County needs to regain control of 'doughnut'

In her letter to the editor last week, Jan Metzmaker seemed to be confused about two different issues concerning the doughnut area around Whitefish.

The first issue is that of “taxation and/or regulation without representation.” Many residents and landowners in the two-mile doughnut are very unhappy that the city of Whitefish now has the ability to regulate what occurs on these lands, all of which are located in the county. At the same time, these people have no ability to vote for any representation in the city government. So, they have no ability to elect and/or influence the very government body that oversees their property. This is contrary to one of the basic tenets of our country, no taxation (regulation) without representation. In my opinion neither the county nor the city were thinking too clearly when the doughnut area plan was enacted. The county should re-accept responsibility for all planning and zoning issues for the doughnut lands, and Whitefish may have input into that review process.

The second issue that Ms. Metzmaker writes at length about, concerns the capital and operating costs of some of our wonderful city amenities. Somehow she is of the mistaken notion that only city residents have paid for the various facilities. This is just not true.

For example, let’s take the Wave facility that she provided numbers for. While the city paid for the property and parking lots for $750,000, the public generated over $5 million for the facility construction. This money was donated by responsible public members, some that live in the city, some who live in the doughnut, some that live in the county, and some that don’t live here at all. By some estimates, over $2 million was donated by the doughnut landowners. As an irregular Wave user, I want to thank everyone who contributed to this amazing community facility. It took all of us to make the Wave a reality.

With regard to operating costs, I’m thankful the city owns the facility, as it probably reduces the property taxes. If that means the city has to pay the insurance costs, $11,000 is a very small annual cost to bear. I would expect our city officials to look for creative ways to make such a fine facility available to everyone. When I add up the operating costs outlined in her letter, all of these facilities are costing the city less than $100,000 per year. That seems like a pretty insignificant price to pay, considering we are talking about five community facilities that have a current value in excess of $10 million. More important, these five facilities offer a wide range of cultural, educational, and sports opportunities for everyone, regardless of where they live. We should all be thankful that we are blessed with such wonderful facilities. We should encourage everyone to use all of these great amenities. They are, after all, public facilities.

Finally, everyone who does business in Whitefish pays our resort tax. The monies generated from this tax are used for a variety of community improvements. Some of it is also used to reduce the property taxes for Whitefish landowners. So, all those folks who live in the doughnut do help fund city projects, but they don’t enjoy any tax reduction.

In summary, the city and county need to revise the current situation regarding the doughnut area. It is not fair to everyone involved. We all need to protect our environment, and the county can do this task as well as the city. At the same time we need to work collectively to better the Whitefish community. There is no place for the negative polarizing approach that Metzmaker exudes. Thank you to everyone who positively contributes in some way to Whitefish.

Michael Collins is a resident of Whitefish.