A-1 actually means open land, which is some of the problem; the land was either supposed to always be a school or a park. Because of this, the developer and the neighborhood sat in several meetings to locate a compromise that would suit all affected; it gave the developer a good portion of what they were seeking, and the neighborhood a good portion of what they were seeking. Unlike a mandatory city meeting in which terms are dictated, these were totally voluntary and all agreed to the terms.

While the city meeting was about REZONING, thanks for the all caps, the city is bullying the developer into low income housing by its motion instead of honoring a hard fought compromise between the residents and the developer; the compromise already agreed to by both parties. In fact, as I understand it, the developer was ready to go with these projects before Clegg began her demands.

She specifically stated that the developer could only build 1 of 2 current projects until it submits its revised plan for the back 3rd parcel in question. The revision, of course, is entirely because of Clegg and entirely unneeded and unwanted; thus the City is actively preventing the developer from doing what it wishes on that land, chiefly to build something that works for both them and the neighborhood it may very well end up destroying.

Anyway you slice it, except from the cheap seats, the city is preventing development on that land unless it gets what it wants. And while they can say all day that its not a demand, if you prevent someone from building on a mostly unrelated project until they submit an alternate proposal fitting only your requirements, tossing out what everyone else wants…well then it turns into a demand, doesn’t it. A bit like the mafia’s suggestions that you pay for their protection.

While I appreciate the feedback, I find that you have some of your facts wrong, and you left out some important information which supports what myself and the neighbors believe. Additionally, your post leaves out entirely what she said about this lot always having been in the works to make her bus system work; specifically major transit hub.

I agree, however, that they may have the authority, but that doesn’t mean such authority should be exercised, especially when the city becomes a roadblock unless it gets what it wants.

EDITOR NOTE–Please try to keep the comments shorter!

http://boisecityid.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=3080&Format=Agenda

The editor is correct. It’s a voter apathy driven love fest. The editor is the only local media who dare say so.

RE Question: The impression I get from a lot of folks is that what I saw in the meeting was pretty normal; any of the meetings would do. However, the meeting occurred on 9/17/19 at 6pm. CAR19-00014 Please let me know if you get the same impression. https://boisecityid.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=3080&MediaPosition=3414.853&ID=12598&CssClass=

RE What Else: Nope, not him. I do remember voting him in but I never followed him until now. Of all the folks up there who might uphold the American way of living, he would be it. I am sorry to hear that he is considering leaving. Regarding Sanchez, most social justice warriors do believe they have a great understanding of what folks need; they usually do not, nor do the recognize its really none of their business anyway unless they plan to give their ‘own’ money in the form of charity while leaving the rest of us the freedom to do the same.

I think the residents of the Northwest Neighborhood would fully disagree with this comment regarding both farmland and providing services, especially when only hours later, she voted in favor of a development that approved increasing density on farmland in their neighborhood!

Reasonably cost efficient manner – really? You annexed the Northwest area of Boise in 2015 and did not secure an Automatic Aid contract with the Eagle Fire District. Boise paid zero for emergency response and allowed the Eagle Fire District to continue to provide fire response service to this area they use to control. The Eagle fire fighters continued to respond because it is the right thing to do – they care about safety first, not just the rooftop revenue. But the City of Boise’s actions have meant that the Eagle Fire District taxpayers have been subsidizing Boise services for nearly 5 years.

When Harris Ranch was built, the City made sure to get a fire station built on the front end of development, then closed the nearby Whitney Station 22 off Amity Road. The people near this station who were annexed in 2003 now have a net loss of taxpayer funded municipal services. Another example of what “reasonably cost efficient manner” means to Clegg? Take from one and give to another?

You can’t govern in a situation where no other council members understand or support the law. Or otherwise, Ludwig has said the job at the city is interfering with his law practice. It is good he is leaving after a time – they all should.

The Cole/Fairview property was restricted, and the whole of them ignored that. It is a lost opportunity and it is greed.

I will also not support Clegg. Whatever she has done, if only pass every crappy development, it is time for her to let someone else have that salary and those benefits and give it a go.

McLean is not Bieter, and that is a plus. Coles is definitely not Bieter or McLean, and that is a plus. Nobody else is campaigning. Whose payroll are they on?

I think that Ms. Sanchez is only expressing her experience. She has great understanding of peoples’ needs. She should stop talking about it though, and vote to uphold peoples values, such as they may be.

About those cop cars, I don’t have enough information. But if they want to loan me some decals and some lights, my neighborhood might be well served.

A beautiful home is not made beautiful by the status of the people who frequent it, but by the grass roots, and cleaning the dirt in the corners of every day people who are in it. Clean the streets and neighborhoods, and give us fire protection, police protection, and zoning compliance. Don’t make us guess if we have a good community, a residential neighborhood, or a bombing range based on who is in the house.

Let’s clean house.

“Let them have edible landscaping,” she proclaimed.

Thank you

It would be awesome to have a discussion about it. In one regard she is right.

But in another more pressing regard…in places where the homeless are allowed to camp out, it devolves into people pitching tents on storefronts, defecating and using drugs on those storefronts and no one can do anything about it. Its all over the news now and not hard to find. Its not a safe practice. On this one issue, I stand with the current mayor.

I very much like the comments by Begone and Katie regarding Clegg. That woman is dangerous.

I recently attended a meeting regarding property rights vs a dictator like city government. I made it my business, maybe just out of curiosity, to see where that (previously mentioned) cole and fairview property is heading. I view this as a very good test case to see what will happen in my own neighborhood when they come for us.

Clegg wished and proposed to impose her own views onto private property owners in the form of dictating what they “should” build on their own land. Obviously this lot is one of her baby’s in regards to her failed buss system; it is a major road and she wants to force high density low income housing so they will use the buss since no one else will; of which she basically said during her rant.

Mclean questioned as to why her motion was even necessary but then voted in favor of it; she seems like a flimsy sort of person whom is easily pushed over. Indeed, Mclean forgot she had a hot mic and at the end of the meeting said “oh, maybe I shouldn’t have voted in favor of the measure since it was a tie and I was the tie breaker”. At the very least, she appears to have no idea what she is doing, including how to turn a mic off, and I cant see her as mayor.

Ludwig was the hero who voted against said measure strongly and frequently voicing his concern that the city should not be able to dictate to or bully a private property owner. In fact, if it wasn’t for Ludgwigs frequent inquires, the intent behind the measure would not have been discovered and it would have passed unanimously.

TJ voted against it but said very little otherwise. Sanchez went on a 5 minute soapbox rant about why people should not dislike low income people, indicating she is one and therefore she takes great “offense” anytime someone mentions it; she of course voted in favor of the measure. Woodings was mostly silent but voted in favor; she seemed impatient and not really wanting to be there.

The measure passed with McLean breaking the tie on a hot mic; and the city is now allowed to bully a private land owner on what he can and can not build; and to do so to force a loser issue (bus system) to maybe have two more riders at the expense of an entire neighborhood who will have no more than 30 ft from the proposed ‘projects’. The overall consensus was, and this is a shared view amount the neighborhood which was verified when I contacted my friend who lives over there, ‘screw the people who live there and how it might impact them, I want my buss system used and this is the best way to start forcing it to happen’.

My point is, these people really sort of suck, and I will actually be extremely disappointed if Boise elects McLean; she is kind of a simpleton of whom a slight breeze would push over. Clegg is dangerous and needs to be voted out even moreso that Bieter. Sanchez is a social justice warrior forcing other people to shoulder her lifestyle in the form of taxes and low income housing instead of asking for charity or finding a community to belong to.

Why isnt Ludwig running? I would vote for him.