Comments on: Boise Continues “Cart-Before the Horse” Management

By: Shoogi

Shoogi — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:54:47 +0000

The P&Z Dilema: Single family homeowners scream about condos and apartments being built in their neighborhoods. Condo owners scream about apartments. Apartment dwellers complain about trailer parks, and we all demand the city keep the homeless out of our neighborhoods. Welcome to my “Community”!

By: Arebel

Arebel — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:21:42 +0000

I disagree with the guardians repeated argument about annexation enabling urban sprawl. The idea in fact is to decrease urban sprawl by allowing higher density subidivisions. Otherwsie you will really have urben sprawl with 5 acre home sites. I truly thought the coservative point of view is to allow business to flourish, which is what growth is. Of course, here you are using it as an argument to prove a point on soemthing you disagree with. Please make up your mind, are you pro business which is growth or are you for poor planning, which is what the 5 acre sites would be. I am surprised that after years of job drought, you are hammering Team Dave about jobs and a flourishing business climate.

Growth comes with issues, the biggest one, is the cost of growth.
Who is to pay? Does the benefits (sales and jobs) out weight the cost? Hard to say.

We may not like the idea of the bond to fund open space, I do and don’t. Boise is Boise because of the foothills open space and noteworthy philanthropists of past who donated land for parks. Without the green belt, the foothills open space and all of the parks along the river, Boise would NOT BE very special. IMO the focus should be where the growth is going, to the south, preserve land and parks out there to balance Boise’s North end.

EDITOR NOTE–We seem to agree the emphasis on new spending should be in SW. Also to preserve open space, habitat, and wildlife in SW. The GUARDIAN is not conservative or pro business. The GUARDIAN is “pro citizen” and a GROWTHOPHOBE–we oppose growth for the sake of growth. If a company or individual wants to come here, pay its share of taxes, fair wages, and impact fees for the drain on the system (police, fire, schools, roads, etc.) we welcome them. If they need any kind of “incentives” or job creation funds, they should go elsewhere.

Finally, growth is costly to those of us who are already here. Costs outweigh benefits.

By: Gene Fadness

Gene Fadness — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:49:30 +0000

“Grumpy ole Guy” is absolutely correct about Boise growing and the challenge we face in finding correct ways to manage that growth. I too was on the P&Z Commission. Some of my time was during the recession so there wasn’t annexation all the time, but we did annex plenty of property. I preferred “infill development” and more density within the city’s already established limits. But, for residents, that was just as unpopular as annexation. No one likes to see mixed-use (residential, multi-family residential and small retail) in what for them had been a quiet residential neighborhood. But as long as we continue to grow and we don’t want to gobble up more open space, that is the answer and it can be done very well. Eventually, it likely could create the density to support more transit options.

By: David Zarkin

David Zarkin — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:24:26 +0000

Ada County Planning Director Lynn Rogers in 1966 warned that urban sprawl would result in high costs to extend water and sewer lines plus roads to the suburban rural areas. That is why he favored zoning and a development plan and I think city planners were onboard with that. Maybe Ben will read this. No one ever listens.

By: Nan e mouse

Nan e mouse — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:35:45 +0000

Dog, of course savings are allowed. Cities can fund depreciation. It’s budget deficits that aren’t allowed.

By: costaprettypenny

costaprettypenny — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:31:57 +0000

Team Dave and his ilk evidently didn’t know or realize that you need density to do mass transit ie. Trains, buses ect. Well back in the day (I was on Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission) and watch firsthand the annexing of every inch of land that was contiguous to the city. It was like watching someone pour a can of motor oil on a swimming pool! Density wasn’t even in their thought process. So, sad for those folks, but every couple years the citizens can institute a change. This year is one of those years!

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:07:34 +0000

While we are on public art….if the art community thinks public art is so important, let those artists donate their art. I am sure plenty of artists would appreciate the free advertising of having publicly displayed their work and name. This would free up funds for basic services or god forbid an actual tax decrease.

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:05:04 +0000

@Werner: you hit the nail on the head, it is a matter of priorities. The city has enough money for in-house lobbyists (AKA government relations) and external lobbyists, study after study for a trolley, public art, etc but they assume the citizens will emotionally support the plea to fund basic services like police and fire. They skimp on funding the things they assume citizens will find extra money for, to allow for funding of the stuff citizens would never issue debt for.

By: dog

dog — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:27:09 +0000

Boise has enough cops. I say no. And Grump is right. Savings are not allowable in both city and state government. Makes bugeting for repairs impossible. Lets legalize common sense first.

By: Cynic

Cynic — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:19:50 +0000

Werner, you can obtain detailed budget info from the City and it will make you want to throw up when you see how money is spent. I will vote NO on any bond issue.