Personally I don't like the idea of Fire Districts opting out. It sets the stage for other entities to do the same. Creating an URD is a lengthy process and every entity within that URD has an opportunity to voice their concerns. I also disagree with a URD being created soley and specifically for a single business. URD's are meant to enhance an area and update infrastructure and businesses within that area. Utilizing a URD for a specific business does not benefit the surrounding property owners, just that business. From what I understand most URD's are creaed with a project or new business in mind as an achor or starting point. But like Kuna's example, META achored a new business park. Chobani's URD helps Chobani, thats it, which is not what URD were designed to do. Chobani and other large corporations get a ton of tax relief from the state as it is. One aspect of URD's that needs to be remembered is that the total number of URTD's within a community are limited to a % of ttl land area of that community. Boise has 5 (?) URD's and has maxed out their acreage limitation. With this in mind, URD's should be limited to xx number of years and then end and move on. Boise has had URD's in their downtown since the 80's while large swaths of older Boise hurt for infrastructure and new businesses. By putting a time limitation on a URD and being done in that area, puts pressure on the development community to get on with it. It also allows and creates the idea of new URD's in new areas of a community for future growth and development. It is a sad fact,. that new businesses require something from a community in order to invest in that communbity. URD's are a worthy time tested option. On another note, the ITD issue highlights a weak point in Idaho's URD law. ITD is a tax exempt property. By selling it within a URD ALL future taxes stay within the URD which is not the intent nor is it fair to the rest of the community. A tax exempt property should have a baseline appraisal and tax amount based on the appraisal or purchase price. Future value increases from there stay within the URD.
This is way too complex for the average citizen -- or legislator or planner etc. -- to understand. Thirty-page bills should be outlawed. If you can't keep it simple, you simply can't keep it.
URDs may have started with good intentions, like many government programs (including the much abused eminent domain). But most URDs have gone off the rails with mission creep and open-ended conditions. Now, just about anything falls into the "blighted" category, whether it's an empty lot with some weeds or a city block full of decrepit buildings. The worst outcome, in our opinion, is to grant special deals to private interests, individuals, companies, etc. Taxpayers always end up being the losers.
As for "rural" areas not being able to afford all the infrastructure and housing to support a big company such as Chobani (Idaho), Nestle (Oregon), or massive data center and chip manufacturers (country wide), that's just an excuse to turn rural areas urban and often to confiscate private property. Many people live in rural areas by choice and like the rural life. But residents aren't given a choice when large developments are brought in, especially under URDs and other special government deals. Yeah, they may conduct public hearings, but generally the big guys win.
Public/private partnerships including URDs can be harmful to America and Americans, no matter how much lipstick you put on them. Sure, they often have "good" reasons for establishing the URDs, but most of those good reasons expired long ago.
URDs -- if allowed at all -- should be limited in scope, short in duration, and have extensive community input before they are allowed to proceed. Also, they should not benefit individual corporations (who often donate generously to local decision makers or contractors). This is corporate welfare at its worst.
Just our opinion from a 20,000 foot perspective, not from one of understanding all the minutiae. But one doesn't have to understand the minutiae to see the underlying injustice or URDs and the mission creep that usually results.
Home values have quite frankly tripled since 2016....the assessed value of the JUST the 1 acre of land my house sits on has quadrupled from 50k to 200k in just the last two years! At a minimum, the homeowners exemption should be doubled to $250,000 and tied to inflation. Homeowners way into retirement on fixed incomes are being taxed out of their homes. The last "property tax relief bill" gave me a whopping $30 of relief....whoopee!
Personally I don't like the idea of Fire Districts opting out. It sets the stage for other entities to do the same. Creating an URD is a lengthy process and every entity within that URD has an opportunity to voice their concerns. I also disagree with a URD being created soley and specifically for a single business. URD's are meant to enhance an area and update infrastructure and businesses within that area. Utilizing a URD for a specific business does not benefit the surrounding property owners, just that business. From what I understand most URD's are creaed with a project or new business in mind as an achor or starting point. But like Kuna's example, META achored a new business park. Chobani's URD helps Chobani, thats it, which is not what URD were designed to do. Chobani and other large corporations get a ton of tax relief from the state as it is. One aspect of URD's that needs to be remembered is that the total number of URTD's within a community are limited to a % of ttl land area of that community. Boise has 5 (?) URD's and has maxed out their acreage limitation. With this in mind, URD's should be limited to xx number of years and then end and move on. Boise has had URD's in their downtown since the 80's while large swaths of older Boise hurt for infrastructure and new businesses. By putting a time limitation on a URD and being done in that area, puts pressure on the development community to get on with it. It also allows and creates the idea of new URD's in new areas of a community for future growth and development. It is a sad fact,. that new businesses require something from a community in order to invest in that communbity. URD's are a worthy time tested option. On another note, the ITD issue highlights a weak point in Idaho's URD law. ITD is a tax exempt property. By selling it within a URD ALL future taxes stay within the URD which is not the intent nor is it fair to the rest of the community. A tax exempt property should have a baseline appraisal and tax amount based on the appraisal or purchase price. Future value increases from there stay within the URD.
This is way too complex for the average citizen -- or legislator or planner etc. -- to understand. Thirty-page bills should be outlawed. If you can't keep it simple, you simply can't keep it.
URDs may have started with good intentions, like many government programs (including the much abused eminent domain). But most URDs have gone off the rails with mission creep and open-ended conditions. Now, just about anything falls into the "blighted" category, whether it's an empty lot with some weeds or a city block full of decrepit buildings. The worst outcome, in our opinion, is to grant special deals to private interests, individuals, companies, etc. Taxpayers always end up being the losers.
As for "rural" areas not being able to afford all the infrastructure and housing to support a big company such as Chobani (Idaho), Nestle (Oregon), or massive data center and chip manufacturers (country wide), that's just an excuse to turn rural areas urban and often to confiscate private property. Many people live in rural areas by choice and like the rural life. But residents aren't given a choice when large developments are brought in, especially under URDs and other special government deals. Yeah, they may conduct public hearings, but generally the big guys win.
Public/private partnerships including URDs can be harmful to America and Americans, no matter how much lipstick you put on them. Sure, they often have "good" reasons for establishing the URDs, but most of those good reasons expired long ago.
URDs -- if allowed at all -- should be limited in scope, short in duration, and have extensive community input before they are allowed to proceed. Also, they should not benefit individual corporations (who often donate generously to local decision makers or contractors). This is corporate welfare at its worst.
Just our opinion from a 20,000 foot perspective, not from one of understanding all the minutiae. But one doesn't have to understand the minutiae to see the underlying injustice or URDs and the mission creep that usually results.
Home values have quite frankly tripled since 2016....the assessed value of the JUST the 1 acre of land my house sits on has quadrupled from 50k to 200k in just the last two years! At a minimum, the homeowners exemption should be doubled to $250,000 and tied to inflation. Homeowners way into retirement on fixed incomes are being taxed out of their homes. The last "property tax relief bill" gave me a whopping $30 of relief....whoopee!