Comments on: Foothills Levy Nothing But A Slush Fund

By: RAD

RAD — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 04:18:17 +0000

Knew it would pass. But we both did… You were right on the money again. When are the folks in this town going to wake up.

By: Easterner

Easterner — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:58:18 +0000

If you give it, they will spend it.
Boise city (& ACHD) spend tax dollars like a drunken sailor.

The city already can not take care of their existing parks & “open space”.

Rabula, what difference does it make of a pheasant or not? Oh you want sterile open space. No wildlife allowed! Mountain bikes, dogs, and toddlers only.

No on the levy.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:09:41 +0000

I support the foothills levy 100%. Virtually nothing else the city has done has contributed to the high quality of life we all enjoy like the 2001 foothills levy. I am not a north ender and yet I am able to enjoy the benefits of these purchases on a daily basis.

Feel free to vote however y’all want to vote – that is your right and prerogative. However, when they tried this last year as a bond, it received over 60% of the vote, falling just short of the required 2/3. It will easily pass this time around, and we will all be better off because of it.

Let’s not create a bugaboo where there is none.

By: rabula

rabula — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:25:25 +0000

You are totally off base on this issue:
If there wasn’t tranparency, how did you come to know about all of the transactions that, so far, have netted the people of Boise $37 million in property value for their $10-million investment. One of the most populare bond levies, ever! Sure, not every deal was made public immediately; that’s how real estate deals often work and that’s why they’re exempt from the open meetings law.

The citizens’ advisory committee was chaired by former Idaho Supreme Court Justice Chuck McDevit. There are few Boiseans of greater integrity. He would not have let any malfeasance pass & deserves much credit for the huge success of the previous levy, which netted a nearly 4-to-1 rate-of-return.

I love your owl pic, but a (Chinese) pheasant in an irrigated field as an example of habitat that the city should protect? You are aware, I hope, that hunting (the only Purpose of protecting pheasant habitat) is not allowed within city limits.

EDITOR NOTE–Rabula, good point about hunting within city limits. That is part of the issue–converting open space to high density residential areas. Bieter and his team have annexed all sorts of farm land in rampant urban sprawl which places demands on schools, highways, etc. Current plans call for grabbing areas as far south as Ten Mile Creek out by the prison off Pleasant Valley Road. The sheriff has refused to continue to provide protection/patrol if the area is annexed. City claimed they were unable to provide police services out there.

By: Voter

Voter — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:42:58 +0000

Please vote NO on the levy. Especially if you do not live in the north end.

The levy is nothing more than the mayors “payback” to the north end – nothing more.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:40:52 +0000

The other slush fund is the fire station fund we voted on last year.

This last week team dave said they had so much money from the fund that they could shift other money to playground equipment at a park on Federal Way – the critical center of where we need playground stuff. NOT

The Mayor and council could care less about controlling cost or lowing property taxes. The Team Dave motto is spend, get more,spend more.