Pave the North Fork Road

To the editor,

Hungry Horse News columnist Larry Wilson is performing one of his famous fence straddles in an effort to appear convincing about his version of diversity. He would like his readers to believe that because eagles and hummingbirds are birds, they are the same, and that birds of a feather don't flock together.

While the North Fork Land-Use Planning Committee may have a diversity of recreational interests and is comprised of persons of varying backgrounds, they are nearly all unalterably opposed to paving the North Fork Road from Canyon Creek to Camas Creek.

It is my contention that a "no" attitude towards paving that stretch of road, and the resulting improvements that could then be made to the remaining unpaved portion, cannot lead to sound and reasonable land-use planning initiatives. Opposition to road paving is a prime obstacle and a precursor to more obstacles this committee will try to impose on current and future landowners.

Wilson fails to mention there are many property owners who do not belong to the North Fork Improvement Association, the North Fork Preservation Association or the North Fork Compact, or that property ownership is not a requirement for membership in the North Fork Preservation Association. Thus the North Fork Preservation Association has a key voice in land-use planning but does not exclusively represent tax-paying property owners.

One of the primary reasons for non-membership in the North Fork Improvement Association, related to me by more than one person, is that the association is controlled by a clique with an exclusively defined agenda. That agenda does not include change and reasonable improvements.

Simply put, the revolving chair leadership of these organizations is not progressive. Wilson said "we want change to be slow, planned and carefully done." These are euphemistic words for keeping things just as they are for as long as we can. How can there be effective and meaningful planning for future land-use without improving the road?

The answer is: Do not improve the road as this will be a barrier to change, How can a committee be working for the "best long-term interests of the community" if it refuses to recognize the importance of a safe, reasonably well-maintained road?

The North Fork, like too many places in America, is hostage to a small group of activists who want it all their way. The North Fork also has too large a group, the silent majority, who do not care or do not want to get involved for a variety of reasons. The very few willing to speak up and out are usually viewed as troublemakers by the first group and fools by the second group.

I admit it is probably fatuous of me to believe that more might take an interest in the future of the area they live in and take an active role in improving the North Fork for everyone. Wilson knows very well that I've made a number of proposals to make things better - proposals not very welcome, I might add.

Wilson also knows that he, as the North Fork Improvement Association chairperson at the time, appointed a person to chair a roads committee to work as a liaison with county officials for the purpose of making road improvements. The appointee worked very effectively with Commissioner Gary Hall and Road and Bridge supervisor Charlie Johnson to obtain more and better road maintenance.

The thanks the appointee received was ostracism. His efforts were marginalized. The appointing of a roads committee was little more than a sop.

Well, Larry, I've stood up, I've identified myself, and I'm demonstrating interest. Now I have a question for you: Who is the "we" that makes provisions for "them" to be represented?

R.A. Grimaldi

Polebridge

Thanks for voting

To the editor,

I would like to express my gratitude to the people who are sending me to Helena to represent Senate District 2.

I appreciate the many volunteers who helped in the office and walked the district with me. Many folks had candidate parties for me, and many more contributed financially to my campaign.

Most of all, I would like to thank the people of SD2 who opened their doors to talk with me about the real challenges facing all Montanans.

Most of you didn't know me when I appeared at your homes, but you spoke thoughtfully and clearly about our community and our state. Those conversations will now enable me to represent you well in the fast-approaching legislative session.

Thank you.

Dan Weinberg

Whitefish

Growth policy woes

To the editor,

At the present time, the Flathead County Planning Board is working on a growth policy document. There is a draft available; but at the time of this writing, this document was not available through the county library.

The only way to review this draft is to purchase one from the Flathead County Planning Office. Since this growth policy will affect every resident of Flathead County, it would seem that giving more citizens access to it would be beneficial. That way they can have input on this very important matter.

A helpful solution would be for someone to find a way to place the document on the Internet to provide more people the opportunity to read it. An Internet search for growth policies in Montana counties brings up quite a few, including Jefferson, Gallatin and Ravalli counties. These three counties have their partially completed or completed documents on the Internet for people to view.

It is time well spent to see how other counties are addressing the problems associated with growth, and how they are accomplishing the task of writing a growth policy.

The new growth policy may have a considerable affect on those people in the valley who live in a neighborhood plan area. If the neighborhood plans are five or nearing five years old, they need to be reviewed and possibly reworked in order to remain valid. If a neighborhood plan is declared invalid, those communities would see their neighborhood plan standards replaced by those of the growth policy.

This could mean considerable changes for many of these communities. As the review process may take some time, those people in neighborhood plan areas would be wise to begin this process in the near future.

This whole business about plans that are five, seven or 10 years old being antiquated (according to some people) is a bit troubling. I realize that the law states that documents more than five years old need to be looked at, but that doesn't mean that they don't still meet the goals of the community.

It seems that we are being told that we must meet the needs and desires of the development that is taking place or may take place in the valley. Why aren't the concerns of the people who have established their lives and made the community what it is just as important?

W. Kim Davis

Kalispell