Boise News

New North Idaho Blog

From the Idaho Panhandle

By Cate Huisman, 10-20-09

The hangar home

The SilverWing Flap
In Sandpoint, Internet-wielding locals have been stirred up recently by a story in the Bonner County Bee about the county commission’s move to buy out the developers of a high-end residential development at the Sandpoint airport. The planned community, SilverWing, envisioned 44 hangar homes in which airplanes could be housed on the ground floor and humans in fairly fancy digs above.

Not surprisingly, given the recent change in status of many of the kinds of folks who can afford this sort of housing and transportation, only one of these 6,100-square-foot structures has thus far been built.

Meanwhile, the plan has run afoul of the Federal Aviation Administration, which cut off funding for the airport for reasons having to do with the development’s effect on airport safety and access. 

From a certain perspective, buying out the developers of SilverWing seems like a reasonable solution. The FAA will fund 95% of the buyout, with only the remaining 5% coming from local sources. The county is also putting up $8,000 for an appraisal of the property.

But these expenditures are a little hard to swallow for some Bonner County residents, the vast majority of whom do not fit in SilverWing’s target demographic. Some are feeling a twinge of frustration at the thought of spending hard-won and much-needed county dollars just to make something stop happening that apparently should not have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Online respondents to the Bee’s article have used somewhat stronger language, grousing that the $8000 and 5% are going to come from the taxpayers’ poorly lined pockets, and suggesting that the entire county commission be expunged by the voters at the first possible electoral opportunity.

Potatoes vs. Mountains: The North Idaho Tourism Summit
When a fictitious Idaho legislator’s office was portrayed on TV a few years back, observant Idahoans might have noticed that the receptionist’s desk sported a bowl of potatoes where other desks might have had a vase of flowers or a dish of candy. That’s the image we have back East (along with unfortunate memories of the misguided few white supremacists who dominated the media for a while). We even have the phrase Famous Potatoes on our license plates.

But that tuberous vision is not the one that attendees of last week’s North Idaho Tourism Summit at Silverwood want to convey. Many panhandlers would prefer that the word “Idaho” instead conjures up a vision of pristine mountains and clear lakes—a place to escape to for an outdoor vacation. These summiteers were encouraged to think of a “brand”—a slogan, an image, a phrase—that encapsulated those appealing aspects of our state.

Vicki Isakson, assistant manager for the Idaho Department of Labor, suggested that it might not be possible for everyone to agree on a brand that encompasses our various constituencies spread across two time zones. But she thinks it’s worth the effort. Even if just the folks from the north can agree on a brand that draws tourists to the handle, those tourists—assuming they have the good time we can’t imagine them avoiding—could end up feeling positively about the whole pan.

Drip, Drip, Drip
City officials have been saying for years that Sandpoint’s aging water treatment system is insufficient to deal with the water needs of the growing population. So their plan is to improve the system, one way or another.

Last May, voters rejected a bond issue to improve the Lake Pend Oreille Water Treatment Facility. But the bond issue was the only item on the ballot, publicity was wanting, and only a small fraction of the electorate voted.

On November 3rd, a bond issue will again be on the ballot, along with several choices among candidates in a race that has the potential to transform the face of the City Council. So a better turnout and a more representative outcome might be expected.

Nevertheless, the current council seems to be saying that even if voters don’t approve the bond issue, which is expected to add $4-$6 per month to household water bills, the renovation will have to happen anyway, and be paid for with increased water rates, which might go up by $14-$16 per month.

For many citizens, it’s hard not to see this as a choice between two lousy alternatives, if not downright extortion. They’d rather see water conservation measures during the high-use summer months, or have the developers who profit from all that growth pay for its water needs. So they may instead vote to transform the face of the City Council.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.