Friday, July 25, 2008 23:02 MDT
Idaho Business Review
subscribeWANT THREE FREE ISSUES?
Daily EmailDaily e-mail updates
ADVERTISING? | CLASSIFIEDS | GOT A TIP? | TOP LIST | RETURN TO HOME RSS 2.0 CONTACT US at 208.336.3768
SEARCH ARCHIVES
See stories on: Idaho Companies Idaho Industries Idaho People

Idaho Business News

Boise chamber plans to endorse constitutional amendment for local option tax

POSTED: 11:50 MDT Friday, March 7, 2008

by Eddie Kovsky

Article Tools
Printer friendly edition Printer-friendly
E-mail this to a friend E-mail this
RSS Feed RSS feed
Digg this story Digg It!
Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Tags -  Boise Chamber

The endorsement from the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce is conditional on the implementation of the transportation bill proposed by the Moving Idaho Forward coalition. “The chamber executive committee will take a recommendation to the board of directors to endorse the proposed constitutional amendment,” Ray Stark, a senior vice president at the chamber, said.

The amendment would have to be linked to a trailer bill implementing the public transportation legislation.

“The chamber and others have worked hard on this legislation for nearly two and a half years,” Stark said. “We would not endorse the constitutional amendment without the implementing legislation.”

Stark said the latest version of the amendment allows cities or counties, but not regions, to vote on local options initiatives at November election. The vote would require a two-thirds supermajority to pass.

Proponents of using the local option tax to fund public transportation had been reluctant to accept a constitutional amendment because it would restrict the operation of a regional transit authority.

“It’s like the community college [vote], where Ada County passed by 80 percent and Canyon County didn’t reach the supermajority,” Valley Regional Transit spokesman Mark Carnopis said. “If Ada supports it and Canyon doesn’t, where does it put us? We’re a two county transportation authority. How can we build outside our border?”

The chamber decided the compromise was necessary to move the public transportation bill forward.

“The chamber executive committee position reflects a realization that the Idaho Legislature may never agree to reduce the supermajority and that we need to move forward with the rules for local option,” Stark said.

4 Comments

  1. How about simple full, home-rule powers protected by constitutional amendment, like every other state west of the Mississippi?

    Comment By Disgusted
    Saturday, March 8, 2008 @ 8:04 AM

  2. Between this and the conservation easement legislation, the way Moyle and his fellow bullies are treating the proponents of this legislation is reminiscent of the treatment of Olaf in the e.e. cummings poem "I Sing of Olaf."

    Comment By bernard
    Saturday, March 8, 2008 @ 1:58 PM

  3. Where is the Master Plan?

    Light Rail and Saving Highway 84 have something in common.

    Idaho's growth is dependent on a solution found beyond our isolation and looking at the best practices of other Cities around the US for:

    Funding

    Economics

    Sustainability

    Master planning

    Design

    Technology

    Air Quality

    Health

    While difficult to negotiate, legislature needs a common vision & Master Plan for Idaho's future - pivotally dependent on energy and transportation.

    The technology exists. Where there is a will, there's a way.

    Katy Slater

    Idaho Blue Insulation

    208-340-1107

    Comment By katy Slater
    Sunday, March 9, 2008 @ 9:22 AM

  4. Get real, it's all about power. If the normal business & technology communities in Idaho's cities (now 75%+ urban), cannot organize to fund & run candidates, you deserve what you get....more rural wingnut, fossilized fools screwing up the state. At some point here close (how many corp HQs have we run off?) so much damage is done the organism never recovers.

    Comment By Tom
    Monday, March 10, 2008 @ 9:33 AM

Leave a comment
Leave this field empty

Name:

Email:


You have characters left.

Commenters, let's maintain a civil discussion here. Please observe the following guidelines:

  1. Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
  2. Do not personally attack or bait other commenters.
  3. Express your own views; don't just argue for argument's sake.
  4. Sarcasm doesn't work on the Web. Either avoid it or clearly label it so you aren't misinterpreted.
  5. Don't make the same point repetitively.
  6. No spam. Link to a commercial site only if it's relevant to the discussion.
  7. Putting your name on your comments increases their value and credibility. However, if you must conceal your identity, please choose one pseudonym and stick to it. No "sock puppets."