Guest opinion

Bigfork deserves an apology

The people of Bigfork, I believe, deserve apologies from the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee and the County Planning Office and the County Planning Board. During August through January meetings opposing the amending of the Bigfork Land Use Growth Policy which was written in 1995 by a majority of land owners of Bigfork and which was accepted in totality by the Flathead County Master Plan have been held. We, the people of Bigfork, have opposed this amendment on the basis it circumvents the very people who live here and who wrote the original document and then the county planning office usurps the power and renders impotent the Bigfork Master Plan making way to meet the wishes of developers who want to prostitute the property with an outrageous development of lots and homes.

At the public hearings held on these issues there have been approximately 80 people at one meeting and 137 at another with almost 100 percent being opposed to the county master plan amendment. More recently other public hearings have resulted in similar attendance and response. In the meetings individuals have been derided with such phrases from the board as "well why didn't you put your money into it?" Others have called us "liars." A meeting was closed without everyone being allowed to speak, but a lawsuit soon had the meeting rescheduled as state open meeting laws were violated. We were called "obstructionists" and "why don't you move to Russia?" Members wishing to speak were to only address the board yet some board members didn't even have the courtesy to listen but rudely chatted and smiled and smirked with each other while people were speaking to them. Were their minds all ready made up? Obviously yes.

As building density was addressed with much verve the county planning office representative became upset and said "you better be careful in what you asked for." What was there to be careful of? Was this a veiled threat of some kind? Were we not entitled to object to decisions they had made. Other legal proceedings have been mentioned by some if these developments were not approved. I think enough is enough. In my opinion it is time for the county commissioners to step in and clean up this mess. With the allegation in the Bigfork Eagle of what would seem to most common folks an egregious and blatant conflict of interest of at least one member of the Bigfork Committee I would hope the commissioners would act now and ask those with conflicts of interest to step down and appoint some members of the community who are not builders, developers, or real-estate agents. A more fair balance of the community is in order. The commissioners by letter have refused to make any change.

People of Bigfork have asked that members of the original committee who were instrumental in writing up the original plan be reconstituted to make the amendments that Bigfork would like to have and those at BLUAC and the county planning office have tried to thwart the organizing of such a steering committee by indicating any actions by the steering committee would be of no value or would even be considered by BLUAC or the County Planning Board. However, the people of Bigfork have rallied around this steering committee and it has been organized and is preparing to send out a survey of the landowners of Bigfork. Again BLUAC has tried to disrupt this plan by wanting the survey returned to the County Planning Office rather than to have someone independent tabulate the survey. To their credit they have finally however appointed a member of BLUAC to become an advisor or intermediary, I'm not sure which, to the Steering Committee. Why should the county want to tabulate the results? They have tried to scuttle the process. It was good to read in the Eagle that BLUAC has agreed the surveys would be held by the post office and I hope they understand any donations that come with the survey belongs to the Bigfork Steering Committee to help offset costs of their efforts.

In the Feb. 3rd Eagle the BLUAC Chairman is quoted as saying "I believe in this kind of growth. There is no way to stop growth and we need to make places available like this for growth." In the two and a half years I have been involved in trying to limit this kind of growth in this particular area and in the wetlands below and to have reason replace ridiculousness, to my knowledge the BLUAC chairman has never voted against any zoning change or subdivision approval where "building more" was the subject. So his statement quoted by the Eagle is easily understood. Of course he is a builder and a developer. He has also stated at a Flathead Planning Board Meeting that when the Planning Board and subsequently the Commissioners turned down the original plan of developing more than three hundred homes on these properties, he still felt that the original plan should have been approved. Thank goodness it looks like there should be less than 200 homes by the time they are finished. But in my opinion we are not done yet. I'm sure new changes or amendments or zone and subdivision requests will be tried to increase for more density. But wait, there is still land below Holt Road also. I wonder who owns that land? Oh, but of course most of that is wet lands. They couldn't approve that for development. Or Could they? It is time for all the people of Bigfork to support the Bigfork Steering Committee. They are our voice in the wilderness. Good luck Steering Committee!

Lee Wight

Bigfork