Doughnut solution elusive

It’s been three years and the Whitefish “doughnut” is still rolling. Round and round it goes; where it stops nobody knows.

We’re referring to the continuing tug-of-war between Flathead County and the city of Whitefish for planning control of the two-mile doughnut outside city limits. Both sides thought they had the matter settled last fall when they finally reached a compromise and signed a revised interlocal agreement. Part of that agreement included asking the court to dismiss the city’s lawsuit against the county over control of the doughnut area.

In the latest twist, Whitefish city voters will now get to decide whether the city should keep or throw out the revised interlocal agreement. Opponents of the revised agreement successfully gathered enough signatures to put a referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot.

While it’s certainly within Whitefish voters’ rights to weigh in on the doughnut dilemma, the referendum by itself does nothing to get at the root of the problem — the lack of representation for doughnut area residents. A key point in the county’s decision to rescind the original interlocal agreement was heavy-handed city legislation — such as the critical areas ordinance — imposed on doughnut residents who can’t vote in Whitefish city elections.

Several ideas have been tossed around about how to give doughnut residents a voice, but no concrete proposals have emerged. The county rejected a citizens’ initiative effort to create a community council for the doughnut because it didn’t meet legal criteria for an initiative. The bottom line is that state law would need to change to accommodate the creation of such a council.

Many referendum supporters want the city’s lawsuit to continue because they believe the court will rule in Whitefish’s favor. They believe the city needs to be able to plan growth in the doughnut area. And in the meantime the court put the original interlocal agreement back in force that gives Whitefish control of the doughnut.

Intervenors in the lawsuit also have said they want the lawsuit to continue so that the court can determine once and for all whether the doughnut residents’ constitutional rights have been infringed upon by allowing another government entity to adopt laws that govern them.

The legal wrangling seems never-ending. Earlier this year three referendum organizers asked the court to intervene in the lawsuit. Then two committee members who helped broker the revised interlocal agreement asked the court to deny those proposed intervenors and grant a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

If you’re confused, join the crowd.

The end result of all of this political hoopla should be better representation for the doughnut residents. But the referendum, if passed, would seem to bring the doughnut dilemma essentially back to square one after the city and county both extended olive branches to reach a compromise.