Comments on: More On Supreme’s Cottage Lease Decision

By: Zippo

Zippo — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:07:35 +0000

Does this new Supreme decision also include the sweetheart deals given to the farmer/ranchers/timber/miners?

EDITOR NOTE–That apparently remains to be seen. We were told the rancher issue was resolved previously by the Supremes.

By: JamesBond

JamesBond — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:03:09 +0000

Good article. I still have a very hard time feeling sorry for people who built or fixed up residential homes/cabins on leased land. I mean, seriously, I would never build my home or a second home (unless it had wheels and a hitch) on land I lease. That is nuts.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:33:02 +0000

Here is a nice write-up about who the leasees actually are and the stability that is needed. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/09/ruling-has-cabin-owners-in-limbo/?print-friendly

By: Clancy

Clancy — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:03:42 +0000

I doubt a lease for a space within an IDL comericial building needs to go to auction. Especially when there are multiple units in the building. An auction would only increase the cost of leasing the space, if only one potential tenant shows up. Should there be auctions to lease the individual storage units too?

What should be looked at is the bid process for who manages the Comercial Lease program. Currently Thorton,Oliver and Keller manages 4 IDL building downtown. Are they exclusive or can other comericial realestate companies bid to manage?

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:32:33 +0000

how many laws has the legislature passed that are unconstitutional?
And how long and how much will it cost to sort this all out. The corruption is rampanr and will only get worse when the new commers start voting themselves into office… (see the Sharon Ullman fiascio)

By: Zippo

Zippo — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 04:40:23 +0000

Looks like local politicos will need to find a new place for the summer cabin

By: Grumpy ole guy

Grumpy ole guy — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:39:02 +0000

It was my understanding that the issue of maximum benefit (for schools) was on the ENDOWED lands. How is acquiring land which was not endowed (given by the Feds for States’ school use) the same thing as managing the older, specific use. Seems to my non-legally training mind that the lands acquired would be a separate category, and in grave risk of being competition with private (or even public) businesses.

EDITOR NOTE–The company line is sorta like this: “We can’t make any money off timber sales, so we sell that land and acquire property in the city which has a higher return–just like the constitution mandates.”

By: JamesBond

JamesBond — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:52:57 +0000

What was the vote on the lease with the brew pub? Or was it done administratively?

I have long been dismayed by the Land Board getting into things that over-complicate, meander around, and outright violate their basic, constitutional duty. Of course, much of this blame could be assigned to the Legislature for sticking its nose in the Land Board’s business.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:43:24 +0000

Nepotism is not tolerated in Idaho unless you are a friend or a realtive.