Guest Editorial

DNRC, county must heed planning process for state lands

By Melanie Fortino

I think most of us living in Whitefish thought that a solution to the fate of 13,000 acres of the state school trust lands surrounding Whitefish was in good hands. After the initial public outcry last spring, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) seemed to place high priority on public input. These lands provide much of the scenic beauty that defines Whitefish, as well as prime recreational, hunting, watershed, and wildlife habitat benefits for public enjoyment.

It was clear at these initial public meetings that the residents of Whitefish wanted a voice in this process. This is our community. We will be the ones to live here, after all, not the state land agencies, officials, or developers. A committee of local community leaders and residents along with representatives from the county and the state DNRC are supposed to be working hard, as an advisory group, to draft a plan for these state lands that will both generate revenue for our schools and preserve the benefits of these important lands for future generations.

Well, it seems that the community of Whitefish, yet again, needs to share our thoughts next Monday, Aug. 16, 7:10 pm at Whitefish City Hall. Apparently the DNRC doesn't think we are serious that the community of Whitefish wants public input on the future of development on the State Lands surrounding Whitefish.

The reality is that while our local Whitefish community leaders and residents on this committee are doing a good job of crafting a solution that can benefit both Whitefish and the state schools, others are simply playing politics with our future! In fact, the county commissioners and the DNRC officials seem to be making weekly front page headlines with their efforts to undermine this cooperative planning effort.

Last week, the DNRC was exposed and criticized for holding meetings with the development arm of Plum Creek to provide them prime access through state lands at the head of the lake for future development. This was done by DNRC without "thinking" they needed to reveal these meetings, or their impact on the plan, to the advisory committee that has been working on conservation strategies for these same lands! No one asked, they said, so they didn't tell.

A few months back, DNRC also abandoned the joint planning effort to try to push through an exclusive lease for a property owner at the head of Whitefish Lake. Fortunately, this, too, was exposed by those tracking these issues, and public outcry lead to this application being pulled.

DNRC's latest effort at destabilizing the community planning process was recently revealed when they let it be known that they may step back from trying to work in collaboration with the community. Instead they are intending to draft their own development plan allowing for much higher density development than they think the advisory committee or Whitefish area residents want. So much for government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

But back to Monday's hearing. The county commissioners have been demanding for months now that the city of Whitefish sign an agreement that will give the county the final say on the plan that will guide these state lands. No matter that this demand contradicts a prior agreement that the county signed with the city and the state land board. An agreement that committed them to reaching consensus through the advisory committee on a plan which all parties would then jointly work to carry out. Instead the county is now saying, draft your plan, but we want the final right to change it to our liking.

I think most of us by now are a little wary about what the commissioners like in terms of development: a new growth policy that, as drafted, will allow for the entire county to be chopped up into lots of five acres or less, gated communities on the outskirts of Whitefish, refusing to hold new developments responsible for paying the cost of impacts they will have on roads and services, and rarely turning down any development. Hmmm, trusting the commissioners seems like a stretch.

Basically, the county wants the city of Whitefish to extend their zoning out one mile and give the county sole control over the remaining land. Land that for almost forty years has been jointly managed with the city and the county, land that includes a majority of the State School Trust lands. At a hearing on the same interlocal agreement last winter, which will be the focus of this Monday's hearing, many said they preferred requiring that both the city and county agree on major developments. It provided a good set of checks and balances. Most didn't like that the county was pushing for the city to give up any meaningful say in issues like state lands or the way the highway corridors leading into Whitefish are allowed to be developed. (Drive through Evergreen to see what standards the county sets for highway corridors.)

So Monday night it's up to you to show up for the future you want for Whitefish. The city says it is the last hearing they will hold on this subject.They need to know what you really want. How should the city respond to county demands that the city give up their voice and leadership in shaping how key lands around Whitefish are developed? The city-county planning board is advising the city not to change a thing. If it's not broke, it doesn't need fixing.

Melanie Fortino is a resident of Whitefish.