This is not California. Idahoans do not want to be, act like or learn much from California except for how to avoid becoming like California. (This isn’t a judgement, as I actually love a lot of Northern California.)
= >

It’s not about redistributing the wealth, it’s about finding the best ways to serve the entire area in a fair and balanced manner. Claiming to pay more in property taxes and therefore deserving more services sounds pretty much like telling the cop writing you a speeding ticket that you pay his salary.

By that same logic, since you’re new to these parts, you and others who have only been here for a few years, really shouldn’t get as much in services compared to those who’ve been here for decades since they’ve been paying for a lot longer and are far more fiscally responsible for the services and developments you now enjoy.

It just doesn’t make sense to justify who should and shouldn’t get more in services – All services afforded by taxes must be distributed properly, equally and for the good of the City as a whole.

Thank you, Robert, for lowering yourself to not-so-veiled name-calling. People like you make it easy for me to ignore others who might have constructive comments.

Perhaps you believe in the sprawling Sacramento development plan, but if you give it some thought, you should recognize that city downtowns create critical masses of activities, which in turn facilitates business, learning and cultural exchange. This should be easily recognized when you look and see JUMP, the Zions bank bldg, and a number of new businesses opening up downtown. Hopefully, this will result in high density population growth in the area, which will in turn support better public transit to the whole valley. Like it or not, the success of Boise’s future relies heavily on creating a vibrant downtown.

Think of it another way: If you’re trying to show off the city to a business thinking of moving here, what are you going to show off? South Cole area? Maple Grove? Garden City? Do you seriously think that a convention center on Vista is better than downtown?

Correct or not, people (especially out-of-towners) see Boise as it originally was: downtown, north end, east end – the rest is sprawl. When was the last time you saw a picture of Boise that wasn’t of downtown?

I liken the complaints coming from the Bench to complaints from BSU’s volleyball team that the football team is so much better funded.

EDITOR NOTE–Your BSU analogy is simply uninformed. The analogy would be like Volleyball paying the cost of Football. Downtown improvements (growth) pays NOTHING in taxes to the city, county, ACHD, or schools! As an admitted growthophobe (opposed to growth just for the sake of growth) we stand by the statement. All the sprawl you cite was created by the Boise City Council which annexed the areas. Subdivisions are not allowed to split less than 5 acre parcels without sewer outside cities. The solution was annexation (against the will of those annexed in most cases) by Boise at the behest of many incumbent councilors and the mayor with an obligation to provide sewer and other services. We absolutely do not oppose a vibrant Downtown. We oppose the financing method which diverts taxes to create more development, denies citizens a right to approve debt financed with public money, and places a financial burden on those of us who have to fund the essential services consumed, but not paid by Downtown.

North End has the foot hills for their dog park. Have you seen the nasty spot called a dog park on Roosevelt (on the Bench, not downtown)… I would rather drive to Nampa’s dog park!
I could rant on, but it’s endless.

EDITOR NOTE–New To Boise, your rhetorical question is the problem. The downtown area RETURNS NOTHING in the way of taxes on improvements, new buildings, or appreciated value. That is the “increment” and it all goes to CCDC. The low value property on the bench (and other areas of course) is used to fund police, fire, etc. If urban renewal fixed up decaying property, razed buildings beyond repair and put newly created structures on the tax rolls, there would be no argument. Problem is the taxes are diverted to CCDC to expand itself.

So, your meter expired and you’re surprised that you got a ticket for having an expired meter? What a horrible city!