33°Quick links: Boys ranch moves assets • GU basketball • WSU basketball • Kendall Yards plan • Swine flu
A trio of county taxpayers filed a lawsuit in First District Court Tuesday alleging that North Idaho College’s lease of the former DeArmond Mill property is unconstitutional and should be voided. Co-plaintiffs Larry Spencer, Tom Macy and Bill McCrory claim in the court document that a July lease agreement between the college and the nonprofit North Idaho College Foundation violates the section of the Idaho Constitution that restricts the debt local taxing districts can take on/Maureen Dolan, Coeur d’Alene Press. More here.
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2009, The Spokesman-Review
Phaedrus on October 28 at 10:56 a.m.
“A trio of county taxpayers…”
Moe, Larry & Curly
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on October 28 at 11:07 a.m.
That's gold, Jerry, pure comedy gold.
Flag as inappropriate
DFO on October 28 at 11:08 a.m.
I thought of a better question for the HBO Poll: Spencer, McCrory, and Macy say they are representing the taxpayers' interest in filing their lawsuit against North Idaho College. Do they represent your interests?
Flag as inappropriate
Herb Huseland on October 28 at 11:09 a.m.
Actually, since Spencer doesn't reside in the taxing district, I would think he would be removed from the suit by the court.
Flag as inappropriate
Aliasjax on October 28 at 11:11 a.m.
Despite their whacko status, I wouldn't dismiss out of hand their complaint. NIC clearly established the Foundation as a strawman in this transaction to circumvent the constitutional requirement…the question will be, is this unlawful? Seems like a judge will decide. I doubt, however, that the case will be dismissed for lacking merit.
The good news for the college is that the plaintiffs are representing themselves…
Flag as inappropriate
Sisyphus on October 28 at 11:16 a.m.
A much better question Dave. Personally, I have trouble with the philosophy behind these actions. The proponents argue inter alia that these decisions are not accountable to the people. Highly ironic given the context of this filing. If the people were not happy with the deal it would be a bigger campaign issue than it seems to be, at least from my perspective. But more importantly its representative of their lack of problem solving abilities and obstructionism.
Flag as inappropriate
nic on October 28 at 11:24 a.m.
Why am I not surprised?
However, Tom & Bill would gain more credibility if they took Larry off as a plaintif. Since he doesn't live in KootCo. And we all know how well he performed in his last lawsuit against the government.
Flag as inappropriate
LarrySpencer on October 28 at 11:29 a.m.
“And we all know how well he performed in his last lawsuit against the government.”
Yes, we do. A year and a half trying of them to get it thrown out, and representing myself, it still remains, set to go to trial in a few months.
Wana try again?
Flag as inappropriate
nic on October 28 at 11:51 a.m.
Larry, How did the Idaho Supreme Court rule about your complaint about not being allowed to widen your driveway?
Flag as inappropriate
RathdrumBob on October 28 at 12:26 p.m.
The NIC Foundation has been around for years; it wasn't established as a “straw man” for the mill transaction. The same financing was done for the Workforce Training Center in Post Falls - the Foundation bought the land, built the building and leased it (yearly) to NIC.
Flag as inappropriate
GuyFawkes on October 28 at 12:43 p.m.
Oh this suit may in fact make it into court which would be a shame since its doomed to fail - too much legal precedence to be denied here. Every college in the state - and in indeed the nation has a Foundation that works in conjunction with its institution to accomplish its goals.
Unfortunately, defending this legal action requires lawyers and billable hours which will eventually come from the taxpayers pockets. What a shame.
Flag as inappropriate
Aliasjax on October 28 at 12:57 p.m.
RBob…clearly I'm aware that the NIC Foundation pre-dates this transaction…what I said was they were established as a strawman to this tranaction…that is, their only purpose in this transaction is to fulfill that role. That's really not debatable.
Whether the college and foundation used a similar strategy to acquire the WFTC is immaterial, unless a lawsuit on its lawfulness, making a substantially similar claim, was filed and ajudicated.
I agree with Sam…we're dismissing the merits of this because the people filing the claim are known loonies. However, their basic claim is indesputable - NIC circumvented the constitutional provision. The question is, is doing so unlawful? I'm not sure that that is all that clear. It's a question for the court, IMO.
Flag as inappropriate
DFO on October 28 at 1:13 p.m.
I don't totally dismiss this lawsuit out of hand. After all, Macy was part of a lawsuit with Kathy Sims (no, I don't mean the legal action taken by the city of Coeur d'Alene to force them to comply to campaign finance laws) against the local-option sales tax. They won the suit because (if memory serves me correctly) the law was written in such a way that it only applied to Kootenai County. Which was illegal. So the court torpedoed the popular sales tax, which was paying for another jail expansion. The Legislature rewrote the law. And county voters approved another half-cent sales tax to pay for the jail expansion. Net effect? Macy & Sims got there way. And so did county officials. Seems Macy can understand convoluted legal things but can't figure out the simple steps to fill out a campaign finance statement.
Flag as inappropriate
Phaedrus on October 28 at 1:24 p.m.
Net effect?—dfo
was that macy and his fellow constitutional nit pickers caused large amounts of taxpayer dollars to be spent to defend the lawsuit, more taxpayer dollars wasted to change some technical language in the legislation all the while depriving homeowners of the substantial property tax savings they were realizing under that 1/2 cent sales tax. and to what purpose?
Flag as inappropriate
Cis on October 28 at 2:19 p.m.
Sorry Herb and Nic….while Spenser has deep roots …family roots in Bonner County, he has not lived in Bonner County for years….he is your : Don Quixote, not ours…
Flag as inappropriate
TomT on October 28 at 4:15 p.m.
DFO - I was at the County when Macy & Sims sued. You are right about the reasons it was successful. It was written so it applied only to Kootenai County. In my mind if a law is challenged and found to be unconstitutional, it is difficult to criticize the people who filed suit.
I hear in the comments above some of the same reaction as back then. I think this could go either way. The odds are at least 50-50.
Flag as inappropriate
DFO on October 28 at 4:43 p.m.
TomT; thanx for checking in w/your thoughts. You're missed @ Huckleberries Online.
Flag as inappropriate
Hack1 on October 28 at 8:51 p.m.
He who represents himself has a FOOL for an attorney! And this is the PERFECT support for this cliche!
Flag as inappropriate