Construction moratorium

In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell called it "newspeak."

To hear how one reporter described the brouhaha over a Dec. 15 Whitefish Pilot article, it's "hysteria."

But to city planning director Bob Horne, it's "damage control."

Maybe it's a red herring.

According to Horne, concerned developers and Realtors have called the city because they thought the Pilot had said a "construction moratorium" was being considered by the Whitefish City-County Planning Board.

The article said nothing of the kind, but the headline used the word "construction" — and for good reason.

To claim that a moratorium on applications and review of major subdivisions and planned-unit developments (PUDs) has nothing to do with construction is, as Orwell would put it, newspeak.

Consider all the people who might have a serious interest in a moratorium that postpones approval of major subdivisions and PUDs until the city completes its new growth policy:

? Landowners whose undeveloped land increases in value with construction.

? Conservationists who would be happy if more construction does not take place.

? Financial institutions that earn income from issuing construction loans.

? Lower-income families and individuals who would like to see some affordable homes constructed.

? Building contractors who need plans to be approved so they can begin construction.

? Excavators, carpenters, masons, plumbers, electricians, roofers and carpet layers who make a living doing construction.

? Environmentalists who are concerned about the impacts of construction in new areas.

? Realtors who can make a buck selling newly constructed homes and commercial buildings.

? And planners who are concerned that, perhaps, there's already enough construction in the pipeline in Whitefish.

The last point is worth further elaboration. If the proposed moratorium is not about construction, as Horne emphatically spelled out to the media last week, then why did he spend so much time discussing it in a Dec. 13 memo to planning board members?

In his memo, Horne begins by saying "some of you asked about our current inventory of lots and how a moratorium might affect the availability of building sites."

In newspeak, building sites are construction sites.

Later in his memo, Horne says the proposed moratorium would not apply to final plats — "an important point," he said, because "once the preliminary plat is approved, developers then go to work on detailed engineering plans and construction of project infrastructure."

A moratorium on applications and review of major subdivisions and PUDs would therefore postpone "construction of project infrastructure."

Horne then goes on to provide the planning board with a list of 20 projects already in the pipeline with 768 building (that is, construction) lots available. Nineteen of those projects have six or more lots and would fall under the moratorium as proposed. The odd one out, Eagle Lake, with four lots, might not — except that it represents 32 condominium units.

In a Dec. 20 letter to the city council, Horne noted that "under Montana law, condominium developments are not 'subdivisions,' and they are often approved through a conditional-use permit." He then suggests, "If the council concurs with that premise, then a moratorium should apply only to PUDs that create more than five lots or units as well." (italics added)

If such a sweeping moratorium had been in place several years ago, all 768 units — including Eagle Lake's 32 condominiums — would have been stopped cold.

Horne went on in his memo to the planning board to describe how all this would play out in the big picture. In what he calls the "heaviest case" scenario, where the most construction takes place, "we easily have two years of lots" left after 2006.

If, on the other hand, "the market for townhomes and other multi-family products becomes saturated, as many local industry professionals claim, then we have approximately an eight-year supply of single-family lots."

In other words, Whitefish might not need any more construction.

City manager Gary Marks, in his Jan. 3 council agenda report, warned the council about the "practical and philosophical implications" of the proposed moratorium. One consequence of the moratorium would be "pent-up demand for approval of development applications" by 2007, after the proposed moratorium would be lifted.

Marks might have added "pent-up anger and frustration" to that list. Postponing review and applications of major subdivisions and PUDs will impact investors — not just the big-time out-of-state millionaires that people love to hate, but long-time residents whose property is their nest egg, the investment they rely on for retirement, or emergencies like healthcare, or for their children's future.

How could a nine-month or one-year moratorium affect their investment? Scuttlebutt about a real estate bubble bursting would make some people pretty nervous. A moratorium could limit landowners' options.

All this talk about the moratorium not being about construction is nonsense. Someone said it right when they said, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."