Property rights not protected

In a recent op-ed piece, Rep. Mike Jopek, D-White-fish, wrote an eloquent appeal to the residents of the greater Whitefish area to adopt a charitable and compromising attitude in the ongoing discussion regarding land-use policies adopted by the Whitefish City Council.

Since those policies will affect large numbers of people who have been disenfranchised, it is in Mr. Jopek's best interest to try and soothe their passions.

However, do not be deceived. Mr. Jopek's inherent objective is implicit in his statement (slip?) that "planning for growth in the overall Whitefish area is in our best interest." To the reader, I ask the following questions as to the meaning of that statement:

a. Does it mean, "We know what is best for you since we are the government?"

b. Does it mean, "We're smart, and therefore our view of what is best is by definition the correct one?"

c. Does it mean, "Your private property rights must be reduced without compensation because we say so?"

d. Does it mean, "We can compromise, as long as the 'doughnut dwellers' don't complain too loudly?"

e. Does it mean, "Decisions about your property are OK as long as we think that they are in the 'common good'?"

In the ongoing discussion and debated about the future of the greater Whitefish land-use policies, let us not forget the following:

a. Article II, Section 29, of the Montana Constitution states that, "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation to the full extent of the loss."

b. The rights of property are inexplicably connected to "pursuit of happiness."

c. The taking of property or value without consent is "taxation without representation."

Consequently, would it not be prudent to submit such decisions to the people and/or their elected representatives? If so, the "doughnut" decisions should not be made by the Whitefish City Council.

John Fuller

Whitefish