I take serious exception to Sunday's piece entitled "Urban Renewal: Trick or Treat." I respect the opinions when they are presented as such and when the presenter displays an equal respect for those of others, including myself. For example, I am of the opinion that Urban Renewal, when done well and with the concurrence of the community, can be a good thing. The above cited piece does not distinguish between opinion and fact and more grievously, contains serious errors that are unacceptable, especially from a former finance director. Either there is a serious lack of understanding here, or there is a deliberate intention to deceive. I will let you the reader decide. 

In his piece, Mr. Austin discusses 5 "issues:"

Issue No. 1: He asserts that the property owners of the Lake District "are the only ones paying for a portion of McEuen Field." I have put in a great deal of effort to understand how Urban Renewal functions. I have drawn extensively on the knowledge of county and city officials and have been told that my understanding is solid. One official even asked me for a copy of some of my written materials because, in his words, "You understand some of this better than I." Based on my understanding, I find Mr. Austin's comment blatantly false. In fact, all the money that goes into LCDC or any URA/URD is tax money and it is paid for by everyone in the county.

Issue No. 2: He correctly points out that the city and county can only raise taxes (increase their budgets) by a maximum of 3 percent each year and still correctly that neither has taken any increase in recent years. If, as he asserts "they are getting along just fine without (their use of) the funds flowing to LCDC," reason would suggest that if that is true, without the funds flowing to LCDC, the city and county could/should decrease their budget requests.

Issue No. 3: I think this is basically the same as the last part of the previous issue and merits no further comment from me.

Issue No. 4: This is the most absurd and false part of the entire piece. He asserts, "Schools are no longer funded from property taxes..." That is totally FALSE!, and casts serious doubts on the reliability of anything and everything he says. Look at your property tax bill. Mine has three separate lines for funding School District 271, one of which is related to a supplemental levy.

Issue No. 5: I see no connection between the issue of a public vote on McEuen and Urban Renewal which I understood to be the theme of his piece. The public is not looking for a binding vote. We specifically have been trying to get a non-binding vote. A recent poll indicates that some 73 percent of participants are opposed to spending anything like the proposed $39 million on McEuen. That is not what the mayor and council members purport. A non-binding vote would be a clear indication of public opinion and the council could then take the appropriate action with confidence and the support of the community.

Please, let's get our facts straight. To use Mr. Austin's metaphor, he seems to be using the occasion of Halloween to fool us. It won't work!

FRANK ORZELL

Coeur d'Alene