A recent petition presented to the Whitefish City Council shows that the downtown business community is overwhelmingly against a streetscape project set to break ground after Labor Day, though one councilor questions the petition’s fairness.
The petition lists the names of 77 downtown business owners and merchants in opposition to the project and only eight in favor. Councilor Nick Palmer, however, said two names in favor were repeats, effectively bringing the total down to six. Seven had no opinion.
At issue is a project aimed at improving the city’s aging main water system and storm drainage, while also sprucing up downtown’s aesthetics. Roberta Speer, who owns Montana Territory on Central Avenue and was a primary organizer of the petition, said she is only worried about the beautification features in the plan.
“Nobody is disputing the need to improve infrastructure,” Speer said.
The project, part of the city’s Downtown Master Plan, will affect Central Avenue and First and Third Streets. Work will be completed over a phased-out construction schedule during the shoulder seasons through 2011 in an effort to minimize impact on businesses. The first phase – Third Street between Baker and Spokane Avenues – is set to begin shortly after Labor Day.
Most troubling, according to Speer and other concerned merchants, are the plan’s proposals for widened sidewalks, bulb-outs at the intersections and raised crosswalks. Opponents question the necessity of those features, as well as their potential effect on parking, traffic flow and safety.
The idea behind the aesthetic upgrades is to make the town more pedestrian friendly, which city officials believe would stimulate the economy by attracting shoppers and encouraging them to stay longer. Among the other beautification features are decorative streetlights and benches.
Speer said she and several other merchants decided to orchestrate the petition after a conversation she had with Palmer. He advised her to compile a list of downtown merchants in favor and against the project’s beautification plans, and then present it to the council. Earlier this year, property owner Toby Scott distributed a town-wide petition that garnered more than 600 names against the project, but didn’t focus specifically on the downtown community.
Following Palmer’s suggestions, Speer asked merchants to legibly print their name; give their business name, address and phone number; and sign it. City councilors reviewed the results at a July 20 public meeting.
Palmer said he was “surprised” by the heavy disapproval, but said the “council is sort of between a rock and a hard place.” After years of public meetings and planning, he thought the majority of the community supported the project, and the council voted accordingly when it gave the green light to begin advertising for construction bids on April 6.
“Who do we believe and how?” Palmer said. “This may be evidence we’re really going to have to take a close look at.”
Palmer added: “Supposedly this project is to keep downtown viable, but if the business owners themselves don’t want it, should we implement it?”
Though the streetscape’s detractors acknowledge the years of planning and public process that went into it, they argue that many people were either unaware or misled on the exact nature of the beautification plans. Turner Askew, the only councilor who voted against advertising for bids, feels the project went through so many changes that it was hard for the public to keep track.
“There were a lot of different things that were originally proposed,” Askew said. “It would be nice if these people would have talked when they were first doing it but I don’t think they understood what was happening.”
He added: “Some of the information that has been talked about people are starting to realize is not totally accurate. That makes me a little nervous.”
Askew also questioned whether the vocal proponents throughout the planning stages were a fair representation of the entire downtown community.
“There was a relatively small group of people that was aggressively backing this streetscape,” Askew said. “I think it was not as open of a discussion as people would like to pretend it was. You’re now hearing from the silent majority – this is not just one or two malcontents.”
But Councilor John Muhlfeld, who was involved with the streetscape planning process for five years, believes there was ample public participation. The council, he said, is getting “blindsided at the 11th hour.”
“It’s extremely disheartening,” Muhlfeld said.
Muhlfeld is skeptical of how fairly the petition was administered. He said the petitioners didn’t bring a copy of the Downtown Master Plan. Without that, Muhlfeld said, it’s hard for people to know exactly what they’re voting for or against. Furthermore, he said he talked to merchants after he saw the petition and came away with the impression that they had been misled through “misinformation,” as well as “intimidation and scare tactics.”
“They were told, ‘this will hurt your business and traffic will be backed up and things like that,’” Muhlfeld said. “I feel it was a biased way to put a pulse to what the public’s feeling.”
When he presented the plan’s specifics, he said, “their tune changed 180 degrees.” Nevertheless, Muhlfeld said: “I think we should consider the petition.”
In response to the concerns, the city has constructed a mock-up of the streetscape’s plans: temporary curbs simulating widened sidewalks to see how they affect parking and driving, and striping to demonstrate what the diminished driving lanes will look like.
Askew plans to continue conversations with City Manager Chuck Stearns and other city officials to “do whatever we can to solve this problem.” Scott, who orchestrated the original petition, said the streetscape’s opponents don’t plan on backing down until a solution is reached.
“We will continue to annoy the city council into doing something,” Scott said.