Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Opinion & Editorial

by Rich Morrisey, Stevensville

During the past several months, and pursuant to the direction of the Ravalli County Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Board, the Planning Department, affected stakeholders and the public have been involved in an open and public process to bring the current Ravalli County Subdivision Regulations into compliance with Montana State statutes. Recently there has been a lively discussion and debate on one element of that effort. That one element has become known as the Ben Hillicoss "minority report" and specifically the way to address the impact of proposed development on Ravalli County agriculture.

The Ravalli County Planning Board is charged with responsibility to advise the Commissioners on subdivision applications and, when requested, as here, to advise the Commissioners on the Regulations in general. The by-laws of the Planning Board, as approved by the Commissioners, specifically provide for minority reports. This is because the makeup of the Planning Board is supposed to reflect the diverse views of our community. All members of the Planning Board are volunteers and serve without pay. And, it is fair to say, the Planning Board does reflect a broad spectrum of values.

Our County's Subdivision Regulations must be in compliance with Montana State law. One of the state required review criteria is the effect of a subdivision on prime and important agricultural soils including the loss or disturbance of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance by a proposed residential subdivision. That's the law.

It has been the past practice in Ravalli County to accept a subdivision if it causes the loss of prime agricultural land by merely requiring a mitigation fee. This fee has usually been only $100 per subdivision lot. That is to say, if a developer causes the permanent loss of prime agricultural land, he may do so by agreeing to pay $100 per subdivision lot. This results in an erosion of our agricultural land, forever, and a fundamental change in the character of our Valley, forever, for a very modest payment passed along to new residents.

Ben Hillicoss, as a conscientious member and the longest tenured member of the Planning Board, has become alarmed at the continued and unabated loss of agricultural land in Ravalli County. He also believes that a mitigation fee of only $100 per lot is totally inadequate to mitigate this loss. This view is shared by many others on the Planning Board and in Ravalli County. As permitted by the by-laws of the Planning Board, which were approved by the Board of County Commissioners, he provided his views on this subject in a minority report to the Planning Board, which forwarded the report for review to the Planning Department. Ben recognizes that this is a contentious issue and that there is no perfect solution. Yet he believes, as do others, that the weight given to this issue needs to be reevaluated. After much individual effort and consultation with others, Ben proposed some potential solutions that might help resolve the problem of irretrievable loss of agricultural lands in Ravalli County. Ben recognized that there would be a diversity of views and he expected that his ideas would be modified after open and full discussion. He did not expect nor deserve what he got.

Meetings of the Board of County Commissioners were held on Tuesday, December 29th, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. and Wednesday, December 30th, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Neither meeting provided public notice that topics for discussion included the Hillicoss "minority report" on agriculture. The Wednesday meeting, for instance, was for the purpose of selecting members to various county boards. Both meetings evolved into "public hearings" and discussions of Ben Hillicoss and the minority report. Both were inappropriate because they did not provide proper notice and the opportunity for other people to participate and both meetings resulted in a premature condemnation of the minority report. The County Commissioners’ own rules for proper notice and public input were violated.

At the December 30th Commissioner meeting, the proceeding was permitted to get unacceptably out of hand. Extremist property rights advocates took over the meeting and Commissioner Grandstaff publicly tore up the Hillicoss minority report. This action by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, up for re-election in 2010, might have played well with the stacked audience in attendance, but it does not play well with our collective guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom from censorship, civil conduct of public meetings and the Commission's own request for comments. Here, a citizen volunteer, after giving his considerable thought and effort to a very difficult issue, was subjected to vilification, disrespect and public infamy for doing exactly what was stipulated by the Commissioners in full compliance with applicable laws, ordinances and procedures. The public display of political grandstanding, the permitting of numerous disrespectful and personal comments by a number of those in attendance, and the permitting of consideration of this important issue prematurely in an unnoticed public meeting is beyond any measure of acceptability.

Ravalli County has recently experienced many cases of intimidation, reprisals, public slander, and less than civil discourse. This kind of conduct has no place in the process of public discussion. We must stand up and ensure that people know this is not acceptable. The impact of tolerating this kind of conduct will be intimidation of good people that serve on various county boards or may wish to do so in the future and inhibition of the recruitment of good people from a broad spectrum of viewpoints. It will also have a chilling effect on people expressing their ideas, their issues, and their well-intentioned proposals to generate civil discussion.

Recommendation needs revisiting

Dear Editor,

I am writing to preclude any misunderstanding of my intentions. Councilman Groninger asked that a committee be formed that would include at least former Councilman Paul Ludington. I will ask Stevensville Town Council to reconsider, because it was reported in the January 13th edition of the Ravalli Republic that this had passed. The issue was not on the agenda and no action was ever taken.

Town Council votes on referrals after they have been made at least by noon on the Thursday prior to the Council Meeting at which the item is to be taken up. The primary reasons for this requirement are: 1) to have the council member making the referral provide some outline of what is proposed and why; 2) to inform the public of the items Town Council will potentially take action on; 3) to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the issue prior to Council voting on the matter so their comments may be considered in deliberations; and 4) to allow Town Council members to know ahead of time what they will be asked to vote on so they may become informed on the action item.

Mr. Groninger failed to follow any part of this procedure. Springing the idea on the agenda denied the public its guaranteed legal right to know and participate. The state statues do provide for Council to suspend its rules to allow action on items not on the agenda that are time sensitive, but that would not appear to be the case here. It denied Town Council members the opportunity to understand what was intended and why they should vote for the idea.

Most Town Council boards or committees meet in the evening for the convenience of the majority of the public who work during the day. Mr. Groninger proposed that this committee meet during the day. That would require 3/4 of Town Council who have regular daytime jobs to take time off to attend if they desire to. It would inconvenience the public who work during the day by requiring they take time off of work. Mr. Groninger in his initial comments indicated an interest in more public involvement in Stevensville government. How does denying that same public the right to be informed and participate further his stated goal? I do not believe it does.

I will ask that the action be referred to protect the process that has been in place for some time now. If Council chooses to establish this committee, defines its role, define its authority, defines who may serve, defines when it will regularly meet (so it may be advertised) and how long this committee is intended to continue, I will support that decision.

Clayton D. Floyd Jr., Ward 2
Stevensville Town Council

Thanks for community support

Dear Editor,

As 2009 fades behind us and 2010 looms ahead, I wish to thank the many Stevensville community residents who volunteered and donated time and resources to our numerous non-profit organizations over the past year.  We have been through some difficult times, however, through it all our citizens have stepped forward and shown that we will survive and that we can accomplish almost anything if we do it together.

Knowing that over 50 committed volunteers donated several thousand hours to the Stevensville Main Street Association (First Fridays, Western Heritage Days, HoneyFest, and other activities), I can only imagine how many hours have been donated across the community.  The commitment to our town is beyond extraordinary and is a strong indication of why we live here and appreciate our community as we do.

As 2010 unfolds, I ask that we all continue and that those not participating in our community life make the decision to join us in making Stevensville greater than it already is.  Serve and shop locally…it is the best thing we can do to keep our community strong.

Mel Walters, President
Stevensville Main Street Association

Action needed to lower CO2 levels

Dear Editor,

In the global climate change debate, little is said about the adverse effects of high levels of carbon dioxide on all who breathe oxygen. Because CO2 reacts with the oxygen in the atmosphere,

as the amount of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe goes up, the oxygen level goes down. Both the atmospheric oxygen and the oxygen levels in the world’s oceans are decreasing and this is

shown by simple measurements. Atmospheric CO2 levels are easily measured and have been measured for decades. The measurements show that CO2 is increasing. If CO2 levels continue to rise, oxygen deficiency will occur, especially to those who are most sensitive, the young and the old.

According to a recent comprehensive study of fossil forams from the ocean bottom, we now have the highest levels of carbon dioxide in the last 2.1 million years (Honisch, 2009, Science). In spite of major climate shifts in that time, the carbon dioxide level remained amazingly constant until recently. That fact makes today’s carbon dioxide level of 385 ppm look even more unnatural and strongly indicates recent human activities are having a very serious effect. The debate over whether the climate is becoming warmer because of natural cycles or because of human caused effects is somewhat irrelevant with regard to the future of life as we know it. Increasing CO2 levels can and will have a disastrous affect.

Our own survival should be our ultimate reason for cutting carbondioxide emissions. Our CO2 problems require immediate action and solutions. Let’s work with Senators Baucus and Tester to pass strong clean energy legislation out of the Senate early in 2010. 

Let our congressional offices know you are ready for action to lower CO2 levels before it is too late.

Judy Hoy
Stevensville

Facts on Constitutionalism

Dear Editor,

I just recently read an article called Facts on Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would like to set a few things straight as this letter writer seems to have a lot of his facts mixed up and only wants to twist them in his favor. Many of the things mentioned were wrong in regards to the Celebrating Conservatism group and I would like to clarify what was blatantly skewed.

Mr. Beckman came to speak to the Conservative group back in August of 2009 on his fight with the government for the right not to pay income taxes, as he assures are not constitutional. Not once did this man mention any of his personal beliefs or talk about any anti-Semitic views. Whatever Mr. Beckman believes in his personal life is not the concern of the group, only his personal views of the Constitution. However, the writer for the human rights group writes about Hitler and Nazi Germany which is a subject we do not discuss at our meetings. But I have seen that the group to which the writer belongs attends lectures on techniques used by the Nazis to achieve the Holocaust. Now what does that say about a group?

Celebrating Conservatism is a concerned group of citizens that would like to see our nation turn back to our Constitution and Republic on which it was founded. Another FYI, we are not a democracy, in fact nowhere in the United States Constitution is the word Democracy used or in any State Constitution. We are a republic. Yes, we fly the American flag, there is nothing wrong with that, it shows our respect and deep reverence for our country. We say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the Star Spangled Banner and we start with a prayer. We believe in God, the Bible and that this great nation was founded on godly principles from its conception. Some carry guns to the meetings as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. A minority seem to have a problem with these above mentioned things.

First, I see nothing wrong with having our flag, saying a pledge and singing. I would say if you don’t like that you are anti-American. Praying, it is a right to do so! If you object, be respectful to those who do, sit quietly or leave. Don’t write in the paper later how we pray and make it sound as if it is an awful thing. You are the prejudiced one! No one there is aggressive or looking for a fight, they simply want to exercise the right to carry if they desire. Those who think of this as aggression don’t know their rights and the rights of others stated in our Constitution. I would also like to inform this person that Christian Fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon either. It goes back to Christ himself and continued in many forms like the Great Awakening in the 1800's and continues today.

Many people do disagree with the letter writer, that does not make them wrong or you right; it means they have an opinion, just like you. Furthermore, they can still be conservative and still disagree with you. You also say in your article that the group is allergic to concepts such as democracy and the UN. To start, we do not live in a democracy, if you know the pledge of allegiance you will find it says "to the republic for which it stands," not “democracy.” As far as the UN goes, I think perhaps you had better look deeper into the UN and find the real facts behind it; they are not stacked in our favor.

The human rights writer speaks of time honored American traditions of democracy, equality and fairness. First, I will repeat myself, we live in a republic! Our constitution is about our equality in this country. Fairness, sir? Why do you attack a group that has a right to believe in the Constitution and the Bible. I do not see that as fairness on your part. We have the right to assemble and express ourselves just as you do. I guess the only fairness in your eyes is for those who believe the way you think. This is how hate begins and why Nazi Germany began.

Dee Gibney
Hamilton

Thanks for good deed

Dear Editor,

Thanks to the person who found my savings bank book a few weeks ago and turned it in to the Rocky Mountain Bank. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Carole Koval
Stevensville

©2009 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney