Page 28 - Flathead Beacon // 4.22.15

28 | APRIL 22, 2015
LIKE I WAS SAYIN’ Kellyn Brown
The Legendary M Montanabahn
ANY OF US REFLECT FONDLY ON THOSE FEW years in the ‘90s when Montana’s highway speed limit was “reasonable and prudent.” It spoke to the
state’s Libertarian streak and offered proof that we didn’t need a number to tell us how to drive safely. But the longer I live here, and the more miles I log, the idea of not having a numerical speed limit is an increasingly awful idea.
Last week, lawmakers in the Montana House endorsed Senate Bill 375, sponsored by Republican Sen. Scott Sales of Bozeman, which would increase Interstate highway speed limits from 75 to 80 mph and concurrently increase fines for speeding. A handful of other lawmakers proposed their own legislation to change the speed limit, but they all had one thing in common: there was still a limit.
It’s difficult to determine if our short-lived “Montanabahn” was more dangerous between 1995 and 1999. In an interview with Lee Newspapers last year, Montana Highway Patrol’s data specialist, Curt Rissmann, said it’s unclear if fatal accidents during those years “could be attributed to higher speeds.” The number of highway deaths during that time remained mostly in line with historical trends, although they spiked in 1997.
More than safety, the nuisance of not having a speed limit and the vagueness of the law led to its demise. And when Rudy Stanko, a Billings cattle buyer, contested three tickets to the Montana Supreme Court, it was the beginning of the end.
Officers had written up Stanko for separate violations when he was clocked traveling 102 mph, 117 mph and 121 mph. The court threw out the speeding ticket in which Stanko was traveling the slowest – apparently 102 mph is reasonable – but upheld the two other infractions, deeming it reckless to drive so fast on a two-lane highway. At once, the court in a 4-to-3 ruling struck down the state law, arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague.
“I asked a cop how fast I could go and he never gave me an answer,” Stanko said after the ruling. “They said it’s up to the discretion of the cop and that ain’t right.” Therein lies the problem. Even if the majority of drivers traveled a speed most of us considered reasonable, there were still drivers who would pass them traveling 121 mph.
It would still be several months before Montana implemented a speed limit, but following the court’s decision, even some supporters of the law were over it. Democratic Sen. Barry Stang of St. Regis, who had previously opposed reinstating a numerical speed limit in 1997, had a change of heart two years later. He told the New York Times he had reconsidered after “two years on the road with crazies out there” and provided anecdotes of out-of-staters passing him while traveling 100 mph.
Other national publications also wrote about the state’s “legendary Montanabahn” when it returned to an ordinary highway system in May of 1999, including the New Yorker, which interviewed a local colonel with the highway patrol, who said a common affliction among drivers – road rage – had only been made worse by the law. “Too many physical confrontations,” he said. “The fast people would tailgate, give off with rude gestures, and sometimes pull over and get into fistfights.”
Since then, Montana’s two-lane highways have been posted with 70 mph signs and its Interstates 75 mph, although if Sales’ bill were signed into law the latter would increase to 80 mph. After living in North Dakota and Wyoming, during which I often traveled across this massive state to visit family in the Pacific Northwest, I think that’s a reasonable proposal.
But don’t expect the number of tickets to decrease. Idaho recently increased its speed limit from 75 to 80 mph along stretches of its Interstate and troopers are actually writing more speeding citations than they did before the change. It appears many drivers still find it prudent to drive faster.
OPINION FLATHEADBEACON.COM
TWO FOR THOUGHT
Local Topics, Opposing Views
By Tim Baldwin
Marco Rubio is now running for president. Rubio shares little differences than the other announced and potential Republican runners, except for Rand Paul with noticeable libertarian- leaning principles. Does Rubio have enough to gain popular support?
On foreign policy, Rubio favors aggression like most Republicans. He criticizes Paul here even though Obama got elected partly for his non- aggression campaign.
On gay marriage, Rubio admits people are born with sexual preferences but opposes their right to marriage. Oddly, Rubio believes government should deprive people of what admittedly nature created. Reason aside, Rubio is Republican so he must dogmatically oppose gay marriage.
On Obamacare, he wants to replace it in the form of tax credits. Rubio acknowledges the horrific situation many people face without health insurance, so he prefers some policy to help them. On this, he is more moderate than Cruz.
On taxes, he proposes a cut for 90 percent of Americans. Yet, Rubio supports the “War on Drugs” that costs billions to execute, not to mention the billions to wage endless wars. Alternatively, Rubio could propose that America’s billionaires pay for these profiteering ventures and not middle-class America, but he won’t.
Rubio is young, smart and attractive – partly because his last name is not Bush. But does he have enough to win the Republican primary? Too, is he non-establishment enough? I predict no.
By Joe Carbonari
Marco Rubio walks a tight rope. He’s a straight talker, which I like. He is also smart, which I like, and he seems to read people well. In the Middle East he sees the big picture and the big danger – Ayatollahs on the loose with a nuclear bomb.
The Iranians, Shia Muslims, chant “Death to the Infidels.” Infidels specifically mentioned often include Jews, Sunni Muslims, and Americans. The Iranians have an impressive military and Shia allies across the Arab world. There is an Arab secular war going on now, in Yemen, Shia versus Sunni.
Marco Rubio has so stated. He leaves the discussion at that point, which should give him some support from the military right, a significant factor in financing and, hopefully winning,theRepublicanpresidentialprimary. Unfortunately, that leaves people thinking that military action is inevitable.
I think that it is poor form for Rubio to lead us to the military edge with the danger and the stakes so high. The Middle East is a tinder box and he’s left us discussing matches. This is pandering for the primary, it is misguiding, and it is dangerous.
Marco Rubio is impressive, but he is not ready. Whether it be on immigration, Iran, or whatever, he must stay true to himself if he is to be believed and to be followed.
I hope he risks this primary for a future general and stiffens his spine.
Enter Rubio
GUESTCOLUMN | KeithRegier
CSKT Water Compact Shouldn’t be Take it or Leave it
Like many proposals that have been brought to the majority Republican Legislature this session, the water compact between the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the state of Montana is an all-or-nothing proposal filled with landmines.
What we do in Helena as your representatives is hear proposals and amend them when the majority sees fit so that they can be applicable for the entire state of Montana. But proponents of SB 262, the bill that would ratify the CSKT water compact, threaten that we aren’t allowed to question or amend the proposal. It’s all or nothing – and I think we are better off with nothing.
For example, throughout the compact there is language that the U.S. Forest Service and Montana Fish and Game have written in to exempt themselves from future conflicts. These groups are supporting the agreement but they’re exempting themselves from the future conflicts that they see coming. Seems suspicious. They must see some pretty big conflicts coming down the road if they went out of their way to preemptively exempt themselves.
The main concern for many Montanans is the possibility of losing access to private property. Tribal members on reservations already have access rights under case law. This compact changes the law to say that tribal members, their heirs and “assigns” will have access. This definition is so all-encompassing that the CSKT will be allowed to hand over access to outdoor groups or tour companies. Private land that is currently protected by law would basically lose all meaning if a private
company or group has legal access to your land.
If passed, this agreement would create the Unitary Management Ordinance, a water court made up of a conglomeration of tribal members and others who would serve as the water court for the reservation. The issue is that this newly established court would rule on issues involving non-tribal members, essentially taking Montana citizens’ rights away from state law and putting the decisions in the hands of the tribes. Ninety percent of the agriculture land on reservations in Montana is not owned by tribal members and is not reservation land. People living there for generations have been paying property taxes on the land but would be losing some of the private property rights they have held for so long. A solution shouldn’t include taking
away the rights of our citizens.
The interim committee worked hard to fix
the proposal that was brought last session and I commend them for their work. However, this is still not a good deal for the majority of Montanans. Like so many proposals coming from the other side of the aisle over the last three months, we are supposed to take this or leave it. There is no opportunity to amend. The compact is 68 pages long, with over 1,000 pages of appendices, and was introduced late in the legislative process so that most legislators wouldn’t have time to read it. If the Legislature’s choice is this compact or nothing, I think we are better off with nothing.
Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, is the Montana House majority leader.