HB 217 would give voters more say in how their tax dollars are spent.

Idaho’s constitution mandates that local governments seek permission from voters to go into debt. Typically this would be a bond for a school, city hall, library, sports stadium, etc.

An exception to the law exists where if an area is suffering from blight, an urban renewal district can be created without a public vote and bonds issued to finance restoration

Many proposed urban renewal areas don’t meet the requirements of a “deteriorated” or “blighted area” that would justify input from public voters.

Cities statewide have abused urban renewal to avoid voter input on profound debt projects

The bill would not stop public projects, simply provide residents with a voice.

EDITOR NOTE–https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2019/legislation/H0217.pdf

Really, it is not the politicians setting that low threshold; it is the voting people.

Many of the readership tolerate such low standards at the national level and say NOTHING. And instead are actually supportive of the person.
Out right lies, immoral behavior, unfairness, and simply wrong – on a daily basis.
Does anyone think we should hold our local politicos to to a higher standard? ha!

In today’s environment, there are people willing to vote for an accused child molester instead of the opposing candidate. Hello Alabama Senate race and all his ‘supporters’.
WHO is setting that standard?

Regardless of the side, half of the people accept poor standards from “THEIR” politicians.

In an age of “fake news” and people believing everything on the Internet or the next tweet along with the real confusion of URD it would be nice not to add to the problem. 🙂

EDITOR NOTE–If cities provide services without receiving revenues, it would seem to be “free.” Please don’t quibble over the small “base amounts.”

So
-eliminate the dollar threshold.
-Change the vote from 60% of voters to 55%, and
-Mandate it for any construction or remodel for above ground work of “municipal buildings”

So a private company builds a stadium and leases it to CCDC at a very high rate, this bill doesn’t apply. (not a municipal building and still on the tax rolls- because owners don’t apply for exemption).
CCDC scoundrels say, “Don’t worry builder, we got ya covered and your ample profit will be in the lease payments”. Would developers on CCDC & GBAD, (sounds familiar) send work to their buddies in the private sector?

And no monetary threshold for expenditures. IF CCDC plans to spend 100 dollars on a building facade, it requires a vote?

oh AND claiming “an emergency” exists to get immediate effectiveness.
Really, there’s an emergency? Dang, the legislators ought to call 911!

FUNNY that the bill writer put in “streets, roads, streets, gutters…””
What? No avenues or boulevards?

Now maybe ACHD will get in bed with CCDC and do lots of downtown infrastructure improvements. The surface of Main Street sure as heck needs it!!!!

The bill’s Statement of Purpose is wrong. It is all poorly written. The objective is just muddied.
Back to the drawing board boys. Better yet, wait till one of the women does it.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2019/legislation/H0217.pdf

///

ANYTIME one makes a law to get a specific effect there are usually many routes around that law. It just takes one attorney.

If the sponsors of the bill are so adamant that the URDs are misbehaving and wasting tax dollars, then they just shut down the URD law.

EDITOR NOTE–Sounds like trolling, but your idea of eliminating URD sounds good.

“This process recognizes that, when considering the City’s ability to issue and repay long-term debt, the entire debt burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account.”

The categories and amounts of debt included direct debt obligations held by the City, as well as those held by Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC), Ada County, and school districts. As of 2012, this wise consideration no longer appears in the CAFR.