'Doughnut' facts not that complicated

Don't you just love it when a person who wants to conceal their true agenda regarding an issue starts by saying how "complicated" it is. Case in point: Bill Baum's observations on the "doughnut debate debacle" where he states, "There is much more to this controversy than meets the eye… And it's complicated." One could almost take that as an insult. I suppose if you present the Whitefish Critical Areas Ordinance and the doughnut area as a single issue, it could be, but these are two very different issues.

In regards to the Critical Areas Ordinance or CAO, Baum writes, "What spearheaded this controversy in the first place was actually the dispute between the average citizens of Whitefish city-county and the developers, builders, contractors, surveyors and Realtors engaged in a war involving defeating the CAO."

This statement is as inaccurate as it is misleading. The original incident involved an individual property owner building his home on a slope above the lake.

Of course, those who would seek to deny an owner their right to build a house, which might be seen from the lake, needed an issue they could use to alarm the public.

Enter the big bad developers, builders, contractors, surveyors and Realtors. These are the evildoers that will do anything in the name of capitalism, even if it jeopardizes the purity of our lake and the health of our children ("…damages the ecosystem for aquatic life in the lake and is a threat to the health of children swimming in the lake").

The purity of our lake and the health of our children are legitimate concerns; however, there are many sound and reliable techniques to safeguard the lake from any hazardous pollutants. How do you think they mitigate these potential risks at landfills?

Now admittedly, Baum's spin is much more provocative, evoking a kind of David vs. Goliath image, but it's not based on facts. In the end it's just a poor attempt to conceal the hidden agenda of the "anti-development" crowd. The same old "I want to be the last one allowed to move/build here, and then lock the gate behind me (and by the way, I'll hold the key for "safe keeping").

If they don't want to see anymore houses built on Whitefish Lake (or anywhere in Whitefish for that matter) in order to keep it more "natural," then I suggest they pool their resources and buy every parcel they can afford and just let them sit.

Or better yet, if they really want to show how committed they are to their "ideals," they could tear down the houses they now live in and restore the land to its condition prior to construction.

The other issue clouded with half-truths and biases is the doughnut area. Baum wrote, "Covering all the bases, the business interests won over their champion on the Flathead County Commission, Gary Hall, who made it his personal mission to eliminate an existing interlocal agreement between Flathead County and Whitefish City-County in order to push aside the Whitefish City-County government's jurisdiction over the doughnut area."

Now, I understand Baum is a substitute teacher, but I trust he doesn't teach U.S. history or classes on the U.S. Constitution, for at the heart of this issue lies the unconstitutional concept of "taxation without representation." The various fees the city would require, and the regulations and restriction they would impose, amounts to just that.

Our property is within the doughnut area. It's of great concern to us that a city council that wasn't elected by us and doesn't represent us should seek to rule over us. Can you get any more un-American than that?

Baum referred to a certain real estate broker as the "villainous instigator and leader of the opposition." Well, I for one would like to know his name so we can thank and support him in the future.

JT Bailey lives just outside of Whitefish.