Unbelievable. CCDC is a boondoggle and a total waste of our (taxpayers that is) money! Everyone involved in “redevelopment” in Boise should live in the city and not be double-dipping in our pockets!!
Throw the bums out!

Throughout world history foxes & politicians have always shared identical predatory traits, traits that can only be controlled by citizens.
Those of us who spent years in the Idaho legislature working to replace Idaho’s much hated & unconstitutional Forced Annexation law with voting rights learned ‘both political parties’ are in pockets of a powerful cartel of lobbyists who feed off taxpayer dollars.
The cartel spends a great deal of money selecting & electing candidates who will serve them.
CCDC & Compass are among many sub-agencies the cartel has created to divert taxpayer dollars into their pockets. Much of the spending goes to wasteful development industry & infrastructure contracts.
During our years in the legislature we learned conflict of interest is not only rampant in our legislature, it’s a nationwide plague.
A 2nd civil war is now taking place & is supported by both parties to preserve corrupt government,,, citizens will determine the outcome.
President Trump announced early in his campaign his experiences with the swamp of pay for play politics & his goal to end it.
Enforcing accountability & oath of office contracts is our civic duty as citizens. time to muster the backbone to purge the predators from our local & state swamps..

The better story for Ludwig is when, earlier this year, he sued the City of Ketchum because he didn’t like paying their ‘impact fees’ on a project that didn’t fit their most desirable project list.

So, Scott Ludwig shouldn’t develop? Basing your comments in the cloak of skull diggers implies impropriety. Hogwash. Scott is a fine public servant, lawyer and businessman.

EDITOR NOTE–Ludwig may be all that you claim. We think it “inappropriate” at best for a developer to be member of the two regulatory agencies, (council and CCDC) entrusted with approval or denial of the project. He is also a “supervisor” of the development services director. A good lawyer would understand that a party in a legal action should not also be the judge or on the jury, regardless of his integrity. We would seek a change of venue if a matter involving a 4th District judge came before that court. Same is true for a councilor and board member of CCDC. Check the urban renewal law and you will find a very real potential conflict.

I.C. 50-2017 “No public official or employee of a municipality (or board or commission thereof), and no commissioner or employee of an urban renewal agency shall voluntarily acquire any personal interest, direct or indirect, in any urban renewal project, or in any property included or planned to be included in any urban renewal project in such municipality or in any contract or proposed contract in connection with such urban renewal project.”

Corruption. There’s already a great glut of tall new buildings in downtown Boise, and no need for this project.

Easterner: “Sounds like a good project for that spot, as long as they have plenty of public parking- definitely not enough in the area right now.”

Ahem… aren’t we trying to DISCOURAGE motor vehicle traffic downtown, by making it as painful and expensive as possible?

One other note: This project is proposed at the intersection of 5th and Broad Streets. SURELY somebody is offended by a street named BROAD, in these snowflake times, no? Why don’t they rename it Bieter Avenue? (Would ACHD need to be on-board with that?)

He needs some quiet time in a jail cell to reflect on his life choices.

So Tfboy – Mr Ludwig is such a great lawyer that he does not know or care about the Idaho Code??? I.C. 50-2017 “No public official or employee of a municipality (or board or commission thereof), and no commissioner or employee of an urban renewal agency shall voluntarily acquire any personal interest, direct or indirect, in any urban renewal project, or in any property included or planned to be included in any urban renewal project in such municipality or in any contract or proposed contract in connection with such urban renewal project.”

Really?????

By my reading of that law (I’m not a lawyer), simply building/developing in an URD doesn’t put you in violation – you’d have to orchestrate CCDC paying for some extra costs or buying garage space, as another commented indicated.

I would also expect Scott Ludwig to recuse himself if this project in any way appears before City Council.

If we could only get these comments and concerns, in front of an investigative TV reporter, seriously!

She’s much too attractive and smart to call a ‘bulldog’ sir.

She is a top shelf reporter. Hope she likes it here. Most of the good ones are attracted away by $$$.

EDITOR NOTE–Agree on all counts. Bulldog was a compliment.

So far several of those who posted are correct. Not a single reporter or report on this issue.

There are simply no reporter left in Boise. All we have are press prelease regurgitators.

Editor. Your points are well take, to an extent. State law only requires disclosure of a conflict of interest, very weak, indeed. P&Z law requires non-participation, leave the room. Hence, there is no violation. As for urban renewal and IC50-2017, this is not an urban renewal project, it is development within a district. Big difference. I am confident that Ludwig will be represented by professionals through the life of the project and not participate in any decision making or planning.

There’s more inbreeding here than a trailer park in Arkansas.

The fact that Mr. Ludwig notified the agencies does not negate that the intent and letter of the statue has been violated.

It shows that the agencies ALSO failed to take the required action via the statue. Everyone is involved in the violation – not abstaining from it.

Good morning: I reached out to DF to facilitate forwarding
the disclosure letter. Will do that asap. Again, these posts are why Boise is a great City. The debate is necessary. There is absolutely NO violation of any Statute. There is ZERO involvement in CCDC and any public funds in this Project. I owned the real property from 10 years ago. I abstain on any issues at CCDC in the subject URD. In fact being a CCDC Commissioner will cost this project money since I could lawfully and successfully Apply for $$$ for this project, but in an effort at avoiding any perception of impropriety, that won’t occur and I’ve made that clear. There is no buy-in for public parking again to avoid any perceived issues. I will make parking available for the public evenings and weekends. CCDC is a Board of citizens and I have the unfettered right to pursue this private project as long as there is no Fox in the Henhouse and I have worked diligently to make sure that has not occurred here. Two other quick responses on questions raised: City Council: I have had no involvement with this Project at the City and the Architect is managing the entitlements. Of course I will have no involvement and abstain from any involvement or vote, if one is necessary. Further, I respect my colleagues own perspectives on this Project and have no idea if they support or oppose the project.

Mr. Ludwig,
if you walk like a duck, swim like a duck, and fly like a duck, people will call you a duck; even if you are a loon.

Just because it is “not illegal”, doesn’t make it right.

Your project, and inherently you, will benefit (or have detriment) from the actions and decisions you and your board make now and in the future.
This one project, you abstain. Great. The project across the street? The one down the block? The future policy of the board?
It is impossible- impossible- for you NOT to have personal inurement while you own property within or adjacent to the CCDC boundary.
Hey, great, more power and money to you. Welcome to America. This happens ALL the time with legislators and congressmen. But don’t try to blow smoke and say there is no “perception of impropriety”. If that were true, we would not even have this story and you certainly would not have taken the time to reply.

The other note:
AS you state, you “strongly believe in Affordable Housing, but also strongly believe that the issue is community-wide issue and not just one property owner”
Yes, AND community-wide, KETCHUM chose their method of how the COMMUNITY would help fund that housing cause. The ordinance is not for ONE owner, it was to be applied to ALL owners building something determined to be
less desirable to the COMMUNITY character of Ketchum. The community decided on their method- just like Boise Council decides on homeless issues for this community.

It only takes ONE pissed-off lawyer to go against a whole community.
The McCall case and your Ketchum case were not the same “that sort of ordinance”.

Ironic that you are on the CCDC board- a mechanism which taxes some property owners in a manner differently than the rest of the population. And yet you oppose “illegal” “impact fees”. Again,,, perception.

A quote from elsewhere “The court said pretty plainly that a fee charged to one segment of society to offset the burdens of the community as a whole is a tax—not a fee—and as such, is an unlawful tax,”
– URDs fall right into that – one segment vs the whole community. My tax is higher because the CCDC money doesn’t get distributed to ALL the taxing needs. And an owner in downtown pays higher taxes to fund CCDC projects that other county residents do not have to.
“Geographical Inequality”

Unconstitutional? There are lots of city ordinances that are unconstitutional. No one cares until, someone is financially impacted and then it just depends on the cost of the legal fight, right?
Easy when you’re a lawyer.
Can’t afford a lawyer: Sorry Charlie, go sit in the back of the bus.

As the Editor points out, when the city (county or state) has the taxpayer money resources to fight the battle to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars it just rubs salt in the taxpayers’ purse.

Politics as usual. 🙂

Well said Easterner !
Developer/Legislators created Idaho’s Forced Annexation Law as yet another way to make taxpayers pay the Impact Fees for their business ventures.
Can’t blame our public servants for molesting us, lack of civic backbone made creation of our conflict of interest dictatorship easy.

Most people as busy as Scot is would never have accepted Dave Bieter’s nomination for council member! Also owning property in downtown Boise, most people would have not accepted a seat on the CCDC! As you have; it makes some of your constituents wonder who you are working for? I think it is great for Scot to make as much money as he can as long as he does what is right for his constituents and the whole of the city of Boise.

A precedent could be set if Scot Ludwig’s “towers” project proceeds despite some considerable conflicts of interest inherent in having a sitting public official as an active downtown developer. This proposal is slated for consideration by planning & zoning THIS MONDAY, February 12th at 6pm.
Can we get a group of guardianites to turn out and testify? I’ll show up for a pre-hearing beverage across the street if ya’ll wanna join me?!