Moratorium is simply a case of postponing the tough decisions

Don Spivey has written two letters to the city of Whitefish encouraging a moratorium on review subdivisions or planned-unit developments of six lots or more.

In his Dec. 19 letter to the council, he states, "Few persons involved in land-use activities today would disagree that our current (1996) Master Plan is badly out of date, as is the companion Whitefish Resource and Analysis Document."

Spivey's letter also laments that while "Whitefish has a very competent planning staff and lots of community interest in these kinds of documents," he feels there isn't adequate time for the city to comply with the growth policy required by state law. Spivey also encourages "each of you (the council members) to at least read the first few pages of the current Master Plan as they will give a sense of what is included today."

For the benefit of Spivey and the rest of the community that has not followed the actions, deliberations and decisions of the city council for the last two years, I can speak to the seriousness, dedication and deliberation of each of us in making decisions that affect our community — especially land-use issues and growth.

During the last two years, Whitefish's City Council voted to deny two major subdivisions or planned-unit developments (PUDs), as well as opposed zone change requests, based upon the 1996 Master Plan.

The Master Plan, while not perfect, is only nine years old and has provided the community and the council guidance on a wide range of land use issues

I am neither a friend nor foe to developers, as my voting record for the last two years adequately establishes. However, developers, like all citizens, businesses and residents that have business before the city, desire a fair, timely and non biased decision.

Per capita, Whitefish has the best staffed planning department in the state. More importantly, we are not the only community wrestling with growth. Yet I am not aware of one other community in Montana that is considering such a drastic measure.

I serve on two council subcommittees (Emergency Service Center/Building, which is looking at increasing personnel and constructing a new facility, and the Park Department, which is looking at increasing personnel and constructing a building).

Both of these subcommittees have adopted a projected yearly 6 percent growth rate for funding of buildings and increased personnel. It would be important to know what effect a moratorium would have on both of these subcommittees and decision making matrix, as well as projected city revenues.

In addition to revenue concerns, I am concerned about the impact of Whitefish imposing a moratorium while no other community or county follows suit. In the Dec. 18 Daily Inter Lake, the Kalispell Planning Board was faced with a residential development being built outside of their planning jurisdiction.

The Kalispell Board expressed concern that the proposed project is "too far from the current city limits and that the planning board might be bypassed in decision-making on the matter." I am concerned about the impact of a moratorium within the Whitefish planning and zoning jurisdiction and what impact it might have on pushing subdivision activities outside of our jurisdiction.

There is a distinct difference between proper growth and anti-growth — just as there is a difference between lighting and a lightning bug.

For the last two years, the council voted to both approve and disapprove subdivisions and planned development units. While I recognize the significant work load ahead of the council, city staff, planning board and community in complying with the state-mandated growth policy, it is my deeply held belief that council members are elected to make tough decisions rather than postpone them.

Tom Muri is a member of the Whitefish City Council.