The hole in the 'doughnut'

We have two words for the city of Whitefish and its overreaching quest for control of the two-mile “doughnut”: Back off.

The doughnut doesn’t belong to Whitefish. It never did, really, despite the original 2005 interlocal agreement that gave the city the final word in land-use and planning decisions for the two-mile ring around the city. The doughnut is county land, and then and now, the county commissioners have been the only elected representatives for that area, even though they tried to “play nice” with the city by unwisely granting Whitefish jurisdiction over non-city residents.

Whitefish probably would still be enjoying its unusual privileges in the doughnut if the city hadn’t imposed the heavy-handed Critical Areas Ordinance on residents who have no say in how Whitefish governs them. That single piece of legislation, designed to impose tighter regulations in drainage-sensitive areas, was the straw that broke the county commissioners’ proverbial back.

The county issued an ultimatum to Whitefish in 2008, asking the city to exempt the doughnut from the Critical Areas Ordinance. When the city didn’t heed that request, the county unilaterally rescinded the interlocal agreement, and the city then sued the county.

Ironically, the City Council on Tuesday is holding a hearing to consider changes to make the critical areas law more user-friendly. Meanwhile, though, the doughnut legal battle is raging.

Both sides thought they’d worked out their differences when a more moderate 2010 interlocal agreement was passed, but then a referendum approved by Whitefish city voters threw out that agreement.

Yes, Whitefish voters have a constitutional right to conduct referendums, but we agree with a group of four Whitefish area residents who are suing the city to have this referendum thrown out. Forget the legal niceties — the city of Whitefish has no right to impose its will on residents outside the city. End of story.

And if they do win that right, where does it stop? Why not a five-mile doughnut? Why not 10 miles? Would Whitefish think it should govern that far out? Where should the Whitefish land grab end?

The recent referendum did nothing to get at the root of the problem — the lack of representation for doughnut area residents. Unless Whitefish annexes the entire doughnut or a judge puts the 2005 agreement back in place, the city needs to mind its own business.

That doesn’t seem to be happening, though. In the latest legal maneuver, the city has asked the court for an injunction to keep the county from imposing interim county zoning in the doughnut.

Don’t forget that through all of this, doughnut property owners have been hamstrung. Real-estate deals have been stymied by the uncertainty, and even to this day no one can understand the complex Critical Areas Ordinance.

It’s time for Whitefish and the county to stop suing and go their separate ways, and that means ceding planning control back to the county, where it belonged in the first place.