Growth manager

BOISE – Not only is Idaho the third-fastest growing state in the nation, the growth isn’t expected to end anytime soon.

Just in the last decade and a half, the state’s population has swelled from 1 million to 1.4 million – an increase of about 40 percent. If it grows at that same rate for the next 15 years, Idaho would have nearly 2 million people by 2021 – twice as many as in 1990.

Idaho’s next governor will have to deal with growth – and help guide the state as it goes through what could be painful changes related to more people, more cars, more crime, more pollution, more businesses and more homes.

“We’re a bit schizophrenic about growth,” said Jim Weatherby, political scientist emeritus at Boise State University and the former longtime head of the Association of Idaho Cities. “We welcome the growth but worry about it being too much. But how do we slow it down without stopping it? Those are the juggling acts I think every one of our elected officials, state and local, deal with daily.”

Democratic candidate for governor Jerry Brady said, “I’m in favor of growth – but I also believe that growth should pay for itself.” That’s why he backs changes like giving local communities more opportunities to charge impact fees or vote in local-option taxes, which now are very strictly limited by the state.

“I advocate that the state of Idaho give more authority to cities and counties and school districts to make their own decisions about what they want and how they want to pay for it,” Brady declared.

He has long pushed for economic development, spearheading efforts to bring new jobs to his home region in southeastern Idaho. But, he said, “We can let growth drive us, or we Idahoans can take charge of our own growth. … If we wish to remain a state with a way of life that we enjoy and promote and protect and care about, we’ve got to do some planning.”

Republican candidate Butch Otter recalls that when he first moved to Star, “I liked the wide-open spaces” that meant the nearest neighbor was a half-mile away. “Now my closest neighbor is across the ditch.”

“Do I like the way Star has changed? No, I don’t,” Otter said. “But I also understand that those folks moved there for a small town too.”

Otter said he’s gone to local city council meetings and listened to citizens complain – and that’s how it should work. Communities, through their local governments, “have the responsibility to set the speed at which they grow and the type of growth, and the citizens are involved in that,” he said.

Weatherby noted, however, that Otter has run television ads promising to push for a law allowing local residents to petition local governments to cut property taxes – their main source of funding. “So it’s somewhat of a mixed message,” Weatherby said.

Libertarian candidate Ted Dunlap said he expects Idaho’s swelling growth to slow as economies cool in other states where people had been moving to Idaho. “Now is the wrong time to consider making any dramatic changes when it may fix itself,” Dunlap said.

Constitution Party candidate Marvin “Pro-Life” Richardson said growth is “good and bad, but that’s not our decision to make through government.” If people want to move here, that’s great, he said – but only if they have “proper morals.” “We need to make sure we get the right kind of people in Idaho,” he said.

Brady said Idaho is in danger of losing the very things that make it unique and draw more people to move here. “It’s a wild state, it’s a beautiful state, it’s a state that has had a degree of freedom and opportunity that very few places have – and we’re going to lose it if we do not protect it,” he said.

Throughout his campaign Brady has focused on Otter’s sponsorship of legislation in Congress to sell off 5 million acres of Idaho’s federal public lands to help pay for damages from Hurricane Katrina. Brady’s criticism stirred up an outcry in Idaho, and after first defending the bill, Otter withdrew his sponsorship and said it had been a mistake.

Brady, who’s made “Idaho is not for sale” his campaign slogan, said, “I don’t mean just the land. I mean the air, the water, the ability to hunt. … People are here for a reason – they’re here for the wild places. … Keeping what is great and what’s best about the state of Idaho, that is so important. We’ve got to be careful or we’ll lose it.”

Otter long has railed against regulations. In a recent press release, he said, “For too long people seeking the government’s permission to create jobs and opportunities for Idahoans have faced a gauntlet of city, county and especially state requirements – permits, licenses, inspections, assessments and the like. Sometimes it seems like the idea is to set up enough hurdles so people will either give up and quit bothering us, or get caught out of compliance and pay us a fine. That’s no way to run a business or a government.”

Weatherby said, “He’s attacking regulation, and I think a lot of Idahoans would relate to that. … It’s good campaign rhetoric.”

However, in Idaho, it’s not the state that sets land-use rules and regulates growth – it’s the local governments. “In Idaho, our land-use decisions are local,” Weatherby said. “These are basic decisions that affect growth and development of cities and counties.”

Otter has personal experience with fines and regulations. He paid a $50,000 fine in 2001 for his third violation of the federal Clean Water Act for destroying wetlands on his property without a permit. He then went to Congress vowing to reform the Environmental Protection Agency.

But that episode has been muted this year as he runs for governor. Asked if he’d make changes at the state Department of Environmental Quality, Otter said he plans “no big changes” and his goal for the DEQ is simply “to administer the laws of the state” and supply its expertise to cities and counties on request.

Both Brady and Otter oppose Proposition 2, a measure on the November ballot that would require local governments to pay landowners for lost potential value if regulations prevent them from developing their land to its “highest and best use.”

Brady came out early and strongly against the “regulatory takings” measure, calling it a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” He said, “Some people from out of state with money are coming into the state trying to convince us that basically we should not have zoning laws, we should allow growth to occur anytime, anywhere, in any manner that anybody chooses to do it.”

Otter agonized over Proposition 2, saying, “Frankly, I’ve really been conflicted on this.” But finally, he came out against the initiative, saying it would simply invite lawsuits.

“I think from the state level that we would be making a terrible mistake if we didn’t listen to the cities and counties and let them be the architects of their own character,” Otter said.

Dunlap and Richardson both favor Proposition 2 – Richardson even served as a paid signature-gatherer for the measure in Idaho and two other states.

“Government needs to be more sensitive to the value of people’s property,” said Richardson, who legally changed his name in September to just “Pro-Life” but already was on the ballot as Marvin Richardson.