Urban renewal is one of the few tools that cities have to develop infrastructure. Do you think that Would Boise’s downtown be as vibrant today without CCDC? Doubtful.
Twin Falls’ urban renewal district is doing great things in its core and further out to the Chobani plant. Certainly urban renewal had a distinct impact on bringing that company to the region. I support CCDC expanding onto the bench. It will bring a boost to Vista and Overland for sure.

TF Boy, while your point of “it will boost Vista/Overland” may be true you are missing the second part – At what cost?
The cost is the alternative use of the tax dollars. Focus on 1 small area and you are bound to lose focus on the rest of the city.
Do you want brick sidewalks downtown & pretty benches or do you want current I.T. equipment for your children?

Perhaps if downtown CCDC were not sucking up all the tax revenues there would have been plenty of dollars available for Vista/Overland for the past X years and it would already be a nicer area.

Equitable taxes means equitable distribution- not elitism.

IF a downtown is so worthy, a city does not need a “tool to develop infrastructure”. There is this thing called a Downtown Business Association. Private ownership. Private Profits. Public benefits.

I am more interested in the sunsetting of the downtown district. Do the properties get reassessed and taxed at the normal levy? What is the projected revenue stream and can it be used to provide some homeowner relief?

I see parts of that new district that may make sense, but not that odd shape drawn? Using property taxes/incremental funding to clean up that tank farm could be pretty costly.

Easterner, of course there are trade-offs when you have a set amount of revenue. But there is no practical way for a municipality to create a sinking fund for enhancement and redevelopment, and blight in a downtown core occurs as megastores and strip malls overwhelm a community. That is the function of the private sector. A downtown business assoc does not have the resources to compete on that scale. We elect people for this specific purpose, to enhance the viability of a city. This isn’t a land grab for evil purpose, it is to enhance a neighborhood for the benefit of the entire community.

Tax Manic or is that manic troll? I’m already paying triple the taxes of unincorporated Ada and Canyon residents. Dang right I want it spent in my neighborhood instead of widening Overland all the way to Nampa only to bring more Nampans to crowd parks in my neighborhood because their low taxes hasn’t given them any of their own.

Still no proof or even any attempt at accounting for the increase in taxes due to the existence of URDs.

Here. By state law, what is it, only 10% or maybe it’s 6% of the entire county’s property tax base can be in a URD. Currently, Ada County isn’t near that threshold. Of that small percentage, the properties in the URDs are still paying property tax on the base assessment. Only the increment above the base goes solely to the URD. That increment likely would never have existed without the help of the URD.

Furthermore, in the case of the 30th Street URD, 100% of the increment is due to inflation and not due to new construction crowding the area with new residents and businesses clamoring for new services. Explain that.

So take it from here.

I think that the CCDC is being arrogant about thinking that they and the tool of tax increment financing (TIF) are providing endless long term solutions for Boise. TIF was needed to repair the downtown that was torn down.
But now, wanting to supplement the St. Al’s area? What do they (the CCDC) own up there that they can funnel to a favorite developer? Along Overland? All private ownership. Along Vista? All private, except for the city owned establishments that house the sex offenders.

The TIF formula is bad for schools especially. New businesses, new homes, new parking garages; what about new schools? The schools are just so over crowded it is sorrowful. Imagine trying to teach 30 1st or 2nd graders and meet standards. YOU MUST CARE ABOUT THIS FINANCIALLY WITH YOUR TAX DECISIONS.
Tax increment financing takes that tax money for themselves for the sake of a new looking parking garage at the expense of a variety of other public needs. Realistically, property owners can afford to plant a few trees and set out a few benches of their own – if they have customer with money to spend.

Good studies have been done that describe how this money train goes to developers, not citizens. I think developers should be able to earn their profits in private enterprise in this current Boise boom, and then their increases in value and income from their renters can go to the general public funds, especially the schools.

I am not sure of all the boundaries of all the CCDC areas but I am skeptical that a huge amount of development took place just before the sun-setting of the district plans.

People, individuals who want to earn a living and capitalists come to an area for economic opportunity. CCDC is shifting that opportunity toward a government entity.

Though TIF was the tool for the original downtown area, I think the continuation of that strategy beyond downtown is misguided. The taxes must to go to public need and good, especially schools. Individuals who live in non TIF areas will see their taxes go down and the tax dollar support for the schools go up if we eliminate TIF areas. Not just schools, but police, fire, and library services also. These decision makers don’t have children in the public schools, apparently. If we fail there, what happens to our homeless problem ten years in the future? What happens to our ability to attract business?

And to Twin Falls writer: give us evidence that tax increment financing was the savior of the town of TF instead of just being a way to have a few deal makers take advantage of the public. I have never been impressed in any way by Twin Falls. I would never take private money there for good long term investment.

That is the crux of it all.

TIF seems to take advantage of the town population but doesn’t share the benefit.

Aggrieved Party, I don’t see where your comment has anything to do with CCDC and URDs.

TIFs need to go, am I talking to myself here? It’s like talking to a brick wall or children. In one ear and out the other.

Answer my questions. How much does the existence of URDs increase your taxes? I’m still waiting. Let’s see the detailed accounting.

Good studies have been done? Name them. So I can study them and make up my own mind.

“huge amount of development took place just before the sun-setting of the district plans.”

Yeah, that’s because it takes years to build up the increment.

“TIF seems to take advantage of the town population but doesn’t share the benefit.”

Ignoring my points again. West Downtown has suffered from tax money funneled to the suburbs for decades. How is this any different? A freeway was punched trough eliminating the traffic that used to sustain Fairview/Main. The freeway benefits you suburbanites more than it benefitted the locals.

Another ignored issue: New planning and zoning regs have been created over the decades that prevent almost any redevelopment of the small lots. There is no free market at work, only micro managing city rules and federal storm water rules.

EDITOR NOTE–Cynic, I previously posted this comment excerpt from Ron Harriman which answers your question. The Statesman ran his complete opinion today.

“The property tax an urban renewal area uses is a “direct tax” imposed on the citizens of that city and county even if the cities and counties say it is not. In Ada County from 1995-2014 property tax payers have paid an imposed additional $126,921,000.00.

Aggrieved Party wrote: “If the private for profit capitalist sector cannot see the wisdom of undertaking TIF projects, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for another loss leader?”

I’m not familiar with the details of the Idaho Center, but it sounds like Nampans should find a way to sell it off. You got to admit a lot of spin-off development has occurred around the Garrity exit. How far did the URD boundaries originally extend? Surely the Gateway Center contributes far more tax revenue than did the vacant field it used to be.

Regardless, can we just address this one point. Go to Ada County Assessor’s mapping page and zoom in on Fairview/Main. Then look at the Boise P&Z codes very closely. Private sector redevelopment is virtually impossible. Many of those lots are too small to be changed from their current grandfathered use.

I seriously doubt anyone can argue that the current state of Fairview/Main development is meeting the well known privater sector concept known as highest and best use.

These properties already are NOT contributing what they could or should and it’s because they’re hamstrung. We have 1940s and 50s properties stuck in a 21st Century world of parking requirements, storm water catch basins, ADA requirements, fire sprinklers, oversized sewer and water connections, buried power lines…etc…etc…

And what do you suggest? Throw the baby out with the bath water?

I’m all for more oversight, and sure the URD concept has been abused. Like Ketchum. Does Ketchum really need a URD? But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

boisecynic:
Most of the answers you proposed are here:
http://www.idahopress.com/members/some-say-the-idaho-center-is-an-investment-in-the/article_b1ab9bac-ec39-11e2-aad7-001a4bcf887a.html
Sell the Idaho Center? It cost 50 million to build and loses a cool million a year. From an income valuation approach Nampa would literally have to pay private equity to take the place AND agree to finance any shortfall for a period of five years afterwards. As you can imagine there never has been or ever will be takers for such a money pit.
When the UR which paid for the Idaho Center ended in 2004, there was $8 million left in the North Nampa Urban Renewal (NNUR) coffers. Instead of selling at a “loss” in 2005, City fathers decided to hope the economy and new management would save the day. So they set aside 5 million for shortfall and rested easy until the money ran out. The 100k per year salaries for the top dogs and a downturn 2008 economy burned down the 5 million in record time.
Over the 10 year lifetime of NNUR the vast majority of this UR project’s “blight eradicating projects” were never funded despite having been identified and touted at the “reasons” for forming the UR in the first place. (The Idaho Center was never mentioned during the formation phase.)
The lesson here is the there can easily be a hidden agenda (pet project) which will only be rolled out AFTER the formation of the new District.
So…what is the REAL reason CCDC wants to form a new district? The pat answers currently being given are just the normal smoke and mirrors excuses to secure permission to form the new District. (Under-performing tax wise…not Highest and Best Use…and my favorite…”Tax levies will DROP after the UR sunsets”..etc.)
The fact remains that without pre-agreed restrictions (pre-District formation) the UR commissioners can agree to do ANYTHING they chose to after the district is formed. A simple majority of the UR Commishes is all it takes to approve an idea or project regardless of what portion of taxpayer hell it is spawned from.
FACT: Oversight from the taxpayer ends permanently 30 days after the formation of the District. NO do-overs, or early termination if you don’t like what they do.
My reference to increasing property values by “hook or by crook” is well founded.
Behind closed doors (executive session) the NNUR commissioners agreed to buy a fully landlocked virtually inaccessible 17 acre piece of agriculturally zoned land. Said parcel tax appraised for $13,500, yet NNUR paid a whopping 1.7 million dollars for it. With interest at 8% the total cost came to 2.2 million.
Such scam sales are actually seen by the assessor’s office as a “willing buyer/willing seller” sale, (what property owner would turn down such an offer!) which qualifies for the basis to raise all other adjacent properties to match the value. Neat trick!
To this day proponents love to tout the “increase in property values” around the Idaho Center. Not hard to do when you prime the pump with taxpayer dollars and buy land for 1200% over it assessed value!
Don’t be surprised that some “lucky” landowner within the boundaries of the proposed new District has already been approached about “selling” their land to the UR District.
Recently, one local and “lucky” UR Commish used his knowledge of a “hidden agenda UR project” and formed a shell corporation which purchased land slated to be bought by the district. To date he has suffered no consequence for what is basically unethical and illegal insider trading.
It is this type of questionable dealing which is as a practical matter unrestricted under UR statutes. Is it wrong? Yes..but who is going to prosecute it? Without penalty, only the moral compass’ of the UR commissioners can save the taxpayer. Good luck with that.
Money in high amounts can, does and has bought many friends. UR districts come to control huge amounts of tax revenues which they dole out without oversight.
UR the way it has been practiced locally has been very bad business for taxpayers, both in the short and long run. Inflation from any source is still inflation!
IMO, promises of eventual levy rate decreases after the end of the UR district term never repays the lost economic opportunity which the taxpayer dollars COULD have done if applied more artfully.
“Trust us and we will talk again in 24 years” is rarely a discussion which is had.
Historic hindsight reveals that most if not all of those who support or promote UR districts have literally died or left the public arena in 24 years after formation and can never be held accountable for their actions.
It is this lack of accountability which breeds the kinds of borderline ethical business practices which a number of UR Commishes have engaged in and seem unable to avoid or refuse to participate in.
On the whole, UR commissioners are the alter-ego of the City Councilors who literally wear both “hats”, and you can be sure that only “yes men and ladies” will ever be appointed to fill any Citizen commissioner slots.
Thankfully, anyone with a complaint about the actions of the UR District is allowed three whole minutes a month to voice their concerns.
Feel free to attend one of these strategically scheduled monthly meetings (usually during the work week in the dead of the afternoon) and watch how the decisions made in executive session are cheerfully trotted out right after they have satisfied the requirement of public comment.
You will need to give the UR district secretary 30 days notice that you wish to participate in “public communication”.
Or you could call your respective City Councilor and demand that this new UR District be abandoned and mercifully euthanized before it is formed.
Don’t forget to thank those who approve such UR districts when they put their candidate hats back on in the fall.

Thanks for the reply aggrieved. You make very good points. This is what I’m worried about. Abuse of URDs may eventually lead to their total demise at the hands of a legislature the majority of whose members have never set foot in the inner city except for nice hotel rooms during the 3 month legislative session. And this hurts areas that truly need help. Meanwhile, what about farm subsidies and the ag exemption? What about church and other non-profit tax exemptions? But that’s a whole other debate.

The Idaho Center seems a special case and comparing it to 1980s downtown Boise or 2000s West Downtown Boise is apples to oranges.

TIF wrote: “There are zoning laws…Maybe the city should enforce them”

Code violations are complaint generated only. If there’s no one around to complain, then, voila, that’s how you get ghetto.

The flight to the suburbs because of inept absentee landlords and their poorly maintained feudal serfdom properties in the inner cities all over America is why we’re in the situation of needing URDs in the first place.

See the irony?