Regarding the Dry Creek Ranch planned community: the issues you point out (along with multiple others) were among the concerns raised by many individuals, organizations and businesses who opposed this “amendment.” Unfortunately, despite the high volume of opposition from the community, the Board of County Commissioners offered next to no discussion when they announced their approval on 2/21/17. In fact, the entire meeting lasted less than 10 minutes. It is hard to believe that the Board of County Commissioners took their community’s concerns seriously.

Even if Boise Hunter Homes were to pursue the original plan approved in 2010 and proposed by a different developer (Land Baron Investments), there are some who feel the original plan was better than the “amendment.” Under the original plan, the developer would have been responsible for 3-4 schools, as well as massive infrastructure development this large-scale planned community would have required. As you correctly point out, under the new plan the citizens of Ada County will be responsible for shouldering these expenses, rather than the developers. I don’t think this should sit right with any of us.

I am still confused as to why Boise Hunter Homes can use another developer’s 7-year-old approval for an entirely different plan. Could it be because if Boise Hunter Homes were to apply as a new plan today, it would be denied? The Planning and Zoning Commission confirmed this at the public hearing on 12/15/16.

In their comment, Ada County gives the impression that Board of County Commissioners’ hands were tied and they were unable to do anything other than approve this amendment, since the original plan was already approved in 2010. If this was actually the case, a public hearing would have been superfluous. The Board of County Commissioners could have denied the “amendment,” plain and simple. They chose not to do so. It would have required leadership, foresight, and courage to deny this “amendment” and to serve the interests of their community, rather than the interests of the developers.

During the early 1990’s earnest efforts to provide impact fees on residential development for school districts were defeated in the legislature primarily by the boomers in the community including the Association of Building Contractors and IACI.

These same folks are now major supporters of shifting more of the educational burden onto homeowners through increased bond indebtedness.

$5.9 million to attract business- If the state spends 5.9 and generates 29 million, that’s a good use of the dollars, right? Spending 5.9 and getting nothing, is certainly not good, but that’s the trick of economic development.

Increased enrollment by NEW workers? That’s wonderful! Those new workers, are paying INCOME tax to the state, sales tax to the state, fuels taxes, and everything else.

Economic concepts like the Velocity of Money and Money Multipliers are more important here than a bias toward the evil media. Oops, I meant developers.

We can grow, decline or be stagnant. Growth takes some investment. Sure, we might have a financial hit at first, but overall everything works out and it’s wonderful. 🙂

This is very much like the current immigration situation- it is all in one’s perspective.
This message is like Trump’s media “war” going on.
If someone is dissatisfied with ‘something’, it is convenient to point a discouraging finger toward a group of people- media, immigrants, DEVELOPERS, and the list goes on.

People in the West dont’ appreciation people from the East (Easterners). Even though their families all came from the East– at some point. 🙂

Why would a development tax (impact fee) be okay, but a property tax increase is not?
Can we talk about the law of supply and demand, market equilibrium, and diffusion? Everyone pays in any route.

For anyone to believe impact fees (tax on development) do not affect the surrounding housing market in higher prices and therefor higher assessments is nonsense.
A new development does not sit in a closed bubble with a WALL around it. The economic impact of the growth is connected throughout the whole community – good and bad.

Same as sales tax.
Same as minimum wage increase.
Same as costs of regulation..
We all pay indirectly IF govt sticks an individual producer with a higher tax (impact fee).
It is naive to predict an impact fee affects only the developer.

EDITOR NOTE–Easterner, you fail to consider the diversion of ALL taxes on new structures within an Urban Renewal District. You fail to address the $5.9 million in state taxes used to attract the business. You fail to address the increased enrollment caused by the new workers.