Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Roark on 01-10-08
From what I can gather of this story it looks as though the ‘Swan Lakers’ complaints are nonsense. They are a collective of people opposed to what THEY think is ‘bad’ growth. Sure, it’s ok for them to live there, but anyone else….I hope the MT Supreme Court defends the private property rights of Kootenai Estates.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Michael on 06-16-08
Roark, that’s not quite the situation. The entire area surrounding the lodge was zoned specifically to prevent dense population growth (no more than about 2.5 acres per home) with buildings comprising no more than 30% of each property. The lodge was exempted because it was a Historic Site and was not zoned. Now Milhous is exploiting that loophole and putting in a group of 42 homes that far exceeds the population density of the area. The infrastructure of the area will be negatively impacted by this development. I lived just down the street from the lodge and bought my home in no small part due to the fact that the streets are quiet. This development would throw that right out the window. the waste/sewage concept was also incredibly inadequate and likely to bleed back into the swan (which is populated by Bull Trout - a threatened species under the E.S.A.). I’m not an Environmentalist and am very much in favor of property rights, but this development simply goes against the entire surrounding community’s concept and planning because of a loophole exploiting a Historic Place.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
‘The Defining Story of This Band’
Glacier’s Quick Road to the Top
Giving Comfort When There is No Cure
Schweitzer Rejects NMAR’s Request for Special Session
Political, Agriculture Leaders React to Buffett’s BNSF Purchase
Comments on: Legal Saga Over Kootenai Estates Continues
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Roark on 01-10-08
From what I can gather of this story it looks as though the ‘Swan Lakers’ complaints are nonsense. They are a collective of people opposed to what THEY think is ‘bad’ growth. Sure, it’s ok for them to live there, but anyone else….I hope the MT Supreme Court defends the private property rights of Kootenai Estates.
By Michael on 06-16-08
Roark, that’s not quite the situation. The entire area surrounding the lodge was zoned specifically to prevent dense population growth (no more than about 2.5 acres per home) with buildings comprising no more than 30% of each property. The lodge was exempted because it was a Historic Site and was not zoned. Now Milhous is exploiting that loophole and putting in a group of 42 homes that far exceeds the population density of the area. The infrastructure of the area will be negatively impacted by this development. I lived just down the street from the lodge and bought my home in no small part due to the fact that the streets are quiet. This development would throw that right out the window. the waste/sewage concept was also incredibly inadequate and likely to bleed back into the swan (which is populated by Bull Trout - a threatened species under the E.S.A.). I’m not an Environmentalist and am very much in favor of property rights, but this development simply goes against the entire surrounding community’s concept and planning because of a loophole exploiting a Historic Place.