The Plum Creek land sale is bad for the federal taxpayers and counties like Missoula that have Plum Creek land. Plum Creek will sell 320,000 acres of land for $520,000,000; the brokers are the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land. The federal government will contribute $250,000,000; the balance comes from other sources. The scam is twofold: selling commercial timber land at development land prices and turning Plum Creek's' (and others similarly situated) easements for forest management into easements for development, not just in Montana, but all over the USA.

Mark Rey (Under Secretary of Agriculture) says that there is a need to "clarify" the easements that Plum Creek has across federal land. What were thought for decades to be easements only for forest management are now easements for development purposes. It is the position of Rey, and Plum Creek, that there is no ambiguity in the easements, but that clarification of the language is necessary. This clarification is really an amendment of the easement which would allow development that would harm the ecology of the forest, burden counties with expensive fire protection, and make Plum Creek hundreds of millions. The fact that Plum Creek and the other players have kept what they are doing secret is proof that the clarification is really an amendment to the easement, which is not in the public interest.

A portion of the environmental community is happy because the land will be protected from development. The $250,000,000 in federal money will buy Senator Baucus votes in an election year and Rey will be in line for a real good job when he leaves federal employment and returns to his former employment - industry lobbyist.

The Nature Conservancy has been in bed with industry before; e.g. it was involved in a scam to allow J.R. Miller to buy Sula State Forest land for 25% of its value.

Apparently, when you are doing God's work, it is ok to sleep with the devil.

Letters to the Editor

Commissioners’ comments offend

Dear Editor,

Commissioners Driscoll, Grandstaff and Rokosch, I read your Guest Comment in the Bitterroot Star on Wednesday, August 27, 2008; now, I am angry and confused.

I am angry that fourteen months ago the majority of the citizens of Ravalli County sat at home complacent with their life in one of the last best places to live and allowed a minority of the citizens to vote into office individuals who are determined to take away our property rights. I am also angry that these same individuals think so little of the intelligence of the citizens of Ravalli County that they would memorialize such rubbish and ill-logic as their “Guest Comment” letter.

Let me explain my confusion and anger. Your guest comment letter is titled, “Local land planning better than state control.” Please explain to me what control you’re referring to that the “state” has over my land and my land use. What you are really talking about here is the “state’s” lack of control and lack of conditions that they impose on subdivisions. In fact, in the fifth paragraph you write that it is your opinion that “state regulations favor land speculators and do not protect the average landowner’s property rights.” What angers me is that you would rather take away the average landowner’s property rights in order to impede land speculators. You call it zoning.

You start your letter with the comment that the “citizens of Ravalli County voted us into office.” You end your letter with the comment, “We believe the majority of the citizens favor local land planning over state regulation.” Again what confuses me and angers me is that you would like us to believe that the “majority” of the citizens of Ravalli County support your taking of the average citizen’s property rights. You go on to say, at the “behest of a group of citizens,” there will be a ballot measure to repeal the Ravalli County Growth Policy. Why the concern? Is this “group of citizens” just a minority, or are they the “citizens” who voted you into office and now realize their mistake, or are they in fact the majority of the citizens of Ravalli County? If they are a minority, then no worries, since we all know that a minority really can’t change anything in a democracy, right? If they are a majority, then I understand your concern and the reason for your letter, but I am still angry that you would try to buffalo the citizens into believing that “the majority” favors your taking of property rights?

Your letter states, “based on the comments we have heard so far, it is likely that we will adopt a set of regulations similar to Draft C.” This confuses me. What comments have you heard, since Draft C only officially became available to the public on August 28th, the day after your “Guest Comment”? What angers me is that you would like the citizens to believe that you are listening to them. How can this be, the final maps and regulations won’t be available for public hearing until mid-2009, according to your third paragraph, so any comments that you claim to have heard cannot be based on the final regulations and maps that you are already telling us you will likely adopt. It is clear by your letter that you are “diligently” pursuing your goal, regardless of the fact the majority of the citizens of Ravalli County are not in favor of your taking their property rights.

I think what angers me most is your attempt to condition the citizens of Ravalli County into thinking that zoning is not a bad thing. Your attempt to sell the citizens on your “Regulations” and then allowing them to vote months after you have voted them into place, is nothing more than the same technique that every cheap gimmick uses: let us send this to you free, if you don’t like it, then you can send it back, all you have to do is pay for the cost of assembling a review staff, enforcement staff and countless hours of staff time, not to mention the fees and time delays that will come about by needing Compliance Permits.

The “Right To Vote” petition has been circulating in Ravalli County and has proven to be very popular with citizens who want a Yes or No vote BEFORE the zoning regulations go into effect.

What is it that worries you about giving the citizens of Ravalli County a vote on the “regulations” before you vote them in?

Russ Giese
Stevensville

Kierig should stick to facts

Dear Editor,

I found Lee Kierig's diatribe in the 09/03/08 issue of the Bitterroot Star less than constructive in the debate now occurring in the Bitterroot Valley on the growth policy and zoning matters. As the president of the Ravalli County planning board, I expected a clearer and more detailed expose' of how the growth and zoning policies will benefit this valley over and above the usual "protecting life, health, safety and welfare of this community" idealizations. The residences of this valley want details from their local government that shows them that they know what they are doing and taking about on these matters. This is the Bitterroot Valley, Montana and not Washington, D.C. where quick generalizations and esoteric dialogues on important issues are the norm.

The residents of this valley are looking for sound answers to their questions and reasons for the actions taken by the planning board and county commissioners on these issues. For example, how is the growth policy going to stimulate various areas of the valley economy, not just residential development. How will the growth policy address new infrastructure needed in the valley, e.g. a new drainage pipe from Lake Como, improvements in the Hamilton waste removal system, new programs for school district excellence, and water system improvements for the Stevensville community? Will the growth policy and zoning provide any benefit or answers that will address these issues through the introduction of new businesses and industries into the valley? What is the 5-year growth plan for this valley? Does it exist and how does the present growth policy and zoning contribute to the success of that plan?

Beside these issues, the valley is facing a budget crisis and a down turn in its principal growth economy, i.e. residential building industry, that is not even being discussed by the proponents of the growth policy or zoning. How does the growth policy and related zoning provide a solution for the economic deficit facing this valley or are they just policies that will lead hopefully to answers in the future to these questions? What are the solutions to the problems that are now beginning to appear in the valley economy? Do dare to say one solution, but do we need new taxes for the valley, e.g. a 3% sales tax, or increases in property taxes to cover some of these needs. Infrastructure and quality of life costs money all the time. You just have to own property or a home to know that fact.

Finally, Lee Kierig is correct in his assertion when he implies that only constructive dialogue has value and will provide solutions to the difficult problems facing this valley. If you wish to preserve the quality of life in this valley at this juncture and into the future, a responsible growth policy is a logical necessity and the experience of the Bitterroot Valley community is needed in a positive way to affect that policy. What is also essential is a local government that explains in detail the reasons and future benefits of its policies that it is trying to promote in this valley (A policy is not an end in itself). Both parties must be willing to listen and both parties must be willing to compromise if anything constructive is to be accomplished. Voting ‘No’ on the growth policy is not constructive. It is just merely a diversion of the issues that will resurface again sometime in the future.

Joseph G. Gallagher Jr. PhD
Stevensville

Thanks for 4H/FFA support

Dear Editor,

We'd like to thank Donaldson Brothers and everyone else who supported the 4H and FFA kids this year at the Ravalli County Fair. Charles Donaldson bought our daughter’s pig this year and then gave it back! I don't know if people realize how much Donaldson Brothers supports our local community. They are always donating to different clubs and organizations. They are a true blessing to Ravalli County.

Also, we'd like to know if other people out there think it's crazy how much the fairgrounds charges our 4H families to get into the fair. They do give us a small discount but it's very small and it can only apply to one parent, so the other parent has to pay full price. We feel that the 4H and FFA kids are a huge part of our fair and that the fair board should consider lowering the cost for the families who have to be there every day with their kids. If anyone else feels the same we suggest writing to your local papers and to the fair board.

Again, thank you Donaldson Brothers for all that you do for your community.

Calvin and Sarah Hankinson
Stevensville

FlatIron – part of the solution, or a can of worms?

Dear Editor,

Although advertised as part of the solution, Flatiron poses many questions.

It appears that they have the cart before the horse. It would seem more logical to proceed after the developer obtains water rights, easements for waste water mains, bike paths, and the development subdivision has been approved.

Water

The draft Annexation Agreement specifies the development will have two wells that will produce 1,100 gallons of water per minute. No analysis is mentioned as to how those wells will affect the aquifer? Will the neighbors’ wells go dry? It states that pumping stations will be designed to meet fire flow requirements. What about hydrants, will the city to furnish and install them? It also specifies the size of waste water mains. Can the current City Waste Water Plant handle the increased volume? If not who is going to pay for the improvements? Under Stormwater it suggests using the Hedge Ditch. The Daly Ditches Board of Directors say the ditch cannot be used for that purpose.

Other Infrastructure Impacts

The Economic Impact Analysis states, "The Study does not specifically address issues such as increased costs of Public Services or methods to finance increased expenditures." In other words they did not address additional costs that accompany the impacts on Schools, Roads, Fire Department or Law Enforcement.

Benefits to the City of Hamilton

On page 2 of the "Final Flatiron Ranch Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis" they state, "The proposed Flatiron Ranch Project is located about a mile southwest of downtown Hamilton." Page 3 of that document shows a map with a compass inset that shows the FlatIron about two miles southeast of downtown Hamilton, where it really is. After reading the above my confidence in the remainder of that document was shaky at best. However, Exhibit 14, on page 15, outlines four scenarios that I believe the city authorities should examine. They are the Baseline data, an Economic Downturn, Market Delay, Higher Municipal Service Costs. With the current nationwide housing market problems I believe the column titled Total Disaster may be on target.

Public Involvement

At 7 PM on September 18th there will be a city council meeting at the Bedford Building (City Hall) where the public can ask questions and discuss the proposed annexation of the FlatIron Ranch. It is not too late to get involved. If you use any of the following roads you need to be concerned: Golf Course Road, Cooper Lane, Daly Avenue, Kurtz Lane, Grantsdale Road, Big Corral Road, Fairgrounds Road, Tammany Lane. If you live between the present boundary of the city of Hamilton and FlatIron you need to be concerned. If you live in the city of Hamilton you should be concerned. Let’s all attend the meeting on September 18.

Mick Dezell
Hamilton

Montana needs a cell phone law

Dear Editor,

Let’s discuss cell phone users who operate motor vehicles. One of the basic rules of the road is to operate vehicles safely. Another rule seems to be that there are also distractions to driving safely. Most recently the cause has been the inappropriate use of cell phones by drivers. Text messaging hasn’t helped either. Cell phone technology is only a convenience, not a necessity, nor an addiction.

I retired three years ago and hoped that my exercise program, which includes walking, jogging, or riding the bicycle, could be done safely. It hasn’t been. And it doesn’t look like that’s going to change. I have been hit, nearly hit, and nearly missed almost weekly when walking (even in pedestrian crosswalks), jogging or bicycling. The first day here I was in contact with a van, whose driver was talking on the cell phone in hand, looking over her shoulder in the back seat to carry on a conversation; trying to acknowledge her daughter’s conversation next to her, and not having good hand/foot coordination; she jammed on her brakes, vehicle in contact with my leg. I was in a pedestrian walkway. My lecture wasn’t gentle, but she got the point, so did her daughter, who was looking for a hole to dive into. All she could say indignantly, “Well, I’m sorry.” Apparently not sorry enough to prevent it from happening!

Last legislative session I urged Representative Bob Lake to introduce legislation regarding the restricted use of cell phones. He introduced one of three similar bills that session and I appeared before the judiciary committee in support of that bill. If the bill is re-introduced, I’ll be testifying again this session.

I’m all for freedoms and choice, but there are legal and personal responsibilities that accompany any choice. As common sense doesn’t seem to accompany the increased number of drivers using cell phones then it’s time for direction from the legislature. We are going to have to give directions to those cell using drivers who can’t seem to get with the safety program. After all, like anyone else, child or adult, I would like to live a long, happy and safe life.

New York, New Jersey, Washington D.C. and Connecticut have had hand-free laws for years; Arizona, Pennsylvania, California and Washington have new laws coming in effect in 2008. Some states have banned cell-phone use while driving completely. It’s time to act. Contact your representative.

Larry Strate, J.D.
Emeritus Associate Professor of Business Law
Hamilton

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