Hats off to BfP!

My hat is off to the Bitterrooters for Planning (BFP). While I am personally not a member of this organization, their recent win against the County Commission is a great victory for the citizens of Ravalli County and the ecology of the Bitterroot Valley of which we are a part. Citizens, critters of all shapes and sizes and the water they drink and the air they breathe. Ahhhh!
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve nothing against developers or development. But there is a right way to develop and a wrong way to develop. The Legacy was a prime example of the wrong way. The BFP and hundreds of local residents tried to show the Commissioners it was wrong. And they were ignored. Sure, the Commission held meetings and accepted comments—everybody had their bite at the apple—but to no avail. Why? Who knows why. But the Commissioners broke the law in their decision matrix, again! So the BFP sued. And won. And Valley residents are relieved that this subdivision is no longer being shoved down their throats.
It’s too bad it had to come to that. All that time and money. The way the Commission passes out settlements, you’d think that money grew on trees and not from the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. The Commission’s reasoning? Judge Haynes called their arguments “perplexing and absurd.” Commissioner Chilcott commented he is “troubled by the court’s suggestion that the Commissioners did not take the public comments seriously.” Well, a whole lot of people felt the same as the court—disenfranchised, ignored and sold out over the Commission’s decision to approve the Legacy Ranch (a colossal cluster of a mega-mistake). Mr. Chilcott also feels that had they denied the Legacy subdivision, the developers would have sued and “that lawsuit would have had a couple of commas and a lot of zeros added.” He would want us to believe that his decision to approve was ultimately in the best interest of the county because it would have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars from a lawsuit that certainly would have been filed and won by the developers if the County Commission had not approved the Legacy.
I find that line of reasoning to be troubling. Ignoring the preponderance of evidence against approval and making a decision that was supposedly in the public’s best interest? Mr. Chilcott’s ability to predict the future apparently did not include the BFP’s determination to let justice prevail. Or were there other reasons the Commissioners wanted this subdivision approved?
In any case, thank you once again, BFP, for taking the Commission to task, and thank you for all the work you do. This underscores the argument for better planning, so developers and the County have better understanding of legalities. I’ve heard it said “it’s a poor plan indeed that admits of no change” and I say it’s a worse plan still to have no planning at all.
“Big” Dave Smith
Victor