A flawed system

Here in Bigfork we like to think that we have an open planning system that takes public input into account and really values that input. The Bigfork Eagle is currently running a series highlighting just this process. In yesterday's paper was an editorial cartoon that captured my feeling of the prevailing attitude very well, it showed houses crammed into a sardine can with the caption "Flathead Planning".

As I write this, my wife and I, along with many of our neighbors have just left the BLUAC meeting where we were parties to a flawed system in action.

We live along Hanging Rock Road where for about a year we have been fighting against various incarnations of a proposed development of property across the road from us on the banks of the Flathead River. The "developer" wants to change the zoning from SAG10 to RC1. Since all of the homes on Hanging Rock Road and Pine Needle Lane are single family homes sitting on large lots of generally more than one acre, we believe that any development of the property across from us should be of a similar size and use as the rest of the neighborhood. The developer wants a RC1 zoning so that cluster housing will be allowed. The developer needs cluster housing because a large portion of the property is wetlands along the river and any other zoning category would require more space per house, consequently fewer homes on the property. I personally think he has it wrong as I would expect one big water front building site would be far more valuable than 8 crummy cluster housing lots.

Whether you agree or disagree with our position is not really the issue. The issue is that the system is flawed in several ways;

The applicant has brought the same issue before BLUAC at least three times with only cosmetic changes to the proposal in the hope that eventually the opposition would be worn down. The flaw in the system is that as the BLUAC board changes, past testimony before the board is not retained in memory.

The proposal has been turned down by BLUAC three times but yet the applicant is free to keep pursuing approval. A tweak here a tweak there and it looks a little different, kind of like perfume of the week. This is working for him, the first time we went before BLUAC 14 people spoke against the proposal, the next time fewer were there, and tonight only 8 people spoke against the zoning change. This is not for lack of commitment, but more because many people assume that since this has been turned down it is a dead issue. Tonight again, no one except the developer spoke in favor of the project. The system is flawed because no never means no.

Of the eight members of the audience who spoke on the issue, all were against, but the BLUAC board split their votes 2-2 which by default caused the measure to fail. The flaw in the system here is that it shows BLUAC board members vote their opinions not the sentiment of the community.

The method of these public meeting is; that the applicant states his desires, opinions, and lays out the plans of the requested change or development. Then the audience is allowed to speak their thoughts and ask questions only to the BLUAC board, not the applicant. After that, the applicant is allowed to answer the questions, embellish, editorialize, misstate the facts and just generally have the last word. Then the BLUAC board votes. The flaw in the system is that the last words banging around in the minds of the board members are those statements made by the applicant.

As the recent neighborhood survey showed, most Bigfork residents feel the BLUAC board should be elected, in order to represent the growth and planning thoughts of the community. I believe individually each board member is doing the best volunteer effort each is able to do. They all give a huge amount of time to this thankless job, but he flaw in the system is that BLUAC board members appoint new members when they are needed or when a terms expires, this only leads to self preservation and alignment of prevailing board opinions.

My wife and I first came to the Flathead Valley 32 years ago, our hearts moved here then. It took our bodies and bank accounts longer to catch up. But I can not help but feel as though we are long time residents. We love the open space, we love the people, we love the weather, and we just don't think every acre should be covered with clustered multi family housing (This probably comes from the fact that we lived two years in Russia where Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev all believed in clustered housing). And we think planning and growth decisions should be made by people who are elected by the community they represent.

I do believe a good rant clears the air. I may not have changed your feelings, but I feel better and since I feel better I'll be able to keep up the fight a little longer. My old forestry professor was in no way a linguist, but above his door was sign written as close as he could get to a foreign language, "illegitimus non carborundum."

Sincerely,

Roger Redifer

Bigfork