http://ccdcboise.com/AboutCCDC/documents/BoardpacketSeptember262011.pdf

(Listed on page 231 of the 345-page PDF document)

Public improvements:

(a) Remediation of the Site to protect public infrastructure and to integrate the Site with existing public improvements adjacent to the Site is anticipated to cost Two Million Six Hundred Thousand and No Dollars ($2,600,000) (“Site Remediation”).

(b) The relocation and reconnection of certain Idaho Power systems is anticipated to cost Four Hundred Thousand and No Dollars ($400,000) (“Relocated Utilities”).

(c) Those impact fees assessed by the Ada County Highway District for the construction of certain system improvements anticipated to cost One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) (“Impact Fees”).

(d) The cost of those public improvements and expenses related to improving Eighth Street, Main Street or other public areas and right of way in the immediate vicinity of the Site and the Development (“Streetscape Improvements”).

(e) Agency and Participant agree to identify other costs incurred by Participant legally eligible for reimbursement by Agency as public improvements throughout the course of construction of the Development (“Additional Eligible Public Improvements”).

In addition, on page 233 of the 345-page PDF document, there is the following stipulation:

“Agency shall participate in the Development by reimbursing the Participant Advance (“Agency Contribution”) subject to the next sentence. The Agency Contribution shall be Four Million and No Dollars ($4,000,000) provided, further, that if the total actual costs of the Agency Funded Public Improvements are less than $4,000,000 then the Agency Contribution shall be the actual cost of the Agency Funded Public Improvements. The total of the Agency Contribution for the Agency Funded Public Improvements shall not exceed $4,000,000.”

It seems the public improvements that are listed could be construed as “reasonable” public costs — given the size and scope of the project and considering the private investment that is being made by the private participants.

On the other hand, I wonder if Eastman and Capitol Terrace parking structures are sufficient to handle the additional public parking that might be associated with this project. Surely they’ve crunched the numbers… ?

EDITOR NOTE–We have previously posted this information. We appreciate the information, but please either summarize or offer readers a link. Comments are getting much longer than the original stories.

“… It isn’t urban renewal that we oppose, it is the diversion of taxes and the public debt with no vote or oversight. Take away the TIF and most folks wouldn’t complain…”

I see your point about TIF. I really do. But what’s the alternative?

Remember, local gov’t has seriously intervened in the free market by creating Planning and Zoning ordinances. All the lots in the Fairview/Main corridor were carved up before Boise had a zoning department. New codes stipulate all kinds of things including parking and storm water mitigation. Most lots in the Fairview/Main corridor are too small to meet newer zoning requirements.

West Downtown properties simply can’t compete with larger cheaper suburban properties due to gov’t intervention. I’m asserting that many/most in the greater Boise area have benefitted from planning and zoning. But it’s a double edged sword which has also caused injury and therefore gov’t (we the people) is liable.

I see URDs as a temporary reversible secession. Surely fiscal conservatives can see the merits of this. Again, I’m not aware of any alternative to redeveloping older urban areas.

EDITOR NOTE–I wish we had an answer. The real cause of the blight is a series of interventions by our city councilors. They purchased the 25th & Fairview property illegally for urban renewal parking downtown. They purchased 2900 for a police building that was unconstitutional, they traded 25th to a private hospital that never happened…all the while approving massive urban sprawl along Fairview for the car dealers. Now they want to shift taxes to fix what THEY broke! It gets scary when you and I come closer to agreeing doesn’t it?

http://www.brownfields2011.org/en/redevelopment_forum/ErfSite/268/Goodman_Oil

You’re making some decent and interesting points, in my mind.

I’ve often wondered about that Goodman Oil property. I’ve noticed what appear to be very large tanks located on that site (when I walk on the Greenbelt.)

What did those tanks contain??? Surely, they’re not still being used, are they? It’s a very curious site. I’ve wondered if there might be some environmental issues there. It’s very close to the Boise River.

CEURA will have spent nearly $72MM when the the agency sunsets in 2014 and we now have an even more blighted downtown(with a nice 5 block park addition) with less business and commerce downtown than we had before Urban Renewal was started. The board took a $140k study and ignored virtually every recommendation contained in the Leland Report. The YMCA in Caldwell got over $10MM, TVCC and out of state community college got nearly $10MM (and is a redundant effort to College of Western Idaho), Memberships to the YMCA for CEURA board members paid with Mayor Nancolas getting a full family membership on the taxpayer dime. All of this is my beef with CEURA for starters. I could go on with more but Dave likes folks to keep stuff short and to the point.

List of closed or relocated businesses: Rice Ford, Roundtree Chevrolet, Thriftway Lumber, Koppels Browseville and I’m probably leaving out a few.

The decay of Fairview/Main is partly due to a gov’t project therefore gov’t has a responsibility to mitigate. For Pete’s sake, at the River Rec Park P&Z hearing last Monday, P&Z demanded Boise Parks mitigate every last tree they remove.

So why doesn’t a traffic diverting road project have to mitigate for lost business?

Properties in West Downtown have been paying property taxes for decades yet until the River Rec Park, there has been no public expenditure for decades in West Downtown except for chip sealing and some sidewalk repair. And most of the River Park is funded by private donations.

What I’m trying to point out, is that it’s a bit more complex than simply targeting highly visible CCDC and URDs.

http://tinyurl.com/453uyv5

Elway Wait: Chairman
Leona Fouts
Rob Hopper
Cathy Alder
Theresa Hardin

The link I posted earlier linked to the board of the Caldwell Economic Development Council. They work together, but it appears they are two separate governing boards.

“Try giving voters some credit for deciding which projects they wish to fund instead of rationalizing TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.”

Then why the onerous supermajority restriction? What’s the matter, voters can’t be trusted?

And the argument that some property owners don’t live here, therefore the supermajority requirement— is absurd. So what if they don’t live here? If they don’t live here then they don’t get to vote. Simple. Are you suggesting they didn’t know they couldn’t vote in local bond elections and they were blindsided?

From my perspective, absentee landlords cause more problems and their properties consume more services, to use the Guardian phraseology.

As I’ve pointed out many times— I pay more property taxes per sq. ft. than the Goodman Oil Property, even though I’m in the same neighborhood yet I have lesser zoning and no river frontage nor direct Greenbelt access.

How is this fair? Not one of you have ever answered that question.

This is why we need Urban Renewal, else properties like Goodman Oil will sit there effectively off the tax rolls for decades. Technically we are subsidizing them for their land banking efforts.

So choose your poison wisely— subsidize a good looking downtown that attracts business or subsidize an eyesore that attracts graffiti taggers.

EDITOR NOTE–I too see no problem with the 2/3 majority, because in addition to the “absentee land owners,” there are plenty of commercial properties that get NO VOTES. In theory you and your neighbors with $300,000 worth of assessed value could impose taxes or divert taxes on Millions of dollars in assessed value. It isn’t urban renewal that we oppose, it is the diversion of taxes and the public debt with no vote or oversight. Take away the TIF and most folks wouldn’t complain–that is how urban renewal was supposed to work…improve the area to raise the value and tax revenues. Instead the taxes go to fund banks and developers to the tune of $4 million in the case of the Hole.