Growth issues take center stage

By JIM MANN- The Daily Inter Lake

HELENA - The tug of war over land-use planning in Flathead County has worked its way into the state Capitol - in more ways than one.

It's been a philosophical battle between "property rights" and "community rights" that has been manifested in multiple bills, and has been most personified by Rep. George Everett, R-Kalispell, and Rep. Mike Jopek, D-Whitefish.

The two have been on opposite sides in several floor debates of bills directly related to Flathead land-use planning.

"You wouldn't believe how much the Flathead comes up in there," said Rep. Jon Sonju, R-Kalispell, nodding toward the House chambers.

Jopek agrees, saying he has talked with former legislators and lobbyists who never have seen "growth community issues" discussed the way they are now about the Flathead.

"That whole concept of growth community issues is just now coming up," Jopek said, noting the exception of the debates that occur about dramatic property-tax increases that result from the state's periodic property appraisals. "It's never been talked about before the way it is now."

Jopek said he and Everett

took "exact opposite" approaches to controlled groundwater districts, such as the controversial district that was formed in Smith Valley. Jopek favored more defined regulatory controls for the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation in managing groundwater districts; Everett favored a bill that makes more difficult the establishment of districts that he thinks infringe on property rights of people living in those districts.

During his three terms in the House, Everett rarely has proposed legislation, but this time he came forward with several bills, all pertaining to property rights.

He says he has done so because he is frustrated by a progressive effort in Flathead County to "restrict and regulate" property rights in favor of community rights.

"So many people have come into the valley, and they say, 'not in my backyard,'" Everett said. More restrictive land-use policies have come about mostly at the expense of longtime, rural property owners.

Jopek's approach to land issues, Everett said, reflects the restrictive policies in the Whitefish planning jurisdiction. And he predicts a side effect: The resort town's high property values will go up even more because of development restrictions.

Jopek and Everett also took opposing approaches to Everett's House Bill 590, legislation that would require counties to include criteria for protecting private-property rights in growth plans.

"It was a party-line, knock-out drag-out fight on the floor," Sonju recalled about last week's debate of the bill.

Everett says the bill prevents a slight majority of landowners in a neighborhood from having control over a vast majority of the land. Jopek says the bill basically will end the viability of neighborhood planning, to the benefit of developers who increasingly are buying large chunks of land.

Although Everett has been successful with narrow victories for his property-rights bills in the House, he acknowledges that the picture could change during the second half of the session, as those bills move on to the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The same goes for another bill, debated Tuesday in the House, that was related to Flathead County's ongoing gravel-pit issue.

Sponsored by Rep. Ralph Heinert, R-Libby, HB 557 is aimed at "correcting" legislation that was passed two years ago, allowing counties to conditionally approve or deny gravel operations. That law was derived from conflicts between gravel pits and residential areas in the Flathead Valley.

What resulted was Flathead County designating suburban agricultural areas as "residential" areas in which gravel pits are not allowed.

Heinert's bill would require that "residential" areas be taxed as residential areas.

"To prevent a gravel mine, all a county had to do was declare an area residential," Heinert said. With HB 557, "it must be taxed accordingly."

Jopek spoke against the bill, saying that instead there should be legislation accounting for the different types of suburban agricultural areas. He predicted the bill would only "accelerate the conflicts" in Flathead County.

Missoula representatives also spoke against the bill, saying it would have an adverse effect on rural neighborhoods outside the area.

"This bill really seems to be addressing a problem - a problem in the Flathead," said one of them.

Cary Hegreberg, a lobbyist with the Montana Contractors Association, echoed Everett's position on property rights. The "residential" designations in Flathead County mostly have affected third-generation farming families, prohibiting them from developing gravel pits on their land.

The bill passed second reading 54-46. But its prospects in the Senate may be dim if Tuesday's outcome of another gravel-pit measure is any indication.

Senate Bill 398, which would require counties to project future gravel needs and reserves in zoning, was killed on a 25-24 vote. The Montana Contractors Association, which represents all of the private gravel-pit operators in the Flathead, was behind that bill as well.

Another growth measure, which would allow schools to consider impact fees in their districts, came up Tuesday in the Senate.

Democratic supporters pitched the legislation as a way to create opportunities for school districts that would require the support of county commissioners and area voters, rather than a mandate for impact fees from the Legislature.

Sen. Dan McGee, R-Billings, strenuously objected, saying the bill eventually would have the greatest impact on longtime property owners, rather than out-of-state developers.

"You increase the costs of people who own the land, making it more difficult for them to do something with their land," he said.

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com