Star Editorial
Officials from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks contacted us recently to express concerns about our recent editorial addressing the proposed land swap at the Stevensville bridge involving the Fort Owen Ranch, the Town of Stevensville and FWP. Their concerns were based on two specific remarks which they considered to be inaccurate. Without disagreeing with them, we would like to offer these comments.
The first issue for them was our statement that, “The deal was worked out in secret with no input from town officials or the public.” In the context it was clear that we assumed FWP and the Capps had worked out the details of the proposal that was going to be submitted to the Town of Stevensville for possible adoption.
This was based on a conversation we had with the current Mayor of Stevensville and his account of what he knew in terms of the proposed transaction following his last meeting with the parties before the tour and Town Hall meeting held by FWP and Senator Fred Thomas where the detailed proposal was first submitted for public review.
He told the Bitterroot Star that he had been shown a diagram that showed the areas being discussed in the trade and the logic behind the proposed property line locations was discussed but he didn’t recall any exact acreages being discussed. He also said that it was the first time he had heard of the triangle of land along the highway right of way in town being added to the deal.
At the time the editorial was written, we knew the town had been in conversation with the Capps and FWP about a trade. We were familiar with the “general concept” being discussed, some ranch land below the park for some of the town’s land at the north end of the park.
The thing is though, it is the details that matter. We think most everyone would agree that the general concept is worth considering, even the people that are crying out loudest against the current proposal. Why? Because the devil is in the details.
But let’s just say that town officials really were involved and the townspeople and all their interests were adequately represented in the fine tuning of this proposal. The fact is, though, that the public was excluded. Oh sure, the public was notified that “some kind” of exchange was being considered, in the past and then more recently over the last few years. But to be aware that something is being hatched is not the same as playing a part in its development.
Although it may not be accurate or fair to say this proposal was developed in “secret,” since we all knew it was being considered, it was certainly developed in “private,” that is, behind closed doors.
FWP is right to be concerned about the word “secret.” It implies that the agency was not being transparent, was hiding something, was being sneaky, and possibly illegal. This process, they claim, was just business as usual. And they are right. There is nothing illegal or sneaky about government officials meeting privately with an individual to discuss their concerns. The agency is often approached by private landowners concerned about certain issues involving their property and public access for fishing or hunting. They are not looking for public involvement or public participation, they are just looking for information from public officials about what might be possible in terms of solutions as far as the law and regulations go.
It is not FWP or the Town officials who kept this discussion private. It was the landowner. The public was excluded from the discussion at the landowner’s discretion. Ordinarily this may work. But then a proposal is generally worked out and brought to the public for “meaningful” public input. That input is then generally incorporated into the governing agency’s decision, helping to fashion it. This happened at a Park Board meeting. But before that body took any action on the basis of this input, it was decided, instead, to set up another “private” meeting between the Capps and FWP and Town officials, in this case two Park Board members. It was in that private meeting that the decision was made to dismiss every option presented by the public, but it also added another alternative that the public could still consider.
This brings us to FWP’s second objection to our first editorial. What bothered them was the final comment: “What is the worst that could happen if the Town does nothing? The parties involved would have to come up with a better option and if they want the Town’s involvement in a solution they can involve the Town at the beginning of the discussion. If nothing at all happens, the Town still has its 20-acre River Park with a legal easement and the public can still access the river at the bridge as usual because that’s legal too.” What FWP found inaccurate, they said, were the words “as usual.”
They pointed out that if the land swap did not go through the landowner was going to shut down the access and fence it off. There would still be legal access at the bridge within the road right-of-way, but there would not be access “as usual.” The boat launch area, as it’s being used, would no longer be accessible.
What this means is that there were really two different proposals being presented by the landowner for consideration. It is not just a “take it or leave it” deal on the land swap as it has been characterized. It is a “take it or else” deal.
FWP said they didn’t see this as a threat. They just see a landowner having private discussions about what to do with his land and deciding that it would have to be one of two options. Either the town and FWP accept the land trade as he has designed it, or the fishing access, as we know it, will be closed.
But don’t you have to wonder about that second deal?
One fisherman who lives in Stevensville and makes his living as an outfitter on the river was torn over the issue. He thought the land swap proposal was an unfair deal but he was willing to support it because he could go out of business if the second option was put into play and ended up disrupting business for a few years.
It is naïve of FWP to suggest that this second option is not a threat. As the fisherman put it, “If this [the first option] is such a good deal, why stick a gun to the heads of the fishermen?”
We stick by our statement in the first editorial. If the Town Council or the town’s people decide to either reject this land swap proposal or delay it for further consideration and so they can consider other alternatives, then things do return to the status quo. It is the landowner who would have to unilaterally impose his second option. A decision, once again, that would involve no public input.
This second alternative sounds a lot like what the man says after threatening to break your legs for an unpaid debt, “That’s not a threat, it’s just a promise.”
The public should not have to accept any kind of “take it or else” deal. It would set a bad precedent.
And in this case it is extremely important that it is the public who decides what happens to their park, not the landowner and not even the town council. The law allows the council to make land transfers, but not if they involve land dedicated to some public purpose, like a park. Then the land is held in the public trust and by law would have to go to a public vote to be sold or traded off.
The Bitterroot Star believes that the Stevensville River Park is a park. It was made into a park after the public dump was shut down. It received state and federal funds for the necessary improvements to serve as a park, and it has consistently been used as a park and treated as park by the Town of Stevensville since at least 1995.
Whatever your feelings or opinions about the land swap deal, it is a decision that should be made by the voting public. For the Town Council to usurp the authority of the public over the lands held in the public trust and make the decision themselves would be a big mistake and would certainly be a blatant violation of the intent of the law if not the letter of the law.