|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 6, 2024 9:09:42 GMT -7
Park County voters mobilize to preserve county's growth policy they say is threatened by Referendum 1 In a stunning piece of biased reporting KBZK wrote ""No on Referendum 1" is a movement in Park County where residents are mobilizing to fight uncontrolled growth at the ballot box.
"As I talk to my neighbors, there is a lot of anxiety surrounding the uncertainty of the growth that is headed our way and how it is going to impact our livelihoods," says Jen Vermillion.
Vermillion is one of many concerned residents who showed up on Tuesday to oppose Referendum 1, an initiative that would abolish Park County’s growth policy.
"Increased traffic and demand on our already limited water resources are already impacting how many of us operate. We need the growth policy," says Vermillion.
A growth policy is a non-regulatory road map that county commissions often use to determine subdivisions and guide how a county grows.
Vermillion says, "Referendum 1 would take this road map away. It would open up Park County to a development free-for-all. It would take away our power to protect our livelihood, our open space, and our future."
Vermillion also says misinformation about the growth policy was spread to residents.
"They were led to believe that it threatens their property rights and that it leads directly to zoning and regulation. They were not told how the growth policy can help protect ag land, help protect open space, and help protect the quality and quantity of water."
In addition to land concerns, Park County estimates that 20% of all grant applications in the past 15 years, equaling $10 million, would not have been successful without a growth policy in place.
"Looking at these signs, it says ‘Locals for Local Control’. We want to have a voice. And our own future," says Livingston resident Rick Wollum. "
The facts are that the current Growth Policy was never approved by voters. The June Referendum will be the first time Park County voters will have a chance to decide for themselves whether they want creeping government control over their private property. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris Hallowell on Mar 6, 2024 17:10:33 GMT -7
Yes, indeed the facts are that the registered voters in the affected district of the county growth policy never did get to vote if they wanted to adopt a Growth Policy of not. The three commissioners decided for us in 2017 even though Montana laws allows for them to put that question to a vote of the people. That is precisely why many of us joined the Referendum 1—For repeal of the 2017 Growth Policy and Referendum 2---For requiring a citizen vote to adopt any future growth policies petition drive to secure the ability, finally to have a vote and a voice locally.
The Growth Policy does threaten your individual property rights. The language on the ballot, as written by the Park County attorney, says “Park County is not required to have a Growth Policy unless the Board of County Commissioners wishes to amend or adopt zoning regulations.” If a Growth Policy exists, zoning regulations can be put in place, and thereby restrictions on your property. If there is no Growth Policy there can be no zoning or additional regulations added to state subdivision law.
As we saw a few years ago, the county planning department tried to put in a zoning plan that hinged on the opinions of the planning director, not fact-based parameters. That is a very slippery slope.
If you are a collectivist /socialist and believe the county government knows best. If you are content with the commissioners’ making decisions for you about how and when you can use your land and run your business, then a Growth Policy probably feels warm and fuzzy to you. Big government telling your neighbors how to behave relieves you of responsibility.
That’s not for me.
I did meet several people this last summer who said sharply, they voted for the commissioners so they wanted the commissioners to decide everything for them. I could only shake my head. Stunned to hear such a thing. I am not willing to turn over my will and right to vote to the commissioners.
What is right for you may be different but that is what is so great about the ability to vote. As long as we can each do it in the privacy of the ballot booth, checking whatever box suits our families best, I think we are more satisfied with the outcome. And as far as local control, what could be more local than the registered voters of the area effected voting to decide what they think is best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris Hallowell on Mar 8, 2024 16:01:58 GMT -7
This coming Monday at 5 pm is the closing date for Park County Commissioner candidacy for district 2 & district 3.
The following people have signed up to run.
District 2 (east of the Yellowstone River, Gardiner to Livingston.) Bryan Wells
District 3 (north of I-90) Christina Nelson. Erica Strickland, Mary J. Joey Lane, Jen Vermillion.
Please consider running for this very important office. Our county is in dire need of fiscally responsible guidance.
Thank you. Please tell your friends and relatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Mar 20, 2024 10:39:30 GMT -7
Groups Differ on Growth Policy Referendum The Livingston Enterprise reports "Some Park County residents are worried repealing the county’s growth policy would lead to more traffic, degrade water quality and quantity, harm wildlife, and spur higher home prices, while others who support the repeal claim property rights will be protected and feel their voices weren’t sufficiently heard when the policy was created.
On the June 4 ballot will be Referendum 1, which will ask voters in the unincorporated area of Park County to decide whether to repeal the Park County Growth Policy. Referendum 2 will ask voters whether any future county growth policy must be approved by the electorate.
“When it comes to growth and development, we want to protect our local control and our voice on these issues,” said Colin Davis, treasurer of No on Referendum 1, a group that’s mobilized to oppose the repeal. “Referendum 1 will open the door to uncontrolled growth, increased traffic, subdivisions in the wrong places, higher home prices, and more competition for limited water.”
The group hasn’t taken a stance on Referendum 2.
Ann Hallowell, who spearheaded the successful effort to get both referenda on the ballot, claims the current policy was developed with too much input from a Missoula consultant firm and not enough from locals. She said although public input was included in the development of the current policy years ago, “commenting was no guarantee you were represented.”
“That is why it is so important that a growth policy is adopted by a vote of the people, not just three commissioners,” Hallowell said. “Our 2017 growth policy was adopted by three commissioners and not a vote of the people, even though state law allows the commissioners that option. If we had been allowed to vote, we could have added our voices to the final decision as to whether the growth policy represented our goals and desires for our families. Referendum 1 allows us finally to have a vote and a voice on the 2017 growth policy.”
Before the commissioners adopted the growth policy in 2017, the Park County Planning and Development Board recommended its adoption in December 2016. From November through December 2016, the planning and development board held three open meetings to consider public input on the topic. Stakeholder interviews were held in May 2016, and open houses and public workshops were held in Cook City, Gardiner, Emigrant, Wilsall and Livingston.
Hallowell said it was too difficult for many citizens to be involved in developing the existing growth policy, because the planning board meetings were held at 2 p.m. Thursdays when many people had other obligations. Since the growth policy was adopted, the planning board changed its meetings to 5 p.m. in an effort to help more people come to the meetings.
The referenda were put on the June 4 ballot as the result of two petitions Hallowell helped disseminate among county residents. She had petition tables outside the public library in Livingston and at the county fair, for example.
The petition mandating the first referendum garnered 1,251 signatures out of the 1,074 needed. The petition triggering the second referendum got 1,263 of the 1,077 needed, according to the clerk and recorder’s office.
Jen Vermillion, a ranch manager in Shields Valley, became concerned with “false information being presented to residents” when they were asked to sign the first petition, according to a press release from No on Referendum 1.
“For me, this is about helping my neighbors learn the truth about our growth policy and how it serves rural interests by protecting the things we all cherish and value about Park County,” said Vermillion in the release. “A vote against Referendum 1 means we want to keep locals in the driver’s seat instead of letting out-of-state wealth and developers dictate our future for us.”
Hallowell took issue with the idea false information was used to garner petition signatures. She said that’s “nonsense” from people who share a different ideology. She notes the petition language had to be approved by the county attorney’s office before being circulated among residents.
“The growth policy is a non-regulatory document used by Park County as a guide for making decisions about its future, particularly with regard to land use,” reads one of the petitions, which can be found at tinyurl.com/mr472bkb. “The growth policy can provide the legal basis for adopting or updating zoning or subdivision regulations. Park County is not required to have a growth policy unless the Board of County Commissioners wishes to amend or adopt zoning regulations.”
Hallowell said any additional attributes that advocates with No on Referendum 1 attach to a growth policy is “their opinion only.”
“Referendum 1 is a simple question of, do you want the growth policy of 2017 that the commissioners picked for you, or do you want to retain your property rights and decide what is best for your family with your own vote?” Hallowell said. “Some of us like to make our own decisions, others want someone else to decide things for them. “And as far as local control, what could be more local than the registered voters of the area affected voting to decide what they think is best?”
Hallowell and others maintain that repealing the current growth policy would protect property rights.
“If I want to put a BNB or guest house or mother-in-law house on my property, I should be able to do that,” said one of the signers of the second petition, Lisa Holmquist, on Sept. 25, 2023. “I’m probably not going to do that, but you can’t tell me I can’t do it.”
Another resident, Irene Bainter, who also signed the second petition, said last year that she didn’t want “people telling me what I can do and can’t do” with her property. She also signed the second petition.
Managing growth
No on Referendum 1 advocates point to the increasing number of new residents and more acreage being lost to development.
“Park County’s growth rate has dramatically accelerated in recent years,” reads the release from the group. “The annual growth rate of the past 5 years is over 7 times faster than the growth rate of the previous 17 years. According to a recent report by the Park County Community Foundation, an average of 86 new septic systems are installed annually in Park County.
The group also pointed to a recent report from Headwaters Economics that indicates at least 37,600 acres of open space in Park County were been converted to housing in the last approximately 20 years. More on that report can be found at tinyurl.com/48477dk4.
These numbers worry Rick Wollum, a longtime fishing guide and fly shop manager on the Yellowstone River.
“Open space, clean water, and a rural pace of life are paramount for our communities and the healthy environment that fuels our economy,” Wollum said in the release. “A growth policy ensures that locals have tools and public input to guide growth, which is only going to become more intense in the future.”
Opponents of Referendum 1 also point out that the County will lose funding support in the absence of a growth policy. The county’s director of grants & special projects, Kristen Galbraith, said Tuesday that she estimates 20% of all grant awards received in the past 15 years, or $10 million dollars, would not have been successful without a growth policy in place. This is because many grant funders like to see planning on the part of the applicant jurisdiction before they will commit funding to grant requests, and a growth policy is one way Park County shows its commitment to county-wide planning, she said.
She only provided this information in an informational capacity and not for or against any ballot propositions.
Talks underway to create new growth policy
Park County commissioners are planning to attend a Wednesday work session with members of the Park County Planning Board to discuss the process for creating a new growth policy. The 5 p.m. event at the city/county complex is open to the public.
The two referenda should have no effect on any attempts by officials and residents to create a new policy, according to Mike Inman, director of the Park County Planning Department.
“The petition referendum is specific to the existing Growth Policy (not all Growth Policies),” Inman wrote in an email. “And yes, should the County continue to move forward with creating a new Growth Policy, and should the existing Growth Policy be repealed, then the time without a Growth Policy should be shortened to however long it takes us to complete the new one.”
Another group, It’s My Land LLC, of county residents are worried that the time without a growth policy could tempt the city of Livingston to exercise land use authority out to a mile beyond the city limits. More on this group can be found at tinyurl.com/6v6s44mz.
Referendum 2 may affect the time without a Growth Policy should the voters deny a future growth policy by vote, Inman noted.
“This referendum has the potential to be more costly to the County, both in terms of time and resources, because it would require the County to expend funds needed to create a Growth Policy, and then ask the voters if they want to approve or deny,” Inman wrote. “If a new Growth Policy is denied by the voters, it may require the County to expend additional funds in order to create a new Growth Policy, which would then be subject to a vote up or down, and so on.“
Inman wasn’t speaking for or against the referenda, but as a county employee addressing questions about the relationship between the referenda and current talks to create a new growth policy.
Wednesday meeting
At Wednesday’s work session, officials will discuss how the creation of a new growth policy would be funded and ways to get the public engaged in the process of creating a new growth policy.
Officials also will discuss possible updates to the county website to ensure it has up-to-date information that’s easier for county residents to find.
Commissioners and planning board members also will hear from any members of the public who wish to comment.
The meeting will begin at 5 p.m. March 20 in the community room of the city/county complex, 414 E. Callender St., Livingston. To watch and participate online, visit meeting.gomeet.com/parkcountycommission. To participate by phone, call 1-571-748-4021 ID 3047645#." |
|
