Developer threatens to sue Boise over land swap, proposed Foothills trail
The problem started when Boise leaders were preparing to exchange a tiny piece of city land off Collister Drive with 3 nearby acres owned by a local developer.
Boise City Council members spoke enthusiastically in a 2020 meeting about the deal and put out a news release. A staff member showed a map with the proposed swap and a dotted yellow line outlining a potential trail near the Polecat Gulch Reserve, a several-hundred-acre area that includes almost 8 miles of trails. As the pandemic raged, people were spending more and more time outside, increasing demand for trails. The two parties agreed to the exchange.
The developer, Jim Jewett, marketed his nearby Polecat Gulch Lofts subdivision in part by telling people that there would be a connection to a nearby trailhead farther up into the Foothills, he said in a phone interview. Jewett is the president of JLJ Inc., a development firm.
But that trail never materialized. That “impairs the marketability and value” of the subdivision’s lots, Jewett alleged in a tort claim filed with the city on Dec. 1. Jewett said in the claim that his damages are greater than $500,000.
“If they don’t come to any agreement, then I’ll file suit after the period of time,” Jewett told the Idaho Statesman. “I’m forced. I have to do something. If I don’t, I could potentially be sued by a consumer for not living up to what I advertise. I didn’t see that I had a choice.”
In a June email, six months before the claim was filed, a city employee wrote that they were “unaware of any promise or obligation on the part of the city to construct a trail,” according to Jewett’s filing.
Boise spokesperson Maria Ortega declined to comment, citing pending litigation.
A tort claim is a civil claim made against a state or local government for an alleged wrongful or negligent act. Under Idaho law, a tort claim must be filed with that government to allow it a chance to answer before a lawsuit is filed, though not all plaintiffs follow up unanswered claims by suing.
The agreement said that “the City proposes to provide trail access to Polecat Gulch Reserve through the exchange property.”
The use of the word “proposes” means someone might do something rather than they will do something, according to Tim Murphy, assistant professor of law at the University of Idaho.
Plus, the section with that language is in a part of the contract in which both sides typically express their intent, not obligations, Murphy said in a phone interview.
However, the city’s public statements about a potential trail could matter in a legal action, depending on what type of claim the developer filed, Murphy said.
Jewett said he didn’t know whether “proposes” was legally binding, but he said that he trusted the city and that its intent was to provide a connection to the trailhead.
The contract also stipulated that he agreed to pay for sections of pathway. Jewett said he constructed a several-hundred-foot-long path to the beginning of the reserve, but does not remember the cost.
The acreage he gave up was worth $340,000, Jewett said.
“We did our part, and they did not do their part,” he said. “Why would I give them something unless I was getting something in return?”
This story was originally published December 29, 2025 at 4:00 AM.
