Four Votes Approve $781 Million Development Debt

The Spring Valley CID north of Eagle needed a 2/3 majority vote to pass Tuesday and it got exactly 4 out of six votes to approve the $325 million bonds worth a total of $781 million after interest. Future homeowners will have to repay the debt.


REGISTERED VOTERS – TOTAL . . . . . 7 (100.0%)
BALLOTS CAST – TOTAL. . . . . . . 6 (85.7%)

IN FAVOR . . . . . . . . . . 4 (66.6%)
AGAINST . . . . . . . . . . 2 (33.3%)

IN FAVOR . . . . . . . . . . 4 (66.6%)
AGAINST . . . . . . . . . . 2 (33.3%)

The single vote allowed at the last minute by a representative of M3 Development was apparently the clincher. The Ada Clerk, with advice of counsel, determined the development company could have a single vote, even though the person didn’t live within the district and was not personally a property owner.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. David B. Hall
    May 21, 2013, 9:04 pm

    Wow! What an amazing scam, I feel as if I have just seen the movie “The Sting” play out right in front of my eyes.
    What I want to know is if the law is the law, and Ada County Prosecutor Greg Bowers can reaffirm that in a letter, but that law can be rescinded last minute even though it is overtly and obviously the only way this vote would have swayed towards this bond measure.

    I’m no “Columbo” but I know stink when I smell it and this stinks to high heaven of graft, corruption and someone getting kickbacks and payoffs all over this comedic error of our electoral process.

    Where is the DoJ when you want them?

  2. WOW! is right!

  3. Though this is a bizzaro story, the real travesty is the 2/3 supermajority required to authorize bonds.

    The American Revolution was about taxation without representation. If 50% +1 represent themselves to be in favor of a bond, then how can you argue with that?

    As I’ve pointed out, the President of the USA can take office with even less than 50% of the popular majority. I don’t get it.

    EDITOR NOTE–We see the 2/3 approval as a “safeguard.” In this case, people who are “mere renters” were able to cast a vote that would impact future property owners on an issue that is purely financial. We agree with 50% plus one for candidates, but even the U.S. constitution requires 2/3 state approval to be amended. Read the GBAD story where it took only 1.5% of potential voters to get elected. Even that election didn’t have anyone with a majority of the votes…only a plurality of 24% of votes cast.

  4. chicago sam
    May 22, 2013, 8:11 am

    I want to know how they can tweak the law and allow someone who doesn’t live in the district to vote. Property owners who have rentals or other property but live elsewhere have not been allowed to vote on school bonding and other issues. They have taxation without representation.

    EDITOR NOTE–Sam, I think they actually have representation without taxation! 🙂

  5. chicago sam
    May 22, 2013, 8:14 am

    Is this the same legal council who was advising the County Commissioners on the Dynamis fiasco?

  6. The 7100 units (total build out) puts a $45,775 debt on each homeowner! (If they do not seek additional bond funds). What a disaster waiting to happen.

  7. So the 3 resident voters voted themselves another $45k in debt ?
    And put $45k in debt on the backs of every future resident ?
    I am dumbfounded.

    EDITOR NOTE–The 3 residents are just renters who pay no tax. They went with their landlord.

  8. Grumpy ole guy
    May 24, 2013, 11:33 am

    None so blind as those who will not see.

  9. Clippityclop
    May 26, 2013, 1:42 pm

    Hold your horses… There must be a legal challenge to this. This is crazy that a developer’s agent who is not a property owner and doesn’t live within the district was allowed to cast a vote. Who’s getting greased? Also, as a homebuyer, there’s no way I’d agree to that lien. The developer must be planning on sharply discounting to make it pallatable. Still, I wouldn’t want that hanging over my head nor would I invest in the bond on the other side. Unbelievable.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: