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 MW on 01-06-09
Good for you, Montanans!! Way to raise hell and don’t you let up. My husband and I love Montana’s natural beauty and have been watching this story closely from afar. As a resident of KY I have watched developers transform the most beautiful parts of our bluegrass region into endless rows of cookie-cutter, vinyl-sided ####. Mining companies here have free reign to dump pollution and remove the mountaintops and then build more houses on the wasteland left behind. You all are right to recognize what a treasure you have there - clean air, clear water, and wide open spaces, and to fight for it. I’m glad to know that at least for a while, Montana is still the “Last Best Place”.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By NativeMT on 01-06-09
To: MW - When was your last visit here? It is no longer “The Last Best Place”. People are rude, crime is up, box stores everywhere you look and they are bringing in a Super Walmart to boot. What used to be large employers to this state are going bust and leaving hard working folks penninless. I’m looking for a a new “Best Place”. Any suggestons?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By MW on 01-06-09
We last visited MT in July ‘07 and over Christmas-New Year’s break 2008. We have been to the Yellowstone/Beartooth area twice, and we are hoping to visit GlacierNP this summer (one reason I’ve been researching your area). Believe me, we have the same problems (unemployment, poverty, inept leaders, mean people)here in KY, maybe worse, but without the spectacular views. Trust me, you don’t know what crime is…Louisville had over 70 homicides in one year and who knows how many break-ins, etc. The news here is nothing but a continuous crime report. We are also looking to move elsewhere, probably to a rural area, but honestly I don’t know where to go. If you find a new “Best Place”, let me know, b/c we’d love to get outta here.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By MW on 01-06-09
Hey Native,
are there any good places left in MT?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Jim Moose on 01-07-09
The real battleground in the fight against Plum Creek’s development plans is at the local level. It’s unfortunate that the planning and zoning laws in Montana are as weak as they are. Montanans, of course, have historically greatly cherished their property rights, and as a result vast swaths of private land in the state remain unzoned. Plum Creek, as one would expect, has every intention of exercising its property rights to the fullest extent. Rules intended to protect yeoman ranchers and farmers will now be abused by a giant corporation (or “real estate trust,“ to be more accurate.)
One of the worst Montana statutes gives Plum Creek, as a large owner of timber lands, the ability in some instances to exercise a veto power over zoning regulations enacted by a democratically elected county board. Thus, a for-profit business can resist environmental regulation intended to protect some of the most beautiful and ecologically sensitive lands in the lower 48 states.
Paradoxically, despite Montana’s traditional solicitude for private property rights, Montana’s constitution, adopted in 1972, includes language elevating environmental values to a higher level than can be found in any other state constitution. In Montana, each resident has an alienable individual right to a clean and healthful environment, and the Legislature has a constitutional duty to make this right real and enforceable.
The Montana statute giving Plum Creek this veto power seems to be of dubious legal validity in light of such inspiring constitutional language. The veto statute flouts environmental values by allowing large landowners to resist governmental attempts at environmental protection in favor of the pursuit of private profit. The statute is also patently undemocratic in that it creates a preferred class of citizens who can resist the exercise of governmental power and authority in a way that no ordinary citizen can—and at the expense of the environment. Further, the statute delegates what amounts to unbridled legislative power to private parties (including, as a practical matter, corporations) who are free to pursue their naked self interest at the expense of the public welfare. Similar statutes in other states have been struck down in court.
The Montana Legislature should avoid the court fights that will inevitably occur over this veto provision by eliminating the provision in its current legislative session.
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.
Cat-Griz: 109th Meeting Could Have Playoff Implications
A Holiday Curtain Call
Mixed Martial Arts Return to Kalispell
DOR Director Says Reappraisal Process Working
After 42 Years, Books West Closes its Doors
Comments on: Update: Plum Creek Abandons Forest Service Road Deal
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 MW on 01-06-09
Good for you, Montanans!! Way to raise hell and don’t you let up. My husband and I love Montana’s natural beauty and have been watching this story closely from afar. As a resident of KY I have watched developers transform the most beautiful parts of our bluegrass region into endless rows of cookie-cutter, vinyl-sided ####. Mining companies here have free reign to dump pollution and remove the mountaintops and then build more houses on the wasteland left behind. You all are right to recognize what a treasure you have there - clean air, clear water, and wide open spaces, and to fight for it. I’m glad to know that at least for a while, Montana is still the “Last Best Place”.
By NativeMT on 01-06-09
To: MW - When was your last visit here? It is no longer “The Last Best Place”. People are rude, crime is up, box stores everywhere you look and they are bringing in a Super Walmart to boot. What used to be large employers to this state are going bust and leaving hard working folks penninless. I’m looking for a a new “Best Place”. Any suggestons?
By MW on 01-06-09
We last visited MT in July ‘07 and over Christmas-New Year’s break 2008. We have been to the Yellowstone/Beartooth area twice, and we are hoping to visit GlacierNP this summer (one reason I’ve been researching your area). Believe me, we have the same problems (unemployment, poverty, inept leaders, mean people)here in KY, maybe worse, but without the spectacular views. Trust me, you don’t know what crime is…Louisville had over 70 homicides in one year and who knows how many break-ins, etc. The news here is nothing but a continuous crime report. We are also looking to move elsewhere, probably to a rural area, but honestly I don’t know where to go. If you find a new “Best Place”, let me know, b/c we’d love to get outta here.
By MW on 01-06-09
Hey Native,
are there any good places left in MT?
By Jim Moose on 01-07-09
The real battleground in the fight against Plum Creek’s development plans is at the local level. It’s unfortunate that the planning and zoning laws in Montana are as weak as they are. Montanans, of course, have historically greatly cherished their property rights, and as a result vast swaths of private land in the state remain unzoned. Plum Creek, as one would expect, has every intention of exercising its property rights to the fullest extent. Rules intended to protect yeoman ranchers and farmers will now be abused by a giant corporation (or “real estate trust,“ to be more accurate.)
One of the worst Montana statutes gives Plum Creek, as a large owner of timber lands, the ability in some instances to exercise a veto power over zoning regulations enacted by a democratically elected county board. Thus, a for-profit business can resist environmental regulation intended to protect some of the most beautiful and ecologically sensitive lands in the lower 48 states.
Paradoxically, despite Montana’s traditional solicitude for private property rights, Montana’s constitution, adopted in 1972, includes language elevating environmental values to a higher level than can be found in any other state constitution. In Montana, each resident has an alienable individual right to a clean and healthful environment, and the Legislature has a constitutional duty to make this right real and enforceable.
The Montana statute giving Plum Creek this veto power seems to be of dubious legal validity in light of such inspiring constitutional language. The veto statute flouts environmental values by allowing large landowners to resist governmental attempts at environmental protection in favor of the pursuit of private profit. The statute is also patently undemocratic in that it creates a preferred class of citizens who can resist the exercise of governmental power and authority in a way that no ordinary citizen can—and at the expense of the environment. Further, the statute delegates what amounts to unbridled legislative power to private parties (including, as a practical matter, corporations) who are free to pursue their naked self interest at the expense of the public welfare. Similar statutes in other states have been struck down in court.
The Montana Legislature should avoid the court fights that will inevitably occur over this veto provision by eliminating the provision in its current legislative session.