Comments on: Five Voters Are Key To $781 Million Bond Deal

By: Flyhead

Flyhead — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:35:50 +0000

Revenue bonds are abused by urban renewal districts and now this!
I am just curious if this bond debt is fully disclosed to property purchasers?

EDITOR NOTE–The answer is, “DON’T KNOW” because no lots have been sold. Supposedly it will be a requirement of sale to disclose the liens.

By: JamesBond

JamesBond — Sat, 18 May 2013 01:03:35 +0000

Obviously, the AG letter is spot on correct. This is an easy issue to understand after reading it. I have not looked that closely at the CID law, but I knew something was funky about it when it was passed. It is about shifting risk, shifting cost, and making life seem too good to be true for a few. And, it is. This is a fatal blow to the CID law.

By: Zippo

Zippo — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:52:44 +0000

Sounds a lot like the county making loans. Nice loophole. Smart people.

By: Zippo

Zippo — Sat, 18 May 2013 00:50:58 +0000

Duh! This is how a developer survives when no one is buying houses:

But it’s not really important… keep your focus on buses for bums after hours… Our community will crumble without a 24/7 bus.

By: Clippityclop

Clippityclop — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:29:21 +0000

This scheme is all about shifting risk.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:01:44 +0000

So, if I got this right, these renters will authorize the CID to borrow money (for streets, sidewalks, and utilities in the subdivision) and thus obligate 7,000 future homeowners to pay it back. The CID is not a government agency of any kind, so there will be no taxpayer risk in paying back the money. Ada County is just conducting this “election” for the CID as a public service. And the Guardian’s question is about who can vote in this “election”.

The old way was for the developer to borrow the money, have the streets, sidewalks and utilities put in, and include those costs in the sale price of the lot to the builder, who then passed that on to the homebuyer, who financed it over 30 years.

EDITOR NOTE–Rod, you are close. The CID is actually a government entity, created by the Eagle City Council which has a couple of members. The developer essentially has “no skin in the game.” The risk is shifted from the developer to the investors who depend on future homeowners to repay the debt on the bonds which are sold on the “municipal bond” market. The ballot language also provides a 30 year window to repay. The “revenue bonds” for sewer, water, irrigation are to be repaid out of REVENUES collected . Without a major sale of homes there would appear to be no way to generate enough revenues to pay for the various plants and systems.

By: Clancy

Clancy — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:46:20 +0000

If the other 50 ballots own the 2 rental units, I wonder what “Rent” is? A low,low price of Yes?

By: Grumpy ole guy

Grumpy ole guy — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:27:11 +0000

Do we know that all 5 of those residents are of legal voter age and registered to vote?

EDITOR NOTE–Yes, they are all legal. Both families are renting homes.

By: tom

tom — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:22:04 +0000

Just another circumventing of the constitution. Where did these renters move in from? AZ… I would question the intelligence of buying a house with these encumbrances. I sure would hate to be the first to buy and be stuck holding the entire Lien until more houses are sold.

By: Clippityclop

Clippityclop — Fri, 17 May 2013 14:44:38 +0000

If this project were truly viable, encumberance of this magnitude would not be necessary. This project will become a burden on all taxpayers for decades. Shameful. And, I would hope, illegal.