Will of the people ignored by council

"You can't fight City Hall!" I've heard that expression all my life. The City Council meeting of Jan. 17 was a grueling demonstration of what that means. Boasting of "strong leadership" and "tough decision-making", three seasoned Council members, along with the Mayor, voted to ignore the clear and overwhelming results of the last City Council Election by denying a Public Advisory Vote on the current plan for McEuen Park. The meeting was a very informative civics lesson. In November, the candidate who won the most votes (over 70 percent) was Councilman Edinger, who consistently responded to massive public dissent concerning the McEuen Plan, by making a motion that a Public Advisory Vote be taken on the matter. However, he had never been able to get anyone to second his motion. The other incumbent, who opposed the Public Vote, was removed from office. The third seat was won decisively by a candidate who was firmly in favor of a Public Vote. The election of these 3 councilmen insured us that the Council would receive a second on Councilman Edinger's motion regarding a Public Vote. So, on Jan. 17, the Council was forced to vote "yes" or "no," as to whether to allow the Public Advisory Vote.

The three Council Members who had consistently opposed a vote, before the November election, had done so on the grounds that they had been given a Mandate, when elected, to make the "tough decisions" which we, the voters, were ill-prepared to make. On Jan. 17, they dutifully listened to almost two hours of Public Testimony, although Mayor Bloem and Councilwoman Goodlander had already previously admitted that they were not about to change their minds. Some held out hope that Kennedy or McEvers might be more open and willing to allow the public to state their preference at the ballot box. But it was not to be. Although the last election was clearly a New Mandate, in favor of a Public Advisory Vote, the same three Council Members, along with the Mayor, chose to brazenly ignore it. Perhaps they have forgotten who employs them. But that is not the end of the story. The fact that we are not automatically allowed a Binding Vote on this particular high-ticket item has to do with the fact that the taxpayer funds for the current McEuen Plan would come from the Lake City Development Corporation, which is our local Urban Renewal Agency. These agencies were originally intended as tools to eliminate "urban blight and deterioration." In the hands of some politicians, URAs are now being used as a tool to bypass the voter, amounting to Taxation without Representation. The LCDC has become the Council's Cash Cow. How is that possible? An enlightening moment occurred when a citizen addressed the Council, reading from a copy of the Idaho State Constitution. Our Constitution clearly states that expenditures of taxpayer money, when exceeding a certain amount, are subject to a Public Vote. This vote would not be Advisory, but Binding. Why doesn't the projected $15 million bill for Phase 1 of McEuen Park qualify for a Binding Public Vote, even though it far exceeds the amount required by our Constitution and would require public indebtedness?

The answer is that when Urban Renewal funds are used, no public vote is required for projects, acquisitions, expenditures, or indebtedness, no matter the size or cost. Does the LCDC even have the money in question? No, but they can borrow it, without our permission. Apparently, it does not matter that 100 percent of the money diverted to Urban Renewal is from our property tax dollars. We are not allowed a direct voice in how that money is spent! We are left between a rock and a hard place. What recourse is left to us now? It is quite possible that the only election result to which the Four Naysayers would respond would be the one that removes them from office.

Karen Lawson is a bilingual teacher who resides in Coeur d'Alene.