Flathead Beacon | Supreme Court Rules Against Whitefish in Doughnut Lawsuit

Comments on: Supreme Court Rules Against Whitefish in Doughnut Lawsuit

By lou on 08-01-08

One more loss instead of a home run for the Joe DeMaggio of attorneys. Oh well, back to the batting cage again.

By Doughnuteer on 08-01-08

As a person in the doughnut, I can only wonder how the City thought they were going to win—wasn’t the Boston Tea party over this. There is justice after all—WE DO NOT TRUST THE CITY - do you blame us...................

By John on 08-02-08

When it came down to it, are newcomers and real estate developers have just undone 40 YEARS OF CITY-COOPERATION around Whitefish. They wanted all the benefits of living next to a great little community, but didn’t want to cooperate IN ANY WAY with the city when working through issues of growth surrounding the town. Strike this one up to a big loss for community participation and cooperation and a big win for short term greedy developers and outsiders who don’t want to play with the locals.

By John on 08-02-08

Oh BTW- Doughnuteer. If someone wants to build a Pig Farm or Gravel Pit next door to you, don’t come crying to the city. You’ve just said you want the County to protect your property values. Jim Dupont who is running for County Commissioner to continue the Good Ol Boy county commission reign of errors recently said, “If someone wants to build a pig farm next door to you, you better start liking pork.” Also, when you want to sell your property, you should promise not to mention Whitefish at all in your sales materials or try to leverage the benefits of being next door to a town you so much want to NOT BE A PART of. You can’t have it both ways. Good luck with the county suckers.

By Doughnuteer on 08-02-08

I have no problem with with good planning, the Peoples Republic of Whitefish just went too far—WAY too far—and have lost the trust of the Doughnut—they did it to themselves —remember that we don’t have a vote - and when you look closely at the CAO and the growth policy it isn’t fair to the doughnut........

By John on 08-02-08

Whether or not the CAO went too far (it was actually the developers who started out saying they wanted the policy)—the doughnut residents went WAY too far the other way. Now you have destroyed 40 years of city-county cooperation and you have literally NO ZONING. Hope you trust your local Florida real estate developers to do the right thing next door. You should also step up and pay the $100,000 + tab that it will cost county taxpayers (and city residents also) to attempt REDO all of the work undone in order to establish some semblance of sanity over land-use bordering the city. It wasn’t the city who crossed the line—it was a handful of greedy developers and newcomers to Whitefish who undid over 40 years of cooperation. Are they going to pick up the costs of undoing 40 years worth of cooperative work? Most likely not. They want to privatize the gain and socialize the risk. That’s why all these Rethugs are getting thrown out of office in November.

By Kleo on 08-02-08

The worst thing about all of this is that reason did not win at the end of the day. Instead, 40 years of cooperation has been ended. that’s not good for any of us. It’s time for change in the County Commission come this November.

By Doughnuteer on 08-03-08

I heard that the City finally talked last week with the county. The City Attorney was so sure that he was going to win that he let it go to far—the City could have canceled the CAO or made major modifications, before letting it go this far --- I think the City Attorney in the end created this mess—he drafted the original Interlocal (That has so far been proven to be wrong)—supported the CAO and he was so sure he was right that he lead the Council down the wrong path --- how could they lose the doughnut—to me it all goes back to the City Attorney................................ with his agenda..................

By John on 08-03-08

I’m glad to hear that the two parties are talking again. Maybe reason will prevail. However, I don’t think it is fair to say that the City and City Attorney had an agenda and the County didn’t have an agenda. Afterall, it was the County that eliminated all county-wide city-planning coordination in the late 90s. It was the County that took away Kalispell’s right to any planning cooperation outside of its city borders. It was the County that told local neighborhood plans that they were invalid. I will concede that the City could have been more flexible. You do have to concede however that the County has a long history of trying to undo or take away any form of community or neighborhood planning. The county commission has for too long been dominated by good ol’ boy anti-planning zealots who have a very clear AGENDA to eliminate any forms of planning to Flathead Valley growth. Of course, the real world demands something different and that is why the County is getting caught with huge budget problems, increasing taxes and lowering services. We have to smart about the future and Flathead County Commissioners (Watne, Laumann, Williams, Hall et al) have hardly been a beacon of intelligence and vision.

By Doughnuteer on 08-03-08

.............. I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT THIS WILL BE THE BEGINNING TO A NEW RELATIONSHIP FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE IN WHITEFISH..................................

By old timer on 08-04-08

John is way out of touch. Property rights are not related to how long someone has lived here. And guys like Tim Grattan have been around Whitefish as long as anybody. He helped the City establish the Whitefish Golf Course for goodness sake. So you may call him a developer, but he “developed” many things that make you want to live in Whitefish.

Point being, the City has enraged newtimers and oldtimers, developers and non-developers. Because, what they are trying to do outside the city limits is wrong as well as being illegal. Looking forward to the final word from the Supreme Court so they can move on.

By John on 08-04-08

Old Timer—When did I say that property rights are related to how long someone has lived here? What I did say is that the city and county managed to have cooperative growth planning around Whitefish for more than 40 years and now that has been eliminated. Call me crazy but I believe that planning is good fiscal policy and also protects everyone’s property rights. Jim Dupont recently said (and he could become the next County Commissioner) “If someone wants to build a pig farm next to your house you’d better start liking pork.”

Do you really believe that “whatever happens - happens” philosophy is the best policy for accommodating growth in Flathead Valley?

By Doughnuteer on 08-04-08

Oldtimer—you are right on—Tim Graton is a great guy and a man of principle - thank goodness...................

--- wasn’t this decided in Boston a long time ago?

By John on 08-04-08

Actually—to correct your history, the issue in Boston was “Taxation without Representation.”

Currently, the residents in the Doughnut area do not pay any taxes to the City of Whitefish. The reality is that a doughnut resident may have a house immediately adjacent to the City and enjoy all the benefits of the City—but not pay any city taxes for the benefits they receive. Those are paid by the residents of the City.

What the dougnut residents are complaining about is “regulation without representation.” There may be some merit to this argument, although the City-County Planning Board does have representation from County residents so the overall premise isn’t entirely a strong one.

By John on 08-04-08

And BTW—I never mentioned Tim Grattan once in my posts. Is this a case of “You doth protest too much?” Although I do not have a any reason to doubt his integrity. However it is my opinion he is on the wrong side of this issue. I do think there are a few bad actors that have taken up the Doughnut cause, but I don’t believe Tim is one of them.

By Homer J. Simpson on 08-09-08

The idea that I don’t have the right to vote for the people that make the rules I must live under goes against the whole idea of America. It’s so simple I can’t believe there is anyone,ANYONE, that doesn’t see it.

By Bart on 08-09-08

Homer. You did get to vote for County Commissioners who entered into an agreement to continue what had previously been 40 years of City-County Cooperation. The city-county planning board also had representatives of doughnut residents. You could have been on the city-county planning board.

The city of Whitefish just didn’t toe the extreme anti-planning line that the County demanded and so the county broke their agreement. That’s why the County took away the right of Kalispell to cooperatively plan with the county. That’s why the County took away the right of neighborhoods to plan.

Do your homework and understand an issue before you make yourself look silly. (Oh you are Homer Simpson)

By Homer J. Simpson on 08-10-08

I don’t believe I’ve ever been able to vote for the people drawing up and implementing the CAO. I’m actually in favor of most of it. I’m also known to have a fondness for doughnuts but this one smelled funny..............