Criticism of handling stream setbacks unfair

To the editor,

As a frequent visitor to the Flathead, and Glacier National Park, I envy those that have chosen to live in the last best place. I try to keep informed on issues and happenings via my subscription to the HHN. I have my favorites, Chris Peterson, and one I often scratch my head about. I also like to read the letters to the editor and in the last issue, Speaking Out. It is the Speaking Out, Russell Crowder, that prompted this letter.

As a member of the Spokane County Planning Commission for eight years now, I am well aware of the issues and potential conflicts around land use. However, Mr. Crowder is off base in his attacks on the commissioners, planners and volunteer board members regarding stream setbacks. These people do not lose sight over land use and property rights; they are prudent individuals that consider the law and the greater good of the law, land use planning and long-term impacts on water quality.

No one is taking your land Mr. Crowder. They are, however, applying standards accepted around the country to protect streams and riparian areas from destruction, and the downstream impacts. Like traffic laws, you simply cannot do what you want, when you want, without consideration for others. The role of government is to protect the health, safety and welfare of others.

Keep up the good work commissioners, planners and planning board members.

Doug Kelley

Spokane, Wash.

Toys For Tots a success

To the editor,

Thanks to the generosity of many area residents, Toys For Tots gave new and unwrapped toys to 1,313 children in 454 Flathead Valley families just before Christmas 2007.

This was the 21st year for Toys For Tots in the Flathead, and this is the 60th year of purchasing and distributing new toys to needy families across the country. The collection and distribution of toys is authorized by the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation.

We would like to thank everyone who made donations to Toys For Tots. Here are the totals for each of the drop-off points in the Columbia Falls area, with the number of toys and total value of the donations (including donations by employees): Plum Creek, 185/$1,305; Cardinal Hardware, 28/$213; Mountain Lake Resort, 19/$187; Park Side Federal Credit Union, 15/$155; Nite Owl Restaurant, 7/$70.

Cash donations were: Columbia Falls Aluminum Co., $300; Don and Sue Haverfield, $200; Hungry Horse News, $190; Nite Owl, $100; Schellinger Construction, $100; and Paul and Vickie Eggum, $50.

Collections really blossomed and carried us through.

A special thanks to the Blue & White Motel, our collection headquarters. Thanks again, everyone, for supporting Toys For Tots.

John Olsen

Coordinator

Flathead County Toys For Tots Detachment

Columbia Falls needs growth regulations

To the Editor,

I am in complete agreement with Karen Reeves of Whitefish, Harris Endreson of Columbia Falls and others who live in the Flathead Valley who are concerned about the future of this area. We are asking for growth regulations and enforcing them so that builders have restrictions to abide by or be stopped. This is for the protection of people and wildlife. We all must share this land.

Not every open piece of land needs a building on it. Our quiet little neighborhood is completely disguised with a large duplex going up in a small, single-family dwelling city lot here in Columbia Falls. How did that building permit get passed? Did anyone consider the current property owners and the impact of crowding too many people in one place? Apparently not. Is our policy here that if you have the right amount of money you can do anything you want?

A great issue of concern is the impact all this building going on has on our beautiful environment. The reason people desire to live here is the access to gorgeous mountains, lakes, rivers, wilderness and the animals that inhabit these areas. This is what Montana is about — not trying to turn it into city suburbs. Is there any thought given, when the right amount of money is exchanged, as to where out wildlife is supposed to live, eat or have plenty of clean water to drink? Shame on those who turn their heads and allow others to ultimately destroy this beautiful place over greed. People will continue to come here and live, but our city officials need to take a stand and protect those who are already here and who value nature with all of its magnificent gifts. Money can never replace what is already lost and what is now at stake.

As Bobby Kennedy, Jr. continues his fight to protect our environment and resources, he states, "When we destroy nature, we diminish ourselves and impoverish our children."

I want my children and their children to have what I feel our city council takes for granted. If stricter regulations are not followed and money can bend the rules, we all lose. A simple glass of clean water to drink will be a thing of the past.

Nancy Riva

Columbia Falls

Thanks for breakfast

To the editor,

The Bold, Beautiful Babes Red Hat Society members of Columbia Falls would like to thank the couple that was at Nickel Charlie's on Nov. 24. What a surprise when we asked for our tickets (checks) for breakfast, and we were told that this special couple had picked up the ticket for breakfast for our whole group.

We're sorry that we didn't get to say thank you in person! It really made our day!

We would also like to say thank you to the management and our waitress at Nickel Charlie's for making our breakfast outing so enjoyable.

The Bold, Beautiful Babes, Red Hat Society from Columbia Falls

Our democratic system can do better

In 1952 Sen. Estes Kefauver defeated President Harry Truman in the New Hampshire primary with the momentous result that Truman announced he would not seek re-election. In that same primary, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower defeated Ohio Sen. Robert "Mr. Republican" Taft, grandee of congressional insiders. If the plans of party leaders hadn't been upset by a direct vote of the people of one small state in 1952, the contest for president would probably have been between Taft and Truman. The American people liked Ike, but they likely would never have had the chance to elect him if not for the New Hampshire primary.

For most of U.S. history, the process of nominating presidents was dominated by a few men hammering out deals in the smoke-filled rooms of the great national conventions. Over the past few decades, the rise of presidential primaries has largely broken the power of the bosses. People are more empowered now, but has the system kept pace with their empowerment?

Most states now hold presidential primary elections, but tiny, unrepresentative and atypical, New Hampshire continues to have the nation's first one, and in the tradition of 1952, it continues to profoundly influence our presidential selection process. In fact, with only two exceptions in the last 56 years, the winner of the presidency has carried the first primary in New Hampshire.

It is no wonder, then, that other states, mostly larger and arguably more representative of the nation, have been busily moving up the dates of their primary elections. The result is that by Feb. 5, a majority of states will have held primary elections or caucuses. While Montana Democrats are still going to wait until the bitter end of the primary season in June to select their convention delegates, Montana Republicans will choose theirs in caucuses on Feb. 5. Both the Democratic and Republican nominees for president are likely to be known by Feb. 6, a full nine months before the general election. Instead of a deliberate process in which the ideas of candidates can be tested state by state, a stampede will began on Jan. 3 in Iowa, and thunder to a chaotic climax on Feb. 5.

This aspect of our democracy couldn't be much worse. It favors glib, well known, well financed candidates. It assures that thoughtful ideas are trampled in the din of the stampede.

Traditionally, states determine their own election laws, so arriving at a coherent system of nominating presidential candidates won't be easy, but it is past time for all of us to begin talking about it.

The National Association of Secretaries of State has a proposal that would divide the country into Western, Midwestern, Southern and Northeastern regions. The regions would vote on a sequential basis, the first one in February, the second in March, the third in April, and the last in May. The order in which the regions vote would alternate every four years with each presidential election cycle. Some form of rotating regional primaries deserves careful thought, especially if geographically meaningful regions like New England or the Rocky Mountain West were represented.

Another proposal worthy of consideration would also designate four groups of states, but instead of regions, the groupings would be based on state populations, with the 12 smallest states (including Montana and our surrounding neighbors) always voting in February, then in ascending order of population, culminating with the 13 most populous states voting in May. The small states would provide an opportunity for less well known candidates. Those successful in the smaller states in the beginning of the process might ultimately prevail in the big states at the end.

Our democracy also has room for improvement in the general election phase. Our unique and arcane electoral college makes candidates focus on winning majorities in swing states rather than on winning a majority of the votes of the people. Four times in U.S. history, most recently in the election of 2000, candidates with the most popular votes have lost to candidates with the most electoral votes. The Electoral College is controversial, and perhaps deserves to be, but it would take a constitutional amendment to change or do away with it. Small states like Montana, which are advantaged by the Electoral College, should be wary of a constitutional amendment.

Nothing in the Constitution, however, requires all of a state's electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. In fact, Maine and Nebraska now allow their electoral votes to be determined proportionately or by congressional district, reflecting much more accurately the choices of the people in these states.

Californians have been debating whether or not to abolish the winner-take-all allocation of that state's mammoth electoral vote. If adopted by other states, a proportional system would retain the advantage that the Electoral College gives to small population states, but would be far more representative of the choices of the people in states of all sizes and in the whole nation.

We need to reform both our presidential nomination process and our presidential election process. Our badly flawed democratic system is still better than any non-democratic alternative. But we can and should make it better.

Bob Brown and Daniel Kemmis are Senior Fellows at the University of Montana's O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West. Brown is a former Republican Secretary of State and President of the Montana Senate. Kemmis is a former Democratic mayor of Missoula and Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives.