“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”

We need to dump this whole idea. Governments get bigger, because they can when they have a captured subject to tap, at any time.

Porcupine….I noticed in that BoiseDev article…“If I have to appoint myself to that commission, I will,” McLean said. “If there’s a mayor on the board, it should be the current one. CCDC needs to align with the vision of a city.”

I ask….just WHAT vision of this city is she talking about? Were Me or You consulted on this vision? You nailed it with the reference to old/new boss tag. We replaced Lenin with Trotsky.

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”. 🙂