By kalispelling bee on 02-02-10
I’m uneasy with the mayor of Kalispell representing people who are suing the planning office. I wouldn’t think that’s an outright conflict of interest, but it feels wrong. Any thoughts?
By dsrobins on 02-03-10
Yep. It’s sad that the voters of Kalispell didn’t know before the last election that Tammi Fisher is a right wing, property rights extremist like Russell Crowder. Pam Kennedy was a great mayor and served the city well. It’s always been one of tragedies of Flathead County that there are so many conservative, right wing Republicans here who only seek to promote their own personal and political goals at the expense of the larger community and the public welfare. Obviously, they are still in charge and our communities suffer for it. The good thing is that the country planning board does not report to or take orders from the likes of Tammi Fisher, Russell Crowder and others of their ilk.
By riverrunner on 02-03-10
Harris says “his office is returning to business as usual”. It will just be more unprofessional business as usual. His contract should not be renewed.
By Geezer on 02-03-10
Suggesting Tammi Fisher has a conflict of interest because she is the mayor of Kalispell is a bit like accusing Governor Brian Schweitzer of a conflict because Wyoming wants to delist wolves as an endangered species.
Proximity to another jurisdiction does not create conflict. The Flathead County Planning Office (Jeff Harris) does not provide planning services for the City of Kalispell. If Ms. Fisher’s clients were suing the Kalispell City Planners (Tom Jentz & staff), then she’d have a conflict, and the law makes provisions for how to proceed in that event.
Land use regulations are an abrogation of a property owner’s rights to use his or her property as they see fit, based on a community’s perception of “the common good.” Land use regulations and the rationale behind them are about as complex as the federal tax code. Because they do erode property rights, the government and the courts have put safeguards into place to ensure that individual property rights are not improperly infringed upon.
These safeguards come under the heading of due process rights. But as can be anticipated, every time any affected property owner suggests his or her property rights may have been improperly affected, because his or her due process rights appear to have been denied, they get accused of being ‘right wing wackos.’
Being attacked for defending property rights is one thing, but when those same attackers object to the defense of our Constitutionally guaranteed due process rights, I believe they’ve crossed the line, and it is they that have become the wackos.
By eibba on 02-03-10
First those people want to take property rights then they want to take a person’s right to choose an attorney.
By kalispelling bee on 02-03-10
Good explanation, Geezer. Thanks for answering my question.
By inthemiddle on 02-03-10
If I was employed in either the Kalispell Planning office or the Kalispell Building Department I would be actively seeking work elseware. Both of these departments will be gutted under Tammi Fisher. This is exactly why American Dream and Ray Thompson paid for her election. Now that the Supreme court has ruled that corporations are people there will be no limit to which elective office they buy next. All it will take in Kalispell is for them to purchase one more council seat next year and they will move the clock back 50 years.
By mongo on 02-03-10
I would like to know how Tammi Fisher plans on being an effective mayor when she is actively pursuing her law practice. Anyone who has spent any time around an attorney’s office or legal actions such as the ones she is pursuing (not to mention others not referred to here) will admit this will take up much of her time. Her staff is quite small and any conflicts of interest aside, I see no way she can dedicate enough time to her role as mayor. This is not an honorary position. It is a paid FULLTIME position. She might be smart, she might be competent, she might be hard-working. She is not super-human and she is not two people. Unless, of course, there are people doing her mayor job for her who want to remain behind the scenes (hi ADM)
By hammer on 02-03-10
Wow, no wonder why people don’t go for public positions. Mongo, no matter what Tammi Fisher does, it won’t please you. Do you want someone in there that is a trust funder and skis all the time? We know what happened to WFish with trust funders in local govt. Arrogance. Tammi will do just fine. She has the tools.
By Alice on 02-03-10
Inthemiddle:
How exactly did Mr. Thompson purchase the election when the maximum under law is $160 per indvidual? I would suspect if I were going to buy Ms. Fisher, it would cost me a lot more than $160.00.
Mongo:
The Mayor job is not a full time position. I’m not sure where you get that from. It is my understanding the Mayor and Council members receive a modest yearly stipend that hardly covers the amount of time they’re required to put in.
But…don’t take my word for it. Call City Hall yourself and ask about the particulars of part time vs. full time, stipend, and the like. You might be surprised.
Kalispelling Bee:
I agree with Geezer re: conflict of interest. If a fellow works as a mechanic by day, and a convenience store clerk by night, does it mean those positions are automatically merged, or cannot be performed apart from one another? In my mind, it’s a matter of switching hats. Folks do it all the time either by choice, or out of necessity. For years, I watched my sister who was a single mom, hold down multiple jobs at once and do it with grace and dignity.
Geezer is correct, it would only be a conflict if the suit were against the City and the law provides provision for that.
By Geezer on 02-03-10
In September 2007, the Kalispell City Council adopted Resolution 5236. I am not able to ascertain if this Resolution has been superceded or not with increased pay for the Mayor and Council. This resolution establishes that the Mayor of Kalispell is to be paid $9,000 per annum, and the other Councilors receive $5,000. It was signed by Pam Kennedy. Neither Pam Kennedy nor any reasonable person would presume that the Mayor’s job in Kalispell is a FULL TIME position, because NOBODY is expected to work full-time for $5,000 or $9,000 per year.
Neither are the City Councilors full time. The City Charter of Kalispell states that the City Council is to be comprised of nine members, eight of whom are elected from their respective wards, and one is to be elected at large. The ninth Councilor, the one elected at large, is to serve as the Mayor.
The Mayor does have duties in addition to those of the other City Councilors—the Mayor chairs the meetings, and is the official elected representative of the City. The Mayor has NO administrative or executive duties—that’s what the City Manager is hired for.
Under Kalispell’s Charter, the Mayor and the other eight Councilors comprise the Legislative Body of the City. The City Manager, a paid full time professional, carries out the Executive duties of the City. And the City Court handles the Judicial duties.
You are correct, the Kalispell City Mayor is not an honorary position. Yes, it is a paid position. But no, it is not a full time job. Please read the City Charter and do a bit of homework before you blast away and make gratuitous assertions that are not founded in fact.
By mongo on 02-03-10
I make it a practice, both online and in life to acknowledge when I am wrong. I stand corrected, I was thinking of the county commissioners.
thank you Alice and Geezer.
By debbietant on 02-03-10
I have no doubt that Tammi is being well paid over and above the $9,000 to do Crowder and Taz’s (opps, Sorry Bruce) business for them. American Dream Montana has bought off everyone in county government, whats a little extra just to control the city of Kalispell? dsrobins is right, until we get rid of these right wing property rights nuts, Crowder and Ray Thompson will end up owning everything and everyone in this county, body and soul! Fortunately commissioner Brenneman and our planning director recognize this, thats why they have been the targets of smear campaigns and slander. Keep up the good work Joe! Keep up the good work Jeff!
By Geezer on 02-03-10
Mongo,
Your acknowledgement is to be commended. We’re all sharing and learning as we participate. And we need to keep all levels of government on track - in that I think we’re all in agreement! Thanks!
By Geezer on 02-03-10
Debbietant -
Rather than government officials being ‘bought off’, what if the position of American Dream Montana is fundamentally correct?
Speaking of being ‘bought off’, by the way buying someone off is illegal for both buyer and buyee. If you can document your accusations about our local government officials being bought off, you have an obligation to take that documentation to the courts.
I’m not sure I like the approach American Dream takes in making their point, but this is America and I believe they still have the right to be advocates regarding their positions on anything they want. Were you just as opposed to Citizens For a Better Flathead when they were advocating their positions and beliefs? Did you call them left wing nuts? Did you accuse them of ‘buying off’ our local government officials?
Of course not, because they most likely reflected your own views, so when that advocacy group succeeded in getting local politicians and bureaucrats to follow their lead, no accusations of being ‘bought off’ were bandied about. They weren’t called left-wing nuts, either.
Maybe the property rights advocates are fundamentally correct in their viewpoints, even if their approach to defending those rights is annoying and sometimes rather brash. So what? They are exercising another of their rights, which it appears you also want to restrict - their right to free speech. Oh, and don’t forget their right to assemble with others who believe as they do.
If you study your history, beginning with the Magna Charta and more recently the founding of America, you will find that one of the primary reasons for the American Revolution involved property rights. Were the American Patriots and our Founding Fathers also ‘bought off’? Were they also right-wing property rights nuts?
In America, we all have inalienable rights, and one of those rights gives us the freedom to speak out when we feel those rights are being trampled upon.
If you and I were dancing, and I stepped on your toes, you’d probably inform me I was trampling on something you valued, unless you’re into self-destruction. You might be polite about it, or you might slap my face, or elbow my ribs. You might even stomp back on my toes. Regardless of how you conveyed your message, you’d be right to speak up. I believe you’d also have an obligation to speak up. I wouldn’t respond by calling you a nut because you are interested in protecting your toes.
I would suggest that anyone who feels they’re being stepped on, whether it be toes or Constitutionally guaranteed rights, has a right and an obligation to speak up without fear of reprisal—including not being labeled as a nut.
By mongo on 02-03-10
Eloquently stated, Tazmanian, but I think you are oversimplifying in the interest of painting a compelling portrait. Brenneman and Harris are representative of where the Flathead was already headed. The market was booming, everyone with an acre of land wanted to be a developer. Every landowner was suddenly interested in dividing their land through family transfers and skirting the regulations. Before the boom, this stuff went on but it didn’t have such a big impact because there weren’t so many people affected. Then crappy developments cropped up with crappy roads and boom, people start getting mad at each other, neighbors turn on each other. Putting it all in Brenneman’s and Harris’s lap is giving them way too much credit. We are all to blame for the breakdown in communication. I went to the meeting at the Red Lion sponsored by ADM. It was the biggest example of ugly I’ve seen to date. People who spoke up questioning what was being presented were booed or laughed at. Friendly.
By riverrunner on 02-03-10
Part of the problem with this report is what IS NOT in it. This report is a cover up for the unethical actions of the planning office. It may be your neighbor, or mine, or you that may be the next target in their sights. To look at this like it is all about big developers is short sighted. I was hoping for a more honest evaluation from the invetigator, warts and all. But what we got was nothing short of a report that defends the planning office no matter what they did and a report that does not give the public access to all of the dirty deeds of the planning department. This isn’t the way to clear the air and move forward.
By mitch on 02-03-10
part of YOUR problem is what is not in it. You expected it to show wrongdoing, and there wasn’t any of that. Give it up! No matter how much you continue to repeat the same words over and over, it just don’t make it so.
By a on 02-03-10
This reminds me of the stupid witch hunt KGEZ and John Stokes did against FVCC. All it proved was, “expensive” to us, the taxpayer.
By riverrunner on 02-03-10
I think it was John Adams that once said “facts are stubborn things”. Some of the facts of the planning office misbehavior is in the report and yet some of you choose to ignore it. I guess for you the end justifies the means. So much for standards and ethics.
By riverrunner on 02-03-10
MitchAre the racial overtones in the “mexican” picture acceptable? When I read that section of the investigation Harris admitted his participation in this. Should it be okay for the planning office to use a “mexican” depiction to imply something negative about someone? I mean, if you defend this then what else would be okay as targets? Other non-white races? Specific religions? Women? The standard should be zero tolerance for these sorts of actions. I am guessing it wouldn’t be tolerated in, let’s say, the public schools. Why should be excuse this in county government? We should expect no less from county officials.
By mitch on 02-04-10
oh puleeeeze RR, you’re grasping at straws. Silly ones at that. Give it up. We wasted $10,000 to have the investigation reveal what we knew all along. No wrongdoing!
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
MitchYou dodged the question. Are the racial overtones in the “mexican” picture acceptable? When I read that section of the investigation Harris admitted his participation in this.
By mitch on 02-04-10
Not dodging any questions. Just wonder what extremes you’ll go to next to continue your baseless claims.
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
MitchYou dodged the question again. Are the racial overtones in the “mexican” picture acceptable? When I read that section of the investigation Harris admitted his participation in this. It is part of the investigation. I understand that defending this action is difficult since most people would be put into an moral dilemma defending this action. I am simply asking you, as a staunt advocate for whatever has occurred with the planning department, can you defend them for this?
By mitch on 02-04-10
Describe the picture??? Was it meant to be a racial slam? or is it just a cartoon. Would you be so incensed if it was our President in this picture? He’s black you know
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
MitchFrom what I read in the report, yes, the picture was meant to be a racial slam. In the investigation report Harris went along with this to boost the morale of the planning office by denigrating someone else and using a mexican on a donkey poster to do so. Do you defend this?
By mitch on 02-04-10
I do not remember seeing where there were racial issues involved in the basis for this investigation by this loud, bullying group of people who want their “rights” and to heck with everyone else. Were racial issues part of the charges? Have you checked to see if any of the planning board have cheated on their spouse? God forbid, are they (shudder) Californians? Anyone here involved in satanic rituals? That is what I mean by grasping. Your accusations didn’t hold up and now you are desperately trying to regain some sort of dignity.
By brutus on 02-04-10
Why would any intelligent person see a conflict in a part time mayor suing an agency of another government. Also apparently, anyone who represents a client who is focused on personal property rights is r"right wing.” I thought personal rights and freedoms were issues for everyone—seems strange if one is concerned about an articulated right to “acquire, possess and protect property” they are right wing but if they are concerned about the right to choose—not articulated—then they aren’t. This whole debate shows how both the right and left really don’t care about personal rights—including Harris’s rights—but rather making points. It is time to engage in a civil intelligent discourse.
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
Mitch-The racial poster issue surfaced in the investigator’s report. It is part of the investigation of the planning office. It is a question of what they do on the job, on behalf of the county, on behalf of the citizens of the county. This is something that was done as part of their employment with the county. It is not something they did in their personal life. There is a big difference in terms of the standard of what should be acceptable. So again Mitch, do you defend these actions as employees of the county, on behalf of the taxpayers, as appropriate?
By inthemiddle on 02-04-10
brutus, the phrase prorerty rights is a subjective term, everyone has a different idea of what they feel they are. By stating that you are for property rights isn’t the same as saying for example that you are in favor of free speech.Free speech is a constitutional right that has been defind first by our founding fathers and since then by the Supreme Court. Propery rights are also given to us in the Bill of Rights, but what they are has always been kind of a moving target. Depending on where you live, and who might want to either take your property or devalue or destroy it depends upon numerous circumstances. These may include eminent domain by a government entity, or a large oil company, gravel company, ect. who has a a lot of money and a slick law firm to get them what they want. Time and time again the property rights of small landowners in this county have been trampled on by the wealthy and influencial. So please in the future when you state that you are for property rights give a short exlanation of what you feel they are. I suspect you fall into the group that believes that it is yours, and you can do whatever you want to with it, with no regard for either your neighbors or future generations. An old proverb says “treat the land well, it was not given to you by your parents, but loaned to you by your children”.
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
Brutus-I don’t quite follow what you are saying. The whole planning, no-planning or what kind of planning debate is a muddy issue. I don’t see this as a left wing or right wing issue. I am all for planning that is done fully in the public view and doesn’t attempt to keep anyone from participating. I know of cases where planning committees have met without public notification, participation, etc. That’s just wrong. I’d like to mention that to date I have never met or spoken with Crowder, Thorton, Tudvelt, Ms. Fisher. But I believe the actions of the planning department in many areas of the planning issue is certainly questionable. The report so much as admits the planning office did wrong in some of the cases. I think the part that grates people is that the whole planning department gets a pass. No suspensions. No removal. And so far no public acknowlegement by the county for the cases where there was wrongdoing. It makes it look like a cover up. I read the part about the reprimands being placed in Mr. Harris’s personnel file, a file that no one sees. That’s an easy out for the county to bury the facts. The public has a right to know instead of having the facts buried from their view.
By kirstenholland on 02-04-10
HelloI am very reluctanly wading into this discussion, but feel compelled to regarding the “cartoon.” I no longer work in the planning field and therefore have no comment regarding most aspects of the investigation. However, as a former employee of the planning office under both the previous and current director, I can say with 100% faith that the planning office is staffed by people who have no tolerance for racial discrimination. I only vaguely recall this incident, however I do know that the use of the term “Senor” had to do with the caller using accents to disguise his voice, not any derision of ANY ethnic or racial group. I can see how this might be misinterpreted without all the facts. On a personal note, I am very troubled that anyone would think me a racist. Those who know me would find the idea not only impossible, but downright silly. Thank you. Kirsten Holland
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
How would the staff know who the caller was if they disguised their voice?
By mitch on 02-04-10
Thank you kirsten, you are a breath of fresh air!
By inthemiddle on 02-04-10
Having dealt with the planning staff over numerous years all I can say is that the profesionalism of it increased dramatically when Jeff Harris was hired. Before this it was almost impossible to get any information from anyone, although Iknow at that time the large developers and American Dream were given whatever they wanted. Concerning Kirsten Holland, she was always courteous and profesional even under the most difficult situations. I would find it very hard to believe that any of these people are racists, on the other hand I cannot say the same for some of the people who are in American Dream.
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
Again, Kirsten, how would the staff know who the caller was if they diguised their voice? If there was a caller using a mexican accent, how could staff identify it was a specific person? Sadly this comes off looking like just a cover up for bad behavior on the part of someone in the planning office. A made up story. For the record, no one called them a racist. The poster has a derogatory racial tone to it since it was used with the intention of denigrating someone. On this specific item that is where the problem is. If they had never put the poster on the wall this would never have been an issue.
By Buzz on 02-04-10
riverrunner…I think you had to be there…geez….let it go! The text concerning this in the report states: “When Jeff Harris was asked about the drawing in the office he stated “yes” there was a drawing
on the wall for a couple days of a Mexican on a donkey and it had ‘Senior’ Puckett’s’ name on it.
He said what happened was Mr. Puckett kept calling the office over and over and when he
wasn’t always available to answer, Puckett started calling in using different names so it got to be
a bit ofjoke around the office if someone unknown would call in and they had the call on hold
they would say “who is it Senior’ Puckett?”
Someone made the drawing and put it up on the wall in his private office as a joke. The public
did not have access and it wasn’t visible to them. He left it up for a few days for office moral.” Mr. Harris was open and honest about this, not trying to hide anything. I’ve worked in a lot of offices and things like this happens everywhere you go. Everyone needs a laugh once in awhile - you should try it. It is mild and it is not offensive to anyone with common sense.
This particular allegation isn’t even about this…why don’t you go back and read #7 again. Here again, you are twisting, turning and tweeking a story to your own preferences…ignoring the facts, the truth and common sense!
By debbietant on 02-04-10
Some of you are absolutely right. Thanks to Harris the property owners in this county are finally getting what they deserve. The problem with the facist property rights crowd is that they have gotten away with so much before Harris was hired, they can’t accept the fact that their time is over. As I said before, Crowder, American Dream Montana and all the rest of you gun toting right wing property rights nuts are soon to be an extinct species. How does it feel? GO GET THEM JEFF HARRIS!!!
By BLUSKY on 02-04-10
NOT VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC? HMMMM, SEEMS LIKE IT WAS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT TOLD THE INVESTIGATOR THAT THEY WITNESSED THIS ETHNIC POSTER. BESIDES, THIS IS A PUBLIC OFFICE, THE PUBLIC OWNS IT. THERE IS NO PLACE IN A PUBLIC OFFICE FOR THIS KIND OF “DRIBBLE”. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU WHO PARTICIPATED AND NOW DEFEND THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. MAKEING FUN OF PEOPLE IS NOT OK! NOT EVEN WHEN JEFF HARRIS AND HIS CRONIES DO IT.
By Whitefish on 02-04-10
Could it be that American Dream is a faction of the early 1990’s organizers that spread false rumors and fanned the fires for a revolt against planning and government? Planning Directors have been called “socialists, communists and general purveyors of the demise of America.”
Steve Herbaly, (planning director for Flathead County in the 1994) recalled one member of his staff and one member of the local planning board received death threats, Herbaly’s department underwent bomb-scare training, and now it is considering purchasing bullet-proof vests, over the Flathead Valley’s New Master Plan in 1994.
Some citizens formed militias just in case “government got out of hand.” Warring factions of the community grew increasingly hostile and hyperbolic, and as some planning advocates genuinely feared for their safety.
Is American Dream part of the old militia?
Certainly not every opponent of planning is a militia-linked sympathizer; most are simply rural conservatives. But as more bridges form between right-wing extremists and more moderate conservative interests, there is increasing cause for alarm.
Perpetuating the break down is civilized, functional debate.
Some of these people say they don’t have to play by anyone’s rules, that they can kill agents of the system. Once it gets to that level of fantasy, it’s just too much!
Give it up already American Dream.
By eibba on 02-04-10
When an applicant goes into the planning office with an application most feel good about it and they state that to Mr. Harris. Then Mr. Harris says I hear every applicant say they have a good plan but there not, and this comes before he looks at it. That’s the us against them attitude that the peer view team saw in a short three day evaluation. This is an example of an unprofessional office manager.
I like many others get the feel that the planners including Mr. Harris take sides. Since Kristen defended she gets the heat in this example. I attended a West Valley gravel meeting to see what all the hub-bub was, this was a real shouting, screaming finger pointing mess. The poor chairman was beating his little wood hammer trying to keep order. When Kristen had to leave early, she said to the anti-gravel crowd, for all of the public to hear “I am on your side.” This is an example of an unprofessional Us against them statement by a planner.
The peer viewers found attitude and many other issues of concern and the planning office is under a plan for improvement from the commissioners. The fact is mistakes were made, the fact is there is an us against them attitude, the fact is records were destroyed and the fact is illegal meetings were held.
Mr. Harris tolerated and participated in the attitude; Mr. Harris condoned the destruction of records and Mr. Harris knew of and participated in illegal meetings. These are not the traits of a public office director.
Mr. Harris should be released from his contract.
By mitch on 02-04-10
Seems to me like Mr. Harris is doing a fine job, Abbie
By Geezer on 02-04-10
In 1982, the City of Whitefish zoned my family’s property even though we lived outside the City. We could accept the zoning they imposed on us, because it was a well-thought out zoning plan, and our zoning was appropriate for our neighborhood.
Then many years later, together with a few thousand other property owners, my family got victimized by the County Commissioners when they gave the City of Whitefish control over the so-called donut. Our zoning didn’t change, but we couldn’t even sneeze without asking Whitefish for permission, even though we couldn’t elect any of them.
A couple of years ago, the Commissioners figured out they’d been negligent by inappropriately delegating their mandated powers and duties over the donut. They even found some cojones, and took steps to take back control of an area they should never have given up. As a part of their taking back, they had to come up with a zoning plan to replace the one Whitefish had imposed on the donut area. So they called up Mr. Harris & Co., and told him to replace the City zoning with County zoning that would most closely be the equivalent to what the City had done.
Then we got victimized again by the County, along with dozens of other property owners when Mr. Harris & Co. came up with a zoning scheme that would have cost my family several hundred thousand dollars in lost land value, because we didn’t get the most closely equivalent county zone, we got a very restrictive zone instead. When questioned about it, he said they were in hurry and didn’t have time to do it right.
Doing it right would have taken about two hours to figure out City A was the equivalent of County X, City B was most closely similar to County Y, etc. They could then take the City’s zoning map, white out the City’s zoning tags, and put in the County’s. Didn’t have time…? Either lazy or incompetent might be more accurate.
We really, really, really dislike the City of Whitefish. We don’t like much of anything about them. But if the Supreme Court hadn’t stopped the return of control to the County, then we’d have had to go to court to try to prevent the loss of my families retirement investment because of laziness or incompetency on behalf of Mr. Harris & Co.
The City gave me appropriate, well-thought out zoning twenty-eight years ago, and that zoning classification was a property right that was being trampled upon. And I would fight if necessary to protect that property right!
Does that make me a right-wing nut?
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
geezer: Good heavens, the donut. I would not want to have dealt with the agony of the “donut”. What a pain! A terrible miscarriage of government. I think many of these people who are cheerleaders for the zoning office haven’t experienced what it is like to deal with Harris & Co.when it comes to their own property with their own money at stake. These planning people will pull their paycheck no matter what they do and some do not care who they harm. As you can tell by the posts in support of Harris & Co. it looks like there is no accountability on them. It looks like reprimands in their personnel file is the escape clause for the county. I say open up the personnel files regarding complaints and reprimands to the public. Maybe then you can begin to clear the air..
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
Kirsten, I’m sure you are a nice person as another poster has said. BuI you didn’t respond to my question. How would the staff know who the caller was if they diguised their voice? If there was a caller using a mexican accent how could staff identify it was a specific person? I mean really, are they tracking the phone numbers the calls come from and matching them up? It just sounds too made up. Especially from people who would then put up a poster and ridicule someone. It doesn’t sound so innocent to me.
By mitch on 02-04-10
give it up rr, have you never heard of caller id?
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
So again Mitch, I will ask you again. Do you support the hanging of a poster of a mexican on a donkey with a person’s name on it in order to denigrate them, by county employees, on county property, on county time?
By mitch on 02-04-10
RR, go back to Buzz’s post. Explains it all satisfactory to me. Why would you continue to ask me to comment on a situation where I never seen the picture??? You didn’t answer my question, would you have objected if you’d have seen Obama on the donkey?? Why would you try to create a racial situation where there was none? Nothing else to go on maybe? Again I say, grasping at straws to save face.
By mitch on 02-04-10
As you said Taz, maybe he does work at the planning office ( or not) and know the “facts”. Does that bother you? The “facts” are what it’s all about.
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
Mitch-It was the intention of the planning office to denigrate the citizen. The poster should have never been on the wall whether it was a mexican, Obama or George Washington on a donkey. It is the calculated effort of the planning office to attack any citizen in any way, on county time, on county propoerty, on behalf of the taxpayers that is the problem. You just don’t seem to get the fact that engaging in these activities is unacceptable, particularly by a department head. It seems you will forever defend them no matter what their actions. Their own peer review report took them to task on their own bunker mentality. The problem originates in the planning office and this is easily established just by pointing to the “mexican on a donkey” event. It shows their sneaky low level method of operation. I’m done with you on this Mitch B.
By riverrunner on 02-04-10
Taz.. It’s amazing the facts admitted to in the report and that it’s just okie-dokie by the investigator. It’s the facts that were left out we should all be attempting to obtain. The dirt is in the details and this report swept the dirt under the rug.
By BLUSKY on 02-04-10
Just as bad, Harris violated the human rights statutes again when he maligned four private citizen’s for their political beliefs in an e-mail to the Lakeside committee. BJ Greive violated the human rights statutes when he circulated a photo maligning planning board member Culpepper. BJ was just tired, he was sorry. Harris was out of town and tired, he only did it to “lift the committee’s spirits”. This insanity has got to stop call your commissioners and tell them not to renew this idiot’s contract. What do they say in the planning office about our citizens that we don’t know about????
By Buzz on 02-04-10
Taz, what’s up? I thought you said you read the investigative report??? I copied and pasted that right out of the report.. Anyone who wants can have access to it. Just go to the county commissioners office and get a copy on a cd…you should try it, then you might know what you’re talking about. Oh and you guys have fun reading those “deleted emails” on meeting reminders when you get them. Ya, that’s pretty secret stuff…I really want you to retrieve them, because then you are going to look even more foolish…if that’s even possible!
By eibba on 02-05-10
These are just thirteen of peer-reviewers concerns prepared by a team of professional planners. Their report prompted a plan for improvement that was accepted by the commissioners.1.inconsistent application review
2. staff reports not fact based
3. review processes unnecessarily drawn out
4. pre-application process insufficient
5. LUAC don’t receive timely notice
6. no clear guidance from the planning staff
7.affected agencies and departments not consistently solicited
8.Staff reports are not sufficiently reviewed
9.LUAC not included in review process.
10.Staff is perceived as being adversarial and biased
11.code enforcement is selective
12.Evidence exists of a “bunker mentality”
13.Inconsistently implement policy
Citizens of the Flathead have made complaints about these and other concerns to the Mr. Harris, the County Attorney and Commissioners for years. Mr. Harris said he was shocked by some of the findings of this report.
This report is an evaluation of Mr. Harris’s job performance provided by those interviewed. Mr. Harris this is an evaluation of your job performance from the participants who are;
• Flathead County Board of County Commissioners
•Flathead County Planning Board
•Flathead County Board of Adjustment
•Flathead County Planning and Zoning Department Management Team
•Flathead County Planning and Zoning Department Staff
•Flathead Business and Industry Association
•Lakeside Land Use Advisory Committee
•Helena Flats Land Use Advisory Committee
•West Valley Land Use Advisory Committee
•Riverdale Land Use Advisory Committee
•Citizens for a Better Flathead
As you can see from the list these are not a bunch of radicals that gave him the low marks it’s the people he works with.
By riverrunner on 02-05-10
eibba: Thank you for shining the light on the facts regarding the peer review. The 13 peer reviewer concerns identified coupled with Harris being “shocked” at these revelations means he hasn’t been paying attention or is in denial. Intervention is called for. Those 13 concerns are a clear sign Mr. Harris is a poor manager of the planning department.
By riverrunner on 02-05-10
13 PEER REVIEW CONCERNS WITH QUESTIONS:1.inconsistent application review (Could it be application review is based on what they want rather than necessarily what the law says?)
2. staff reports not fact based (No, it couldn’t be. Well, or could staff reports be impacted by made up details in order to suit their own agenda?)
3. review processes unnecessarily drawn out (Maybe, just maybe, the planning office intentionally attempts to put roadblocks in front of perfectly legal plans? No that could never happen!)
4. pre-application process insufficient (Sure, c’mon in and just tell your good ole’ planning office what your plans are before you get started. Has anyone heard that they immediately begin the ball rolling attempting to prevent you from executing your plan if they think they can get away with it? Do they begin by telling you that you might not like what their gonna tell you?)
5. LUAC don’t receive timely notice (Well doesn’t that beat all. Does this office try to keep people out of the process who may have opinions contrary to the planning office? And if their opinion is different from yours they attack you?)
6. no clear guidance from the planning staff (Does anyone else think sometimes they just don’t want to tell you what you can do because it runs contrary to what they want?)
7.affected agencies and departments not consistently solicited (Don’t ask, don’t tell. Has anyone heard that the planning office isn’t too popular with other county departments?)
8.Staff reports are not sufficiently reviewed (Well, do we mean reports on projects or reviews of staff? If it is reviews of staff would the department manager want to put descriptions in like rude, arrogant, sneaky, difficult to work with, wastes taxpayer money creating lawsuits, engages in character defamation, etc. Or did that just happen in the project reports?)
9.LUAC not included in review process. (Again, does anyone else believe inviting others to the process might show too many opposing viewpoints?)
10.Staff is perceived as being adversarial and biased (No way. You’ve got to be kidding. Where in the world would anyone come up with this opinion? Please put another “Mexican” picture on the wall to prove this one wrong!)
11.code enforcement is selective (Is this a case of let’s let the people we like slide and then target that other bunch? Afterall, they are “fringe thinkers”.)
12.Evidence exists of a “bunker mentality” (Where would they ever get this idea? Somebody email the neighbors and find out where this is coming from!)
13.Inconsistently implement policy (Hmmm. Do you think if we go after the people who come to us to do it right, vilify them and then leave all the people who go ahead and do something in violation alone…because maybe, well, the latter are our supporters, will that work for us to keep our jobs? Yup.)
By kirstenholland on 02-05-10
riverrunner: it is not difficult to ascertain a frequent caller’s natural voice after numerous calls are made using numerous accents.
eibba: please be careful, you made a false accusation against me in a public forum. And my name is Kirsten, thank you.
By eibba on 02-05-10
Mr. Harris has been evaluated by his peers and associates in planning world. The people that have had to work with Mr. Harris were asked to evaluate his job performance and Mr. Harris got an F. Mr. Harris’s peers state he must do more to discourage the US AGAINST THEM ATTITUDE IN THE PLANNING OFFICE.
The fact is the citizen of the Flathead have been Saying this all along, NO BODY WAS LISTENING.
The fact is Mr. Harris is not quality leadership, maybe a nice guy, maybe a fun boss, but NOT QUALITY LEADERSHIP.
Mr. Harris your peers have spoken about your leadership maybe you should consider a new start out of the leadership role.
By inthemiddle on 02-05-10
eibba,On the list you provided it included the land use committees. The members of these committees are appointed by the county commisioners. These people are usually the large land holders or representatives of business interests within the land use area, i.e. Stoltz Land and Lumber. There are only a couple token small landholders allowed on these committees and they are typically associated with the more conservative groups. The general rule is Democrats need not apply. When the interviews of these committtees were done only a few of the members were actually interviewed so the response was natually slanted against the planning office.
By riverrunner on 02-05-10
kirsten,Were you the one answering the phone? I am guessing you had somone who answers the phone who made up the story and the rest of the herd just followed. It is obvious you are attempting to defend your friends but this whole charge is obviously pure speculation. Speculation resulting in the denigration of a citizen by the planning office. Shame on anyone who participated in this.
By DanglingChad on 02-05-10
debbitant:Is your name Clara by chance? Sounds to me you might be better suited to a place like Portland, Oregon, or maybe Missoula (aka “The Land of Fruits and Nuts”).
You seem unhappy. I suggest you google a few realtors in these locations and inquire about property for sale. Better yet, you sound like more of a renter to me; someone who depends uopn others to carry the load (i.e. the taxpayer) while you sit in the background and criticize those who make it possible for you to live (again, the taxpayer/property owner).
Let’s see, you don’t like property owners (taxpayers), and you don’t like gun owners…may I suggest a modest rental in perhaps Willamette Valley? You’ll be comfortable there as there are lots of your ilk who subscribe to your left wing, socialist philosophies. As someone said a while back, there are 4 highways going out of Flathead County…take your pick.
By eibba on 02-05-10
KirstenI apologize for the misspelling
No I didn’t make a false accusation and many of the E-Mails we requested should a cozy relationship between you and the West Valley citizens group. Think Back…
I remember those as tough times and you got lots of blame and little help from Mr. Harris at that meeting. In fact he left you there on an island and that is POOR MANAGEMENT BY MR. HARRIS
By dsrobins on 02-05-10
It’s sadly apparent that the property rights kooks of American Dream Montana are not going to relax their policy of character assassination, false accusations and outright lies directed at the county planning office and its director. As President Obama noted earlier this week, civil discourse is under heavy assault in America today.
By eibba on 02-05-10
InthemiddleWho would have thought that landowners might be interested in how THEIR land would be used in the future.
The peer report was accepted by the planning office and commissioners, a plan for improvement was written for the planning office and accepted by the commissioners. What more do you need US AGAINST THEM ATTITUDE and BUNKER MENTALITY….
Look MR. Harris came here with limited experience as a department head. He came here from a larger area that may have tolerate a less service oriented style than the Flathead will accept. He came here from an area that doesn’t have landowners, the city of Las Vegas grows by BLM land actions. So Mr. Harris had little or no experience dealing with landowners only development companies.
Flathead landowners most likely worked hard to get where they are, and expect to government employees to respect them. If Mr. Harris can’t adapt to the Flathead Style his office will be under constant fire, and the BUNKER MENTALITY will continue. The Commissioners need to see his STYLE is wrong for the Flathead and a management change is needed.
By BLUSKY on 02-05-10
Well said Taz. The problems with this planning office are myriad. Were you at that public information meeting that ADM held. Someone who was there told me this Kristen was there and she stood up and said I didn’t have anything to do with this after she saw the evidence. Does anyone know if that is accurate? I see that she admits to being in on the donkey.
By inthemiddle on 02-05-10
Having personally witnessed members of American Dream use the N word and other slurs in reference to our President, I find it ironic that some of these same people are making claims of racism against other people. The amount of hatred directed against President Obama cannot be explained away with the insinuation that he is a communist, when most of his policies are center or slightly left of center. If a white male held these same political views he would be disliked by the tea party crowd, but he would not be hated and vilfied for them. The only plausible explantion for the violent reactions these people have are because his skin color. They will get mad and deny it and make other claims but only they know what truely lies in their hate filled hearts.
By dsrobins on 02-06-10
Bravo, inthemiddle. You said something that needs to be said publicly more and more often. Racism isn’t all of it, but it is a very, very large part of it. Of course, these folks will go up in smoke when confronted with it, but it is the reality of conservatism in America today.
By inthemiddle on 02-06-10
Taz, The meeting took place in early summer 2008 at FVCC. It was put on by Dave Wanzenreid ( an old friend) to discuss future legisltave reform of gravel issues in Montana. After the meeting had subsided a group of individuals who are either in ADM or strong supporters of it were gathered outside. I was talking on my cell phone in the area when a very racial and offensive joke was told about about then candidate Obama. It contained both the N word and a reference to Obama being a monkey. All those present laughed in agreement. I still wish I would have confronted them over this but considering the source it was better to just leave it be. As for me being a left wing looney, I have never belonged to CFBF or have attended any of there meetings or donated any money. I am on their email list as I have attended seminars they have had regarding renewable energy and future needs for our infrastructure. The only radical groups I belong to are the Rotary Club, Montana Shooting Sports Assoc., Duck’s Unlimited and The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. All of these groups have open lists of there members and funding sources, which I cannot say about ADM. I belong to neither political party and consider myself a true independent, thus the moniker inthemiddle. I have been approched in the past by both political parties to run for the legislature.I do not listen to talk radio and after careful study and thought formulate my own opinion on issues. As someone once said, “If you totally agree with what someone is saying only one of you is doing the thinking”. ADM is a radical fringe group that will destroy our beautiful valley, purely for monetary gain and they need to be opposed by everyone who appreciates what we have here.
By mitch on 02-06-10
inthemiddle, I have no doubt every word you say is true. I have never attended one of these meetings, but know of many who have and they’ve been horrified at the actions of these people. I have seen enough pictures and articles to prove the point. I guess what this group lacks in management and knowledge they try to make up for in rudeness and shouting. Unfortunately racism is alive and well and has reared it’s ugly head way too many times in the recent past.
By eibba on 02-06-10
Not the right management style. Not the Flathead Style. Mr. Harris is dealing with INDIVIDUALS that own the land. Individuals see their land as a retirement plan, a college fund, a health care plan there for a rainy day… Individuals don’t see land in the same terms as the development companies that Mr. Harris is familiar with. The individuals are looking at their land as a bank savings account. Landowners here don’t want the public, or the public sponsored government to just walk into their savings account and help themselves. If Mr. Harris had had time or took the time when he arrived to learn the culture of the Flathead things might be different today.
Mr. Hall and Commissioner Brenneman must take much of the credit for the planning woes; they pushed for quick changes, NOT THE FLATHEAD STYLE. Mr. Hall and Commissioner Brenneman through their actions pushed the planning office onto the front line and made Mr. Harris their henchmen… Now the landowners are in a fight and defend mode, this has divided communities and the Flathead. Unfortunately for Mr. Harris he is seen as the symbolic leader of the raiding party.
CLOSURE CAN”T COME WITH MR. HARRIS IN THE PLANNING OFFICE
By kirstenholland on 02-06-10
My final comments on this thread:I attended the meeting presented by ADM. I sat in the back row, next to my father. I did not at any time state anything about my involvement or lack thereof with any of the information presented. My comments were limited to blurting out “I wish I made $80,000 a year” when it was stated by one of the presenters that FC planners made that amount (I made about half that, which is public information), and raising my hand and asking about the Gary Hall who emailed something. I was confused and thought they were thinking of a different Gary Hall, not the former county commissioner. I was mistaken. That is all that came out of my mouth. In the interest of full disclosure, I smiled at Clara LaChapelle from West Valley, waved hello to Mickey Lapp, and was warmly greeted by Bruce Tutvedt in the hallway. I saw many people I recognized and many I did not. I left early. Eibba, my email address is kirstenmholland@gmail.com. If you are willing to identify yourself and speak to me directly, I will continue this conversation with you, as I am interested in your version of planning in West Valley from 2005-2007. Otherwise, I will leave the online conversation. Thanks, Kirsten Holland
By inthemiddle on 02-06-10
Taz, you are right, I don’t know who officially is in ADM, nobody outside of this group does. Maybe it has a large membership, or maybe it is just a local millionaire and his paid spokesman. What I do know is that it is a group that people can hide behind and that it gets its funding from who knows where. No transparency at all. As for using the race card, it was first used in this blog by someone against the planning office. I do have a new cell phone tough, this one has a video camera. So maybe the next time I witness something like this I will record it and put it on Youtube, then post the link for you to view. Would that work for you.
By riverrunner on 02-06-10
Making the assumption that all who post here in protest of the behavior of the planning department are members of American Dream Montana is wrong. I don’t know what ADM is for other than property rights so some of the extraneous comments that have been made are of no matter in this discourse. What I do know is that many people I meet, lefties and righties and in the middles, are for planning but strongly distrust the planning department due to the way it has been managed. I consider myself in the middle. I believe this planning office has been one arrogant crowd when it comes to working with the public. Ms. Holland evidently worked in the planning office and chooses to defend her friends. From her we have heard what I consider a series of excuses for some bad behavior by the planning department, including Mr. Harris. I won’t excuse the personal attacks on individuals by a county department, on taxpayer time using taxpayer money. It is inexcusable. Unfortunately for some planning means following the plan as it currently is written in law. Changing the plan and doing it by the law. I can understand all sides of the issue but the law is the law. If you don’t like it, work to change it, and expect others to work against you if they believe otherwise. But until you are successful in changing the law, live with it. The problem is it looks like this planning department has employed methods outside some accepted ethical and legal parameters. Even their peer review says so. Some of their behavior has been to devise personal attacks on individuals. It is the execution of planning that is the problem. The process has not been handled with a very high degree of integrity…in my opinion.
By riverrunner on 02-07-10
inthemiddle- The “mexican on a donkey” poster orginated with the planning office. Harris admits this. It was a calculated action on the part of the planning staff to hang this poster on the wall. The incident was intended to disparage a taxpayer. It was done on the job, by county employees, using taxpayer money. It is inexcusable. But it is demonstrative of how this planning office has conducted itself.
By inthemiddle on 02-07-10
Taz, having a discussion with you is like talking to a rock, although I think a rock would be more reasonable.
Riverrunner, I agree with you that putting up a picture like that is inappropriate, but I do not believe it was racist. It was making fun of what is in effect a customer of the planning office and that should not be done. As a business owner with employees and as a former supervisor while employed at another business, this is something that i would not allow my employees to do. I don’t believe this warrants terminating someone over, but a warning would be issued. We have all be guilty one time or another of doing something dumb like this, so it is my opinion that this has been blown way out of proportion. I believe a simple apology to the agrieved party would suffice.
By eibba on 02-07-10
InthemiddleYou make it sound as if Mr. Harris was inappropriate one time. If Mr. Harris was required come clean to all the people he ridiculed, bullied categorized, harmed, or was dishonest with you would see the pattern.. The pattern is the problem the one incident just characterizes the issue. You would have the opinion that termination is warranted if you said to yourself this is his pattern. Mr. Harris CAN”T HANDLE THIS JOB. When he is pressured or questioned you find him reverting to ridiculing, bullying, categorizing, and dishonesty.
Closure will not come without a change in the planning office.
By inthemiddle on 02-07-10
eibba, how secure would you be if someone spent $10,000 and 3 months investigating you. Many actions can be taken out of context, even ones done by the best of people. As a whole the report has listed some areas that need to be improved, and I think they now will be.Even the Interlake says its time to move on.
By eibba on 02-07-10
Planning is not about avenging landownership, or a different point of view… Mr. Harris failed to make this clear to himself, his office, and the citizens of the Flathead now he has drawn the heat. He is not trusted and should not be rehired.
By overandback on 02-08-10
I notice that Taz, Donna Thornton, eibba, and others are now silent on the subject of the commissioners’ meeting where Jeff Harris was ambushed by ADM. Could it be that the illegal and unethical way that ADM set up that meeting is not something they want talked about because it’s not in their interest?
Taz, eibba, etc.: Do you condemn ADM for that action? Please answer me so that we can get this straightened out.
By brutus on 02-09-10
The question was asked a few days ago, what did I mean by property rights. It is a good question and raised an important issue. Many people on both sides of the issue spout off without knowing what they mean.
I believe that everyone has a right to acquire, protect and possess property. This is a fundamental right dating back to before the Magna Carta. Like many rights, the state has a right to interfere with those rights, but only when:
1. Land use regulations that have a substantial bearing upon the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and which are within the authority granted by the legislature will be found to be a constitutional exercise of Police Power.
2. Such regulations must be reasonably adapted to their purposes.
3. Such regulations must injure or impair property rights of the citizen only to the extent reasonably necessary to preserve the public welfare.
Even when this happens, sometimes land owners should be compensated when the government action is ‘forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’ Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960)
I also believe there are neighboring property owner rights, but, these are not the rights articulated in the state constitution other than the right to a healthful and clean environment. Basically we are still developing these rights, but it must be remembered that the rights to the property you own are to be first protected.
I believe that owners of property must when they develop their property carry the cost of the impact they have on the community resources, but should not have to pay a disproportionate amount of the cost.
Is anyone else willing to share their beliefs on property rights? Perhaps that can move us to a civil discourse.
By kalispelling bee on 02-09-10
Jeez, brutus, did you make up a PowerPoint presentation to go along with that? Every time you say “a” civil discourse (which is often), it’s like nails on a blackboard. You don’t say “an” intercourse. Why do you keep saying “a” discourse?
By inthemiddle on 02-09-10
Brutus, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I will part with you on two major areas.The first is, if you as a landowner devalue or degrade your neighbors property you should have to compensate them for this. In some cases this would mean purchasing their property from them for a fair market value previous to when it was devalued. Also any other expences need to be included in this, lawyer fees, moving expences ect. Also an additional amount should be added for any inconvenience or hardships incurred.
The second point is I don’t believe that just because you are the current owner of a piece of ground you have the right to destroy it. We have an obligation to future generations to protect this planet. I am not saying you cannot develop, mine, log, or farm this land. What I am saying is that if you mine it, restore it (making a fish pond out of a gravel pit isn’t restoration), log it replant it. If a person or group is going to do something that permanently destroys a piece of land then the community should have a say. They are the ones who will have to deal with it in the future. Montana has a long history of companies destroying land and water recources and then leaving the taxpayers the cleanup costs.(think gold mines) Its time we stop this.
By debbietant on 02-09-10
Montana still has a long history of destroying the land! Just look at the damage Bruce Tutvedt aka., Taz, has done to the west valley. Why is it the farmers in this state are always the ones that are the most destructive? Maby they are just so happy when they spread their pesticides and poisons they can’t help themselves and have to go all the way. There is only one REAL farmer in this valley that truly understands how inportant protecting OUR LAND is: Thank you Joe Brenneman.
By eibba on 02-09-10
InthemiddleAll land has a most valuable use; farmland and timberland are not generally that most valued use. So when you believe your property value is higher because you live next to one of these uses understand these uses are not permanent uses, these are uses waiting find that higher value. So if you as a neighbor stop me from the true value to my property through neighborhood plans am I then entitle to that same compensation that you suggested.
Please add this to your second point diatribe.
If you build a house on the land you are permanently altering that land. So when you are done living in your house, tear it down and return the land to the timber, farm of meadow it once was.
By overandback on 02-09-10
“Most valuable use” is in conflict with a well vetted and most use land use concept of “highest and best use.” The former considers no one but the land owner and whatever profit he can make. The latter considers the impact of that land use on neighbors, the environment, the ability of the local government to provide services, and the impact of any negative outcomes on future use of the land for future generations. Unbridled exploitation of land is responsible for harm done to entire states, their communities, and most horrifically, the immediate neighborhood. Arguments in support of unbridled greed are probably condemned even by you when they point to the usual suspects in big business. Your argument is narrow focused and self serving. This isn’t the old West, where shoot outs and bullying rule. You have responsibilites to others just as you have responsibilites to your own family. Grow up.
By inthemiddle on 02-09-10
eibba, the destruction I am referring to is permanent destruction, homes are not permanent. If you know your Montana history you would understand what I am talking about. The Anaconda Copper Company ruled this state for over 60 years. Many remnants of it will cause the taxpaxers of this state billions of dollars to clean up. The Butte Pit is a prime example, it is full of so many different toxic chemicals that if a duck lands in it it will die. The mines under Butte are flooding now and nobody has any idea what to do with the overflow water. It will eventually make Butte uninhabitable. The Deer Lodge Valley has dozens of areas that were used to dump slag after it was smeltered, these are full of lead, arsenic, zinc and other heavy metals. These are some of the largest Super Fund cleanup sites in the world. So you feel that this is proper land use. The big companies come in and destroy the land, make millions of dollars, and then leave the mess and cleanup to the people who were there before the mining started. Don’t try and say that it no longer happens, the large foriegn gold and palladium companies are still doing it today. Just so you know the facts, for every dollar of wages paid by these companies to the workers, it costs the state of Montana over 5 dollars to partially clean up there messes. The amount they are required to bond cleanup is less than 5% of what it costs. To many people like you this is OK, the only thing that is important is that the company and its share holders make their money, the hell with everyone else. Don’t tell me it won’t happen here either, it could be coal in the North Fork, coal bed methane inthe Salish mountains or yes even gravel in West Valley. Just remember the golden rule, “He who has the gold makes the rules”. Laissez-faire capitalism really stinks.
By inthemiddle on 02-09-10
Taz, Russ Crowder has stated numerous times he wants all land use planning done away with in Flathead County. That is why he is considered to be a right wing fringe nutcase. For him it is OK to destroy the land permanently for profit, but he thinks that creating conservation easements are immoral. He has a real twisted sense of values.
By brutus on 02-09-10
Why the term civil discourse—- the pen name actually gives you a hint if you study history and the constitution. My views on land use—he “power point” are only what is said in our state constitution and our supreme court. very radical
By kalispelling bee on 02-09-10
Actually, I did not ask about the term and didn’t request a hint. I guess that was my point. Most of the people here are intelligent and well-educated. That’s why a high-school level government lecture felt out of place.
Discourse is generally thought of as peace or love or other nouns that aren’t quantified, although if you’re a spectacular writer you can make “A Separate Peace,” and yes, some people do say A discourse, but normally it’s just discourse. Believe it or not, it doesn’t matter. It’s just that you keep saying it and it’s like hearing “for all intensive purposes” over and over. Sorry, man. It got to me and I cracked this morning. My apologies.
By eibba on 02-09-10
InthemiddleSilver is used in your cell-phone, computer and garage door opener. Petro chemicals are used to grow your food. Fossil fuels are used to heat your house, fuel your car and transport goods to you. Now that it is clear that you intend to point a finger at the farmer, miner and any other company providing you with the goods a services you desire. LOOK AT YOUR HAND THERES FOUR FINGERS POINTING BACK AT YOU.
By eibba on 02-09-10
It will be nice when Mr. Harris is gone.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.