Flathead citizens weigh in on proposed growth plan

The Daily Inter Lake

A selection of comments submitted regarding the draft Flathead County Growth Policy:

"One of the unique treasures of the valley is Flathead Lake, its main tributaries, and the purity of the Flathead aquifer. The growth policy needs to make it absolutely clear that the continued health of these waters takes priority over all forms of development and must be protected at all costs."

"This policy confuses noble goals (i.e., water quality protection) with new regulations and requirements that are overly broad for a county of this size … This isn't fair to [property owners]. Our life savings and retirement will be destroyed by these proposed policies and regulations."

"I would ask that special consideration be focused on protecting and preserving the county's current level of water quality - a proven barometer of how we, as stewards of the land, manage our surrounding environment."

Referring to a previous, failed effort to update the 1987 county master plan, one person noted that, "to our collective shame, most of the past decade was wasted, thanks to a woeful lack of leadership at the county commissioner level. We don't have the luxury of repeating that mistake."

"The citizens of Flathead County have invested a lot of time and tax dollars in land-use planning. This investment will be wasted if the final plan isn't implemented and enforced."

"The attempt to protect [the character of the Flathead] through government regulation irrevocably changes one aspect of that character - the culture. The 'western rural lifestyle' that is so attractive and that requires self-reliance as a core value is endangered by those who wish to preserve it through reliance on government regulation."

"Consider explicitly stating that the cost of providing public services to poorly planned residential development will be a factor in determining where development is appropriate. To the extent that we can avoid cost-shifting private profit to public expense, we will have accomplished a lot."

"Open space, parks, etc., need to be tied together into a system that should basically follow the drainage courses in the valley."

"Open space and views are usually someone else's private property. There are enough regulations, permits, neighborhood plans, zoning, etc., controlling land use."

"Putting strips of commercial [or residential] development along each of the highways outside of the urban centers just detracts from the valley's beautiful scenery, setting and character. Concentrate commercial development in the cities and infill."

"I believe the growth policy needs to be much better defined, with an associated map that delineates where open space, concentrated commercial and dense residential development will be. If we just let it slide and say we'll get to it, there won't be any pressure or incentive to get these things done right. By approving the new growth policy without a [land-use] map, so existing landowners as well as developers know up front where certain activities are allowed, each and every project becomes a battle."

"If you really want to protect property rights, there must be a policy to compensate property owners for any and all restrictions on their right to use their property. The single greatest failure of this growth policy is its total disregard for compensation of property owners for regulatory takings."

The planning staff's response to this and similar comments was that "takings are legally defined as denial of a reasonable use of land. No policies in the growth policy deny anyone a reasonable use of land."

"While it is important that the growth policy does what it can to promote historic land uses such as agriculture and forest management, we also need to be realistic and fair in how we manage the conversion of some of these lands to other uses. The county is going to grow, and growth has to take place somewhere. Implementing overly restrictive regulation will not perpetuate open space, but will only serve to generate more high-end, large-lot, exclusive development that isn't beneficial to the community vision in general."

"The growth policy should be about the human environment. Natural resources should be used for the benefit of humans, yet there is no discussion of resource use, only preservation."

"Far greater attention should have been paid to the forests, not only from their revenue-producing capability and support of the economy, but their relationship to every aspect of a healthy, safe environment. We simply cannot allow ourselves to become so enamored with the environment that we forget the role that the timber and agriculture industries have played through the years to maintain this environment and the wildlife in it."

"I'm pleased with many of the goals and policies outlined in the draft, but am concerned that it will be little more than a 'feel good' document without a solid plan for implementation and enforcement."

"We really need the proposed development predictability map, so people know where it's appropriate to develop what. We need strength and structure to guide growth … I think the map should seriously consider changing some areas that have been zoned as commercial and industrial back to residential or agricultural, to minimize the strip development that much of this rezoning has caused."

"Just like the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, it has always been the practice in America to presume that a property owner could do anything he wished with his property until it was shown to be harmful to the public interest. The burden of proof has been and should continue to be on those who would deny that right."

"I cannot see that this document is going to please anyone. It's vague enough that individuals who are concerned with every regulation will read the worst, developers who are looking for clear guidelines and predictability won't find it, and citizens who wish to use the document to protect themselves against unreasonable intrusions and inappropriate growth won't be able to hold it up and argue that a development doesn't comply with the county's policy."

"While I appreciate the tremendous effort that the overworked and under-funded planning staff put into the draft, my overall impression is that the primary concern was to produce a plan so mild that it would offend as few people as possible. That isn't what we need from the planning office … The public and valley will not be well served if the planning office continues trying to win a popularity contest."

"What struck me as I read the draft was the carefully worded balance that was being struck throughout. It appears to provide something of value to each of the various factions, without providing too much upset to the opposing viewpoint - on the whole, diplomatically well-done."

"A number of these developers are older farmers who cite the need for retirement income as the reason for their action, and see development as their only way out of a financial bind. Had a previous county commission not refused to let citizens vote on funding conservation easements and purchase of development rights, these farmers would have had another choice."

"The document falls short by not stating that it's highly unlikely we will be able to achieve [the community's vision of future growth] without strict policies and regulations that severely limit or eliminate certain types of development in areas that are unsuitable - including prime agricultural soils, prime timberlands, flood plain, wetlands, sensitive wildlife habitat and areas with elevated groundwater."

"I share the perception of many residents that the planning board and county commissioners have too often chosen to allow a variance or zone change, or otherwise disregard regulations. We can have the best regulations in the world, but they won't do any good if routinely disregarded."

"We encourage the county not to let an arbitrary deadline compromise the quality of the growth policy. Not being able to amend the existing master plan or zoning regulations may cause a temporary inconvenience, but the costs will be greater if the growth policy that's adopted doesn't truly guide growth in ways that protect the county's valuable and cherished resources."

"Farmers and large landowners have the most to lose from zoning that is too restrictive and the most to lose in property values from bad land-use zoning. They need a policy that protects the right to develop to a higher and better use, and that protects that right into the future."

"Do we want people to continue building in the flood plain or not? If not, let's say so. I really think this growth policy needs to be much more prescriptive, so that project proponents, the planning board and county commissioners know what is expected in different areas. If it's just a nice to-do document that doesn't really say or require anything, random growth will occur all over and we will continue to make this a less and less desirable place to live. We should be planning and allowing what is in the best interest of the land over the long term, not just for immediate economic benefits to people who want to build what they please."

"This document is over-balanced in favor of government protection at the expense of property rights … I hoped that the proposed plan would contain only the minimum requirements of a growth plan, with only broad and non-controversial policy statements. Such a plan would have satisfied the requirements of the law while minimizing the impact on property owners. I was dismayed to learn that, instead, the proposed plan is far-reaching, complex and very controversial."

"I came from a place where the streets and [subdivisions] were named Bear Valley, Elk Hollow, Forest Lane. None of those places ever saw a bear or an elk. Let's not let that happen here. We don't have to if we grow responsibly."

On the Web: A report listing all of the comments submitted regarding the draft growth policy, as well as the county planning staff's responses, can be downloaded from the planning office Web site, at www.co.flathead.mt.us/fcpz/growthpolicy.html