Here is a topic I would be interested in seeing comments on.

Dare I say it at this time while the legislature is in session wanting to limit the ability of Idaho residents to even be able to get a proposition on the ballot?

How would be people in Idaho feel about a Proposition 13 (I think that is the number) like California has in limiting property tax? It seems every year the taxing districts are all fleecing property owners the maximum 3% increase in spite of the boom in commercial development taxes? Since we get very little benefit from increased traffic, loss of open space and quality of life it would be nice if we could get some benefit other than being ignored by city government at public hearings.

EDITOR NOTE–Geo, been there done that. In 1978 we the people passed a 1% property tax limit which the legislature abolished. “Voters approved 1% Initiative limiting property taxes to 1% of 1978 market value, requiring two-thirds vote in the legislature to increase rate of property taxes and two-thirds vote of people to impose special taxes.”

They have since amended, repealed and exempted the property tax laws so much they are nearly impossible to interpret. Here is a property tax history for Idaho https://tax.idaho.gov/pubs/EPB00106_11-20-2015.pdf

.

Large open blocks of land are very infrequent in Boise. The Boise School District created two when they tore down both the Franklin and Cole Schools several years ago. I am sure that they anticipated huge injections of cash from developers.
If I recall correctly, both of these properties were deed restricted that they would revert to the original grantor if not used for a school. Thus, why the land is still fallow.

Has the School District found a Title Company to insure the title for a new owner or have they gone to court to force the issue? Probably a public relations nightmare of big school district not giving the land back to the families.

My grandfather donated deed restricted land to a rural school district in the 1920s. My father went to school there. When it was consolidated when the former Meridian School District was created, the land reverted to the family and they farmed it for another 60 years.

Any idea on the former Cole and Frankin properties?

Glad to see significant resident interest in STEMMING growth. I thought it was much lower.

I will also be interested in realized tax receipts of TreeFort injection. We’ll see if it’s Fake News from City side.

Eyesores at Franklin and Cole sites tell us that projections for growth might be short of mark. Silver lining? Not enough kiddies to build more schools. South Jr HS is half the size of the old building. Many fams fled to Meridian when they could to escape taxes and higher cost of living. I just heard from a local real estate agent that a small Northend home that’s not very impressive is selling for $400K. Bubble machine pricing. Thanks Woodrow Wilson, we soooooo appreciate the FED octopus you brought us.

Yes, I see and hear the F-15s and F-18s. The upside is that they are not F-35 money pits. Part time visits are way better than permanent based.

Leg session almost done. Some good and bad, as always.

Katie & citizen ballot issue: The event center manager needs to freshen up on understanding public property classifications as well as public freedoms. Collecting signatures for a citizen driven ballot initiative is a compliant use of public property as well as your right to free speech.

The Plaza area and the Boise Center are both public properties, as shown on their websites. Plus each property owner listed on the Ada County Assessor website shows these publicly funded government bodies. The following 2 text blocks with asterisks are directly from CCDC and GBAD websites:

* THE GROVE PLAZA: This property was owned by CCDC as an urban public park. CCDC transferred The Grove Plaza to the City of Boise after the Central District Sunset.

* The District is a public or governmental entity. In 1959, the Idaho Legislature passed legislation allowing for the creation of auditorium districts in Idaho. Upon passage of the legislation, a district was formed in Boise for the purpose of building a civic facility for the community.

The Plaza officially transferred hands at the end of 2018, but was always publicly owned, and the improvements made to this area were funded through tax increment financing.

GBAD accomplished its purpose of building a civic facility in 1990 without a direct vote of the citizens. Recently a three-part $47.5 million major expansion has been completed, with a portion of the $29.5 million phase 1 cost being funded through lease financing, as the means to avoid the Constitutional debt limitation and a vote. Citizens should be asking why they are being made to pay for another civic facility, as part of the main library/civic center project, again without a vote.

The Greater Boise Auditorium District will hold a Regular Board Meeting on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 2:30 p.m.
Location:
Boise Centre West
Room 200

Join them for a good time.

boisecynic:

I did not express that I did not like GBAD, so please do not assume that with your questioning. I am simply trying to both inform myself these days, and engage with others to learn more and share what I have learned. Sometimes issues and discussions lead to asking different questions, or asking questions in different ways. I try hard to make it a point to stay focused on the facts (when they are made transparent), show how public funds are used, the process, the overlap, etc., so that discussions such as this can occur and citizens can learn from each other, not accuse and slam one another.

I pulled the exact text from the GBAD website and did not intentionally, nor disingenuously, leave anything out. This is how THEY described their origination in 1959, which says nothing about a vote of the citizens being required. Maybe they need to add this to their own website description, as well as include the actual percent for what you describe as “an overwhelming majority” of voter approval. Plus their own website says their purpose was for “a civic facility” – this means one, which they have done.

What your comments (with a touch of accusation) did make clear is this: Boise City having CCDC help fund the library/event center, means that CCDC is actually now doing the job of GBAD.

Which is exactly what House Bill 217 is trying to correct. “This bill is narrowly tailored so the votes happen when the votes were intended to happen and urban renewal is used for its primary purpose, and that is for the infrastructure,” Rice told the Senate.

I will ask this, can you explain what you mean by “my peers” in the state legislature in your comment directed at me – are they not your peers as well? Or simply the State legislature?