« Events will mark five years of war in Iraq | Main | A plan to end the war and shift the debate »

March 16, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345221ac69e200e55127ecce8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A local option view from Northern Idaho:

Comments

good for him. I hope it spreads.

And he means, Boise as the legislative place of action in that the legislature meets here, not the citizens of Boise.

I'm from Mike Moyle's district and a lot of people here are in favor of the constitutional amendment because of the LID formed by the city of Eagle which has taxed each household $1000 for the purchase of the water company. In fact that's probably an issue that will come up in the Republican primary. Why weren't the voters allowed to vote for or against this water company tax? I'm all for local improvement taxes but they need to be approved by the voters.

Eagle person, thanks for the visit. I wholeheartedly agree that people ought to be able to vote on local option taxes. My beef with Moyle's approach is chiefly that it refuses to recognize the regional nature of many issues (transit especially, since we already have a regional transit system). I also find it overly restrictive with the November-only provision and the 66 2/3rds threshold. Sixty percent should be high enough; that's what most other local option taxes require.

Finally, if the amendment is so important, why didn't Moyle introduce it during the local option debate last year?


Yeah, wordsmith, I actually get that. But the underlying meme is the disdain that most of the southern Idaho GOP legislators feel for the city of Boise because we've become a Democratic stronghold and a threat to their dominance - and they don't want to see our politics spread westward into the 'burbs and Canyon County.

Make no mistake: That is a major reason behind this amendment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

We're All in This Together