Continuing where I left off yesterday,...
Zoning Information Booth
Three booths were set up concerning the growth policy in Ravalli County (zoning/streamside setbacks). The first booth was there to answer questions on the zoning plans provided for public comment. I found the guy manning the booth informative if not engaging (he was reading a book). But, he wasn’t trying to sell me or convince me of anything, and he was probably getting paid to just field questions. It made me wonder, "Where can I get a job like this?"
I asked the man if city residents would have the opportunity to vote on the petition to repeal Ravalli County’s Growth Policy placed on the November ballot, unlike the box store size cap in 2006. He responded simply, “Yes.”
Good deal! I know I could have gotten the same information online or by reading the local paper, but it was nice to be able to use the booth in view of the hostiles (anti-zoning booths).
Anti-Zoning Ladies
The first of the two anti-zoning booths was manned by an older woman who was a little too emotionally attached to the zoning issue and didn’t seem to like the look of me at first glance (was it the sandals?). I asked her what she thought of the zoning options put forth by the county commissioners. I could sense the hostility in the mid 70 year old woman as she pleaded her case. She said she did not like the three Democrat commissioners that were elected last year and that she wanted the whole zoning issue to be voted on and voted down in November. I’m not sure what that had to do with my question, but I responded to her statement. I said that elected officials are elected to serve their constituency and if the voters don’t like the job their representatives are doing they have the ability to vote them out in the next election. She replied with a simple, “Hmph” of disapproval (the three commissioners the lady was referring to were elected on a pro-growth policy platform).
She continued pleading her case, but I found that her argument basically boiled down to “intrusive rules” and land value. A little tired of the nonsensical tirade, I responded that I didn’t care for some of the anti-zoning crowd’s lack of participation in the growth policy process and that if she didn’t like the options being presented to the public for comment, perhaps she should provide some alternatives she would agree with (that is how you compromise, right?). The little old woman gave no reply, but at this point I didn’t expect to gain any ground. She averted her eyes and said we’d have to agree to disagree. So, I nodded and moved on.
I respect the loyalty to her cause, but her stubbornness and lack of reason in her “arguments” were not worthy of an audience. She is the kind of person you want on your side when going into political battle, but you wouldn’t trust to lead the operation.
The second booth was adorned with a mural that had an anti-zoning theme. I’m not an art expert, but I found the mural visually pleasing and would have characterized it as “progressive” for our conservative valley, despite its theme. The artist, as it turns out, was not as progressively minded politically as her art (for whatever that means). But I found her engaging and much more even keel than the woman manning the previous booth. She went through a list of grievances she had with the zoning regulations, most having to do with the increased bureaucracy. I even agreed with some of her arguments. She pointed out an alternative option to county mandated zoning in which neighbors could institute voluntary zoning. She claimed that she proposed this to the county commissioners, but the commissioners tabled it until they were finished dealing with their zoning regs. This obviously upset her.
Although I like the idea of voluntary zoning, it lacks teeth. There is no legal recourse if someone decides to opt out. I can understand why the county commissioners would not be willing to comment on voluntary zoning because they don’t want the county’s authority superseded by voluntary zoning. The feds wouldn’t allow states to usurp its authority, one shouldn’t expect any less from the county.
The turning point in the conversation came when the artist shared too much personal information. She claimed that she owned 1000 acres in the valley and that zoning was killing “us” (private land owners). The statement supports my assumption that the anti-growth policy movement is driven by a few wealthy (including land rich) individuals that use unfounded threats that zoning will decrease land values and slow the rate of construction to gain support from contractors, builders, and realtors.
The problem with the anti-zoning crowd is their lack of interest in addressing the issue of growth in the county. I told the woman at the first booth that Montana was a step behind many states (even other counties in MT) in growth policy issues. She responded that that’s why people move to the valley, because of the lack of rules. I don’t agree with her statement. People move here for the same reason I like living here. They like having the mountains out their back door, a river out their front, and room to stretch their arms. A lack of regulations has nothing to do with it. It is true, you can not stop growth (no one expects to), but a forward thinking growth policy can direct growth, keep the population centralized, and protect open spaces. No zoning and no streamside setbacks continue to allow the wealthy and large land owners the ability to carve up the valley and degrade the things that brought us here in the first place. It’s fairly simple. Do it now, or pay for it later.
With that I was done with my conversations for the day. I left the fair a little more informed but worried for the county.
No comments:
Post a Comment