Page 24 - Flathead Beacon // 1.7.15

24 | JANUARY 7, 2015 OPINION
FLATHEADBEACON.COM
TOP 10 ONLINE STORIES
FLATHEADBEACON.COM
Business of the Year: SmartLam
Groups Push Whitefish for Non- discrimination Ordinance
Missoula Officer Shoots, Kills Suspect after Chase
Fresh Snow, Holiday Traffic Bring Whitefish Mountain Resort’s Biggest Day Ever
Montana Cities Seek Ability to Add Sales Tax
Whitefish Subdivision Seeks Intervention in Lawsuit Over Gated Communities
Kalispell Man Killed in Libby Shooting
2014 News Photos of the Year
Judge Blocks Key Provisions of Montana Medical Marijuana Law
LANDMARKS: Kalispell Grand Hotel
LETTERS
COMPROMISE ON MEDICAID EXPANSION?
Some declare that a compromise should be sought by the incoming Montana Legislature over Medicaid funding. A willingness to work together should not equate to a willingness to spend millions of federal dollars to support Medicaid “expansion” funding. Replace the words “federal dollars” with “taxpayer dollars,” and who is really paying these costs?
Several reasons for not advocating Medicaid expansion include: lawmakers have no reliable cost estimates including unknown, long-term obligations; able- bodied, childless adults have never been nor were ever intended to be eligible for taxpayer-funded Medicaid; private health care coverage would be crowded out; Med- icaid expansion would jeopardize other significant Montana priorities and would unlikely reduce uncompensated charity care given by hospitals. Finally, the likeli- hood of ever scaling back such a behemoth Medicaid program is slim to none.
Perhaps several Medicaid reforms will be introduced by the 2015 Legislature to close the gap for the most vulnerable of our citizens: hard-working Montanans, low- income veterans, parents and the disabled, through innovative solutions that will encourage work and economic growth.
I would rather each of our legislators answer these questions before voting on any bill introduced: Does the legislation being voted on increase or decrease dependency on government; the size or cost of government; the power of government? Does the legislation increase or decrease individual responsibility; liberty and personal freedom; competition and free choice? Does the legislation treat citizens as individuals or as members of groups? Is there true accountability? Does a bill reflect justice or does it expound favoritism and wealth distribution? And, last, is the bill based on a true, constitutional role of government?
Once these questions are weighed, there may be little need for compromise, but statesmanship (being versed in the principles of government, shaping its policies and exercising political leadership) would abound.
Kathleen Hassan Trout Creek
CONCERNS OVER HOTEL
We have grave concerns about the boutique hotel being proposed for Block 46 in downtown Whitefish.
The Averills have done a great job with the Lodge at Whitefish Lake and it remains one of our favorite places to eat. This letter is in no way derogatory towards the Averill family.
However, there are too many unan- swerable questions to give the project the green light. Our concerns are as follows:
1. There is already a big parking problem downtown. Block 46 has on any given day at least 35-45 cars parked on it. The people using this to park to do their downtown shopping, as well as staff for the present downtown businesses will be unable to access the downtown area.
2. The proposed hotel is offering 67 parking spots for 89 rooms. In our many years of owning hotels, the general “bare minimum” of parking required has always been 1.5 parking spots per room. It goes without saying there are a lot of people including their guests and certainly their staff who will not have anywhere to park, and will affect an already serious parking shortage downtown. In addition this will be a huge headache for the residents nearby.
3. The wait for the light at Spokane and Second Street will be worse than it is now. We have waited for two to three light changes at times and obviously this will not get better with the reduction in parking spots and the addition of yet more traffic.
4. In the event this project is approved, who is going to pay to re-route traffic to avoid the traffic jam that it will cause, the taxpayer who is already pitching in to help finance this project? Or will it be the present downtown businesses that have had their business severely impacted by this project and its addition to the lack of parking?
5. What will this huge parking shortage do to the character of downtown Whitefish when cars are cruising around and around the area like sharks looking for a parking spot such as it has become the norm in Southern California? This is already happening now and I know people who no longer shop downtown because they cannot park.
6. A hotel generally has an outlet for the consumption of alcohol. The city does not allow alcohol service within a certain distance from a school. Quite a few years ago city council turned down an application for liquor service by the Downtowner motel. Why are you even considering allowing a hotel right across the street from Whitefish middle school?
7. We understand that the developers are considering franchising the hotel with one of the many chains. How will this impact the current sign regulations of the city of Whitefish that surely do not allow the size of sign required by the chain hotels? And what would a larger sign do to the character of downtown whitefish?
8. Finally, is the present infrastructure able to handle what is a big increase in use to our water, sewer, etc.? Surely the taxpayers cannot be expected to pay for changes that may need to be made to the present infrastructure are they? We already have the highest water and sewer rates in the valley.
Rick Kratz Whitefish
HATS OFF TO DELEGATION
The Flathead Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited has long been committed to protecting the Flathead River system, one of the last best strongholds for native bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. The recent bipartisan support and passage of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act is a major step in the right direction. Hats off to Sens. Jon Tester and John Walsh and to Rep. Steve Daines for working together to protect the North Fork of the Flathead from future mineral and energy development.
Given recent developments with coal mining in the Elk River drainage in British Columbia, and the continued low bull trout population numbers, as evidenced by annual counts of spawning beds, or “redds” in North Fork tributaries, the passage of this act is both timely and necessary.
Open pit coal mining in the Elk River drainage, just north of the divide from the North Fork, is releasing harmful levels of selenium into the Elk and Kootenai rivers with the potential to significantly impact fish populations. A recent study by the University of Montana compared water quality in the Elk River to water quality in the North Fork and found selenium levels seven to 10 times higher in the Elk. The Elk River may be nearing a tipping point where fish populations could crash due to bio-accumulation of this toxic element. Fortunately, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, in concert with the British Columbia’s decision to restrict future mineral development, will help to prevent large-scale open pit coal mines and natural gas development in the North Fork.
The federally listed bull trout, a threatened species, fights an uphill battle to recovery. Bull trout redd count data from the North Fork, including data collected this year, are troublesome. For example, Trail Creek redd count surveys throughout the 1980s averaged over 57 redds per year. In 2014, only 5 redds were observed. Overall redd counts in the North Fork index streams this year are less than 40 percent of the long-term average. While this decline is largely attributable to predation by lake trout, the last thing we need are additional threats to bull trout recovery from mineral and energy development.
Hopefully, the North Fork will be a model for other bipartisan, collaborative conservation measures.
Larry Timchak, president Flathead Valley Trout Unlimited
LETTERS
Tell us what you think. To submit a letter, please e-mail your submission
to [email protected]. Please keep your letter to 300 words or less. The Flathead Beacon reserves the right to edit letters for length, clarity and
to prevent libel. Letters must include the writer’s first and last name, phone number and address for verification purposes. Only the name and hometown of the writer will be printed. To mail a letter, please send to 17 Main Street, Kalispell, MT 59901.
Fax letters to (406) 257-9231.
CORRECTIONS
If a Beacon story includes a factual error, please tell us about it. Call Kellyn Brown at 257-9220; or e-mail to [email protected]; or fax to 257-9231.
FLATHEADBEACON.COM
For daily news, local community pages, video, multimedia, story archives and lively online conversation, visit our Web site at flatheadbeacon.com.
CORRECTION
Last week’s story “Kalispell Chamber Members Favor Authority to Look at Local Tax Option” incorrectly stated that 52 percent of Chamber members surveyed supported state funding for public pre-schools. Fifty- two percent of members opposed the early education proposal.