The goal is to target people that pay little or no taxes to vote for these candidates because their progressive and make the city “hip.” Meanwhile, taxpayers foot the bill of “progress” which is just a term for shiny baubles and trophies.

When the previous stadium proposal was on the table, the mayor and council were planning to throw $3 million of city general funds at it. That’s why the initiative for a vote on any stadium project costing $5 million or more was floated, and GBAD funds would be counted along with Boise City revenues.

Boise has $50 million it can spend on a library now the $16 million at GBAD it can spend on a sports stadium – – why don’t we REDUCE TAXES and quit spending?!?!?!

Faced with having to put before voters the question of lease-financing $32 million to $37 million for the library through Boise’s urban renewal agency at an additional cost of more than $15 million in interest and fees, the mayor now wants to pay $30 million to $50 million with “cash.”

There’ll be “no new taxes” we are told—just past taxes reserved for other city needs, like siting a new branch library, building promised fire stations, adequately staffing the police and fire department, and maintaining the city’s vehicle fleet.

Apparently, by taxing property at the maximum three-percent-plus-growth over the past several years, the mayor and council have been able to ferret away millions of dollars in “reserves” and “capital” accounts that can be shifted to pet projects at their whim.

Now, faced with a citizen initiative asking voters if they’d like a simple majority vote to enable the city to proceed with a $25-million-or-more library, the city council has come up with a new ruse to confuse the issue:

Once they figure out how to fit the $104-million Safdie WOW! palace into the now-$85-million budget, they’ll hold a hearing where citizens have three minutes to comment on the plan that’s taken more than a year to devise. And, maybe they’ll follow up in November with a non-binding advisory vote, which a couple of councilors have told us is “the best kind of public hearing.”

The “leadership” team that created this mess by approving the Safdie design before knowing its cost—the mayor, council president, and council president pro-tem—will also be on that November ballot. When the review team vetted the Safdie proposal, they questioned “if we can afford it (and if we can control the design to meet budget)” and ranked it third of the six proposals submitted. The mayor and council leadership were WOWed by Safdie and awarded him the project even with the budget still “in the realm of $65 million.” Whether Safdie could “commit to designing a project we can afford” was questioned.