ABOUT TIME!
Fair share applies to all, not just those who know the back rooms! Now lets look at the amount of commercial property whose taxes have been frozen for 20 years by virtue of the CCDC Urban Renewal District “wave of the wand.” There is an ever-increasing disparity between residential and commercial property tax burdens. The Ada County property tax burden went from 60% residential and 40% commercial in 2011 to 72% residential and 28% commercial in 2019.

This is one way to open discussion on a secret way to compete with private industry fairly. Nothing like untaxed real estate to lower the rents.
Similar to credit unions never paying Idaho Sales Taxes or income taxes on profits. Yet, they can pay same interest return to members as for-profit banks.

I don’t think this will topple affordable housing. Homelessness is not a for profit operation and the HP’s and the folks in the hangar are taking out salary. I hope clan McLean will study it a bit harder. I think that Gannon is probably a good ally and advisor for her.

A bit more explanation on an URD “freezing taxes”. . . An Urban Renewal District does not freeze taxes in the sense that not one penny more is paid for 20 years. An URD simply freezes the amount of the assessed value that property tax is collected upon for each taxing district. The overall assessed value does increase and the taxes on a property in an URD will increase, its a matter of the difference in where those increased taxes go.

I posted the following in a prior story:

URDs do not create areas that do not pay taxes, rather, they create designated areas where any incremental increase in tax value is scrapped off the top and given to CCDC to spend as they please in the URD area it was collected from. Over a 20-25 year URD period, this can result in the incremental amount of tax being scrapped off for CCDC to use, being almost as much as original baseline amount of tax that is distributed to the various taxing districts.

Here Is An Example Using Only Boise City Tax Levy For 2019:

Approximation for a 0.890 acre parcel of land in downtown Boise in the designated Westside URD.

$3476 – tax received by Boise on $610,000 base value (the value of the parcel at time URD was created in 2001).

$2562 – tax received by CCDC/URD for $449,700 incremental increased value (this is the amount the parcel has increased in value since 2001).

This Westside URD still has 7 years to go until “sunsetting” in 2026, and at the current pattern of escalating assessed property values, it is highly likely the CCDC/URD incremental tax amount will be equal to, or even surpass, the amount that Boise receives.

This outcome is one of the contributing factors causing Boise, or the other taxing districts, to take the 3% budget increase each year, as they are receiving less and less tax each year due to it being redistributed to the CCDC, leaving the general public to subsidize growth.

EDITOR NOTE–All true. The simple way to say it is, “The tax on all improvements and appreciation goes to CCDC.”

At least they are trying to “work across the aisle” to bring possible solutions to the table. They both deserve credit for that effort!

Thank you John Gannon and Mike Moyle for bringing this legislation forth. Property taxes are very complicated and I appreciate the discussion this brings to the table. It is not just spending that drives up property taxes. Boise has lost a lot of tax revenue over the years to expansion- MK Plaza, HP Compass, growth of BSU. It does make a difference, especially when high value properties are involved.

I would like the Legislature remove all the tax exemptions for the ‘non profit’ hospitals and churches.

sounds good.

Technically it is a Resolution and proposes to put the issue on the ballot for citizen approval to make the amendment.
Action costs $200-$300,000 tax dollars to put it on the ballot. And NO information for the additional tax revenues expected to generate?

Define “private entity”.
What if my nonprofit leases from the state and turns over use of the space to a “private entity” run by my child?
—“Just following the law”.

And we could go back to the original question:
WHY is any government holding real estate to lease to any business?????
Eliminate the problem instead of trying to cover the symptom— eliminate the exemptions, URDS, and little old ladies then counties will be flush with funds and citizen taxes will go down.

Like the Editor Note above states: too many variables to be fair across the whole state and 44 different counties.

I’ll vote NO.

Better:
Propose the amendment to allow EACH COUNTY to decide at the local level to eliminate the exemption for nonprofits with more than $x in assets, or revenue. Clearwater County might need the current arrangement. Ada County should dump the exemption for all NGOs (connected ones too) over a million in assets. And the Legislature should make that possible for the local decision to be made– just like a Local-Option.

Or, Gannon & Moyle could do something easy, work within their parties, be like Utah, and be LEADERS with a bipartisan effort to “Add the Words”. 🙂

Thank you Reps John Gannon, Steve Harris and Mike Moyle for sponsoring this legislation. This loophole needs to be closed, and Idaho should follow the lead of other states that have statutes and constitutional amendments that close this loophole. I am on board with these Representatives and have already offered my help and research to get it done.

The comment above of “BSU should not be allowed to purchase the building” is loaded with some connotations here.

“BE ALLOWED”? Interesting comment given the current political scene:

-That a private owner could not sell to a particular, willing, and able buyer.
-That a capable and legal entity would not “be allowed” to buy real property (or anything).
WOW!

And in the same space as this blog with constant comments of “tyrant Bieter”, anti-socialism, anti-communism—- “the idea” that government should interfere with the free-market. Wow!

And this Guardian (modified) quote from 2010, since it matches recent Cuba commentary: “we note that Communist Cuba [and others], are known to operate state-owned businesses. Just can’t imagine such a thing in a place like Idaho”

Welcome to Idaho!

////
From the above resolution “property belonging to the state” that is being leased—-

combined with
“socialism aims to substitute private property in the means of production for social ownership or public property.” And, “Socialists generally favor social ownership” [a nonprofit organization is very much ‘social ownership’].

Oh, this all must exist because the Idaho Legislature and our current politicians and their supporters actually DO interfere with the free-market ALL the TIME (when it fits their interests) despite the platform:
“A competitive market, free of
undue governmental ***competition,*** restriction, coercion, or ***interference,*** is critical to
Idaho’s economic well-being.”

/
So is that just hypocrisy or selectively accepting socialism by the same people who say they are opposed to democratic socialism??

“Alex, I’ll take, ‘Feel the Bern’ for a $1,000”