Can an unpopular decision still be right one?

The recent ruling by District Court Judge Robert Allison that the Flathead County commissioners did not pay sufficient heed to public comment in deciding to allow a proposed water-bottling plant to go forward in Creston raises a number of questions, both philosophical and practical.

The issue before the commissioners was whether to allow the expansion of an existing zoning district in order to include Lew Weaver’s property, where the bottling plant was proposed, and thus make the bottling plant an ineligible use after the fact. We certainly understand the concern of neighbors, but that concern has to be weighed against the facts and the law.

First, on the philosophical side, the commissioners are not elected to simply go along with the majority when making zoning or other decisions. Yes, the public has a right to be heard, but elected representatives must be entrusted to make decisions on our behalf — otherwise they are being paid way too much.

There is also the question of why one judge has the authority to dictate policy to elected officials. Judge Allison said that the commissioners “did not meaningfully address the various issues the public had cited in support of expansion.” That implies that the only way the commissioners could have “meaningfully” addressed the issues is by agreeing with expansion.

As for the practical considerations, the commissioners were essentially being asked to expand the zoning district for the sole purpose of preventing an otherwise allowed use. Should this district have existed prior to Lew Weaver or some other property owner proposing a bottling plant, it would be entirely appropriate to zone it restrictively, but we question whether neighbors can dictate or impose restrictions after a property owner has followed all legal procedures to develop a particular allowed use.

It’s been obvious for two years now that the water-bottling plant is not popular, but popularity should not be the determining factor.

It should be pointed out that the state has found no adverse impact from the water-bottling plant and that Weaver has therefore been granted permits to exercise his water right. In other words, he has followed the law and been granted permission in every venue where it was required.

Meanwhile, the county’s voters will weigh in on a June 5 ballot initiative to expand the zoning district regardless of the commissioners’ decision. Based on the preponderance of public input, both through comments and through letters to the editor, it appears likely that the attempt to restrict Weaver will succeed.

Nonetheless, we suspect that the matter will not be over. You can expect a lawsuit by Weaver to argue that his property rights were violated and that he should be allowed to proceed under the rules that existed when he started his endeavor. How it will turn out, we cannot predict, but either way, we hope that the county is not ultimately penalized for a decision made in good faith.