Comments on: Ludwig Seeks “Tweak” To Stadium Ordinance

By: what a cryin' shame

what a cryin' shame — Sun, 09 Feb 2020 16:04:29 +0000

I consider it his free advertising plan.

By: Chickenhawk

Chickenhawk — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 19:33:04 +0000

Ol’ Scotty is just upset that The People have spoken up and took a stand against raising taxes to pay for stadiums and other big-ticket projects that support out of town multimillionaires. He is afraid that he will lose money as a developer.

No wonder things are so out of control with so much incompetence everywhere. Go cry in your multi-million dollar wine!

By: Eamonn Harter

Eamonn Harter — Sat, 08 Feb 2020 06:12:04 +0000

“Given all the approved ugly projects with lack of adequate ‘private parking’ onsite, I’m under the impression private property owners can build whatever junk they want to.”

Like the Simplot JUMP center? I suspect that the architects were on magic mushrooms when they were drawing that mess.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 19:50:35 +0000

Wasn’t Scot Ludwig an elected public servant participating in the drafting of the CITY ORDINANCE?
If someone in the private sector wants to build a ball park “without excessive government intervention” like the public’s tax dollars to pay for it? TAX DOLLARS ARE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. And a ball park is EXCESSIVE for most property owners.
Oh that Scot always looking out for?

By: Easterner

Easterner — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 19:26:16 +0000

“All I want is to protect private property rights ”
?
I didn’t know [reasonable] property property rights are under assault.
.
Given all the approved ugly projects with lack of adequate ‘private parking’ onsite, I’m under the impression private property owners can build whatever junk they want to.

https://citycode.cityofboise.org/Home/Detail/32899

By: Dave Kangas

Dave Kangas — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 17:05:50 +0000

Scott did not read the ordinance as passed. Instead he is focused on the initiative language. No mention of private funds in the passed ordinance.

https://citycode.cityofboise.org/Home/Detail/32899

EDITOR NOTE–This is the part in question: B. “Major sport stadium facility project” means any sport stadium facilit y project reasonably expected to require public and/or private costs and/or expensestotaling not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000).

We are suggesting all parties agree to a simple amendment to include something like “Nothing herein shall be construed to require a vote on any Project on privately owned real property using only private funds.”

By: Pants On Fire

Pants On Fire — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 22:49:09 +0000

The motives are not being disclosed to us. Baseball? It’s going to mostly be used by really loud concerts with lots of drunks pouring out afterword. So put it someplace that will minimize the impact of the noise and the drunks. Of course the financial risk should be all on the private sector. Tax money should not fund something like this.