Let’s put it to a vote…
You hear it all the time, vote on the coal plant. Ms. Jovik Kuntz stated at a recent debate the was no policy for a vote, and what would we even ask. There are discussions about voting on it all over the internet.
It’s not a vote on the coal plant, people. The people of Great Falls do not have a right to vote on “SME building a coal plant”.
The people of Great Falls do did have a right to vote on City involvement in municipal power.
The County recently amended regulations to allow rezoning of the area. Legally. When they are asked to rezone a piece of property, it will be to allow a legal, industrial, use. There is a distinction there. They cannot refuse to rezone because they don’t personally support the coal plant, as far as I know.
(Yes, GeeGuy, I wrote that incorrectly. Forgive the edit, and in the future, I promise not to post before I have my coffee in the morning.)
6 Responses to “Let’s put it to a vote…”
1 GeeGuy 25 October 2007 @ 10:15 am
Did they really re-zone, or did they merely adopt re-zoning rules that comply with state law?
2 Joe Briggs 29 October 2007 @ 10:56 am
The changes enacted were to the regulations themselves and did not involve any particular piece of property. They were made to bring Cascade County regulations into strict compliance with state law. The lawsuit filed against the county on the earlier rezoning for the HGS correctly identified places where the regulations did not match state law.
In regard to a vote of people and or a public policy process, those are indeed legitimate issues to be raised at the City level. The City is investing public resources (water rights) and public dollars into this venture and as such is clearly setting a new direction in its public policy. Public policy by definition requires citizen input and in my opinion warrants a greater level of citizen involvement than has been thus far afforded to the people of Great Falls. Clearly the city’s involvement in the plant (sale of water rights and investment) could be phrased as a ballot resolution and submitted to a vote. The law does not require such an election, but it would certainly be a valid way to obtain the consent of the governed in this contentious issue.
The County’s role in this matter is as indicated in the original post. That is, whether or not to rezone a portion of four landowners’ property from agricultural to industrial. The law limits what we are to consider in such a decision and unlike in a public policy matter, our own opinions are not supposed to be considered. Additionally, state law lays out a precise process to be followed and a vote of the people would not be a legal method to decide the question of a zoning request.
The County Commissioners are to make zoning decisions based solely on the law and the pertinent land use evidence presented during the hearings and the written protest period, nothing else.
One thing which is certain is that regardless of our decision, the county will be sued by one side or the other. That reality is one of the most frustrating parts of this whole episode. Once someone proposes a power plant, of any type, the taxpayers in the proposed county will be forced to spend large sums of money in court defending its decisions. These costs will in all likelihood never be recovered.
Ultimately, it will not be the County Commission which decides whether or not this plant is ever built, it will be a panel of judges, likely at the Federal level.
In my opinion, the best we can do as County Commissioners is to follow the law as strictly as possible, weigh the admissible evidence as dispassionately as possible and make a decision which is legally defensible. At that point we move on to other issues and let the Coal plant fight move to its ultimate destination, the courts.
3 Jerry 31 October 2007 @ 9:21 am
Commissioner Joe Briggs said “The County Commissioners are to make zoning decisions based solely on the law and the pertinent land use evidence presented during the hearings and the written protest period, nothing else.”
Sir, Its a shame you did not follow your own advise, here above, in the first go around on this issue. They were many (hundreds) of locals who wrote, spoke, and protested, with good reasons and evidences before you, that only commissioner Beltrone recognized and heeded. You and commissioner Olson did not listen to your public and eventually lost in court on your position(s) for some of the very reasons that were being protested before you by your constituents.
By not following your own advice as above, you cost the taxpayers of this county many thousands of wasted legal dollars, on both sides, and much wasted time and efforts on the parts of all concerned.
I would certainly hope that when this all comes before you again in the very near future, that you will indeed listen to and act on the evidence(s) presented to yourselves by your constituents. You do have the power to stop this folly now dead in its tracks before more money and efforts are put forth.
Why relegate your authorities and responsibilities needlessly to the higher courts you reference in your piece? This is a problem in our own back yard, lets face it together and do the correct thing for our community, county, and neighbors.
If commissioner Beltrone can face the heat squarely for her constituents, so can you and Mr. Olson.
If the county is to be sued, let it come from the outside big coal interests and not from the folks whom have elected you to represent us! Thank you sir……JT 10/31/07
4 gffirefly 31 October 2007 @ 11:26 am
Jerry, I am confident that Joe can defend himself. However, to the extent that you make accusations against people I respect, and demand a certain course of action, on my blog, please be prepared to back it up.
5 Jerry 31 October 2007 @ 2:34 pm
I am, I saw, I heard, I was there, I testified, and I was very disappointed with the reasoning and votes of two of our commissioners. They stated they were simply following the law. Apparently Commissioner Beltrone saw things differently and was the lone dissenter (did she break the law?). As it turned out, they were not following the law, which was pointed out by several folks, and they lost the case as it came before the judge. They have now redone the zoning rules in an attempt to conform to the law. I respect all the commissioners and our county public servants and expect them to listen to their constituents concerns with the same attention as they do from outside lawyers and pressure interests from outside our county. That is what I expect and would hope they do in the next public discussions on the Industrial park which is really all about the HGS. Thanks to you and GG for providing a forum for public discussion and airing of different views on these subjects…..JT
6 gffirefly 31 October 2007 @ 10:53 pm
I’m confused now Jerry. Are you talking about the re-zoning regulations, or the actual re-zoning?
What case did the County lose “as it came before the judge”? The County invalidated the zoning change to avoid costing the taxpayers money fighting the lawsuits.
In your first comment, you tell Joe he should have followed his own advice, “The County Commissioners are to make zoning decisions based solely on the law and the pertinent land use evidence presented during the hearings and the written protest period, nothing else.”
But then you say “and eventually lost in court on your position(s) for some of the very reasons that were being protested before you by your constituents.” That makes me think you’re talking about the zone change, except for the “lost in court” part. Do you happen to have a reference to that loss?
Then you reference this issue coming before them again in the near future. Since they have changed the zoning regulations already, I can only think you are talking about re-zoning the land, except you just told the Commissioner he needs to follow the law, and now it appears you don’t want him to?
I’m not trying to be difficult here, it just seems to me that you are mixing two separate issues, re-zoning laws (which I belive had to do with public notice & hearing issues) and re-zoning 840 acres of farmland, together.
I am not saying the land should be rezoned, or not rezoned. I’m just trying to figure out what you are asking the County to do, and why.
Leave a Reply