Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Boise, Idaho, Proposition 2, Voter Approval Requirement for Stadium Development Initiative (November 2019)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Local ballot measure elections in 2019
Proposition 2: Boise Voter Approval Requirement for Stadium Development Initiative
LocalBallotMeasures Final.png
The basics
Election date:
November 5, 2019
Status:
Approveda Approved
Topic:
Local zoning, land use and development
Related articles
Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot
November 5, 2019 ballot measures in Idaho
Ada County, Idaho ballot measures
Local elections and campaigns on the ballot
See also
Boise, Idaho

Boise Proposition 2, the Voter Approval Requirement for Stadium Development Initiative, was on the ballot for Boise voters in Ada County, Idaho, on November 5, 2019. It was approved.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of requiring majority voter approval in a future election before spending more than $5 million on sports stadium development projects.
A no vote was a vote against requiring majority voter approval in a future election before spending more than $5 million on sports stadium development projects. This maintained the current law.


The Boise Sports Park will be voted on in a second referendum in 2020.

Election results

Boise Proposition 2

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

38,868 75.19%
No 12,826 24.81%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Text of measure

Ballot language

The ballot language was as follows:[1]

“

AN INITIATIVE REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL OF THE COST, FINANCING METHOD, LOCATION, DESIGN, AND SIZE OF CERTAIN SPORT STADIUM FACILITY PROJECTS

An initiative relating to development of sport stadium facilities in Boise by: prohibiting Boise City from appropriating or spending funds, or incurring debt for any aspect of a stadium facility reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000.00 in total of public and/or private expenditure without prior voter approval of the qualified electors; requiring that Boise City provide in such election notice the "plan and design," which shall include the cost, financing method, location, design, and size of the proposed stadium facility; providing that approval of a proposed stadium facility occurs by a majority vote in favor of the project at an official election; defining the term "expenses" as monetary payments, in kind assistance, the value of employee time, the value of land exchanges, direct or indirect payments to third parties and any other consideration which promotes or enhances the development of a stadium facility; defining the term "major sport stadium facility project" as any sport stadium facility project reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000.00 in total public and/or private costs and/or expenses; and defining the term "plan and design" as a proposal that includes any element of the cost, financing method, location, design, and size of a sport stadium facility.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

A YES vote on Proposition 2 means the City of Boise could not participate in any aspect of a sport stadium facility project with expected costs of $5,000,000 or more in public and/or private funding without first obtaining approval by a majority of Boise voters in a future election.

A NO vote on Proposition 2 means current law would not change. The City of Boise could participate in any aspect of a sport stadium facility project without first obtaining voter approval.[2]

”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

Boise Working Together led the campaign in support of Boise Proposition 2 and Proposition 1.[3]

Supporters

  • Gary Michael, former CEO of Albertsons[4]
  • Bill Ilett, former managing partner of the Idaho Stampede[4]

Official arguments

Boise Working Together authored the following arguments in support of Proposition 2 for the Boise Official Voter Guide:[5]

“ It is critical to vote 'YES' on the proposition to require a public vote for any major sport stadiums proposed by the City of Boise for the following reasons:
  • Great Financial Risk. Before committing taxpayer dollars to a major sport stadium, qualified electors of the City should vote on such a project because the bottom line is that these types of projects are not financially viable and will have to be supported forever by taxpayer dollars.
  • No Transparency. There has been no transparency in the past with regard to the various plans of the City and affiliated entities for a sport stadium. By requiring a public vote, it will require the City to fully explain the financial feasibility of a project and defend the reallocation of tax dollars from other necessary public services and projects to a sport stadium.
  • No BSU Support for Stadium. Boise State University has looked at participating in a City sport stadium twice and rejected participation both times.
  • History of Failed Public Stadiums. Other sport stadiums supported by cities have failed such as in Stockton, Hartford, Newark, Pearl, Arlington, and Miami. Closer to home, the Ford Idaho Center in Nampa has been unsuccessful and Nampa has had to pay millions of taxpayer dollars to keep the stadium afloat.
  • City Sports Stadium Unnecessary. Boise has multiple sports venues and the city is growing quickly and will continue to develop in an appropriate way without tax dollars being committed for decades to a sports stadium project.
  • Too Expensive. The proposed sport stadium will cost a minimum of $50 million and by the time construction commences, the costs will undoubtedly be much more than currently projected. Public financing of sport stadiums is now disfavored because of the financial drain it has put upon cities who committed vast public resources to their stadiums.
  • No Public Benefit. A report prepared by Initiative on Global Markets at Chicago Booth concluded that the benefits of stadiums to cities are outweighed by the cost to the taxpayers who fund these projects.
  • Who Really Benefits? The real estate developers who propose that cities build a sport stadium to enhance the value of their surrounding property should be required to fund the construction of a sport stadium themselves rather than rely upon public money.
  • Boise’s Property Taxes Are Already Too High. Boise is already over taxed. Over 50% of the property in Boise is already off the tax rolls and there is no reason why tax dollars should be used to fund a sport stadium by taking funds from school districts, police, fire and other public service providers.[2]
 ”

Boise Working Together also authored rebuttal arguments to the official opposition arguments.[5]

Opposition

Boise United led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 2.

Official arguments

Joshua Leonard, a development attorney, and Geoff Wardle from Greenstone Properties authored the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 2 for the Boise Official Voter Guide:[5]

“ Proposition 2 needs your 'NO' vote.
  • Proposition 2 is INVALID. The Idaho Supreme Court has held that municipal initiative proposals that are in conflict with a comprehensive statute are invalid. This proposal would conflict with the Boise City Council’s statutory authority in two ways:
    • First, the Idaho Legislature already established a statutory budget process for cities, and the Idaho Supreme Court has held that initiative proposals are not the proper means to change budgetary processes or authority.
    • Second, the Idaho Legislature gave specific authority to city councils to make decisions about conveying city-owned real property; this proposa directly contradicts that statutory authority by requiring a popular vote for the city to convey real property, rather than relying on the City Council, as provided in state statute.
  • Proposition 2 is EXPENSIVE. The Idaho Supreme Court has held that a proposed initiative measure cannot be challenged in court until after it is adopted. Even though this proposal ultimately will be challenged and likely struck down in court due to it contradicting state code and being overly broad, the taxpayers must foot the bill for an election before a court can review it. A 'no' vote on this proposal will save taxpayers’ money.
  • Proposition 2 is OVERBROAD. This proposal prohibits even private development of a 'major sport stadium facility project' unless it is successful in a public vote.

The proposal would require a public vote on every 'major sport stadium facility project.' The problem is that the proposal defines 'major sport stadium facility project' as 'any sport stadium facility project reasonably expected to require public and/or private costs and/or expenses totaling not less than five million dollars.' Proponents may claim that their proposal only prohibits Boise from contributing to the development of a major sport stadium facility project, but that is not how the proposal reads. The proposal also includes language that would prohibit city employees from working on 'any aspect' of a major stadium facility project, including one that is entirely privately financed. Even a privately financed major stadium facility project must obtain zoning approvals, building permits, certificates of occupancy, and inspections from Boise. This proposal would prohibit city employees from doing this work for a privately funded stadium facility project, unless the project received the approval of a majority of voters in an election.

  • Proposition 2 is UNNECESSARY. Proponents of this proposal argue that it will increase public involvement in the process. The proponents fail to mention, though, that many opportunities for public involvement (e.g., neighborhood meetings, Planning and Zoning hearings, City Council meetings) already exist, without incurring the significant extra costs associated with the invalid, overbroad, and poorly written proposal.
  • Proposition 2 is POORLY WRITTEN. Poorly crafted phrasing and terminology contribute to the proposal’s invalidity, overbreadth, and ineffectiveness. If this proposal is approved by a majority of voters it will become an ordinance, leaving Boise residents and officials to attempt to comply with a poorly written law.

PLEASE VOTE 'NO' ON PROPOSITION 2.[2]

”

Joshua Leonard and Geoff Wardle also authored rebuttal arguments to the official support arguments.[5]

Background

Cost estimate for stadium development

In 2017, the Boise Sports Park was estimated to cost approximately $40 million. Of that $40 million, the city of Boise would pay $3 million upfront for the cost of the stadium. Greater Boise Auditorium District was expected to contribute $5 million. Agon Sports was expected to contribute $1 million, and Greenstone Properties was expected to contribute $4.8 million. The remaining costs were expected to be funded by a 20-year bond issued by Capital City Development Corporation.[6]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Idaho

This measure was put on the ballot through a citizen initiative petition effort led by Boise Working Together. The Ada County Clerk validated 5,610 signatures to certify the measure for the ballot.[7]

Local initiative petitions are governed by state law in Idaho. Petitioners had to submit a minimum of 4,962 signatures, which was 20 percent of the total number of qualified electors voting in the last general city election.[8]

See also

External links

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ City of Boise Office of the City Clerk, "Voters' Pamphlet," accessed September 30, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ Boise Working Together, "Homepage," accessed October 23, 2019
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Concerned Boise Taxpayers, "Home," accessed October 28, 2019
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 City of Boise, "Arguments For and Against Proposition 2," accessed October 28, 2019
  6. ↑ KTVB, "Who foots the bill for the proposed Boise Sports Park?" October 11, 2017
  7. ↑ BoiseDev, "Petition to place stadium and library on the ballot qualifies for November: reaction & details," May 30, 2019
  8. ↑ Idaho Legislature, "Idaho State Statute, Title 34, Chapter 18," accessed October 29, 2019
v • e
Local ballot measures in Idaho
Counties
Ada • Adams • Bannock • Bear Lake • Benewah • Bingham • Blaine • Boise • Bonner • Bonneville • Boundary • Butte • Camas • Canyon • Caribou • Cassia • Clark • Clearwater • Custer • Elmore • Franklin • Fremont • Gem • Gooding • Idaho • Jefferson • Jerome • Kootenai • Latah • Lemhi • Lewis • Lincoln • Madison • Minidoka • Nez Perce • Oneida • Owyhee • Payette • Power • Shoshone • Teton • Twin Falls • Valley • Washington
By date
Flag of Idaho
v • e
State of Idaho
Boise (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Boise,_Idaho,_Proposition_2,_Voter_Approval_Requirement_for_Stadium_Development_Initiative_(November_2019)&oldid=7879686"