Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Opinion & Editorial

by John W. Robinson, Corvallis

A while back the Ravalli Republic ran an editorial entitled "Bipartisanship Works." It was all about the Republicans and the Democrats getting together and passing the stimulus package that President Bush declared the country needed to forestall a recession. The parties just set aside all of their differences and passed the bill to save the country. WOW! What a bipartisan effort for the good of the country.

I have a different view of bipartisanship. I think it is only a bipartisan effort when both side have to give, at least a little, in the way of "party principles" to accomplish something for the good of the country. If the parties sat down and came to a compromise position on a medicare bill that covered the poor and the down trodden, I would call that bipartisanship.

A number of years ago, all but a few of our congressional legislators acted in almost complete concert. They passed a bill that made their pay raises automatic. Every two years they get a hefty raise in pay without having to bring it to the floor of either house to be voted on. What a wonderful time saving devise. They can use that time to investigate if Roger is lying about steroid use. To get their raise in pay they only have to open the monthly pay envelop. I don’t think that is bipartisanship. To coin a new word, I call it uno-partisanship. They are all taking care of themselves, not the good of the country.

Montana just had a bipartisanship effort to dispose of a huge surplus. The governor and the legislature agreed, they should give $400 back to every property owner because the government had overtaxed them. While this giveaway was going on, the funding for education K-12 was sinking like the Titanic in an ocean of debt caused by the great inflation in energy costs. Funding education does not secure votes to stay in office, giving money to taxpayers does. You figure it out. Is that bipartisanship or is it self-protection?

The federal stimulus package is giving tax money back to taxpayers. Adding that money to the cost of running a war, that may not have been necessary, only increases our national debt. On an individual basis, it is like taking one credit card to pay off the debt you incurred on another credit card. It doesn’t take long before you have a lot of credit cards and unmanageable debt.

If you were a representative or a senator, would you take a chance on losing your elected office because you voted against giving a helping hand to the voters who elected you? Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican office holder, your greatest desire is to retain your membership in the Washington DC Club. You wouldn’t dare vote against the stimulus package. I don’t call that bipartisanship, I call it self-serving. That vote doesn’t compromise any principles of the party, it only compromises the legislator, and we are all aware many of them have compromised for money.

I guess bipartisanship is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. It is sad when you consider how little green it takes to make greed look like bipartisanship.

Get informed about zoning

Dear Editor,

There is a place in this valley for zoning. It has been my experience that not everyone has been notified. Some folks have reading disabilities or cannot afford a paper. What’s happening is a handful of people are going to the zoning meetings with their own agendas. The zone is supposed to curb growth, not be neighbor bashing tool. People wake up and read what is going on and spread the word. This zoning is going to be crammed down the majorities throat. Get informed and speak up for your property rights. Remember there is no Boston Harbor for a tea party here.

Ella Buckallew Wothe
Stevensville

Make your vote count

Dear Editor,

My fellow Republicans: Ticked off that your vote no longer counts in Ravalli County? Your vote can still count in June’s primary…vote Democrat!

Sharon Renfro
Stevensville

Perpetuity is a long time

Dear Editor,

Perpetuity is a long, long time.  How can anyone prepare completely for the unpredictable future and how can anyone make wise, unchangeable decisions for others over extended fluctuating times and conditions?

Every property owner has a vision for his land and the right to determine what to do with it and how to administer it.  The term perpetuity locks in forever his personal desires and decisions that will rule his heirs and all future owners.  If he loves his children he will not encumber them with a binding contract over which they will have no control.

Tax dollars finance extensive federally held lands, now approximately 50% of the United States, with costs becoming exorbitant and prohibitive.  Now catastrophic fires are consuming poorly managed overgrown federal forests.  Tax payers can no longer afford fire-fighting.  Supposedly cost saving “just let it burn” policies are now destroying our timber, wildlife and environment.  

New innovative strategies disguised as “saving” the environment, are now placing private land under government control while leaving all bills with property owners. The conservation easement is just such a scheme.   The non-profit, non governmental agency (NGO) commonly known as the land trust develops binding contract terms incorporating land owner input and desires, while offering appealing financial benefits (bait).  The true objective, however, is to place the owner and his property under management and control of the land trust but essentially the government in the course of perpetuity.

The property owner retains title and specified uses of his land, certain tax advantages and possibly other monetary perks in exchange for his generosity and good will.  What a satisfying arrangement!  Of course he has permanently acquired a “boss” to oversee and supervise his every action while committing himself to all ongoing financial obligations: maintenance, taxes, insurance and any future environmental demands.  Actually the bait has been offered, taken and the hook sunk deeply in perpetuity.

The public is exceedingly appreciative of Open Space”, viewscapes, wildlife habitats and refuges thus achieved.  The community is grateful.  The skillful sales representative creates an almost euphoric vision verging on patriotism combined with the warm fuzzy feeling of doing something wonderful for the environment.  The presentation is tailored to a variety of owner interests.  Those financially secure, with little concern over possible future financial adversities, happily envision their land forever remaining the same for their own enjoyment and that of others.

On the other hand, many farmers and ranchers depend on the land for their livelihoods in spite of ever increasing global competition and decreasing annual profit margins.  They are likely seeking temporary financial relief until times hopefully get back to normal.  They give no thought to this being a one-time only perk never available to future operators.  Others having reached an age where they can no longer farm, seek financial security enabling them to remain on their beloved land until such time as it passes on to their children.  They traditionally believe that their “kids” can eventually do anything they want with it.  Not so!  Decisions have already been made for them in a contract forever locking them and all future owners into terms they likely were not involved in developing.

Property owners accept that the land shall always be farmed; however their offspring may choose lucrative, satisfying livelihoods elsewhere with little intent of returning to the home place.  They will inevitably tire of paying the expenses on property they seldom see, while changed circumstances may even make it impossible pay. It is assumed that they could then simply sell the farm.  However, the conservation easement assures a lower market value than adjoining unencumbered properties priced higher partially due to scarcity.  Also the larger the piece of property the fewer the prospective buyers.  Some may willingly invest in 20 to 30 acres of “cheap” vacant land to assure privacy for a single home meeting contract specifications.. However buyers are scarce for hundreds, perhaps thousands of acres locked into agriculture and limited to one or two residences. If eventually surrounded by residential development and highways, needed access for farm machinery is prohibitive.  It becomes a virtual weed-covered wasteland requiring heavy insurance to cover inevitable influx of accident-prone hunters and recreationists.

Any ensuing legal costs for both sides are the responsibility of the land owner. In the event the owner takes the land trust to court he will face a battalion of high-powered, high priced attorneys specializing in conservation easement law.  He will assuredly lose. However, the land trust can easily take the property owner to court at any time over owner performance or interpretation of contract terms, often subjective in nature.  Basically the land owner is “over the barrel” and beholden to the whims of the land trust, “locked in” under contract in perpetuity. Furthermore, the congenial, reassuring sales person could easily be replaced by a more demanding individual perhaps verging on harassment.  No business operation is guaranteed to exist forever. The land trust may sell their interests to another qualified agency, or other outside NGO’s may even register third party dissatisfaction.

What are the chances of changes or termination of contract?   Through expensive legal process, it is possible for land owners to negotiate with the land trust, seeking changes in contract terms, however without assurance of success. Also, according to law if the holder of both the use of the land and the title to that land fall under the same ownership, the conservation easement contract is null and void. Montana statute MCA 70-17-111, provides that if the entity holding an easement becomes the owner of the Land, the easement is extinguished.  This suggests that owners could ask the friendly foundation to sell its easement rights for a nominal sum to a friend to whom he will deed the land.  Presto – no more conservation easement.  But this is highly unlikely as the land trust would dislike giving give up a prospective lucrative land deal.

Eventually the owner may become desperate to unload the land to get out from under aggravation and ongoing expense, and may become willing to sell at almost any price.

The land trust is now in position to take the land off his hands at a price far below current market value of similar unencumbered land.   Then after achieving full ownership of both the real property and its use, this non-profit, non-taxpaying entity can flip it to the federal government at a highly inflated price, possibly 10 times or more above purchase price.  Payment in Federal tax dollars can then be reinvested in additional conservation easements, thus continuing the cycle.  Or, on the other hand, as full owner and free of easement restrictions; the property may be sold to developers, exactly contrary to the original wishes of owners whose dream and entire purpose was preservation of the land in its natural state for all future generations.

Another possibility occurring in some states is owner default on taxes with property being virtually donated to the county, which in reality becomes a liability unless a productive use is found for it.  If up for tax-sale this easement encumbered land faces the previous problem of a limited market.  States are now attempting to develop legislation to over-ride or remove terms of contract when county government assumes ownership, thus regaining the sales value and re-establishing it onto the tax roles.  

Hopefully this information will stimulate more in-depth consideration of long-term ramifications and potential pit-falls prior to committing to a conservation easement.  Property owners owe it to themselves and their heirs to give cautious, thorough investigation before signing such a binding agreement.  America, in general, needs to be concerned about the increasing loss of private land to the federal government through state and national land trust activities.  The matter urgently needs to be addressed legislatively by our elected officials.

Clarice Ryan
Bigfork

Political Realist or Cynic?

Dear Editor,

At the end of a recent Democratic luncheon I was standing with one of the new County Commissioner candidates and a liberal friend. I made a comment to the candidate “Politics is about winning the hearts and minds of the voter in order to get into their pockets.” My liberal friend looked at me in shock, and said “What a cynical point of view” and abruptly walked off. “Let me explain” I said to the candidate, who had a surprised and quizzical look.

If you win the hearts and minds of the voters, because you are honest, qualified, and motivated to serve, then the laws you enact and, the legislation you support will have a much better chance of being willingly paid for by the public.

Sounds cold, but if you don’t have the money to get elected and (once elected) to enforce the laws than we don’t have a civilized, safe community. It’s the reality of politics which is the business of, Power-Perception and Money.

If you elect a good person with an understanding of business and law, along with their personal expertise and a strong social conscience, you will have chosen a person who will try to solve problems, administer good government and not waste your tax dollars. If you elect someone whose proudest accomplishment is how many times they have voted

NO

I’m a realist, not a cynic.

Get involved! Support Democratic Candidates with your time and money.

Demand more from your elected officials.

VOTE.

Be willing to pay for the services you expect from our various local, state and federal governments, or come up with a list of what you want cut!

Richard L. Marcus
Stevensville

More Diatribe from Real Estate Special Interests

Dear Editor,

If you attended last Thursday’s meeting at Wally Weber’s Ranch in Corvallis, and bought into the long line of crap coming from the mouths of real estate interests in this valley, including millionaire developers, (the very owners of proposed, massive developments like Flat Iron Ranch and Area III), then I would really, really like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

You are allowing yourself to be conned by greedy millionaires and their political pimps, who are lying to you because they have millions more in potential profits at stake; and they are using you as “stoolies” to achieve their financial objectives.

Ask yourself the following question: Which type of real estate in the Bitterroot Valley is most likely to bring the highest price in the future?

- open land, with very little development on it, with amazing scenery, in one of the last, best places on the planet, or

– polluted land, with high density housing on it, similar to thousands of other communities across the United States, including Hackensack, New Jersey; or Tacoma, Washington.

Come on people; wise up! Your own financial future is at stake!

Chris Linkenhoker
Corvallis

Zoning is happening

Dear Editor,

The countywide Zoning Project is moving ahead - with or without YOUR input! (remember the countywide zoning mandate was part of the "1 per 2" passed in Nov. '06). The county has been divided by school districts, each district being called a CPC - Community Planning Committee. Many of your friends and neighbors have been volunteering their time at regular meetings to learn about and take part in the process.

Why haven't you heard about this? The county managed to secure some funding, around $200,000, for this process. However they decided to use ALL the money to hire consultants to tell us "how" to best go about this process, and didn't allocate ANY money to actually "do" the process. Therefore, the CPC's have no funding to contact you (mailings, ads, flyers, etc.) to keep you informed of their progress. Nor do they have funding to hold community meetings.

Feb. 29th is the date for 1st comments on the progress of this process so far. I urge you to find your local CPC

(www.ravallicounty.mt.gov/planning). Tell your friends and neighbors.

Let your voices be heard. Better yet, join in! Don't let someone else decide what you can and can't do with your own property. The Zoning process affects EVERY person in the county and will have substantial impact on growth and development.

Mark Van Loon
Hamilton

Smokers are scapegoats

Dear Editor,

Smokers in America have been demonized like no other group of people, with the possible exception of evangelical Christians. The way smokers have been treated is scandalous. Why? There are a number of reasons, and people who smoke are passive participants in events. To clarify my remarks it is necessary to look at the history of the problem.

Tobacco has been growing in America since somewhere around 6000 BC. The smoking of tobacco began around 2000 BC, and there is a long history of its use in Native American culture. Consuming tobacco introduces nicotine into the user’s bloodstream. Nicotine is addicting. That fact has resulted in the massive exploitation of the people who are addicted to a legal product.

Smoking was common when I was growing up. In movies the good guys smoked. Sophisticated characters, frequently with British accents, used fancy cigarette holders. Many adults in our families and in our communities smoked. To those old enough to remember him, the Marlboro Man was a positive figure.

The candy store across the street from the Junior High School I attended sold single cigarettes to us for two cents each. At lunch time you could cut the smoke in that store with a knife. I won’t forget how proud I was when I learned to inhale the smoke without choking. Looking back at it, smoking was one of the milestones we had set on the road to becoming adults. We didn’t think about it that way, but in retrospect that is exactly what it was.

Years ago smokers in the workplace were assigned smoking areas. Those areas were eliminated, and smokers were instructed to leave the building to smoke. People huddled in front of buildings with coat collars turned up against wind and snow, hurriedly puffing away to finish cigarettes before break time ended. That was in the late nineties, and it was only the beginning for smokers.

Today smokers are openly scorned. I can’t understand why tobacco executives are not. People who know what they have done never even mention them. They get no coverage by the media. It is almost as though they don’t exist. I would like to know why. If a deranged person perpetrates a Columbine type massacre we are subjected to microscopic examinations of every facet of their deranged lives. Stories on monsters like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy generate torrents of ink from newspaper reporters. Television specials about them are replayed for years. Yet all of the victims of all of the monsters like them don’t begin to approach the number of deaths caused by tobacco pushers.

Cigarette manufacturers conspired to conceal the fact that their product caused cancer. Local, state and national government entered into a financial relationship with tobacco companies. Billions of tobacco dollars flow into their budgets. With that much money available, the politicians chose dollars over prosecuting tobacco company executives. Apparently it made no difference to them how many people died. No CEO of any tobacco company went to prison for knowingly contributing to the deaths of millions of their customers. Compare their treatment with that of the customers.

Smokers are pawns. They are identified as villains by self righteous bureaucrats, self-serving politicians, and non-smokers who believe that passive smoke is killing them. People addicted to nicotine provide the money that tobacco companies give to the politicians. If the politicians want more money, they raise the price of cigarettes.

Belmont, California has declared it illegal to smoke in that city, except in single family dwellings. If you live in an apartment building you can’t smoke. A complaint from a neighbor can result in legal penalties. I would expect something like that to happen in a police state, not in America. I’m afraid I may have become one of those compassionate conservatives I’ve heard about. (What a horrible thought). Whenever I see anyone smoking I feel sorry for them.

Hundreds of years of creating smokers, and now they are publicly discriminated against. They are not the villains. The real villains belong in maximum security prisons, but they are living in luxury. Thanks to politicians they will never see the inside of a cell.

Gene Williams
Hamilton

Survey not science

Dear Editor,

I read with amazement Dave Hurtt’s 2/20 letter to the editor telling us that Chris Daniel’s “survey” demonstrates conclusively that streamside landowners don’t want setbacks.

            As a streamside property owner, I received Daniel’s letter last fall. The first page began by asking if setbacks would devalue my property. It then proceeded to basically tell me that only a fool would think they would not. It ended with encouragement to sign a statement on the next page and mail it back to him telling the commissioners (among other items) that “if you pass setbacks I will look into applying for a property tax deduction.” Since I wasn’t well-informed and could see the letter writer had an obvious agenda, I didn’t send it back. Imagine my surprise that it has resurfaced as a scientific survey of public opinion.

            Fact is, no one knows how streamside property owners feel about setbacks except that there are a variety of opinions. What is known by anyone who has attended the professional talks hosted by the setback committee is that:

1) there is no evidence that setbacks devalue land, on the contrary, the predictability provided by zoning often actually increases property values,

2) there is a strong legal precedent allowing commissioners to implement setbacks,

3) there are compelling reasons for having streamside setbacks in Ravalli County,

4) and, if we don’t do it, the state will.

Personally, I favor doing it locally. I have found the county streamside setback committee extremely responsive to legitimate concerns. I can’t fathom why Dave Hurtt and Chris Daniels prefer waiting for the state to tell us what to do.

Pat Tucker
Hamilton

Climate change debate

Dear Editor,

The debate about climate change in Montana is entering a new phase.  Thanks to the hard work of the Montana Climate Change Action Committee, when Montanans, and their lawmakers, talk about ways to minimize the profound consequences that global warming could have on the economy, they can do so based on a comprehensive, well-supported plan which recommends 54 ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  

For the state’s Environmental Quality Council (EQC), the interim legislative committee deciding whether to propose legislation for the 2009 legislature on the issue of climate change, the plan provides a great starting point for the discussions that will undoubtedly continue as Montana’s legislators consider their options on this very important issue at a very pivotal time.

Everyone has a chance to weigh in on this significant topic.  The EQC encourages Montanans to review these climate change recommendations on-line, offer feedback, and to submit new ideas for consideration. Please take time to complete the EQC’s online survey at HYPERLINK "http://www.leg.mt.gov/css/climate_survey.asp" http://www.leg.mt.gov/css/climate_survey.asp < HYPERLINK "http://www/leg.mt.gov/css/climate_survey.asp" http://www/leg.mt.gov/css/climate_survey.asp> .

As a public appointee to the EQC, and someone who does not deal with climate change issues on a daily basis, I confess that it took me time to get up to speed on greenhouse gas/carbon emission/energy terminology. It also took time to become familiar with the elements and structure of the climate change recommendations offered by the Montana Climate Change Action Committee, and to understand the technical legislative solutions outlined in the survey. But, when I think about what is at stake for future Montanans, it feels like a small price to pay to be able to meaningfully join in working together toward thoughtful solutions to complex problems.    

Results of the plan make clear that things have changed in Montana over the last fifteen years.  As recently as 1995, Montana was a carbon “sink,” or an area that actually traps and holds carbon from the atmosphere in trees, grasses, soils and water.  In a few short years, that has all changed and Montana is now a net greenhouse gas emitter. In fact, according to the report, Montanans currently emit greenhouse gases at twice the national average, a rate projected to rise every year if we take no action.  

Some of these solutions focus on how Montana farms, ranches, families and businesses can reduce their consumption of energy to reduce energy production.  For example, by just improving energy efficiency of new and existing buildings with increased insulation, recycled and local materials, and more efficient appliances, Montanans can significantly reduce emissions and save money on energy bills.  But if we wanted to achieve the maximum reduction for the least cost, we could adopt a “clean car” standard like one implemented in California.  

Other solutions focus on the complex issue of energy production.  Since Montana exports more power than we use in our state, the plan also considers how to best approach this disparity and how to determine how much electricity we should generate in Montana. For example, should we develop our extensive coal resources which are considered the single largest contributing factor to global warming? Should we consider increasing the role of renewable energy sources in our state-wide energy portfolio, increasing the efficiency of existing Montana power plants, and even storing excess CO2 deep underground (sequestration)?  Some of these good ideas have been discussed for many years, but may not be easily implemented today because they are technologically infeasible, prohibitively expensive, or would further benefit from federal legislation to create a fifty-state cap on carbon emissions.

How the 2009 Montana state legislature may act on climate change recommendations remains to be seen. But two things are certain: the dialogue about how to address climate change within Montana state government has begun and the Montana Climate Change Action Committee Plan provides a solid foundation for those discussions.

Diane Conradi
Whitefish

Zoning Paranoia

Dear Editor,

Paranoia is difficult to counter but I feel I must respond to Plains, (Sanders County?)  Montana resident Ron Olfert, (February 20) . He wildly accuses the county of hiring a firm (Clarion) to sneakily cram zoning down us poor naïve Bitterrooters’ throats. Nothing could be further from the truth. Only citizens uninvolved in the process would fall for his fear mongering. The current chaos works for no one, including local builders and developers. As a result, many builders are actively participating in the zoning process. Do we all agree on what densities should be where and what uses should be allowed in various areas? Of course not. But we are united in wanting the predictability that zoning will bring. No one wants to wake up to find a motocross track going in next door. No builder wants to begin the process of dividing a piece of land without knowing whether it will be allowed in that neighborhood and what costs will be incurred.

We’re in a process. Right now we’re looking at what sort of uses should be allowed in different areas. Jill Davies’ concern (Feb/20/08 letter to editor) about the draft regs unduly limiting small scale agriculture is a case in point. Several committees found that restriction objectionable. Clarion’s job is to compile our comments and rewrite the draft regs. We will all have a chance to review them again. I’m confident that the next draft will be changed to reflect that concern. I have participated in many of the CPC meetings, and in other meetings relative to the issues of land use, agriculture in this valley,  and air and water quality.  As an involved citizen I will check to make sure. Now is the time for valley residents to work together to decide how our valley will look in the future.

 Fear mongering by out of county meddlers bent on sabotaging the process is not welcome.

Gayl Knox
Corvallis

Celebrate diversity

Dear Editor,

I would like to commend Dewey Baker on a great letter to the Editor. Few people realize just how sneaky Don Morton really is – an excellent example being his proposed Legacy Ranch. Morton himself lives across the valley in a mansion up Indian Prairie Loop – behind locked gates. No hideous subdivisions for him to view, nor traffic and other associated problems to deal with.

As for Cathy Kulkonis and the verbose Dallas Erickson – they both need to get their heads our of this valley and take a look around. The United States of America is made up of (gasp!) African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Jewish people, and even atheists!

Kulonis and Erickson need to realize that there is a large group of people here in the valley who completely disagree with them, their political leanings, and their religious ferverency. Myself, chief among them. I say: let’s celebrate the various holidays – whichever ones we wish. And I especially say “Go Hillary/Go Obama!”

Marla Mahoney
Stevensville

©2006 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney