Community consensus?

Imagine a cartoon in the Whitefish Pilot. The city is on the one side, depicted as the tree hugger, righteously fueled with what he calls "community consensus," and on the other hand is the developer, depicted as the greedy, heartless demolition guy.

In the wings hover the professionals, rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the new fees they will collect and all the new clients heading their way when the Critical Areas Ordinance becomes city law.

Also in the wings rubbing his hands together is the attorney, in anticipation of all the new clients that will be forced to seek his aid when the Whitefish Growth Policy is adopted.

Picture caught in the middle a hardworking family, raising kids and minding their own business and hitting their heads against city hall over and over, all the while being represented as "what Whitefish citizens want," what the Whitefish community desires as articulated in community visioning sessions.

Picture the family with their kids, their bikes, canoes, soccer balls, tennis rackets, skis and their rooted love for Whitefish.

The caption reads, "Maybe we should just put the house on the market, cash out and quit knocking our heads against city hall. We can find another nice community like this one used to be someplace else."

It's a sad fact that many of the families we have shared the last 25 years with in Whitefish raising our kids are pulling out because, as the options for our property assets become more and more restrictive, retirement options look dim and the cash-out-on-the-house option is the one many are forced to choose.

I guess that buzzword throughout the Growth Policy — sustainability — only applies in this community if you are a tree.

If you share any of my feelings about being represented in the "community consensus" that you don't even agree with, write Whitefish City Council members and city planning staff.

True "community consensus" will not be known unless important pieces of proposed city law, such as the Growth Policy and the Critical Areas Ordinances, are put on a ballot for all those who will be affected by it, to have a vote on whether it is acceptable to them or not.

If it is not, then further work and scrutiny to uncover and bring to light unintended consequences would be called for, so the document would evolve to be more acceptable.

God bless America, where I can say these things openly and not be gunned down in the street tonight. I can live with whatever ridicule will follow from those who are in disagreement with my viewpoints. That's OK, I disagree with theirs, too. That's the greatest thing about this process — and about this community.

Debbie Biolo lives in Whitefish.