City Government
City Misses Target (again) At Shooting Range
April 7, 2011 
Team Dave and the Councilors just can’t seem to get away from consequences of their back room dealing on the police shooting range three-way land swap. That deal left Fairview and 27th a vacant piece of urban decay with only a doggie day care kennel and the city holding a vacant piece rock-strewn land in the desert and a shooting range they don’t want within the city.
Cynthia Sewell at the STATESMAN scooped everyone with a revealing story Thursday of how Boise didn’t even know the land they acquired was within city limits and subject to city law. Now, rather than comply with their own rules and regulations, city officials are trying to figure how to “de-annex” the shooting range which is in the foothills behind the Veteran’s hospital.
The city acquired land at Hammer Flat near Lucky Peak to impose rules that lock citizens out of land we own. In fact, the bumbling annexation that brought the shooting range within the city limits was intended to impose restrictive rules and laws on land adjacent to the police range. City officials told the Daily Paper it would be too expensive to comply with their own rules.
Apparently Boise City prefers to live under Ada County regs and in fact have failed to comply with their own mandated improvements since the acquisition. Nice to be in a position to simply change the law if you don’t wish to obey it.
There are numerous “enclaves” of land in excess of 5 acres that are within the city, but not part of the city.
The GUARDIAN has written half a dozen stories about the inept bungling by the city for nearly three years. This latest revelation is hardly a surprise. Scroll through the SHOOTING RANGE archive for a sad history. (Click on the LAND DEAL headlines too)
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Apr 7, 2011, 9:12 am
I, too, found this very interesting and not just a little bit ironic.
If the range were owned by a private business you can bet your bippie the city would be threatening fines, shutdown and more in order to bring about compliance with its rules.
The planner said it was “embarrassing.” It also smacks of incompetence and a we-don’t-have-to-play-by-the-rules mentality.
The city now gets to taste what private enterprise has to deal with on a continuing basis.
Apr 7, 2011, 9:51 am
Amazing. The city has annexed so much land over the past 20 years yet now objects when it annexes its own land! The city requires developers to pave roads and sidewalks and install running water, yet it wants to get out of those requirements. Also, I always thought enclaves of unincorporated land were bad planning?
Apr 7, 2011, 2:02 pm
Just how long does the list of ineptness, elitism, and the down right stupidity of this administration’s record have to get before we realize these guys ain’t just stupid.. they are Dangerous!!!!
Apr 7, 2011, 2:32 pm
Geezz, AGAIN!
I Can`t hardly wait to vote these
city folks out of office.
Apr 7, 2011, 4:30 pm
Inept bungling, yes, but the main point is that city governments have way too much authority over the lives of citizens. Their authority needs to be cut way back. Same for state governments.
And, no the city does not always require developers to put in improvements. I know of one infill development where a house had a big side yard, which now has two new narrow houses but no sidewalks in front of the new homes or the existing one. The city should have required sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
Apr 7, 2011, 8:47 pm
Mayor Bieter and his Team are the “DECIDER’S”. Let them conform to their own set of regs for everyone else.
Then the next thing the can do is open the place up for public use. I can’t imagine any member of the public setting the place on fire with tracer ammo.
Apr 8, 2011, 1:53 am
How many pounds of lead do you figure are in that hillside?
Apr 12, 2011, 10:41 am
No wonder so many building owners work with out a permit, maybe the city should do the same.