Still not a fan of the neighborhood plan

Reporter Alex Strickland has sunk to a new low in his efforts to defend the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan. When Mr. Strickland gets it wrong, he really gets it wrong. By quoting one phrase - out of context – he distorts my criticism of the plan and makes it sound like I have become a supporter or proponent of the plan. This is NOT an accurate representation of my comments: I remain opposed to many key sections of the plan.

Throughout the workshop held by the Flathead County Planning Board, I repeatedly pointed out my disagreement with language found in several sections of the plan. Specifically, The Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee (BLUAC) and Bigfork Steering Committee want to “create a sub committee within BLUAC to: 1) Develop design standards for the Village and Hwy. 35 corridor to include lighting, architectural design, color, signage, landscaping, public art and parking … 2) Make adherence to design standards part of the permit process.” Other language specifies that: “Development in areas near or including wildlife habitat and other sensitive areas should . . . maintain open space.” And then a goal to “Utilize county zoning to protect environmentally sensitive open spaces, scenic views, and natural habitat in the BPA through use of buffer zones, setbacks, and creative planning techniques.”

The reporter not only heard me voice objections to above quoted language at the recent workshop, but I have attended dozens of meetings over the four or five year process of rewriting the plan, always and consistently voicing objections to many such sections of the plan, often with him in attendance. I remain opposed to all such groovy, we know best for you and your property, “Bigfork good taste society” language. I am not alone in this opposition to some of the language in the plan, but many opponents have given up participating in meetings, or have been pureed from the Advisory Committee (BLUAC).

“Why bother” and “they won’t listen to us” is heard from many who are frustrated and burnt out with the lengthy process. After all, “The Bigfork Good Taste Society” knows best what is in keeping with the character of Bigfork. It should be obvious to locals who have spent the past 25-30 years of their adult life working, running businesses, struggling to survive and live in the Bigfork area that we are currently NOT capable of deciding what our property should look like — without, of course, first getting the approval and blessing of the “Good Taste Society” (i.e. Bigfork Steering Committee & BLUAC).

So it’s curious that after attending a two-hour workshop where I repeatedly voiced objections to language in the plan, the reporter chose to feature something I said at the end of the meeting, taken out of context. Much of the discussion, both between planning board members and between the planning board and myself centered around regulatory versus suggestive language in the plan. For the reader, the article includes the phrase:

“Even Myers was more satisfied with the outcome. ‘I think guidelines are good, but a lot of people get touchy when you micromanage private property,’ he said. ‘I think this thing is heading in a lot better direction than it was a few years ago.’”

This final comment that I made was regarding the changes to the plan brought about by the decision of the Flathead County Commission: to clarify that neighborhood plans are advisory and NOT regulatory. The above statement I made was not a blanket of support of the plan or a compliment to BLUAC. Rather, it was a caution to BLUAC, the Steering Committee, and the Planning Office not to return to the language that is regulatory/mandatory.

Had the reporter been paying attention during the workshop, he would have noted that several members of the Bigfork Steering Committee want to return to the original controlling and regulatory language of “shall,” “must” and “require”. It is equally clear that these members of the “Bigfork Good Taste Society” plan to circumvent the Flathead County Commission affirmation of advisory committees (i.e. Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee). They intend to change state law to allow such organizations to march into “townships” or “villages” so that they can again be regulatory. Another option for the control freaks and Nimby’s was suggested by county planning B. J. Grieve. He said that they could always do an overlay zone.

Bottom line, my comment that the plan was headed in a better directions was regarding eliminating the regulatory/requirement language, per the direction of the county commission, and replacing that language with suggestions and guidelines. I remain opposed to language in several sections of the plan. I believe you can count on the “Good Taste Societies” and “Nimby’s” in the valley to continue to find ways to change and manipulate this language in these neighborhood plans to become increasingly regulatory and controlling of other people’s property. They surely have the support of reporters such as Mr. Strickland.