What more should we expect from the county government? Apparently three applicants for Planning Director constituted none and an interim director was appointed. The Planning Department has three priorities: land use, subdivision review, and protection of health and safety of county residents with respect to land use. Land use complaints are not isolated or infrequent in Ravalli County. If our county government cannot or refuses to protect its people, then what good is that government? What does a planner candidate know about how to protect health and safety of county residents if they think their sole job is to review subdivision projects? Ravalli County needs a planning director who will collaborate with other departments, and protect county residents as per their department mission statement.

A planning director needs to advocate for the county residents who pay for the government, then focus on subdivision review, then try to present zoning in a way that would not adversely affect any stake-holding group. Once that was achieved (prior to Draft Z) our county can move forward on land use issues instead of being budget constrained by subdivision review taking the local focus out of the Ravalli County Planning Department.

Nothing amazes me about our county government anymore. They have a huge accountability problem and don't even know it. Within this letter, I will demonstrate how Ravalli County refuses to protect its taxpayers, and keeps an outward appearance that they can pull off zoning without an enforcement history in land use! Not until it has basic safety and health protections on land use covered first. What officer of this county government will enforce land use or zoning provisions if there are none currently?

A contingency or back up plan needs to be in place regarding land use in Ravalli County before zoning can be put in place. There is a clear right and wrong when a resident is endangered. Unfortunately, the current Sheriff and County Attorney see things politically instead of practically. When a state fire official informs the county that 1000 wood pallets stacked within a foot of a residence and within inches of the roof joists are violating state fire code, neither official enforces/cites/prosecutes with respect to the land use issue. It gets better, 10 neighbors signed a community nuisance (a county ordinance which is not enforced) petition. The Sheriff's office went out of its way to say it would not take action. Even with an active sheriff’s department case against the neighbor, still no action by the county. Theresa, the third last Environmental Health Director in three years, quit her job due to no interdepartmental assistance in Ravalli County with respect to Land Use (which included the current Sheriff’s Department).

Is it not clear that the safety of Ravalli County residents with respect to land use is more important than implementing a non-countywide zoning (without enforcement)? We first learned our ABC's, then spoke the language. The county is trying to get a masters degree in language (zoning) without knowing the basics. There needs to be communication among department heads from law enforcement, planning, environmental health, and the commissioners to coordinate response. Part of the planning department's mission statement and priority is to protect county residents regarding land use issues. A planner is ill-equipped to protect residents from land use disputes or protect county residents in general. It is time the Planning Department works for county residents instead of development companies who may not even live in the valley.

While I respect the Community Planning Committee (CPC) groups who have worked hard on bringing zoning to life, the reality is that the county is not even providing basic safeguards, NOT due to county "budget" problems, but rather due to the countywide politics problem. Zoning is pie in the sky, and premature if land use enforcement is not in place. This reality has not hit home to our commissioners, until residents of this county call upon the dissolution of the county government: due to taking undemocratic and costly actions with respect to zoning, hiring practices, interference and manipulation with media outlets, use of county employees outside their department mission statement, and general protection of county residents.

Tell the “tractor commander” at the Houston Space Center south of Victor on US 93 that the county no longer will tolerate land use disputes. Perhaps then his neighbor would not have been permanently and seriously disabled. The drainage ditch used as a surface wastewater-slurry and a flammable liquid conduit should never be acceptable as appropriate land use in Ravalli County. The landowner in this case has pleaded to our county government for over 5 years for help. How would the planning director solve this problem?

The solution in years past has been to criminally charge the complaining party in an effort to silence the situation. Karen Hughes (former Planning Director) went ahead and published home addresses on the County Planning Department’s website of complaint holders. As soon as we elect a competent Sheriff these enforcement problems should cease. It also helps to have a County Attorney who can work alongside a planning director, and will listen to county department heads who request prosecution of land use issues. When a publisher of a newspaper does not discipline or remove reporters who do not check the validity of their stories, the county commissioners are free to exploit their own agenda (like appointing an Interim Planning Director) without anyone catching their game. Ironically, the reason this publisher has her job is due to her predecessor being in the county’s pocket.

The County needs to hire the best candidate for planning director that can be an administrator, put a high priority on the protection of county residents, fairly and appropriately evaluate subdivision proposals, and develop land use plans for the county so it is ready to accept future zoning implementation. The rocket scientists will not be applying for Planning Director and can’t help Ravalli County with land use issues. It is up to the new director to uphold the department’s mission statement, which includes protecting county residents, something the former director failed miserably at.

Letters to the Editor

Re: Stevi teacher dismissed

Dear Editor,

The things that stand out from my three years at Stevensville High School are my art classes - that were great (of course), the fact that I can still speak the bare minimal Spanish, and Mr. Wood's English class.

I remember that in his class we did things like analyze the popular songs of the time. Songs we all listened to because it was the cool thing to do, but really had no idea what they were about. We also read classic books and wrote our thoughts about them. Not your typical ‘this book is about…’ we were encouraged to think beyond that and integrate our own feelings. Mr. Wood encouraged actual thinking and lively discussion, which may be why his class stands out for me.

In retrospect, his class did a lot to prepare me for college. I continue to try to analyze things for myself. I used this foundation when I wrote my masters thesis on architecture and the human experience. Mr. Wood’s English class definitely challenged students on a level more similar to college than high school, but I think that was a good thing.

I don’t know what concerns the administration has for firing Mr. Wood, but I – and I believe many others – benefited from having him as a teacher at Stevensville High School.

Meghan Hanson Powers
Victor, Idaho

Bring Picnic back to Main

Dear Editor,

So it’s almost Creamery Picnic time again! Are we going to drive the remaining businesses out of business by not having the vendors and events on Main Street? Who has looked lately at the commercial real estate available in our town? EVERYTHING is for sale... how long are we going to keep this up and continue ignoring our downtown businesses’ needs and desires? And don't tell me that you can't close the Eastside Highway either! Western days proved that!

Thomas L. Hoffman
Stevensville

What’s up with community college?

Dear Editor,

Recently I visited the Bitterroot Valley Community College website, http://bvcc.edu.org/, to gather more information on this group’s position on siting a locally funded, community college in the Bitterroot. I visited the site because I am not sure about the motives behind this effort, who is supporting the creation of a local community college campus, and most importantly why. Additionally, the University of Montana currently has in place a Higher Education Center in the Bitterroot, offering official U of M course work, including UM College of Technology classes. So we have two different entities involved in our consideration of local post secondary education/training in the Bitterroot.

According to the BVCC web site, the functions and features of a public community college are as follows.

A community college would offer academic transfer to institutions of higher education.

However, BVCC could not provide assurances of academic credit being transferable for years, until it receives accreditation. Without accreditation the community college students are not eligible for federal grants and loans. How can they expect to attract students without the prospect of eligibility for Stafford loans or Pell grants? Additionally, any credit transfers are entirely at the discretion of the receiving institution, the community college would have no say in this matter. The community college could seek sponsorship and the loan of accreditation, perhaps from Flathead Community College or Montana State University by offering their courses and programs and using their accreditation. However, I doubt that the regents or the taxpayers who support FCC or MSU would allow these schools to spend for personnel and administration time and have this time be given away, without charge, to BVCC. I would think that some of the administrative costs of BVCC would go to Flathead CC or MSU if they are helping a campus in the Bitterroot. Hardly the community controlled campus we are being told it will be.

The BVCC people state that another function of a community college would be vocational/technical training. In fact, the original members of the steering committee were all associated with the Bitterroot Valley Workforce System. “The vision of the Workforce System is an informed, well trained, current and emerging workforce that meets the needs of employers in Ravalli County.”

This is precisely what the COT campus in Missoula currently provides, vocational and technical training, everything from health care to technology to business. One point that BVCC keeps making is about our population and how other Montana communities with this amount of people have a post secondary institution. This is true but how many of those currently have both a two- and a four-year institution within 50 miles? None. In fact, when the reconstruction on highway 93 is finished, if you catch the lights right you could probably be in Missoula in 40 minutes or less. The University of Montana has offered lab-technician classes right here at Hamilton High School, using the excellent science labs there. The Higher Education Center expects to offer about half of their courses this fall and spring semesters as COT classes. The BVCC talks community college, but what they are describing is a vo-tech.

According to the BVCC people, an additional role of a community college would be community outreach programs “designed to be responsive to the needs of local business, arts, and cultural organizations and special interest groups.” But who are these business people, cultural organizations and special interest groups? And what are their “needs?” and how will our tax dollars meet them? The BVCC group has to tell what classes will be considered and then justify these choices. Who will really determine the curriculum?

The BVCC folks advocate for a locally controlled campus. I believe that if the UM desires to maintain a presence in the valley, we should partner with them to co-create the campus and curriculum we desire. Additionally, the UM has a vested interest in being responsive to the needs of our local students if it wants to maintain attendance numbers, which have doubled in the last year. Instead of funding this campus locally, let’s support keeping the UM here and have the entire state of Montana fund our campus. We are already paying 6 mils to fund higher education in the state, so let’s get something for our money at the local level.

Furthermore, a community college would directly compete for our tax dollars with our local school districts. One need only look to the results of this last election when Corvallis voters denied a $23 million school bond by a 2-1 margin. In May, the Hamilton School District asked voters for $300,000 for operating expenses for the next school year. The request was voted down. Voters in Florence have consistently denied school bond measures 3 of the last 5 years they have been presented. And the BVCC folks want us to subsidize 25% of each and every student enrolled in their community college? There is only a limited amount of tax dollars available in this valley. I would suggest our priority would be in funding our primary and secondary K-12 students, rather than force people to choose between our children and a community college.

A community college should be a stepping-stone to higher education. It should offer liberal undergraduate degree programs, not job training. It should be supported by the entire state. Adult literacy and adult education, which we currently have available, don’t rank high on my list of what a community college should offer. We are already receiving some of the benefits of the community college, as envisioned by the proponents of a community college, such as Adult literacy and GED testing, so why should we invest local tax dollars to duplicate services we already have? We also have adult ed woodworking, pottery and computer classes available locally, from Stevensville to Darby. These classes would most probably be discontinued if they were offered through a community college forcing people to choose between commuting to the community college site, or not being able to participate in Adult Ed classes. At $4.00 a gallon, driving from Darby to Hamilton two or three nights a week can get expensive. Are the BVCC folks advocating taking away the districts adult ed money (about $80,000 per year), and limiting participation primarily to Hamilton area residents—yes or no?

What programs will the community college offer? The answer to this remains indistinct and vague. The BVCC website only says that, “Programming decisions will be made by the elected board under guidance from the Board of Regents.” We have some fuzzy outlines but a lack of tangible descriptions, although the evidence seems to indicate a definite bias toward workforce development (i.e. vo/tech classes). Indeed, despite mounting evidence that general education coursework is what most supporters desire in a community college, BVCC trustees continue to speak of vocational classes responding to local businesses, all of which were incidentally located in Hamilton. There should be specific answers to what courses will be offered and why before we can make any decisions as to which type of campus we may want to pay for if indeed we want to pay for one (or can). But again, what the BVCC folks are describing is not a community college but a vo-tech.

The community college, as portrayed by the Bitterroot Valley Community College people, is not much different than what the COT offers in Missoula. If we are going to have a locally controlled community college in the valley, we don’t need to mimic what the COT already offers, and which is readily available just up the road and which does not cost Ravalli County taxpayers a 25% subsidy for every student attending.

It seems to me that the proponents of a BVCC do not understand the differences between a local community college and the COT well enough and they think money grows on trees.

Tom Kresan
Stevensville

Public should vote on zoning

Dear Editor,

Why would anyone, in a democracy, be opposed to bringing a major issue before the voters?

There are always two sides of an issue, some for, some against. This is the current situation in Ravalli County with zoning, which will affect personal property values and personal property rights. Two Democrat Ravalli County commissioners, and one Independent commissioner stand as a block in opposition to allowing the public a vote on zoning. It could easily be put on the November ballot with a common sense decision of those three officials. Pass, or fail, everyone would be satisfied they had an opportunity to participate in the process.

Therefore, once again I ask, why would anyone in a democracy oppose the right of the public to vote on this important issue?

David S. Hurtt
Florence

Zoning goal in sight

Dear Editor,

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their COUNTY.

Two years ago we voted for emergency temporary zoning to slow the rush of development, giving commissioners and citizens time to work on more “permanent” zoning. During that time we met weekly in voluntary groups (CPC’s) to suggest ways of implementing basic zoning which could answer the needs and concerns of all. We invested thousands of hours in the effort.

Some groups continue to voice fears that their concerns will not be met. Draft B was overly complicated and did little to allay those misgivings. But a simplified Draft C should be more acceptable to the majority of Ravalli County citizens.

It has been a long climb from the initial decision to develop a zoning program to protect our beautiful valley, and to ensure sensible, predictable growth. Now the goal is in sight. Let’s push on to achieve what we voted for two years ago, and worked so hard to accomplish. For the county, for the Bitterroot, go for the goal!

John Carbin, member
Ravalli County Planning Board
Stevensville

Zoning - do we need it?

Dear Editor,

The economy of the country is going to take care of growth in the Bitterroot. Without growth there will be no jobs. Construction is one of the main employers of the county. You sure can’t eat the view. We have three people in the county telling us what we can do with our land. Thank you, but I want to make my own decision. I’ve been to countless meetings on Zoning and they are still on page 1. We tell them what we want and think, and they just do not get it. We voted in Florence, three times, to opt out of Zoning, but we were not heard. We should be able to vote; that is the American way. At every meeting, one commissioner gets up and says that if we put this to a vote we will lose. How does she know? What is she afraid of? It is time to stand up, people, and be counted.

Zoning is not going away. I would like to know how they are going to finish Zoning without maps? Maps are not coming out until late July, if then. Wait a minute, I forgot the three people running this county already have the maps and regulations figured out, they just do not want us to know what they are yet. As for pushing the time frame back, that is a joke. It will be pushed right on through in September, or before.

Joanne Moore
Florence

Zoning attempt illegal

Dear Editor,

Ask a simple question of the Ravalli County commissioners and the county attorney and you get …?

At a zoning meeting on July, 17, the question was asked, "By what Constitutional authority are the commissioners able to change the final time for ending discussion concerning zoning from November, 2008 to some unknown time in the future?" The ballot designated that the deadline could be extended one year only. November 2008 is the end of that extension.

George Com, County Attorney, said that the authority was constitutional law found in Title 76.

Title 76 is an Annotated Code. It has no connection to the Constitutions of Montana or the United States. Nor does it have anything to do with time extensions on a ballot. It, like zoning, is a means of command and control of the people. The Constitutions and the Declaration of Independence are chains on the government and instruments of freedom whereby the people can observe their unalienable rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. One is the road to tyranny. The others are leadership by the people.

There are two ways to look at the commissioners’ actions following the passage of the one-per-two interim zoning ballot. One per two means one house per two acres. It was the main issue on the ballot. Also on the ballot was to "consider" expanded zoning if the ballot measure passed. Almost immediately, following passage of the ballot, the commissioners contracted with the out-of-state, multinational zoning "specialists," Clarion corporation. Clarion began the "process" of organizing a total valley zoning scheme, made up of Parts A, B and C - varying mutations of government control of the people's property.

One could look at the commissioners’ hasty leap from passage of the one-per-two to the total zoning schemes, without the people's input as to the need for zoning or this type of zoning as, at least, misrepresentation. Commissioner Driscoll has publicly stated that she is pleased the one per two "will go away in November," which indicates that it was used as a stalking horse for more agenda-driven ends.

The commissioners haste can also be viewed from the Corn, Title 76 angle, which says that all Referendum items must allow for thorough public input followed by a vote. The commissioners would like us to believe that the discussion part of Title 76 is what we are now experiencing. The good news is that they are saving the people part of the discussion for the end. The parts about no zoning, private zoning, area specific, resource capacity zoning, and others, is going to have to wait until all parts of the Clarion one-size-fits-all project has completely exhausted itself. This brings us back to the November time deadline.

According to the ballot, all extensions are ended November 2008. If Title 76 is used as a guideline, then the commissioners must submit a land use proposal to the people, who must be given the opportunity for a full and complete discussion of the issue, and who must then be allowed a vote on that proposal. Phueee... All of that in three months!

If I was a commissioner, knowing I'd already broken or violated Article 2, Sections 1, 2, 7, 8 and 13 of the Montana Constitution, as well as made a mockery of my oath of office, Article 3, Section 3, I'd stick with the misrepresentation route. It's worked in the past.

If you are dissatisfted with these actions and options, sign the "People's Cease and Desist Order" and/or the Petition to Repeal the Growth Policy. Please contact Rick or Velarie at 642-3024, Dewey at 529-4095 or Russ at 777-4427.

Brian Wareing
Florence

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2008 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney