The Whitefish doughnut is going back under county control. Every time we print a story on this subject there is a sense of Groundhog Day in the newsroom. The issue has been ongoing longer than we’ve printed newspapers and can be partially blamed for constituents crying, lawsuits being filed and politicians losing their jobs.
This is no ordinary doughnut.
For those unfamiliar with the issue, here’s a refresher: In 2005, Flathead County granted the Whitefish City Council jurisdiction over land use and zoning regulations within the two-mile radius surrounding its city.
The agreement became controversial fast. Whitefish used its authority to thwart industrial and commercial development in the gateways to the city. Proponents say this prevents eyesores on the area’s corridors; critics argue that the agreement is fundamentally flawed, which it is.
From the beginning, the biggest problem with the doughnut has been that those residents affected by Whitefish City Council’s land-use decisions don’t get to vote for the councilors who make those decisions. Critics and supporters alike have mostly agreed on this and, at times, tried to reach a compromise – to no avail.
Yes, as doughnut supporters have pointed out, county residents who don’t pay city taxes enter town and use city services. That argument still does nothing to address the representation issue.
By 2007, Whitefish and the county began having a falling out. Commissioner Gary Hall, who had initially supported the interlocal agreement, said he wanted to rescind his vote. “I did not realize that it would turn into, in my opinion, the monster it is,” Hall said at the time. But it was too late. Hall lost badly, 69-31 percent, in the Republican primary to the late Jim Dupont, who campaigned on his support for property rights.
Meanwhile, public meetings on Whitefish’s growth policies became heated. Citizens held up pictures of their children to show their elected officials what was at stake. Tears were shed publicly as passions ran high on both sides of the issue. And as the 2009 Whitefish City Council election approached, it turned ugly.
In the run-up to the vote, wealthy philanthropists and third-party groups spent thousands of dollars on negative attacks – one accusing an incumbent councilor (an unpaid position, mind you) of “power-mad extremism.”
Since before that election, the fate of the dreaded doughnut has been tied up in court. First, the county voted to rescind its interlocal agreement with Whitefish. Then Whitefish sued the county. Then the state Supreme Court granted Whitefish a preliminary injunction that gave control of the doughnut back to Whitefish.
In 2010, Whitefish city councilors approved a revised interlocal agreement, but Whitefish residents voted to rescind that agreement. Back in court, a judge returned full authority of the doughnut back to the county. The city appealed. The high court temporarily stayed the decision until earlier this month when it sided with the county, which now assumes control of this long-disputed area.
What’s different this time around is the tone surrounding the decision. Mayor John Muhlfeld, who has supported the city keeping jurisdiction, released a conciliatory statement following the ruling.
“While the City may not necessarily agree with the decision, we have to live with it, and find a way to work cooperatively with the County to protect the community values that make Whitefish such a special and desirable place to live, work and raise families,” he said.
That, in essence, is progress. We’ll see how the city and county work together in the coming months and years to hammer out an equitable system for land-use planning in the two-mile radius surrounding Whitefish. Perhaps they can do it without filing lawsuits and causing people to cry.