But to be the contrarian…. at what price?
We can spend a million to “clean up downtown” to bring in a convention that brings $400,000 to the economy.

as mentioned earlier,,, that’s a tough equation to calculate.

The only complaint of the conference attendees is the lack of direct flights into Boise. I think this will be the major limiting factor in the success of Boise as a convention destination.

I think commercial growth brings some tax revenues even within a URD. Sales tax, state income taxes, alcohol taxes, etc… some of that comes back to cities and counties. It’s simply a math equation whether those revenues out weigh the additional costs (lost opportunity costs too). that’ s a pretty tough equation to calculate. One thing that is easy to calculate- the lack of growth for a whole city. Although that can be good for a retired person collecting a fixed income. So I guess ones perception of growth depends on which type of fruit we identify with.

Whether URD in general, such as CCDC, are a bad or good idea is a totally separate topic.

Lots of material supports the idea that development can pay for itself.

Clancy, while I agree that concept as many people would… how to make that happen is a little impractical, and the principle is a little weak.

New developement (growth) helps every one of us here already in some way. New customers, new revenue for employers, expanding the tax base, etc.

Imagine your house is the only house in the square mile. If you paid for a sewer hookup you paid 100% of it. Spread that cost out over 20 new houses, and you will save money. Same concept for roads and so on.

So who pays for the sewer?
You already paid just to get the extension to your house. If it is expanded to the new houses, they would pay only for their extension under your philosophy?
You pay $50,000 for the 1st hookup and they pay $1,000 each.

New residents come to town and contribute to everyone’s economic well being. So we benefit from the new residents? Is that “benefit” free?

http://www.nchba.org/wp/legislative-news/residential-development-pays-for-itself-%E2%80%93-and-more/

EDITOR NOTE–Easterner, you are talking apples and oranges here. First, the link is to the homebuilder advocacy group. More importantly, this post is regarding COMMERCIAL growth which does NOT generate the tax revenues if concessions are offered along with state concessions on income tax rebates to employers, and when these projects are built in an URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT, local government taxes are diverted away. Bottom line is city, county, schools, ACHD all forego their revenues in the name of “economic development”–on the backs of those residential property owners and commercial owners outside the CCDC.

To offer a developer a parking structure at public expense is akin to making a donation to a robber after he held up a bank!

Remember that parking is a privilege and not a right.

Their objective: Make parking a hassle, more difficult, and more expensive than alternative transportation. It is standard ‘city planning’.

They have to inflict pain before people change.
I for one, will not drive to Trader Joe’s and that area, for that reason. See, I changed – to ignore that part of downtown.

Requiring parking is fraught with its own problems. It’s expensive. It eats up a lot of land which could be used for other businesses.