Thank you for reading, Steve! The land isn't "abandoned" in the legal sense. Typically, property can only be auctioned if there's ownership. The problem is that the city has no owner on record. The best guess is that it belongs to descendants of Tom McCall. But no such persons are known to exist. So it would be a completely defensible and rational conclusion that none do exist—at least who are aware of the property's existence. In that case, the city has been using the property, even has invested in walkways, railings, rip-rap revetment, etc. We presume McCity even issued some kind of easement to the dock builder similar to the one the marina operates on. All these factors build a strong case for other means of resolving the matter that cost a whole lot less than $347,000, such as adverse possession or presumptive easement. There is nothing in the public record that says McCity explored these options and if so, why they rejected them. Our argument is that they seem to have taken "certainty" comfort to an unreasonable extreme. And they are in such a hurry to develop this "high priority" amenity that there is not a moment to lose in their minds, even if it means spending an absurd amount of money. If no heir comes forward to claim the $347,000, the fee itself becomes abandoned property. At that point, it goes into the State of Idaho general fund. Our main point is that skeptical citizens are left to speculate all this because McCity does not have the respect for its taxpayers to give any more detailed explanation than "we've talked about this and decided this is what is best." They are counting on the populace being too otherwise occupied to care much about any decision that they make. And they are probably right. But is it right for public officials to take public trust for granted? That is a different question and that is what the post explores.
To whom is the $347,000 for the abandoned land to be paid, and why not have a public auction?
Thank you Tomi. And this"Public comments are thought of as a bulletin board for the lunatic fringe instead of the worthy ideas of equals."
Thank you for reading, Steve! The land isn't "abandoned" in the legal sense. Typically, property can only be auctioned if there's ownership. The problem is that the city has no owner on record. The best guess is that it belongs to descendants of Tom McCall. But no such persons are known to exist. So it would be a completely defensible and rational conclusion that none do exist—at least who are aware of the property's existence. In that case, the city has been using the property, even has invested in walkways, railings, rip-rap revetment, etc. We presume McCity even issued some kind of easement to the dock builder similar to the one the marina operates on. All these factors build a strong case for other means of resolving the matter that cost a whole lot less than $347,000, such as adverse possession or presumptive easement. There is nothing in the public record that says McCity explored these options and if so, why they rejected them. Our argument is that they seem to have taken "certainty" comfort to an unreasonable extreme. And they are in such a hurry to develop this "high priority" amenity that there is not a moment to lose in their minds, even if it means spending an absurd amount of money. If no heir comes forward to claim the $347,000, the fee itself becomes abandoned property. At that point, it goes into the State of Idaho general fund. Our main point is that skeptical citizens are left to speculate all this because McCity does not have the respect for its taxpayers to give any more detailed explanation than "we've talked about this and decided this is what is best." They are counting on the populace being too otherwise occupied to care much about any decision that they make. And they are probably right. But is it right for public officials to take public trust for granted? That is a different question and that is what the post explores.
Again, thank you for the excellent column! I so appreciate your analysis of local issues!
Thanks for reading, Erin. Delighted you find our perspective useful.