Kalispell unveiled a revitalization plan for its urban core earlier this month, complete with an optimistic rendering of what the center of the Flathead Valley’s largest city could look like with a substantial facelift. It was greeted, at least by many of our readers, with both skepticism and cynicism:
“People will be colonizing the planet Mars before you see the city of Kalispell look or feel anything like the artist rendition featured in this pipe dream story.”
“Typical waste of tax dollars … The city officials need to get from behind their desks and grab a shovel to remove snow, paint buildings, fix the lights and signs, etc.”
“I don’t understand how the city council can even think about something like this with the economy the way it is now.”
“Vote them all out.”
The responses are understandable given the economic recession and the perception of city mismanagement in Kalispell. Local officials have earned some criticism, but directing it at the departments that perhaps worked the hardest when development boomed in the Flathead and were forced to make cuts as soon as building slowed, is a little much.
Instead of focusing solely on new subdivisions, preliminary plats and zoning, the city’s planners are using the break in construction to consider Kalispell’s future growth. It’s unlikely to resemble anything like the sketch that accompanied the Burlington Northern Sante Fe revitalization plan, complete with smiling pedestrians. But even if part of the proposal comes to fruition, particularly a proposed “linear park” that could encourage foot traffic, mixed-use development and more people living downtown, it certainly would bode well for the long-term health of the city.
If taxes are increased or diverted from the city’s dwindling general fund at the expense of more pressing needs or jobs, the plan would deserve collective opposition. But that’s rarely the case with urban renewal projects. They are often created from tax breaks and grants from the feds (the latter more commonly known as pork).
There is a general frustration with the city that has sparked an almost hair-trigger backlash against anything it proposes. City officials should remain squarely focused on turning Kalispell’s economic fortunes around, as should those in the valley’s other municipalities.
But the skeleton crew that is running Kalispell right now, which may be trimmed further if it can’t get its costs in line, should still keep one eye on the future. The frantic pace of building in the last decade may never return, but when projects again move forward it’s the staff’s job to propose ideas and the council’s to make the final decisions as to where and how this city grows.
We can vote out those with whom we disagree. But in the last election, the majority preferred indifference or the status quo. With dismal turnout, four incumbents prevailed, and two of them didn’t even face a challenger.
A lot has happened since 2007 – the economy bottomed out and city manager was fired – so the next election may resemble more of a contest. With hope, those frustrated with Kalispell’s bureaucrats will challenge their ideas by challenging their seats.
Despite the recession, city councilors are elected to vote on ways to improve the city. And there are often ways to improve these ideas. Citizens from all walks of life, including many thoughtful Beacon readers, may be the ones holding the blueprint Kalispell desperately needs. I just hope they step forward, so we have something to be for instead of something to be against.