Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We ABSOLUTELY NEED to focus on stricter zoning, emphasizing xeriscaping techniques, denser development, more live/work communities that has residents that actually live/work there, and building up, not out. Among many other things.
The sad thing, to me, is that people FAIL TO RECOGNIZE there's problems existing, and even graver problems to come.
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but there are several planned communities in the works for Boise-Metro, which I think is something you are in favor of and would answer your cry for live/work communities. I saw an article last year (the exact number of planned communities eludes me), but I want to say it was around 29 planned communties for our area. I will do my best to find this article if I can and post it- I believe it was Idaho Statesman that ran it.
Anyway it's very, very expensive to put together a planned community and it takes many years for it to come together with a lot of changed plans along the way. Did I mention it was very expensive? So I wouldn't necessarily say that people don't "fail to recognize" there's problems, it takes a lot of money to do what you're wanting them to do. Check out the article below, it offers insight into planned communites and might explain why there aren't more. I don't know what you know so don't take this as an insult, I thought this was an interesting article that explained the hurdles that planned communities must go through to evolve.
Boise an elusive market (http://www.idahobusiness.net/archive.htm/2007/10/15/Boise-an-elusive-market-Planned-community-projects-near-public-hearing-process - broken link)
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but there are several planned communities in the works for Boise-Metro, which I think is something you are in favor of and would answer your cry for live/work communities. I saw an article last year (the exact number of planned communities eludes me), but I want to say it was around 29 planned communties for our area. I will do my best to find this article if I can and post it- I believe it was Idaho Statesman that ran it.
Anyway it's very, very expensive to put together a planned community and it takes many years for it to come together with a lot of changed plans along the way. Did I mention it was very expensive? So I wouldn't necessarily say that people don't "fail to recognize" there's problems, it takes a lot of money to do what you're wanting them to do. Check out the article below, it offers insight into planned communites and might explain why there aren't more. I don't know what you know so don't take this as an insult, I thought this was an interesting article that explained the hurdles that planned communities must go through to evolve.
Boise an elusive market (http://www.idahobusiness.net/archive.htm/2007/10/15/Boise-an-elusive-market-Planned-community-projects-near-public-hearing-process - broken link)
I'm extremely aware of it, and it's been something I've posted on since I've joined this place. I've posted all sorts of links on them.
I'm against the majority of them, period. They're flawed models because (like Hidden Springs) they're absolutely NOT live/work communities. Simply because people that can afford to buy into them are not those that work at the little employment these places offer.
Furthermore they present a number of infrastructure problems to the areas they're planning to develop, not limited to water, traffic, power, fire stations, police presence, schools, etc. For the most part there are no impact fees tied into the developments, even though they plan to add in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 20,000 new homes.
Their wildlife mitigation plans are an absolute joke, as are their glossy presentations of "preservation" and "conservation" of open lands. Sure they're better than the typical subdivision/sea of houses model, but these are also unique situations in unique places.
And the bottom line - I'm absolutely against the location of these places, period. They do not belong in the foothills, period.
I have 5,000 pages of documents relating to the Cliffs planned development, and I have copies of thousands upon thousands of letters, names signed to petitions against these developments, studies from ITD, EPA, DEQ, etc., pointing out the many flaws of the plans.
There is so much political bulls---ing that goes into the approval of plan stages it makes me sick. Look at the last Eagle election if you don't think it's a problem. And the whole Bandy/Association of Realtors/push polling mini-scandal that arose. It's beyond ridiculous. And the sad thing is that so many people just accept that we can't stop it, which brings up the existing quagmire:
Is it better to just change the zoning to allow high density housing, or is it better to restrict the zoning so these places chop down the number of homes but increase lot sizes. Either way it's a lose/lose.
I understand what you're saying, but it comes down to money and for what you want these these planned communities to have is very expensive to do; like you will read in the article I posted. It's all about money and the expense an infrastructure like that would cost. It says:
" It takes a significant amount of up-front investment to build a planned community. For Hidden Springs, it was $12 million, not counting normal expenses like land or operating expenses, Martin said. He had to build a sewer plant, a power substation, a water tank, a fire station and a variety of amenities before he built the homes."
So I don't think it's a matter of people turning the blind eye, it's who's going to front the money.
I don't think anyone's being racist here and it's sad to see a forum member want to turn it into that.
You say two different things in your thread. First you paint a picture that everything is terrrible here, traffic bad, poor planning etc., etc., and then you end it by saying it's a nice place to live. So which is it? Apparently it can't be all that bad, otherwise you wouldn't stay.
What locals don't understand, is that people that are coming from larger areas, see Boise as a dream come true. In order to understand their perception you have to have lived in different areas besides Idaho to fully get where they're coming from. Though Boise has issues just like other cities growing rapidly, it pales in comparison to what they're experiencing and that is what I believe locals can't grasp.
Idaho has a population of 1.4million people in the whole state- the whole state (worth repeating)! Where these people sometimes come from, that's the population in their city alone. You are talking to people that want a better quality of life than what they have where they're at, so what's racist about that?
I don't think anyone's being racist here and it's sad to see a forum member want to turn it into that.
You say two different things in your thread. First you paint a picture that everything is terrrible here, traffic bad, poor planning etc., etc., and then you end it by saying it's a nice place to live. So which is it? Apparently it can't be all that bad, otherwise you wouldn't stay.
I don't think s/he said that. I think s/he was basically saying it's not quite the rosy picture that some people paint, and we do have problems. There is a difference.
If you want to see an interesting discussion go to the Boise State Scout board and see the discussion between living in Los Angeles and Boise - naturally people down there see Boise as small, insular, backwater, unsophisticated, lacking diversity, and too hot/cold. Naturally people up see see LA as too crowded, expensive, crime-ridden, etc.
It's all a matter of perspective.
I think it's fair (and honest) to complain about some problems Boise has and faces. It doesn't mean that s/he doesn't like it - maybe I'm putting words in their mouth, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrie
What locals don't understand, is that people that are coming from larger areas, see Boise as a dream come true. In order to understand their perception you have to have lived in different areas besides Idaho to fully get where they're coming from. Though Boise has issues just like other cities growing rapidly, it pales in comparison to what they're experiencing and that is what I believe locals can't grasp.
This is a fair point, but it assumes that only locals are complaining. I know for an absolute fact this isn't the case. Go attend any of the local conservation group meetings (or any of the local zoning meetings) and you'll see plenty of new Idahoans that are very loud and very vocal and very committed to protecting Idaho.
The point about Boise being better than other places other people come from is well taken, but I think you miss the important point: most people, locals or newcomers, don't want Boise/Idaho turning into to where they came from. Hence the complaining (about various issues and with different views, of course).
I understand what you're saying, but it comes down to money and for what you want these these planned communities to have is very expensive to do; like you will read in the article I posted. It's all about money and the expense an infrastructure like that would cost. It says:
" It takes a significant amount of up-front investment to build a planned community. For Hidden Springs, it was $12 million, not counting normal expenses like land or operating expenses, Martin said. He had to build a sewer plant, a power substation, a water tank, a fire station and a variety of amenities before he built the homes."
So I don't think it's a matter of people turning the blind eye, it's who's going to front the money.
I know Frank Martin, and I have nothing good to say about him or his ideas. But I'll just leave it at that.
Of course it's expensive, but it's not like these developers are going broke with these projects either. I'd just prefer they take their profit seeking elsewhere, and let people local plan, build, and decide what to do with our land and resources. How about some neighborhood revitalization projects? Look at what's been going on with downtown Nampa and Boise. We need more of those projects.
And we need to start making these developers pay for ALL of their development - impact fees should be absolutely requisite.
Torrie...the developers have gotta pay it. If they can't front the money, then they shouldn't be building new homes in an area. If water is cheap, they can build. If power is cheap, they can build. But if a developer wants to build in an area where the impact of the development means a higher cost to build, they should either accept that and add $30K per house, or not build.
I know up here, we do our own well/septic and we pay a LOT for utility connections, but it's the cost of putting a home here. I would not be happy if my neighbor found a way to shift that cost to the rest of us in the form of either higher taxes or other burden on the community.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, I'm just having fun with you! That's my poor Tom Cruise impersonation. But seriously, who's gonna pay for it?
