This has the potential of being a new “revenue source” for Idaho cities if it is indeed legal. Police should love it because current enforcement is a very low priority. There is minimal chance for confrontation since there is no traffic stop and no contact with the driver by the city code enforcement agent.

Idaho law requires a real certified “peace officer” issue complaint and summons (ticket) for misdemeanors. We need a legal opinion on this since violations would be infractions.

Boise is pretty much midway between Salt Lake and Portland. Sort of in the “middle of nowhere.” Unless folks in those population centers want to board at midnight, Boise will once again be a “wee hours” stop. It is also cost prohibitive to offer more than a few trains a week, let alone multiple daily trains.

Going east, after Mountain Home the only towns served would be Glenns Ferry and Shoshone until Pocatello. There would be no rail service to Hagerman, Buhl, Filer, Twin Falls, Burley, Rupert, Wendell, Jerome or any of the smaller Magic Valley settlements.

Why no rail service? Because THERE ARE NO RAILS!

The idea of passenger rail service is simply a novelty based on old memories and dreams of someday being “just like the Eastern seaboard.”

We challenge local and national politicos to agree to use any future rail service for their routine government work as public policy. That would be for all conferences, meetings, and any other public business. NO PUBLIC MOTOR VEHICLES ALLOWED–just trains. It would never happen.

Please take a look at two previous GUARDIAN stories. We suggested a federal bus service we dubbed AMBUS, but it got no takers.

We also panned Sen. Mike Crapo’s SURVEY spending

While some may see the expansion as a coup for Boise, the GUARDIAN fears the expansion and all it will entail will change the culture and character of our beloved city and state.

There are many aspects of the project that concern us. They include cost of infrastructure to residents while the chip making giant gets all sorts of tax “incentives.” Then there are issues of water, power, traffic, costs for police and fire, which are glibly addressed by Micron with no mention of who will provide the money for all that is required.

If Micron paid their fair share of taxes based on the touted $15 BILLION value of the project, their annual tax bill would be something close to $135,000,000. That calculation comes from a combined projected 2022 levy rate of .09% for city, county, schools, ACHD, etc. The firm has numerous tax concessions and limits which were passed by the Idaho legislature. Granted, if they were included in the tax equation, the levy rate would likely be lower.

Sadly, it appears to us that state and local government is quickly getting in so deep it will be impossible to say NO to any of the concessions sought by Micron. Simply put, it is too much in one place which will give the company untold power and authority over the lives and lifestyle of those who live here.

Here is a copy of what he sent to potential donors with no mention that current Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin has spent most of the office’s budget appropriation. He includes a stern warning about what happened to Colorado…whatever that may have been.

HEADS UP!

Scott Bedke

Officials sternly tell residents that “aerial fireworks,” including bottle rockets, mortars, and those producing “booms and bangs” are illegal. Meanwhile hundreds of dogs jump fences and run off in terror as both police and “patriotic” citizens ignore the illegal acts.

Last year on July 4th, there were 62 calls for service into dispatch from people reporting either illegal fireworks or a hazardous situation. BPD did not issue any citations.

Each year the folks at two large fireworks vending outlets ask customers to sign documents promising not to set off fireworks on public lands or other areas where they are prohibited–like the state of Idaho.

Both the Boise Police and Ada County sheriff’s departments have issued statements saying they “prioritize calls” and don’t really enforce the use of illegal fireworks.

The aerial explosives and fire crackers are responsible to injuries, lost dogs, disastrous fires, and sleepless nights for many. Meanwhile the much tamer devices described as “safe and sane” fireworks go on sale in strip mall and supermarket parking lots. For all but 10 days of the year children are admonished to not play with matches. Ironically, the only place to play with fireworks away from restrictive adults is in vacant lots and foothills land subject to wildfire.

A wise old father once suggested simply burning cash to get the same results as shooting off retail fireworks. In Vietnam resourceful revelers celebrating the lunar new year burn U.S. $100 bills for good luck. At least they do it with photocopies instead of real Benjamins.

The answer to the issue of fireworks displays is to boycott the arson stands and attend licensed displays found throughout the state. In Boise fireworks are scheduled to begin at 10:15 p.m. (dusk), but festivities at Ann Morrison Park begin at 6 p.m.

That is, however, unless you’re an elected City of Boise official, when the prospect of simultaneously moonlighting as a state legislator may seem an opportunity too good to pass up … if not for the money, then simply for the publicity.

The curious practice of soliciting substitutes whenever a Idaho state legislator takes a break from his or her duties when the Idaho Legislature comes to town each winter arose again last March.

Boise City Council member Holli Woodings, President Pro Tempore of the Council and a former state legislator herself, was all-too-eager to juggle her city duties and take on the role of state legislator for three days for a fellow North End colleague on excused absence. Woodings cast 51 recorded votes, as an unelected substitute, in the hallowed halls of the Idaho Statehouse in the same week she was similarly casting votes over at City Hall as elected Council member from her newly-created East Boise/Bench district. The record shows that a significant number of bills passed though the Legislature’s hopper that might bear directly on local municipal business.

And while helping out a fellow public servant for an excused stint from his state legislating might appear to be an act of public-spirited personal generosity, Idaho’s longstanding local custom of dual office-holding raises troubling questions about conflicts-of-interest, and the avoidable blurring-of-the-lines between state and city government, when cities can eventually be called upon to implement legislation first passed at the state level.

It triggered an inquiry on March 28 to the Boise Ethics Commission, asking for a review of Woodings’ recent spring-break sojourn on Statehouse Hill, and a restatement of city policy on whether moonlighting at other levels of government remains appropriate and good policy, especially for those elected to public duties elsewhere. The commission is expected to rule in mid-July.

“Dual office holding” for elected or appointed positions in government varies by state. Some states prohibit it at all levels. Other states prohibit it at the state level, but allow state legislators to hold county or municipal offices. Still others permit multiple office-holding, but only if there is no risk of conflict between the responsibilities in those positions. In Idaho, eager bench warmers have to be deemed “suitable” candidates before being tapped to go up to bat as subs … seemingly begging the question of whether a person elected to city office is fully suitable because of those responsibilities to assume a second job — however temporary — without “coloring outside the lines” of appropriate public service.

Divided loyalties, it seems, remain in the eye of the beholder here in Idaho. But in a community where public sector appointments have traditionally been filled from a small, often related, group of individuals, linked and bound by business and family ties, is an “insider baseball” approach to decision-making really optimum governance for Boise?

“I’ve always believed that one-job-at-a-time is a very good rule-of-thumb, especially in a city government like Boise, where we’re hearing the office in-boxes are stacked with overdue work,” says Boise resident David Klinger, who requested the ethics commission review. “In this busy city, growing on steroids, where accountability to local neighborhoods is being further heightened by the City Council’s move to representation by district, perhaps we’d best ‘stick to our knitting’. That means focusing on the job you were first elected to do before freelancing elsewhere.”

EDITOR NOTE–The GUARDIAN made some random inquiries and found the practice of city elected officials serving as legislative substitutes is legal and common. Klinger’s question is, “Does that make it ethical?”

While we recognize the need to have ONE MAN-ONE VOTE districts, this first step is only to establish the commission members. These planning units are indeed absurd since they have no basis in population. Instead they are from a “planning department map” and hopefully will not be used to select commission members. The Bench area has nearly 100,000 residents while the area north of the river is chopped up into four fistricts including one that runs the length of the foothills.

The REAL issue is to get decent impartial commissioners on the team. Having them come from geographic areas would only concede those who will establish the districts will have their own agendas. They should be spread out, but their talent, not residence location is most important.

We need:
–A GIS guy who understands mapping
–A political science major (like a BSU Prof)
–An election expert from Ada Clerks office who understands precincts
—A school planner who sets school attendance boundaries mostly by population
—A “Joe the plumber” person who has no special interest

Districts should be divided by voting precincts so they aren’t split. Those precincts are pretty much established by population already. The exception is natural barriers such as the river, freeway, bench.

Even if a representative from the Ada Clerk’s office is not on the commission, they should be the major guidance factor.

LITTLE

A question arises now that he may have violated that oath when he signed the abortion bill and even admitted it may be unconstitutional.

In a letter explaining his approval of the law, Little also said he worries the civil enforcement mechanism will be proven “unconstitutional and unwise.”

In a legal opinion sent to Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, who opposed the bill, Idaho Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane said the legislation would likely violate the U.S. Constitution.

An odd dichotomy exists here in Idaho: the state Legislature is constantly flexing its muscles, claiming that the Federal government tramples the rights of the state. However, the Legislature seems to never stop navel-gazing long enough to realize just how much they trample the rights of the residents of Idaho.

This issue has reared its head once again, in the form of HB 675. Introduced by Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa), and tellingly, with Blaine Conzatti of the Idaho Family Policy Center listed as a contact, the House has decided, mostly along party lines, that gender-affirming care provided to minors should be illegal. Fortunately, Chuck Winder, Senate Pro-tem, has provided some adult supervision and indicated the bill will not get a hearing in the Senate. This has (somewhat) restored my faith in the “old-guard” of the Republican Party in Idaho, because ultimately this is an issue about how a family best raises its children, which has always been one of the core beliefs Republicans in Idaho claim to espouse.

You might be asking yourself: why does the writer care? Well, fifteen years ago my oldest child started expressing (to their mother) just how uncomfortable and inappropriate they felt with their “assigned” gender. My wife and I did not understand then, and to be honest, we still don’t understand, because to us the idea of having an incorrectly assigned gender seems so incredibly foreign.

We took the stance that our child wasn’t mature enough to fully understand the issue, and I even went so far as to attribute part of our child’s behavior to “trying to be cool and fit in” with the particular peer group they selected. The multiple times we ended up on suicide watch should have been the first clue there was more to our child’s statements about their gender than my wife and I believed.

We pushed back, continually. Even now, fifteen years later, we still don’t get it, and probably never will. For myself, I accept, even if I don’t agree: this is my child, and I love them. The world is a hard, cold, and unforgiving place. Sadly for my child, they know this all too well, and for too many years of their life, I was one of those making it hard, cold, and unforgiving.

I don’t remember the exact age when my child started their transition, but more important than the physical changes were the emotional changes. I saw my child’s self-esteem grow, which makes perfect sense: finally, the root of so many issues was being addressed. Our relationship is now better than ever, but somewhat bittersweet to me: I don’t see my child as much as I would like because they felt the need to move to a different state where the level of persecution non-traditional sexuality/gender is less.

Like too many things in life, I simply didn’t understand the issue until it affected me. That’s really a horrible way to learn: I often wonder how many people other than my child I hurt in the past with my callousness. Families dealing with gender issues are already struggling enough, and the licit use of power and punishment won’t do anything other than give the national audience of CNN something else to laugh at Idaho about, which is definitely not needed, not as long as Ammon Bundy keeps making the news.

Every time the Legislature is in session, I brace myself for the number of bills that claim to be “family-friendly”. Consider the arguments made in favor of school choice, sexual education, vaccination, and so on—the proponents of these bills always say “parents know best”. Why can’t a parent know best in this situation? And to penalize a medical provider for following a parent’s wishes seems to run counter to everything I witnessed here in Idaho during the COVID pandemic.

Idahoans claim to have Christian values (I definitely try to!), but many seem to forget the most important parts of the message: love one another as yourself, be an example of what you believe, and realize individuals will, in the long run, be held accountable for themselves. My children, although they aren’t believers, understand this. Why can’t Representative Skaug, and the 54 other legislators who voted for this do the same?

The funding scheme subverts the Idaho Constitutional requirement to seek voter approval for debt in excess of one year. The original bond deal was for $46 million, but we are told the costs have increased since initial approval.

Unbeknownst to most folks, Ada County handles autopsies for about 34 of Idaho’s counties, claiming the pathologist fees help pay for the operation of the coroner’s office.

The GUARDIAN is of the strong opinion that Idaho needs a statewide medical examiner or office of forensic pathology. It simply is not appropriate for “The State of Ada” to provide staff and facilities for the rest of the state when it comes to forensic autopsies.

Apparently the folks in Bannock County can see there is money in the deadly business of pathology. The Bannock commishes and some Idaho State University staffers will be pitching the Joint Finance Appropriations Committee at the legislature Wednesday for cash to have their own 13 county regional office–with state of Idaho funding.

To our knowledge, Ada County does not receive any money from the state and if they lose their Eastern Idaho deadly customers it could be taps for the new finance scheme.

Here is the press release from Pocatello:

Along with the Commissioners, Chief of Staff Braeden Clayson and I will also be in attendance. I will get images and video with my phone that I can share with whoever is interested. These meetings are also streamed and recorded. Watch here: https://www.idahoptv.org/shows/idahoinsession/jfac/ [idahoptv.org]

More about East Idaho Forensics Pathology Center

Emma Iannacone
Public Information Officer
c. (208) 589-9503
emmai@bannockcounty.us