Councilor rebuts 'donut' opinion

John Phelps’ recent letter to the editor is a knee-slapper. Obviously, in Mr. Phelps’ mind, anyone who doesn’t agree with him is bought and controlled by, in his words, “a handful of wealthy doughnut residents.”

In Mr. Phelps’ fantasy world, he knows for certain the outcome of court cases and what’s best for all of the citizens of our town and beyond. Wow, it must be good to be him.

But our citizens know that his arrogance has gotten us in trouble before (remember the $400,000 loss in the Walton case and defeat in the Mrs. Spoonovers case).

So let’s set the record straight. I support the proposed interlocal agreement amendments for several reasons:

First, it’s a fair deal, with the city retaining jurisdiction over the doughnut, and the county only stepping in if the city is unresponsive to the doughnut residents’ needs.

Second, the doughnut residents deserve to know what regulations will govern their property now, not years from now after the courts are through deliberating.

Third, if the city loses its court challenge, we will have absolutely no jurisdiction over the doughnut — over any matters, ever.  (And there are plenty of lawyers who think we will lose.)

Finally, it’s in the best interests of the city to establish a good working relationship with the county and stop suing everybody — both residents and neighbors.

Mr. Phelps’ charge that the new city councilors duped the voters of Whitefish and are controlled by a group of unnamed developers is particularly humorous.

I ran for office because I thought our city government was headed in the wrong direction, especially Mr. Phelps’ legal department. My campaign was entirely self-funded.

Mr. Phelps’ disdain for the opinions of others prevents him from seeing the obvious — no one who has spent time with me would conclude I would be a “controllable” councilor.

Mr. Phelps’ claim to be “retired” also is misleading. When he left as city attorney, he wanted a contract with the city in which his only obligation was “to answer questions,” and in return the city would pay his family’s health care insurance for two years.

This proposal was too much even for his city pals, so they signed a contract for him to act as an additional city attorney for one year. (I opposed this cushy contract; we don’t need two city attorneys when we are contemplating police and fire layoffs.)

Since Mr. Phelps is so sure of his position, perhaps he’d be willing to wager his house on the outcome of the interlocal court case. He clearly doesn’t mind wagering the houses of the doughnut residents.

Phil Mitchell lives in Whitefish and is a city councilor.