Franchising the Disenfranchised: Let's Stop Doing That in Sultan
GRIT
HOME

 

The April 29, 2002 Herald article on Mr. John Stokes, a militant right-wing Montana radio talk show host spurred me to write an editorial which has been simmering for awhile in that space between my ears some call my "brain," others, a cement block. If you missed it, you should read the article, also linked to my front page. You may find some striking similarities to Sultan.

Human nature is to view events through blinders. And just like our four-legged equine friends, this causes us to see a finite and restricted view of the world around us, thereby allowing us to deal with it in a less-threatening, more circumspect manner: We can't get upset about what we don't see, right?

Since we began our pro-law battle with the Sultan government over two years ago, I have heard the same trite statement from some who oppose our tactics and goals: "Why can't we all just get along?" "Splendid!" say I. We can begin as soon as "they" agree with "us," and begin to follow the law.

This is best exemplified in a recent email exchange between a long-time Sultanite and I, when he/she recommended that I: "Get together with those whose ideas differ from yours, try understanding where they are really coming from and let's see what this community can accomplish together." I couldn't agree more with that sentiment, with one key difference: That they need to understand my point of view a bit better.

It's the same in Ireland, Israel or in 1870's America when the cattlemen tried to keep out the farmers. It's almost matter of Physics, really: Whenever two opposing forces of equal mass speed headlong toward each other, an explosive and self-destructive situation will result, barring any course correction.

Will that happen here? It's happening in Montana, where the "Green Nazis" (as Stokes call them, a.k.a. the "eco-fascists") are colliding head-on with Mr. Stokes, who has said that environmentalists "should all be rounded up and put in an internment campground," a sentiment I'm sure is shared by many property rights proponents in Sultan.

From our perspective, the pro-law position has been completely ignored by the aggressive pro-development faction, thereby making us a disenfranchised group. Both state law and government's nature champions economic development and property development. But we need to ensure that potent public input is given "legs." As the law stands now (and especially in Sultan), this Administration's consideration of public input is that it must be endured but should be ignored (unless it comes from the economic development interests).

What has happened in Sultan is that a few bad apples have used the color of law to achieve an economically advantageous outcome, facilitated by the city, either by incompetence or design. And that has created a dangerously unbalanced -- "dysfunctional," if you will, to use the term provided by Sky Valley Weekly News -- relationship between the two groups.

Will we be able to overcome this situation? Will the "Greedies" (the aggressive economic development faction) win over the "Greenies" (the pro-law group, incorrectly perceived by the Greedies as "eco-terrorists")? Sadly, it looks like that may well be what happens. In a cultural environment where the bad guy is "more interesting" than the supposed hero, and where a government mindset cares more about being a shill for developers than about accountability, it will be virtually impossible to turn Sultan around into a town we will all be proud to live in 10 or 20 years from now. I would not wish to live In Monroe -- a pantheon to too-fast, fast-buck, I-want-it-NOW-development -- yet there seem to be so many here saying they don't wish it either, yet every action they taken brings us closer to that end. We are on the knife-edge of recreating Sultan in Monroe's image. Or worse.)

I would like to see a true decision-making coalition of Sultan residents, one which leaves the 8,000-pound economic gorilla in the closet.

Yes, of course, we need economic development. Yes, of course we will have growth. But let's also ensure that our future is a synthesis of all colors, textures and patterns representing a tapestry of many perspectives; NOT a Leavenworth, NOT a developer-only canvas, but a true and full partnership. Let's use the "non-developer" disenfranchised by which we can grow a better tomorrow. A future that will be more -- not less -- economically sound, by building a "green" business environment in happy concert with the God-given natural greenery and vibrant life that surrounds us.

Let's leave an inheritance instead of a due bill.

___________________________________

And just to show folks that I really DO understand both sides of the issues, here's a little exercise in perspective, if you care to read it. Our positions might surprise you.

Our View of What Property Rights Advocates Believe

Ittakesgrit.org's Personal Pro-Law &/or
Environmental Viewpoint

(I obviously cannot speak for others)

"I should be able to do pretty much whatever I wish to do with my property."

I agree. As long as it's legal. But I also believe that the greater public good -- especially negative financial or collateral impacts to others -- needs to be considered.

"I should not have to pay taxes on land the government has basically 'taken' from me."

I absolutely agree with that. Work to change the law. We'd work with you.

"A 300-foot buffer for a tiny little stream is ridiculous."

I agree. I am all for common sense in solving environmental problems. Let's work to revise or amend the law.

"I think the government is way too intrusive."

I would agree with that statement, overall.

"The government is too controlling."

I would agree with this, for the most part. The problem seems to stem from government's joy in passing new and clarifying laws, while giving little thought or action to accountability issues. In other words, if someone utterly destroys an ESA-rated stream buffer, what's the personal cost paid by the offender? The inability to use the land for a year? Two? Five? A heavy fine? Usually the offender gets away with a tap on the knuckles. Therefore, what's the downside to destroying a stream or a wetland? Which sort of segues into the next subject, which is ESA issues.

"I think the Endangered Species Act was just a government power grab."

I agree that some aspects of the law were a power grab. Unfortunately, a significant reason for why the Act was needed has been demonstrated by certain people in Sultan through greedy and wanton acts, a sort of microcosm of the big picture and, sadly, why there is need for the law.

"That GRIT group is destructive to the economic development and future of Sultan."

I do NOT agree with that. I believe that long-term economic health depends on wisely considered development, using sound planning practices. I also believe -- know -- that unless development pays for itself as it becomes a reality, an endless Catch-22 economic cycle will result; i.e., government uses temporary money -- permit and impact fees -- to finance the ability to over-develop, thereby creating the need for more capital expenditures for infrastructure to handle that development, causing the need for more money, and 'round and 'round we go in and endless merry-go-round of living on the next decade's funding.

"Impact fees are too high and they only increase the costs to the end purchaser/user."

I do NOT believe that is true. As it stands, impact fees only cover a portion of the true costs of development. And deep discounts are often given, making matters even worse. If lumber or labor costs rise, the developer grumbles but passes the costs onward, for the most part. But after all, isn't the new user the one who should pay for the new or expanding infrastructure they create? Why should the taxpayers have to pick up the tab when they did not create the need nor reap the benefit?

"When I try to develop my land, I the city makes me jump through hoops. And, it's expensive. I have to pay for traffic studies, environmental studies, permits, impact fees and all kinds of other things."

Believe me, I understand and agree with that frustration factor. I really do. However, to develop or not to develop is your choice. And before you begin, we assume you have done your economic research by figuring your costs, compare it to the gross selling price, and compute your net profit. And if you are satisfied with that bottom line, then you go forward. (This, of course, precludes any blunders over which you have little control, such as the LID 97-1 fiasco, which will decrease that bottom line.)

"I've lived in this house all my life and have paid taxes for 30 years. I need to make a profit when I sell."

The fact is, you will make a fairly nice profit when you sell, traditionally, it represents an increase in value of 10% or more per year. About the same as if you invested in the stock market. The question really is: How much profit will you be satisfied with?

"GRIT is always complaining about public input. They get to speak their minds all the time in hearings and meetings. They're just whiners with a constant gripe."

We disagree!. Big surprise! The problem with public input is that, yes, when we hear about a hearing or a meeting, we come and say our piece. Often it's 20 or 30 folks saying the same thing. But the input is almost immediately and ignored. We -- taxpayers, voters, residents -- have become a "necessary nuisance." The mayor and city staff run virtually everything, and the council has allowed it to happen. So have we all. You either speak your mind or lose your voice. You either find a way to make the government listen, or you simply give up and let the next generation deal with the problems created by this one.

Anyone who represents "the other side" is invited, even encouraged, to submit an editorial in rebuttal and I will print it, even if it is not flattering to us. (Assuming there are no four-letter words or anything we would consider libelous.) (back to top)

Other Editorials

 

Discuss on our forum