As Whitefish and Flathead County officials dig in their respective heels for what is sure to be a drawn-out litigation battle, it’s clear the wedge between the two municipalities involves more than the law of the land. As legal arguments focus on who controls the outskirts of a city and what soil can be developed upon, a stark personality conflict is also playing out – publicly.
Meanwhile, those who vehemently oppose Whitefish’s land laws and feel their property rights are being trampled, are growing louder. It appeared Whitefish and the county, which is blamed for giving that city too much power, were beginning to listen – somewhat. But bad blood between the two may thwart any sensible solution.
When the new Whitefish City Council convened in January, it quickly considered solutions to a law that allows it to dictate zoning outside the city. City Attorney John Phelps proposed creating an undetermined number of council seats to represent the “doughnut dwellers,” who aren’t currently represented and can’t vote for councilors.
But County Commissioner Gary Hall, who originally approved the 2003 decision to give Whitefish jurisdiction over a roughly two-mile radius surrounding the city, took a harder line. He and Commissioner Dale Lauman recently voted to rescind the decision. The rhetoric and lawsuits have subsequently ratcheted up.
Whitefish promptly sued the county and asked for a temporary restraining order, which was granted. Phelps wrote that he had hoped for an “effective working relationship between the city and the county,” adding that “if the Flathead County commissioners cannot be relied upon to honor an agreement of this stature, what credibility do they retain?”
But Hall believes the city is abusing its power. He said the council has changed since he approved the decision, and not for the better. He’s called Whitefish’s critical areas ordinance and growth policy “radical” and says the interlocal agreement imposes “flawed and over-regulatory law” on county residents. What began as an argument over lawmaking has blossomed into an ideological brawl.
Whitefish may have filed the first lawsuit, but it is already bracing itself against inevitable, incoming litigation. Attorney Sean Frampton filed a motion to intervene in the city’s suit against the county, arguing that the interlocal agreement was invalid from the start. The Northwest Montana Association of Realtors has indicated that it is discussing its own lawsuit. Whitefish, in a sense, is being ganged up upon. It may have brought this upon itself, but I doubt it will lead to a hasty solution.
The city, unflappable, is confident in its position that the county can’t unilaterally rescind the interlocal agreement, and also maintains that its critical areas ordinance is fair. Thus, a standoff is likely to be drawn out for months, even years. And the relationship between the county and city, already sour, will become bitter. In the interim, doughnut-dwellers are left wondering by which government rules to abide.
The legal cost of the suits between the governing bodies may be covered by insurance, but taxpayers – especially those who pay property taxes to the county and city taxes to Whitefish – will be understandably appalled if they fund the costs of neighboring governments arguing over how to govern.
The row has been amplified by the fact that neither side likes the other. Compromise, it appears, is all but abandoned. Councilor Shirley Jacobson, after talking to doughnut residents, suggested at a January meeting that, “Maybe we should give them back to the county.”
Maybe that’s the answer. But, as trust has waned, neither side appears ready to sacrifice power.