On Monday, July 20th at 10:00 a.m. there will be a public hearing about the future of the airport at the commissioners meeting room, or give them a call at 375-6500. At stake are millions of taxpayer dollars, the possible purchase of large tracks of expensive land, and whether to enlarge the airport to a jetport or maintain its present size with safety improvements.

The proponents of a large expansion stand to gain in many ways. With a jetport there will be an increase in gas sales, hangar values could go up and more and larger jets will land. The opponents of a large expansion have focused on what they stand to lose if a large jetport is built, because our tax dollars and quality of life is at stake.

Many of you have moved here to get away for air pollution, noise and lights. Yet over time if you don’t pay attention to protecting your quality of life that quality slowly gets degraded and once that happens it is almost impossible to get it back.

The exhaust fumes from jet fuel is very toxic. One jet landing or take off has exhaust equivalent to driving a car 8,547 miles. Studies show that people living around airports have a higher incidence of asthma and other health problems. Some days our air quality is marginal, especially in the winter, and the commissioners will soon have to address these air quality problems and they are looking at regulating wood stove smoke. If they vote for a jetport, the increase in toxic fumes will expedite the need to curtail air pollution and your wood stove will be the target, not the jet fumes because we won’t be able to regulate jet exhaust.

The noise problem has been ignored in the Environmental Assessment. Yet, if you research the subject, the problems with jet noise is a growing concern worldwide. Many cities around the world have citizens groups up in arms about noise problems from jets as it relates to disturbed sleep, higher levels of stress and loss of peace and quiet.

Do we really want to build a jetport for 101 plane owners and one jet and damage the quality of life for over 40,000 others? Now is the time to stand up and be counted. Come to the public meeting on July 20th and tell the commissioners you don’t want a jetport. We can save millions of dollars, have a safe airport that serves our hobby plane owners, protect our quality of life and be a destination that tourists want to come because we have preserved those amenities. On average tourists drive 103 miles from an airport to a national park, surely they will drive 45 miles to stay in the beautiful Bitterroot, and spend money at a restaurant, gift shop, gas station or sporting goods store along the way.

Letters to the Editor

Airport facts

Dear Editor,

ICAARE’s (Informing Citizens Against Airport Runway Extension) interest is to have a safe airport that satisfies the safety concerns of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). However, the solution should not include an unnecessary expansion that encourages and promotes more and larger jets.

Problem. A small group of people are pushing for an expanded airport that will accommodate more and larger jets. They argue that the airport is unsafe. This is not true. Be assured that the FAA would close the airport immediately if it were unsafe. FAA regulations allow a pilot to land his aircraft at any airport he deems safe. There are no restrictions on the size of aircraft that can land at any given airport. Small jets are pushing the envelope landing at the Hamilton Airport which, if their annual numbers exceed 500, then the FAA recommends the distance between the taxiway and runway be increased from the present 200 feet to 240 feet. ICAARE has strong evidence that the total operations are far less than the 500 operations required for expansion. Nevertheless, we still support the increased separation as a prudent precaution.

ICAARE's proposed solution (Option 2A) satisfies all of the FAA design requirements which make it eligible for FAA funding. The cost to county taxpayers for Option 2A would be in the $100,000 dollar range vs. the $400,000 to $500,000 dollar range for the larger expansion to accommodate larger jets. (not illustrated)

Those proponents of a large expansion want to spend approximately $16-$20 million in taxpayer dollars to move the runway 240 to 400 feet east and lengthen the runway by 1000 feet so the runway would be about a mile long. This greater separation and length would accommodate much larger jets. ICAARE does not support this large unnecessary expansion nor is the FAA requiring it. Our airport is in a location that is suitable for hobby aircraft and some small jet aircraft. The current 4,200 foot runway limits the traffic to that type of aircraft. A 5,200 foot runway with 240-400 foot separation will definitely attract larger, louder and faster jets. The proponents of expansion, in an effort to disguise the longer runway, are recommending a 4,200 foot runway with a 500 foot "overrun" on each end. This will attract larger jets and make the airport less safe. In addition the FAA has stated they will not fund "overruns."

With increased jet traffic the landowners surrounding the larger airport will experience a 10-20% decrease in their home values according to FAA projections. The FAA predicts that with an expansion, by 2013 a take-off or landing will occur every 10 minutes in a 12-hour day, every day of the year. The general valley population will experience an increase in air pollution and we already fail to meet the EPA air quality standards at times. Jet fuel is loaded with toxic fumes, and for each takeoff or landing of a medium sized jet the air pollution equals a car driven 8-9,000 miles. That is a significant contribution to the valley’s air pollution. There will also be a drastic increase in noise pollution radiating throughout the valley that the FAA admits will be a significant problem.

In addition to all these negative impacts that greatly diminish our quality of life, there is the very important issue of cost. The expansion proponents call it a gift from the FAA, but here are the facts. Over 85% of the money for the expansion of this type of airport comes from your pocket. Whenever you purchase an airline ticket there is 7.5% tax. This is where the FAA gets their funds to expand the airport. The jet owners only contributes 2-3% of the cost of enlarging the airport. The rest of the unmet cost falls directly on Ravalli County taxpayers. The county will have to provide upkeep, maintenance, snow plowing, staffing, address environmental problems like recent gas spills and pay the power bill, just to name a few. The large expansion could add an additional $50,000/year tax burden to the local taxpayers on top of everything else.

With a country that is financially bankrupt and a county that has severe funding cuts, is this the best use of our tax dollars? Subsidizing the jet owners and strapping the local taxpayers with this huge responsibility for a service that is not essential is an irresponsible decision to make.

ICAARE’s interest is to have a safe airport that addresses the FAA safety concerns. However, the solution should not encourage or promote more and larger jets landing at the Hamilton Airport. We encourage citizens to come to the public meeting on Monday, July 20th at 10:00 a.m. at 215 S. 4th St., Suite A, Hamilton MT 59840. Please write to that address or email to commissioners@ravallicounty.mt.gov to voice your concerns on this extravagant, costly and unnecessary expansion of our airport. ICAARE's 2A solution is a reasonable compromise that makes Hamilton a very safe airport but not a jetport.

ICAARE Board: Tim Barnett, Phd, Betsy Kratofil, Dennis Moore, Doug Nation, Dan DePauw

Working to change civic environment

Dear Editor,

I have worked for two years to improve the civic environment of Ravalli County, which includes the City of Hamilton, and Ravalli County.

Is any resident of this area supposed to stay silent about the criminal law enforcement activities that we actually read about (which make it into the local press)? Our brave citizens are lambasted as “radicals” in our paper. We are mainstream Americans taking a stand for our state and federal rights. Our constitutions are radical, we are not.

Are we supposed to be happy when our rights are taken? Are we supposed to be happy when downright criminal acts are taking place within our law enforcement units? Are we supposed to be happy when our judges in this area can’t even write a correct arrest warrant and should themselves be imprisoned? Are we supposed to be happy when a police officer will admit on the stand that no probable cause was available in his arrest of a citizen? Are we supposed to wait for our government to save us?

What I am doing about it is running for office, and encouraging others to do the same. I am also a member of the local unaffiliated “We the People” movement which has had more actions for change in our area than any other entity in our state.

We have watched our Attorney General’s office threaten us, attempt entrapment to a coalition group in Lincoln County recalling their Sheriff, and be uninterested in criminal information when presented to them. This describes the ranking of Montana as 48th in the nation for justice (source US Justice Dept. Sept 2007).

Our law enforcement will steal from their own department and the public, due to the property being purchased from public funds. Our law enforcement will “induce suicide” to five suspects of the Ravalli County Detention Center in 2005. Some were in the cell block encouraging these acts due to the suspects supposedly having “no chance.” Meanwhile the detention officers were supposedly more interested in computer games than doing their duty rounds. That is the truth as it has been told to us. Our law enforcement will knowingly endanger citizens. I observed it, and brought it to the attention of the Hamilton Police Chief. Luckily, the officer had “his side of the story” to tell. When a Hamilton City Councilman t-boned a 2006 black Dodge truck at Foxfield Ave and US 93 on September 14, 2007 at 1400 hours he put someone in the hospital and left the scene of an accident. The Hamilton Police Chief was at the scene, and the accident report was written by another officer who claimed that the councilman’s vehicle was “moved.” Later an HPD official claimed they let the councilman move his Donaldson Ready Mix owned pickup. When local law enforcement wishes to intimidate an employer, an employment agency, and acquire this information when no inappropriate activity is observed, you have Ravalli County Deputies and Hamilton Police Officers.

I am running for mayor due to working with municipalities in many states, being granted a national security clearance for my background and history, and the knowledge that I can supervise the Hamilton Police Department as prescribed by Montana Statutes. I will uphold my oath of office, and carry out the duties of seeing that freedoms given in these constitutional documents will be upheld. That would be protecting your property, the freedom to vote, speak, and enter public buildings without harassment. I will also ensure that public officials, law enforcement or otherwise will serve the public. Any comment about my behavior is opinion, and it was in response to public officials who were either protecting other public officials, or committing outright crime themselves.

I edited and commented on the Recall Petition for Lincoln County Sheriff. That group called the Ravalli Clerk and Recorder and informed that official that rejecting my recall of Sheriff Hoffman and County Attorney Corn was improper. I was the court representative for a presidential candidate for a petition challenge. I know what I am talking about, I am sure many officials in Ravalli County do not.

Perhaps our residents of Ravalli County and the City of Hamilton will not be so upset when they are treated fairly, and their law enforcement personnel actually help the community instead of committing obvious and ongoing crimes. Those disorderly conduct signs in the county courthouses, administration buildings, and such were not put up for my behavior. At this point, I take pride in citizens of this county taking action against local tyranny.

The “We the People” group, which started bitterroot-rising.org, has asked for indictment of public officials who are working together, and committing crime. The Shooks, who have a legal issue in Federal Court against Ravalli County, are seeking civil rights redress (or damages). As a former FEMA employee, I understand the mechanics of the floodplain. This issue is how the Shooks were treated by the County Attorney office and the defamation from the Ravalli Republic newspaper (which I could also be included in that class). I invite your readers to view the original complaint Shook v. Ravalli County to verify this information available at the Federal Courthouse at 201 E. Broadway in Missoula. It is not if you liked the Shooks, or the floodplain, it is the way in which Ravalli County wishes to be in dominion over its residents, instead of working for them.

The bottom line is this: many of us in these difficult times think that the government will save us. The truth of the matter is we must save our government. This means the City of Hamilton, and Ravalli County government. I have decided that a person of sound character should represent the people. The City of Hamilton will prosper when sound budgets, respectful and lawful law enforcement are serving the people. Many officials are very scared of my candidacy due to the distinct possibility of them losing their jobs, and criminal livelihood that they have come to enjoy as normal.

Every day I run across more victims of the City of Hamilton, and Ravalli County. I know my path is straight and is the right course. Yes, I have quite a bit of courage to stand up to this graft. So did Virginia Bolen, and many others. My good friend from college told me recently: “…if it is worth fighting for, stand your ground…” My question to the readers of this paper is: are you willing to stand with me and also run for office?

Michael Spreadbury
Hamilton

Private or public?

Dear Editor,

Which middleman would you rather deal with? The one who charges 30% overhead or the one who charges 3% overhead? Every health care dollar paid out loses 30% to insurance-driven overhead: billing, sales, and lots and lots of profit. Medicare has 3% overhead.

Mike Thomas
Helena

Way past time to look at cause of abnormalities

Dear Editor,

An interesting article by Nicholas Kristof was published in the New York Times on June 28, 2009. Kristof's article "It's Time to Learn from Frogs" details the health problems that have been linked to human exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals, including obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes, endometriosis, early puberty in girls, breast cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid problems, effects on metabolism, heart problems, a significant drop in male sperm count and increasing abnormalities in human newborns, particularly the large increases in numbers of genital deformities among newborn boys. Studies show that at present, up to 7% of boys are born with undescended testicles and 1% are born with hypospadias (the urethra exits the penis improperly, such as at the base rather than the tip). Other studies show that there are increasing rates of short penis in newborn males, not tracked in Montana.

The combined rate for the two reproductive malformations mentioned is 8%. With about 4 million babies born each year since 1995, approximately half being male, those two malformations alone affect over 150,000 newborns in the U.S. each year, over 2 million total. Our study published in 2002 showed that reproductive malformations on newborn males of wild grazing animals are at an even higher rate (over 60%).

We suggested that it was "time to learn from deer", but were largely ignored. The serious reproductive malformations in multiple grazing animals, both wild and domestic, have been referred to as "normal variations" by government agencies. Such malformations on newborn humans are not considered "normal variations" by anyone. Why the discrepancy?

Ignoring such health problems in human or other mammal newborns to protect cheap French fries, real estate prices, hunting, tourism or any of the other reasons that have been suggested is inhumane, selfish, likely to cause extinctions and not an acceptable act against children.

Judy Hoy
Stevensville

Thanks from Darby Bread Box

Dear Editor,

Darby Bread Box (Food Bank) would like to thank everyone who participated so generously in the Mothers' Day postal food drive. Special thanks go to our local postal carriers and local post office for sponsoring this drive. This helped considerably to get Darby Bread Box on its way to opening. Thank you to all the Darby residents that have been so generous with monetary and food donations.

Derry Kempf
Darby Bread Box Board of Directors

Mourning lost beauty

Dear Editor,

I just celebrated my 86th birthday. I am happy and healthy. My younger friends tell me my good fortune is due in part to my ability to "roll with it", adapt, and accept change.

I try to be understanding. However, there is one issue I am having a hard time with. Yesterday Dave Ohnstad, the road department supervisor, had a tree twice my age cut down. It's a road "improvement" project. To some my concern may seem trivial but it’s more than this tree I mourn for.

Most county roads have a 60-foot easement. This means they can cut, remove, and dispose of anything 15 feet to either side of a 30-foot roadbed. It is the road department's call; not the homeowner's, not the neighborhood's. On your next drive to town count the number of trees and fences at risk in your neighborhood. It’s the changing character of our rural roads and county that I mourn for.

I learned as a child to take responsibility for my actions and I know others hold this same value. Instead of creating highways out of our county roads let's all slow down and take responsibility for our driving and enjoy the beautiful countryside we have been blessed with.

Stanley Schroeder
Hamilton

Support for Community Choice Act

Dear Editor,

On July 2 over 100 people rallied at Senator Baucus' office in Missoula. More rallied in other cities in Montana and nationally. The reason? Senator Baucus is not including their needs in his proposed health care reform. He is not addressing long term care or community choice issues.

At present, Medicaid and Medicare promote institutional bias in that they require recipients to give up all their assets and enter a rest home or long term care facility to receive benefits. The government supplements the payment to the care facility at a huge cost to the taxpayer. I am told it costs $44,000 per year less to provide in-home caregivers and keep most people in the homes they own and want to live in. Why not supplement those people and save taxpayer money?

I am a victim of MS and no longer able to walk or do many of the things I used to do. However, I have VA benefits that provide me with in-home caregivers to allow me to live in the home I paid for over 30 years. I am able to go nearly anywhere I want using my power wheelchair and my specially equipped van, which I drive myself. I have a great deal of independence because of this, and am still able to be a viable force in my community. I also have the continuing health care I need on a monthly basis. All this due to a single payer system that acknowledges the benefits of eliminating institutional bias.

I have friends who are not so fortunate. They have enough assets to provide themselves a home, but too many to receive any benefits of the health care system. Private insurance is out of the question due to the cost of premiums. So they lack the attention they need including range

of motion exercises, help getting in or out of bed or getting dressed or showered, house cleaning, etc. These people are still active and have lives to live; why should they expect to be warehoused in a care facility? I can still transport myself to the voting booth, Senator Baucus, and intend to vote to help those people, and I am sure they will be there as well.

The Community Choice Act would end the institutional bias and allow more people to remain in their homes and retain their independence.

Eliminate work disincentives. Individuals who become disabled should not lose their health care because the want to work. Eliminate the need to accumulate the two years of medical bills before becoming eligible for Medicare. Provide durable medical equipment such as power wheel chairs and transfer lifts, ramps, etc. The $44,000 per annum savings over requiring institutional care will more than pay for it.

LaRoy Williamson
Hamilton

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Legals •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2009 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney