Visions of water parks dance in my head

When I have friends or acquaintances come to town I like to mention some of the local attractions they can visit.  Or, I would like to, but Boise is pretty bereft of such.

Boise has its museums and zoo, and of course the greenbelt, but there's little for a tourist to come to Boise for.  Sure, there's some foothills hiking or mountain bike riding, but not much else; maybe float the river, in season. Fishing.  Some of that stuff, but none of it is really specific to Boise.  You can fish anywhere.

You can leave Boise and go whitewater rafting, or go hunting, or see Hell's Canyon or the Owyhees.  But, that's not Boise.  Boise could really use some tourist attractions.  Which is why I'm excited about the planned Boise River Recreation Park.  Not only will it be an attraction, but it will be good for the local economy.

I heard a radio article discussing the planned park, and its proximity to Kelly's Whitewater park in Cascade.  The question being whether the area could support two similar parks. The commenter said that they actually support each other because people will travel to the area to visit both where they might not if there's only one.   Double the fun.  Which gave me an idea.

I think the state of Idaho should take a few million from the budget surplus that's developing (because of the drastic cutting they did) and set up a whitewater recreation fund.  They spend part to do a study showing locations in lots of Idaho towns and cities where a whitewater park could be profitably built.  They use the rest to loan to municipalities to develop the parks.

If lots of such parks were available, water recreationists would travel here to hit them all. Idaho Falls is a natural, given its already developed river location.  Possibly American Falls below the dam, maybe Twin Falls.  I'm no expert, but it seems that at least several of those towns along the Snake River could host a park, and some of the other rivers could support a water park as well.

Even Kuna could build one on Indian Creek.  Anyway, a study would figure all that out.  It could also suggest variations for each park so that each had a particular attraction, which would then tend to cause  visitors to want to see all the different parks.  And, maybe there could also be legislation setting up improvement districts to fund repaying the loans.

Idaho could become a whitewater destination even more than it already is, and boost its economy in the process.  We've got the water and the scenic beauty.  All we need is a little vision and leadership.

Role of government

I see that two Bank of America executives are getting millions in severance packages at the same time the bank is laying off thousands of employees.

Doesn’t it just seem wrong that executives get such huge payoffs when the company is clearly struggling? If the executives did such a poor job that they’re getting forced out, why the bonuses?

Overall, our economy is suffering from a lack of employment, and the resulting depressed consumer spending and demand for products. Until demand increases, unemployment will remain high. So, it’s bad for the economy for BofA to lay off 30,000 workers. But it’s good, in the short term, for BofA to reduce its costs by laying off workers.

This is a version of the Tragedy of the Commons.  What is in one actor’s interest may be counter to the interest of society as a whole. The usual example is a public pasture on which farmers can let their cattle graze for free. For a single farmer, adding one more cow to the pasture is a benefit; more milk, more beef, for that single person. Unfortunately, the more cattle grazing means less and less grass for the entire group, and eventually the pasture is overgrazed and destroyed. Same thing with potato farmers. When prices are high, the next year everyone plants from fence to fence, thereby overproducing and driving prices down.

Anyway, this is a situation where only government can solve the problem. Perhaps by limiting the number of cattle each farmer can graze (“regulation”), or perhaps some other solution that protects the common resource. That might hurt the individual farmer, but the group of them will benefit because the common resource won’t be destroyed.

Now, the farmers could get together and act collectively, but that’s really just another form of government. A social compact achieves some type of “regulation.”

Returning to the BofA example, if the government taxes everyone a bit, and pays unemployment benefits to BofA’s laid off workers, the economy as a whole will benefit because the workers will have spending money and demand won’t slump so much.

Just sayin’. Just pointing out that government does have a proper and important role to play, even if it infringes on some individual’s personal desires. Government is there to support the social compact and help the nation as a whole. Republicans who detest government and think it can’t accomplish anything useful ought to think a bit more deeply on the subject.

I've got a feeling...

That I can't shake.  I certain part of my body is feeling abused.

The bipartisan citizen redistricting commission just established the new congressional distrcit lines, and yet again, Ada County gets split up. Now, I know that the Western part of the county is pretty red, so I 'spose it doesn't affect election outcomes all that much.  Still, it just seems an obvious gerrymander to split the largest city/metro area into two districts, especially when that metro area is slowly turning bluer and bluer.  As I understood it, they could have left Ada intact, and moved some other area, Canyon County I think, and got the same population split.

Hermanator

I'm listening to Herman Cain being interviewed by Lawrence O' Donnell. Don't exactly agree with all he says but I do like that he is pretty much forthrightly answering the questions. Seeing some honesty at least.

Homeowner's exemption; a cute trick

Idaho's homeowners exemption from the property tax is back in the news lately. This story reports on how it's shrinking, and the implication is that homeowners will be paying more taxes because of it.

Isn't the HO exemptions really just a smokescreen, a trick to make homeowners think that the legislature feels their pain and is trying to do something about it?  Why, yes, I believe it is.

See, there is more than one variable that determines how much tax you actually pay on your home.  Most obvious is the taxable value.  If you have a $200,000 home and 50% is exempt, you feel pretty special, thinking how you avoided half your tax bite right off the bat.  Trouble is, the levy by the various taxing districts varies so that you end up paying whatever tax they need, regardless of the taxable value of your home.

Have a look at the chart below, which is the tax history for my home.  (Sorry, you'll have to click to embiggen.)  Anyway, note that the small gray "taxes paid" column barely changes, even though the taxable value of the house drops in half.

Now have a look at this chart.

See, the levy amount is what actually determines how much you'll pay. Go back to the days of wine and roses when my house was double its current value, and you'll see that the levy was half what it is now. Taxable value goes down, levy goes up, the actual dollar amount I pay doesn't change much, and the taxing district gets about the same revenue from year to year.

If there was no homeowner's exemption, I'd still pay the same. I mean, really, take a look. When my property was twice its value (but half was exempt due to the HO exemption) I paid around $900.  Property plummets in value, still paying around $900.

So the next time your glorious legislator brags about shielding homeowners from property tax via the HO exemption, just smile to yourself, 'cause you know that he or she is either lying, uninformed, or stupid.  The HO exemption is simply just a feel-good trick they play on homeowners to pretend that they are trying to help them manage tax liability.