It might be of interest to those who haven’t been closely following the process of updating Whitefish’s Growth Policy, that there are, in my opinion, causes for real concern.
The Growth Policy is a long-range plan that will shape how our community grows over the next 20 years. This process was designed to engage as many members of our community as possible. Online surveys, visioning sessions, workshops, and engagement by different stakeholders were all used to gather data to create a growth policy that works for a larger percentage of our community. That structure exists so the final plan reflects the whole community, not just those with the ability to attend every single meeting related to the update.
Like many working residents, I have not been able to attend most Growth Policy meetings, but I did participate in surveys and visioning sessions. Our voices matter just as much as those who sit in the room every week. When I was on the council 20 years ago, we held neighborhood meetings but with the advances in technology, the city has been able to engage a much larger group of citizens and gained a much broader perspective than just the voices of those who have the time to show up for the meetings. The City’s attempts to get more input is democracy in action.
However, the recent decisions made by the Whitefish Planning Commission around the Economic Development Chapter in 2025 have left me questioning whether my engagement in the visioning sessions and surveys even matters? And even more important than my engagement is the blatant disregard for the democratic process. For decades I have seen this small group of people have undue influence on Whitefish. Of course, their perspective needs to be considered, but it shouldn’t carry more weight than other businesses or other perspectives.
The Economic Development chapter that was adopted in 2025 and was largely rewritten solely using the edits submitted by Heart of Whitefish, a group representing a narrow subset of downtown business interests. Those edits removed goals that support economic diversity as well as goals related to those businesses that primarily serve locals. These edits deleted discussion of housing and commercial rent pressures and stripped out factual data about affordability and economic strain. Community feedback from visioning sessions was also altered or removed. Even some commissioners referred to the adopted draft as the “Heart of Whitefish” version.
After the city hired professional consultants through a competitive process, Heart of Whitefish hired their own consultants. Heart of Whitefish appeared to be very upset with the findings from the city-hired consultants, as it did not match their very specific perspective. It appears that the Heart of Whitefish hired a firm the city has worked with before to produce a competing report that aligns with its narrow priorities. The clear intent was to give their position more weight than an ordinary public comment by wrapping it in a consultant’s name and presentation.
This is not a small disagreement over wording. It undermines years of public engagement and builds distrust in the democratic process of creating an equitable and inclusive policy that reflects the broader community.
A Growth Policy should be guided by data, professional expertise, and broad community input, not by whichever group is most organized or most present in the room. Whitefish deserves a plan that reflects renters and homeowners, workers and business owners, and those who live here year-round as well as those who hope to. I call on the Whitefish City Council to restore the original staff draft and ensure that all voices are weighed equally. For those reading it, who care about having their voices heard in this process, make sure to attend the February 11 Whitefish Planning Commission meeting in which they will be discussing the Land Use Chapter of the Growth Policy at 6pm at Whitefish City Hall.
Velvet Phillips-Sullivan lives in Whitefish.