<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Eagle Snow Park Deal Still Has Opposition	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/</link>
	<description>A different slant on the news.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 04:35:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: For Real		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-80467</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[For Real]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 04:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-80467</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As usual politicians are around and never seem to go away. Until voters wake up and vote them out they will continue to be the snakes in the grass. 

This all smells like padding pockets to me. It does need to go out to bid. But the other big question is why is the Ada County accepting a price below appraised value? Especially, if it is going to be leased to a private business who will make money on the venture and with a cost to taxpayers who will get the honor to subsidized this private business and pay taxes too, lucky us!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As usual politicians are around and never seem to go away. Until voters wake up and vote them out they will continue to be the snakes in the grass. </p>
<p>This all smells like padding pockets to me. It does need to go out to bid. But the other big question is why is the Ada County accepting a price below appraised value? Especially, if it is going to be leased to a private business who will make money on the venture and with a cost to taxpayers who will get the honor to subsidized this private business and pay taxes too, lucky us!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: MyTwoCents		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-80411</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MyTwoCents]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-80411</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You mention the Dynamis debacle and now this.  Yet from what I understand Yzaguirre is running for another term this year (I&#039;m not sure if it&#039;s 2 or 4 year this time), and I have not heard of anyone stepping up to oppose him.  Seems absolutely ridiculous that he can just collect the huge paycheck and stay there for a decade (longer?) and never be accountable for anything.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mention the Dynamis debacle and now this.  Yet from what I understand Yzaguirre is running for another term this year (I&#8217;m not sure if it&#8217;s 2 or 4 year this time), and I have not heard of anyone stepping up to oppose him.  Seems absolutely ridiculous that he can just collect the huge paycheck and stay there for a decade (longer?) and never be accountable for anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Aggrieved Party		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-79901</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aggrieved Party]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-79901</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Since when did the City of Eagle become flush with disposable cash?  Making interest free loans with a return on investment tied to future ticket sales is not a good business plan.  Taking risks with taxpayer dollars based on a project&#039;s future financial good health is a fools errand for any City Hall.  One needs look only as far as Nampa to see what happens when City Hall predictions of financial success fail miserably.
This snow park venue was first sold as a low cost taxpayer participation with the developer putting the majority of skin in the game.  Upping the ante of taxpayer dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars means years before any tangible positive cash flow might possibly be realized.
 It was wholly irresponsible for city leaders to fail to first quantify the impacts and final dollar costs before committing to a concession agreement with developers. There are way too many blank checks waiting to be added to the true cost of doing business with this venture. Studies have shown that the revenue &quot;multiplier&quot; of such &quot;specific use&quot; parks is far less than the same money put into other methods to attract new business to a city. This weather dependent venue is subject to reduced days of operation which further reduces the multiplier. Management by crisis (dealing with the cost of each downstream impact problem) is never good stewardship of taxpayer funds.  Budgets drive taxes with the inevitable result being higher taxes to support each and every &quot;project du&#039; jour that city fathers &quot;think&quot; up. Cities leaders should stick to provisioning essential city services first and leave the business of business to the private sector. There is a big difference between facilitation and participation.  For this taxpayer, the &quot;ends&quot; simply do not justify the &quot;means&quot; in this project.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since when did the City of Eagle become flush with disposable cash?  Making interest free loans with a return on investment tied to future ticket sales is not a good business plan.  Taking risks with taxpayer dollars based on a project&#8217;s future financial good health is a fools errand for any City Hall.  One needs look only as far as Nampa to see what happens when City Hall predictions of financial success fail miserably.<br />
This snow park venue was first sold as a low cost taxpayer participation with the developer putting the majority of skin in the game.  Upping the ante of taxpayer dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars means years before any tangible positive cash flow might possibly be realized.<br />
 It was wholly irresponsible for city leaders to fail to first quantify the impacts and final dollar costs before committing to a concession agreement with developers. There are way too many blank checks waiting to be added to the true cost of doing business with this venture. Studies have shown that the revenue &#8220;multiplier&#8221; of such &#8220;specific use&#8221; parks is far less than the same money put into other methods to attract new business to a city. This weather dependent venue is subject to reduced days of operation which further reduces the multiplier. Management by crisis (dealing with the cost of each downstream impact problem) is never good stewardship of taxpayer funds.  Budgets drive taxes with the inevitable result being higher taxes to support each and every &#8220;project du&#8217; jour that city fathers &#8220;think&#8221; up. Cities leaders should stick to provisioning essential city services first and leave the business of business to the private sector. There is a big difference between facilitation and participation.  For this taxpayer, the &#8220;ends&#8221; simply do not justify the &#8220;means&#8221; in this project.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: JJ		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-79035</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JJ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-79035</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[should be put out to bid.  Maybe not required by law, but ethics demands there is some effort from government to let others compete for the opportunity, and use the competitive market to ensure a market based deal (hopefully a best deal) for the citizens and their public land.

Unfortunate that ethics is becoming defined as the minimum effort required by law.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>should be put out to bid.  Maybe not required by law, but ethics demands there is some effort from government to let others compete for the opportunity, and use the competitive market to ensure a market based deal (hopefully a best deal) for the citizens and their public land.</p>
<p>Unfortunate that ethics is becoming defined as the minimum effort required by law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Foothills Rider		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-78832</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Foothills Rider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-78832</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Having been intimately involved in the demise of the fiasco that was Dynamis, I see a parallel in the process here more than anything else.  In both instances, an unsolicited bid came forth to benefit a private enterprise through use of public property.  In each case, even if the various parties (Council, citizens, county, city) “like” or “dislike” the basic tenets proposed, the process for approving or not approving the “project” is not being followed.

Recall in Dynamis, an “Industrial Park” in the form of “ARTIC” was established after the council was wooed by Mr. Mahaffey (unsolicited).  Then, that and a number of zoning changes were made conveniently and surreptitiously  to eventually “allow” what would have otherwise not been allowed per zoning in the form of a HUGE for-profit power plant (that initially was touted as an ancillary, minor add-on to the land fill).  The damning evidence included a false open bid process in conjunction with ARTIC after the fact, even as contracts were already being drafted for Dynamis.

So, what would be prudent here?  If Ada County, in connection with Eagle and the existing park lease, determine that some new venture or development would benefit the citizens at this specifically zoned parcel, shouldn’t there be a vote and approval, a design and input, and an open bid process to actually construct the agreed upon delivery?  I have no doubt Mr. Neptune is good at what he does…if the legal process was/is followed, a winning bid might just be in his hands…but there also might not be so much give-away to him for a private venture.  Unlike the backers of Dynamis, Mr. Neptune actually has a track record.  But just “seeming like a good idea” does not override the process that is NOT taking place here. 

Once again, the cart has come before the horse in the form of Mr. Neptune’s unsolicited bid.  I think Mr. Case learned this, hence his holding out.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having been intimately involved in the demise of the fiasco that was Dynamis, I see a parallel in the process here more than anything else.  In both instances, an unsolicited bid came forth to benefit a private enterprise through use of public property.  In each case, even if the various parties (Council, citizens, county, city) “like” or “dislike” the basic tenets proposed, the process for approving or not approving the “project” is not being followed.</p>
<p>Recall in Dynamis, an “Industrial Park” in the form of “ARTIC” was established after the council was wooed by Mr. Mahaffey (unsolicited).  Then, that and a number of zoning changes were made conveniently and surreptitiously  to eventually “allow” what would have otherwise not been allowed per zoning in the form of a HUGE for-profit power plant (that initially was touted as an ancillary, minor add-on to the land fill).  The damning evidence included a false open bid process in conjunction with ARTIC after the fact, even as contracts were already being drafted for Dynamis.</p>
<p>So, what would be prudent here?  If Ada County, in connection with Eagle and the existing park lease, determine that some new venture or development would benefit the citizens at this specifically zoned parcel, shouldn’t there be a vote and approval, a design and input, and an open bid process to actually construct the agreed upon delivery?  I have no doubt Mr. Neptune is good at what he does…if the legal process was/is followed, a winning bid might just be in his hands…but there also might not be so much give-away to him for a private venture.  Unlike the backers of Dynamis, Mr. Neptune actually has a track record.  But just “seeming like a good idea” does not override the process that is NOT taking place here. </p>
<p>Once again, the cart has come before the horse in the form of Mr. Neptune’s unsolicited bid.  I think Mr. Case learned this, hence his holding out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: JJ		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-78460</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JJ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-78460</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What is wrong with leasing public lands for a profit?  Does not such profit come back to the citizen&#039;s government for the benefit of the citizens?  Seems like revenue from the lease could help support police, fire, library, etc.

Also after the 20 year lease is complete, I would assume like most ground leases, any improvements upon the land become ownership of the City.  Hopefully Mr. Neptune puts some good money into facilities, facilities the city would own in 20 years.

I also think if you can activate a property which is a buffer zone, and monetize and use it in some way, that is better than just bare land sitting idle.  I do not know of any families who tell me about their experience having a picnic in the landfill buffer zone bare land, but it seems to me families might enjoy a snow park.

So long as the City and County are following the proper process and the law, we should let them, at the risk or reward of their political career, do their job. 

If I were to take issue with anything it would be the county selling the property for below appraised value, and the concern the City of Eagle did not publicly bid this opportunity, but I would hope these agencies are following their own policies and law, or they invite their own problems, but let&#039;s not demonize public private partnerships nor profits. 

If what the agencies are doing is within policy and law, then let&#039;s take issue with the policy or law, not the agencies and people.

EDITOR NOTE--As we understand it, the EXCLUSIVE lease was not put out for bids and the only &quot;skin in the game&quot; regarding use of the 35 acres is a tiny commission to Eagle for lift tickets--no land investment for the operator and no competition.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is wrong with leasing public lands for a profit?  Does not such profit come back to the citizen&#8217;s government for the benefit of the citizens?  Seems like revenue from the lease could help support police, fire, library, etc.</p>
<p>Also after the 20 year lease is complete, I would assume like most ground leases, any improvements upon the land become ownership of the City.  Hopefully Mr. Neptune puts some good money into facilities, facilities the city would own in 20 years.</p>
<p>I also think if you can activate a property which is a buffer zone, and monetize and use it in some way, that is better than just bare land sitting idle.  I do not know of any families who tell me about their experience having a picnic in the landfill buffer zone bare land, but it seems to me families might enjoy a snow park.</p>
<p>So long as the City and County are following the proper process and the law, we should let them, at the risk or reward of their political career, do their job. </p>
<p>If I were to take issue with anything it would be the county selling the property for below appraised value, and the concern the City of Eagle did not publicly bid this opportunity, but I would hope these agencies are following their own policies and law, or they invite their own problems, but let&#8217;s not demonize public private partnerships nor profits. </p>
<p>If what the agencies are doing is within policy and law, then let&#8217;s take issue with the policy or law, not the agencies and people.</p>
<p>EDITOR NOTE&#8211;As we understand it, the EXCLUSIVE lease was not put out for bids and the only &#8220;skin in the game&#8221; regarding use of the 35 acres is a tiny commission to Eagle for lift tickets&#8211;no land investment for the operator and no competition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: barb jekel		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-78387</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[barb jekel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-78387</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have read your many letters on this issue Joan and thank you for your work and fortitude. You have brought transparency to many aspects concerning this proposal. I share your concerns. Seems like a project of this magnitude and in such a reversal from public land ownership to private commercial venture, involving using tax dollars for purchase (taking away from fund for other Eagle parks) and pre-existing public funded facilities, warrants a vote, like in March when we&#039;re also going to polls to vote on tenative proposed school levy.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have read your many letters on this issue Joan and thank you for your work and fortitude. You have brought transparency to many aspects concerning this proposal. I share your concerns. Seems like a project of this magnitude and in such a reversal from public land ownership to private commercial venture, involving using tax dollars for purchase (taking away from fund for other Eagle parks) and pre-existing public funded facilities, warrants a vote, like in March when we&#8217;re also going to polls to vote on tenative proposed school levy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Aggrieved Party		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-78385</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aggrieved Party]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:29:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-78385</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Rick,
I think you will find this matter to be the exception to your apathy assumption. Several people have already stood up and voiced their objections. These voices will continue their vigilance of this project in the future. The rush to support this project at the expense of orderly development will come back to haunt Eagle City Hall. By the time this project is functional and the very real attendant problems of traffic and noise complaints are laid at City Hall&#039;s feet to solve, it will be election time again. Regardless of what support City Hall gives to this project, the fact remains that the basic business plan is fundamentally flawed.  There are a number of short and long term development issues which could derail this park&#039;s financial success. Location, average yearly temps higher than freezing, and lack of fresh water to keep the wake board pond from becoming a algae filled cesspool will be ongoing challenges to success. In the long run they must be good neighbors to the community as well.  Time will tell.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick,<br />
I think you will find this matter to be the exception to your apathy assumption. Several people have already stood up and voiced their objections. These voices will continue their vigilance of this project in the future. The rush to support this project at the expense of orderly development will come back to haunt Eagle City Hall. By the time this project is functional and the very real attendant problems of traffic and noise complaints are laid at City Hall&#8217;s feet to solve, it will be election time again. Regardless of what support City Hall gives to this project, the fact remains that the basic business plan is fundamentally flawed.  There are a number of short and long term development issues which could derail this park&#8217;s financial success. Location, average yearly temps higher than freezing, and lack of fresh water to keep the wake board pond from becoming a algae filled cesspool will be ongoing challenges to success. In the long run they must be good neighbors to the community as well.  Time will tell.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Rick		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-77971</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-77971</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Voter

There is one problem with your comment. Do not get me wrong I agree with you but, no one will remember, no one really cares. If it is not effecting them right at the moment they could care less. So many things in this valley and the country are run in the same way, people bitch but no one will stand up and be the first to actually do something.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Voter</p>
<p>There is one problem with your comment. Do not get me wrong I agree with you but, no one will remember, no one really cares. If it is not effecting them right at the moment they could care less. So many things in this valley and the country are run in the same way, people bitch but no one will stand up and be the first to actually do something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Robert		</title>
		<link>https://boiseguardian.com/2014/01/12/eagle-snow-park-deal-still-has-opposition/#comment-77911</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://boiseguardian.com/?p=10739#comment-77911</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Public lands means public land! What don&#039;t these people understand.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Public lands means public land! What don&#8217;t these people understand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
