HH Villages not kosher with Canyon Plan

To the editor,

Following is a letter sent to the Flathead County Planning Board:

I am writing regarding the new Byrdsberg, AKA "Hungry Horse Villages" going in behind Hungry Horse.

I wish they would not steal our name s well as our town by flooding us with an anthill of development far in excess of the current population, and in violation of county regulations. This new plan is not in keeping with the Canyon Plan whatsoever. I quote from the "Canyon Area Land Use Regulation System (CALURS) Resolution No. 1049A, Adopted December 29,1994, Flathead County, Montana," page 12, "E. Natural Resource Protection": "2. Private lands created from the sale, trade or exchange of federal lands following the effective date of these regulations shall not be eligible for any commercial or industrial development. Agricultural forest management uses, passive recreational and open spaces uses, wildlife habitat management practices, and other similar practices will be permitted."

The proposed use of the Byrd property, acquired from sale of federal lands, clearly violates this provision from every angle. The Byrd development is a commercial enterprise. The Byrd development is the farthest thing imaginable from "agricultural, forest management, passive recreational, open space, wildlife habitat, and other similar uses." The Byrds should have familiarized themselves with CALURS prior to bidding on purchasing the Forest Service land. It would have saved themselves and all of us here who are being raped by their lack of regard for the county's regulations and the Canyon people's protection from hungry developers, a tremendous amount of trouble. I myself listened to the calumnious deceit of their attorney at the planning meeting in the end of 2006, in which this attorney, ignoring all pertinent passages and regulations in both CALURS and the Flathead County Master Plan, attempted to hoodwink everyone that his Byrd plan is in agreement with the Canyon Plan. The warping of logic was masterfully done, but thank God no one was convinced and it is now time to expose the bullying deceit of his or her attorney for what it was.

The Canyon Plan forbids every aspect of their plan.

That this is clearly also against the specific reason a Canyon Plan was implemented to begin with is evident on pages I-2 of "The Canyon Plan: An Amendment to the Flathead County Master Plan, Flathead County Resolution No. 1009A, Adopted May 17,1994."

"Controlling growth and development" was cited as the most important issue." (Emphasis added.)

I therefore ask that the Flathead County Planning Board and County Commissioners veto every proposal that is put forth unless it pertains strictly and solely to "agricultural, forest, passive recreational, open space, wildlife habitat management and other similar practices" which are permitted.

Vivian McNeme

Hungry Horse

Commissioner criticized about 'doughnut' area

To the editor,

Commissioner Gary Hall's recent rant and diatribe about the Whitefish doughnut area demands a response. This terrible predicament created by Hall will continue to create major problems for citizens inside and outside the doughnut area for years to come. Hall's tremendous lack of foresight and judgment will cost all county residents a substantial amount of money in legal fees and credibility.

Property owners in the Whitefish doughnut area are now held hostage because of Hall's actions. At this point in time, anybody living in this doughnut area does not know: a) if anything can be done on their property; b) who has jurisdiction over their property; c) who will sue who to see who has jurisdiction over their property; d) how long they will be held hostage by Hall's lack of judgment; e) how much it will cost them in taxes to litigate us out of the bungle; f) if the disharmony and broken bridges between the City of Whitefish and Flathead County can ever be repaired; and g) which regulations apply to their property.

It seems quite insidious to me that the guy who created this mess in the first place is now trying to take credit for being a so-called "hero" to save the people from the chaos he himself created. It is time for Hall to take responsibility for his actions and apologize to all of us in Flathead County. It is obvious that property owners simply cannot withstand another six years of Gary Hall sitting at "our" table in the Commissioners' office. The citizens of Flathead County deserve better.

Make your voice heard in the upcoming primary election; it is time for a change.

Dick Skees

Columbia Falls

Candidates' views on North Fork Road paving

To the editor,

Attention commissioner candidates: What is your position on the unpaved section of the North Fork Road from Columbia Falls to the Camus Creek entrance to Glacier Park?

Pave it? Leave it alone? Alternative solution? (What would that be?)

I describe that section of the county road as deplorable, destructive and humorous.

Our residents, sportsmen, loggers, guests and the commercial businesses that frequently travel the North Fork Road are listening!

Joe Franchini

North PolebridgeProperty owners have right to decideNo one can accurately predict the future nor make wise, unchangeable decisions for offspring destined to inherit family property. Property owners have the right to determine what should be done with their own property. Conservation easements in perpetuity, however, lock in forever the preferences of current owners committing heirs to financial obligations over which they likely have had little input and no future control.

Tax dollars fund the nation's extensively held public lands which were in the past capable of financing themselves through productive use of resources contained. Now, with curtailment of these uses, costs are reaching exorbitant levels due to catastrophic fires consuming wide expanses of non-productive, overgrown federal forests. Fire-fighting costs, no longer affordable by taxpayers, has driven the USFS to "just let it burn" policies — destroying our timber, wildlife and environment.

In comparison, private property owners holding title to their land bear full responsibility for all ongoing costs of maintenance, taxes, insurance and future environmental demands. These financial responsibilities continue even when a portion of their property rights are relinquished through conservation easement contract to a land trust, which assumes the right to control the use and management of that real property, in essence splitting title to the land. Tax benefits and other financial perks usually are offered on a one-time-only basis, not available to any future owner.

Of appeal to the present owner as well as the general public are the long term provisions of "open space," viewscapes, wildlife habitats and refuges. A euphoric vision verging on patriotism emerges combined with a warm, fuzzy feeling of doing something wonderful for the environment. Financially secure people happily envision their land remaining the same forever, but given the unpredictable economic future it is unwise to commit future heirs to responsibilities of encumbered property.

Farmers and ranchers depending on the land for their livelihoods face ever increasing global competition and decreasing annual profits. Some may be seeking temporary financial relief until times hopefully return to normal. Others having reached an age where they can no longer farm, seek financial security enabling them to remain on their beloved land until such time as it passes on to their children, giving little thought to the significance of the term, perpetuity. Traditionally they believe that their "kids" can eventually do anything they want with it. Not necessarily so.

Offspring may have chosen lucrative livelihoods elsewhere with little intent of returning to the home place. They will tire of paying expenses on property they seldom see or may even become unable to pay. The assumption was that in this event they could simply sell the farm. However, conservation easements almost assure a lower market value than adjoining unencumbered properties. Also, the larger the piece of property the more limited will be prospective buyers. Some may willingly invest in 20-30 acres of "cheap" vacant land to assure privacy for a single residence. However, restrictions of the contract may prohibit the style of residence they desire. Buyers are scarce for hundreds, perhaps thousands of acres locked into agriculture and limited to one or two residences. If eventually surrounded by development and highways, needed access for farm machinery is prohibitive. It could become a virtual weed infested wasteland requiring heavy insurance to cover inevitable influx of accident-prone hunters and recreationists.

Legal costs are the responsibility of the land owner who will be facing a battalion of high-powered, high-priced attorneys specializing in conservation easement law. Many of the contract terms, subject to interpretation, provide the opportunity for the land trust to take property owner to court at any time over disagreements or owner performance. Basically the landowner is "over the barrel," beholden to the whims of the land trust, "locked in" under contract in perpetuity. The congenial, reassuring sales person will eventually be replaced by a more demanding representative. Even an outside third party could register a complaint. The land trust is free to sell its interests to another qualified non-profit agency.

In-depth consideration of contract terms and ramifications is essential to avoiding possible expensive pit-falls. Property owners owe it to themselves and their heirs to achieve agreement prior to signing this document. In general, Americans should be concerned about increasing loss of private land to the federal government through state and national land trust activities which have become the avenue for land acquisition under the theme of "Open Space." Further legislative action by elected officials is urgently needed.

A Conservation Easement Forum sponsored by Montanans for Multiple Use will be held in Bigfork on April 29 from 1 to 3:30 p.m. at Crossroads Christian Church, on Highway 35 between Highways 82 and 83. For more information, call 837-6929.

Clarice Ryan is a Bigfork resident.