Politics of the doughnut
For many years I have been interested in, attended many public hearings on, and written editorials about the Whitefish doughnut area issue called the Critical Areas Ordinance.
The ordinance would eliminate building on steep slopes, with mandated natural vegetation buffer zones and minimum required setbacks, on properties around Whitefish Lake in order to reduce storm water runoff of phosphates and nitrates into the lake.
Such pollution of the lake would result in increased toxic algae growth, which would choke out fish habitat along the shallow shoreline, and also endanger children’s health that swam in the lake.
It was very partisan politics, splitting Republicans and Democrats.
In more recent years, the controversial CAO has taken a back seat to the current controversy between Flathead County and the City of Whitefish over which entity will rule over the “doughnut” area surrounding Whitefish.
There are many stated reasons for this battle, such as people in the doughnut area not having any voting rights in city elections, but being under the city’s rule anyway and paying city taxes. So, taxation without representation policy is in effect.
What goes unstated, by choice of everyone involved for some reason, is the political game angle that underlies, but impacts, all of the various arguments publicized — namely, that Democrats hold the majority in the City of Whitefish, but Republicans hold the majority in Flathead County.
If Whitefish were to annex the doughnut area it would result in the Republicans becoming the new majority in the city. If they do no annexation, and the county takes over the doughnut area, the doughnut area remains a Republican majority, but Whitefish becomes a small island of Democratic majority inside a larger Republican Flathead County majority that now contains the doughnut area.
Whitefish Democrats in control of the city are faced with a dilemma.
So, with my old interests rekindled, I attended the Whitefish City Council meeting July 15 on planning and zoning in the U.S. 93 South corridor doughnut area, headed up by the mayor, John Muhlfeld.
It was not pretty.
My expectation in attending was to hear about:
• Mutual Settlement Agreements
• Order and rationale on motions for summary judgments
• Notices of third party defendant’s requests for judgment
• Judge David Ortley’s judgments
• Motions for stays of July 8, 2013 pending appeals and resulting orders
• Motions for orders to restore February 10, 2012 preliminary injunctions pending appeals
• Plaintiff’s motions and briefs to set aside Whitefish’s motions for a stay of the July 8, 2013 order pending appeal
• Plaintiff’s motion to restore February 10, 2012 preliminary injunctions and briefs in support
• Orders granting plaintiff’s motion and brief to set aside Whitefish’s motion for a stay of the July 8, 2013 order pending appeal and for an order to restore the district court’s February 10, 2012 preliminary injunction and brief support
• et al
Exhausting isn’t it?
But not to be heard, despite Montana’s sunshine, open-meeting laws and general public and partisan political criticism of closed meetings, as the council again met in a secluded private session first, before entering the public hearing forum area and discussing the other boring, mundane issues of the day’s agenda.
Only mention made in public was the 4-2 vote in the closed to the public earlier session for advocating for more negotiation and compromise and less litigation.
That was it. I arrived at no opinion for taking sides without being able to listen to the arguments. Nothing to write about.
It probably makes sense to maintain the status quo until all of the litigation has run its course, otherwise any court decisions may be rendered moot. [My legal training.]
What do you think?
Only the Whitefish Pilot editor stood up at the podium and voiced a complaint, while the rest of us [meager turnout] sat and stewed in the exceedingly hot room, until I finally got up and left early.
Too hot to sit there any longer, for nothing!
— Bill Baum