The 'doughnut' has a hole in it

Inter Lake editorial

Remember tired old Fred the baker in the Dunkin' Donuts commercials? He was the one who rolled out of bed early every day, wearily muttering "Time to make the donuts" as he dragged himself to work in the predawn.

That's how tired Whitefish City Attorney John Phelps may one day feel, now that the doughnut war has begun in earnest.

Whitefish made its doughnut - a two-mile ring around the resort town with city zoning and planning control - three years ago as an interlocal agreement with Flathead County. The city has taken a few bites out of the doughnut in recent months, putting city zoning in place in the two-mile zone and including the doughnut in its growth policy and wildly controversial critical-areas ordinance to protect drainage-challenged areas.

The city had barely gotten a taste of its delectable doughnut and was just starting to savor the taste of control when County Commissioner Gary Hall decided it was "Time to unmake the donut." Hall scolded Whitefish for taking such big bites out of an area where residents - doughnut lovers or not - cannot vote for City Council members and therefore have no official city representation.

Editorial cartoons in a couple of local weekly newspapers have shown people throwing doughnuts into the water, implying the doughnut people's situation isn't far removed from the Boston Tea Party's "no taxation without representation" battle cry.

Once upon a time, Hall loved the doughnut idea, pushed for it, in fact. Now he says the city's sweet tooth has gone too far. They've bitten off more than they should chew, he contends.

That's why Hall and fellow commissioner Dale Lauman slapped the city's sticky fingers, voting to rescind the agreement. Essentially, they dunked the doughnut.

Now it's a legal battle. And Phelps didn't sugar-coat his response.

"Do not underestimate our resolve," the city attorney said in a letter to the commissioners. "They have no legal right to rescind the agreement."

While Phelps has declared the commissioners' vote "doesn't change anything other than to create a lot of confusion," it's likely it will be some time before the legal fallout is sorted out.

Meanwhile, land use within the doughnut is left in limbo, and it's unclear whether the county's action actually forces doughnut land into a no-growth zone while the outcome is determined.

We encourage both the city and county to put their differences aside and work cooperatively for the best interest of the 4,000 or so doughnut residents. To Whitefish's credit, the council is planning to meet with people of the doughnut to discuss ways to resolve the issue of representation. That's a start.

We still think doughnuts can be a sweet deal and a wise planning tool to help cities guide growth in their backyards. But the Whitefish mess is likely to sour any community looking at using the doughnut approach for orderly growth.

It's time to make the doughnut work or else throw it away.