Poor planning has long-term impact

The day after my infamous quote came out on Dec. 7, 2004 in the Daily Inter Lake, I received a telephone call from a Flathead County businessman.

My comment concerning Whitefish's desire to implement its own planning and building office was, "What if we have this little Shangri-La called Whitefish, and we get outside the city and it looks like crap?"

The businessman thought my comment was directed to small businesses located along highway corridors, or that I was an elitist and felt that Whitefish was "better than the rest of the Flathead."

While my career-Navy salty language came through, my comment had little, if anything, to do with visual concerns of growth. Rather, my comments were directed to the overall impact, including visual, of unplanned growth and approval of poor projects.

My comment, as my discussions at the city council meeting later that evening brought forth, is directed to the poor planning and corresponding construction associated with inadequately thought- out projects, no matter their location. A rush to judgment on many projects, including subdivisions, businesses, and governmental projects, frequently result in run-down and congested areas of communities within a few years or decades of approval.

My overriding concern about poor planning is the increasing approval of projects without the corresponding requirement of appropriate infrastructure. Otherwise, this is a formula for failure.

In the 1970s, just about any project that was brought before either the county or communities was approved. Thirty years later, Whitefish and the Flathead Valley have segments of our communities and county in which there is the blight of run-down or closed businesses from those poor decisions of less than three decades ago.

The primary reason for this is that the growth patterns and the infrastructure associated with such developments were not taken into account.

Thirty years later, many projects are being approved that do not have the necessary infrastructure in place to insure success or to avoid the problems of corresponding growth and congestion associated with automobiles. The number of projects that are being brought before the county and communities dwarf the numbers that were brought forth in the 1970s, and they are not being

given the due consideration needed for an informed decision.

One has to consider what Whitefish and the Flathead Valley will be like in another thirty years if our decisions are faulty!

Whitefish, Columbia Falls, Kalispell as well as all of Flathead Valley have a responsibility to encourage viable and lasting growth.

We are all in this together. We are only as viable and strong as our neighbors in insuring that we plan for the future explosive growth that Whitefish and the Flathead Valley is experiencing. My utmost concern is that future growth does not unfairly impact the current infrastructure.

It is increasingly apparent that new or improved infrastructure needs to be built or upgraded to support newer projects. An important aspect of proper planning - which is seldom asked - is 'who is responsible for building increasingly needed new roads and streets that transport the new growth?'

Whitefish, more so than the rest of the valley, is facing-up to this problem and contemplating greatly expanding our planning office as well as looking at impact fees. In a nutshell, Whitefish is tired of not being able to carefully review and respond to the explosive growth that it's experiencing.

As a council, we rely greatly upon the recommendations of our planning personnel that currently work for the Tri-City Planning Office. It is increasingly apparent that they are being overworked and are being rushed in the process. We do not want to duplicate the unfortunate decisions of the 1970s.

My concern is that Whitefish's approach may be harmful to the Flathead Valley in that the Tri-City Planning Office will cease to exist if Whitefish is not a member. It is no secret that planning for Flathead Valley's future has not been a burning concern of the current Flathead County commissioners.

However, both the newly elected Commissioner, Joe Brenneman and recently elected commissioner Gary Hall recognize the importance of planning to insure the future viability of the valley.

Thus, the timing of Whitefish's pending decision of pulling out of the Tri-City Planning Office causes me anguish. I am hopeful that the Flathead Valley commissioners will re-assert their interest and leadership concerning the future of county-wide coordinated planning, as explosive growth is not limited to the jurisdictions of the cities of Flathead County.

A renewed effort and emphasis on planning for Flathead Valley's communities and Flathead County residents, through their elected officials, is our best plan for viable and lasting growth for all of us.

Thomas S. Muri

Whitefish City Council Member