Setback questions

While to a large extent I agree with them, I am puzzled by the Flathead County commission's reaction to the City of Whitefish "Critical Areas" ordinance, as this new ordinance would be applied to county property located within the "donut" area of the city.

When the city's proposal is compared to Flathead County's proposed "Stream, River and Riparian Setback" regulations, the similarities are striking; some would say, exceptionally so.

In both instances, large swaths of private property will be rendered unusable, or at the very least, will have significant and similar restrictions imposed on the few possible uses that remain. If adopted, county property owners impacted by the requirements of either proposal, whether imposed by the City of Whitefish or Flathead County, and whether they live inside or outside the "donut" area, will find themselves burdened by a new and expensive bureaucratic maze they will have no choice but to negotiate if they hope to be able to use their property.

I do agree with Commissioner Hall's statement that the Whitefish proposal will "…bring to property owners in the 'donut' areas nothing but enormous cost, regulatory burdens, and a steep decline in property rights and, potentially, property values."

I still remain puzzled however. Would not the county commission's very similar countywide "Stream, River and Riparian Setback" proposal do exactly the same thing?

Perhaps the county commission will be kind enough to explain.

George Everett / Kalispell