs, desks, chairs, etc. It would be interesting to see if they pay the “going rate”.

By: gr8 t8r

gr8 t8r — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:53:06 +0000

More important than the state running a storage facility is why?

Why do they own the property?
Is it for I84/Connector expansion some day? Or did the previous owners simply want other state land and made a swap?

Who was the previous owner?
Is this another sweet deal?

EDITOR NOTE–Deal was cash through the endowment fund, no trade.

By: 8th Street

8th Street — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:42:31 +0000

So, to summarize, the deal is completely legal and, compared to the usual below cost grazing fees that really do undermine income, and thus taxes for rural farmers, for the benefit of the cattle industry, is almost laudable.

The government, at all levels, routinely competes with the public sector in everything from power generation to land leases, from timber sales to vacation home rentals. Doing the same thing with self storage units does not turn us into a communist state, no matter how much the guardian disapproves.