Bigfork Neighborhood Plan

Land-use planning is a serious, and contentious, issue in Bigfork and Flathead County. This topic deserves thoughtful discourse and factual information regarding the costs, challenges, opportunities, and consequences we face as more people choose to live here. Land use affects everything from traffic, economy, taxes, water, to community character, etc.

A recent letter from the editor encouraged more public involvement in planning the future of Bigfork, but mischaracterized comments Mr. Johnson and myself submitted to BLUAC regarding the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan. In my opinion we need more land use choices to address the needs and goals of this community. The editor implied we proposed a "one size fits all" 50% open space concept for the entire BNP area. This is NOT the case. The section he quoted from was regarding 2 additional zoning choices we don't presently have as an option. They are RR-1 and RR-2 (Rural Residential). The 50% open space requirement, if these districts are employed, can be a variety of things - a farm, ranch, tree farm, pasture, native habitat, etc. The developer receives a density bonus, and is not required to create parkland. Additional density bonuses are received for 70% open space. In simple terms, this is like a golf course development without the golf course. This type of zoning is not appropriate everywhere in the Bigfork area but it can help lower the cost of services and maintain "rural character" particularly when neighboring open spaces adjoin each other.

These options could help accomplish community goals, like maintaining ag/forest lands, wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge areas, "rural character" etc. while still allowing developers a reasonable return. These are choices we should be aware of, and consider. We need to stop the rhetoric and look at what gets results. I've traveled enough to see the good, bad, and the ugly in terms of land use. Nearly every desirable place I've visited did not get that way by accident. It was the result of vision, hard choices, good leadership, and people caring enough about the place they lived to encourage excellence. Bigfork deserves the best.

Many communities have successfully managed to balance property rights and community needs/goals. We can learn much from their successes and mistakes. I encourage everyone to get better informed and ask questions like - if thousands of people move here in the next 20 years, are developments being built today easily, and cost effectively, serviced? Will we have affordable housing? Adequate care for seniors? Are developments being sited on safe locations, or are we going to continue to build in floodplains, greater than 25% slopes, on faults, and aquifer recharge areas? What are the consequences of this? Can we create incentives for developers to build projects that meet our needs and goals? We are all in the same boat here. We all pay for development's impacts through our taxes. We can promote development that meets our needs and goals, is fiscally responsible, maintains our quality of life, while respecting property rights; or we can sit back, do nothing, and hope that somehow, developers will magically decide to build the community we want. You decide.

Respectully,

Brett Thuma

Bigfork