What is the “it” that am I saying is crappy?

Also, what’s my bias? I do like the walkable city model and that city leaders are trying to go that direction. I don’t think that’s bias, it’s just my opinion. Maybe I am bias for planning ahead (is that bad?).

I installed a sprinkler system in my yard this spring. I have an older house, so all the landscaping has been developed – including a few things I had done over the years. What I kept thinking was during the process was how much easier the installation would have been had it been done on bare ground or at any stage before all the growth had come in. Preserving the yard and everything in it created additional expenses and work that could have been avoided had I (or an earlier owner) put in the system before everything grew in.

Your whole point is “full of it”. You are basically saying it is crappy, but not as crappy as it could be. And let’s just hope things work out for the good.

Your bias is obvious and stinky.

They even have some rubber-tire buses that are modeled after the old-time trolley cars. Dust one of those things off and make it look pretty, and have it loop around the downtown area using one of the proposed track loops. If it’s wildly popular – make it permanent! (They could run a dozen such buses for probably 100 years, without spending the millions it would cost just to install the infrastucture for a “track” conveyance. If the tracks would benefit downtown businesses, it’s them, not the taxpayers at large, who should be working with ACHD and the city to make that “vision” a reality.)

Watch out everyone.

Interesting to note that “stakeholder group” is the new way to get business done in the Capital City?

Dave, your statement of a circulator being “something unneeded in a small metro area with already narrow streets being shared by autos, delivery trucks and bikes” defines your viewpoint and every “story” you’ve written on this issue. I think I understand your opposition, but you rest it on popularity (or in this case, lack of) and expense. What you ignore is that sometime unpopular and expensive things become popular and save or earn money down the road (an investment).

Your opposition to a walkable city model is well documented and not altogether unfounded. Nonetheless, it is that model that our elected leaders have chosen. Encouraging or applauding process-gridlock (via ACHD or court battles) is a kind of subversive way to halt progress on a project that I personally think would be great for the city.

Capital projects like this, or a convention center, etc, are expensive, but not as bad as they’re made out be – they create a lot of (tax-paying) jobs and once complete continue to pay back the community with tax revenue and (more importantly) intangibles.

In spite of your opposition, Boise is going to continue to grow. This is undeniable. Likewise, the city has a duty to anticipate that growth and mold it into a positive result. There is no place the city can have as much of an impact as it does through transit programs on all fronts – rails, air, and rubber (four wheels and two).

$600,000 seems like a very low amount for several impact studies on a major project involving many moving parts.

Follow the money: Bet some of that $600K finds it way back to them.

The mayor also hopes that the public will just give up and agree….and then agree to have their taxes raised millions of dollars to pay for it.