Point-by-point

City mailer defends its critical area ordinance

By RICHARD HANNERS - Whitefish Pilot

The Whitefish City Council pulled no punches in responding to watchdog group Sensi-ble Land Use in a brochure mailed out to Whitefish residents last week.

Harsh words were used to criticize local developer Tim Grattan, who came forward after Sensible Land Use's brochure was mailed out anonymously and admitted he was one of its backers.

Pat Fox, a Florida businessman who owns a lot in the Iron Horse subdivision, also helped pay for Sensible Land Use's brochure.

Sensible Land Use's mailer criticizing the city's proposed critical areas ordinance "is so full of half-truths, errors and distortions that we on the city council feel we must respond," the city said in its rebuttal. "We want to offer you facts you can check for yourself."

Calling the authors of the mailer "a group of real estate developers," the city rebutted 10 of their claims. Among the points:

? Sensible Land Use called the proposed critical areas ordinance a "heavy-handed land grab" that "legalizes government trespassing." Not true, the city said.

"The law never 'grabs' land from any homeowner," the city responded. "It just ensures that the use of their property does not degrade the quality of water that is necessary to us all as a community" by use of buffers and setbacks.

As for trespassing, "Anyone violating this law, and endangering our water system with pollution, should not be able to avoid inspection just by denying access to their land," the city said.

? "The proposed law creates uncertainty," the Sensible Land Use mailer said, making it hard for Realtors to accurately describe property to interested buyers. The city disagreed.

"The terms of the new law are clear and specific," the city said. "It is always possible to say how the new law affects any piece of property."

? Property owners trying to do routine improvements, such as installing new siding, will be "caught in bureaucratic red tape" even if it "has nothing to do with protecting Whitefish waterways or preventing floods," Sensible Land Use said.

"The above statement is flat-out incorrect," the city responded. "Installing new siding on your house has no effect on the water, and it is not regulated by the new ordinance."

? The proposed ordinance contains complex and arbitrary rules "for which there is no environmental basis," Sensible Land Use said.

"Natural systems are complex," the city answered, and "often we have to call in experts," but the proposed ordinance was drafted in response to the developers' request that properties be judged individually on a scientific basis.

"Now some of these same developers are complaining that a person has to be a scientist to understand the law," the city said.

? Sensible Land Use said property owners will have to hire expensive consultants, but most property in Whitefish will not require anything different to be developed, the city said.

"However, if due to the complexity of building on a certain site it's necessary to bring in outside experts to review the applicant's plans, it's only right for the applicant to pay for that," the city responded. "Why should Whitefish taxpayers pay for someone else's development?"

? The city has exempted itself from its own law, Sensible Land Use said.

"Again, the developers completely misrepresent the new law and could not show you any portion of the law that treats city projects differently than citizen projects," the city responded.

Grattan, the developer behind the Lion Mountain and Grouse Mountain Estates subdivisions, recently argued in a letter to the editor that the city had no business publishing a response to the Sensible Land Use mailer.

He called the city's response "outrageous" because "whereas Sensible Land Use's view was supported by private dollars, the city is helping the supporters deliver their view by using tax dollars and city stationary."

"This means that the tax dollars of even those people who oppose the new ordinance were used to help advocate a position in favor of the ordinance," Grattan said.

He also said the city shouldn't be advocating anything because "elected officials are charged with the duty of listening to what the people of Whitefish want." He said city councilors shouldn't address any proposed law until it receives a recommendation from the planning board.

The city took note of Grattan's letter to the editor in its draft response.

"It is a vain effort on his part to stifle public discussion of an important step our community is taking to protect our water, which is so vital to our health, our way of life and our economy," the city said.