Page 32 - Flathead Beacon // 7.23.14

32 | JULY 23, 2014
LIKE I WAS SAYIN’ Kellyn Brown
No Ordinary Doughnut
THE WHITEFISH DOUGHNUT IS GOING BACK under county control. Every time we print a story on this subject there is a sense of Groundhog Day in the newsroom. The issue has been ongoing longer than we’ve printed newspapers and can be partially blamed for con- stituents crying, lawsuits being filed and politicians losing their jobs.
This is no ordinary doughnut.
For those unfamiliar with the issue, here’s a refresh- er: In 2005, Flathead County granted the Whitefish City Council jurisdiction over land use and zoning regulations within the two-mile radius surrounding its city.
The agreement became controversial fast. Whitefish used its authority to thwart industrial and commercial de- velopment in the gateways to the city. Proponents say this prevents eyesores on the area’s corridors; critics argue that the agreement is fundamentally flawed, which it is.
From the beginning, the biggest problem with the doughnut has been that those residents affected by White- fish City Council’s land-use decisions don’t get to vote for the councilors who make those decisions. Critics and sup- porters alike have mostly agreed on this and, at times, tried to reach a compromise – to no avail.
Yes, as doughnut supporters have pointed out, county residents who don’t pay city taxes enter town and use city services. That argument still does nothing to address the representation issue.
By 2007, Whitefish and the county began having a fall- ing out. Commissioner Gary Hall, who had initially sup- ported the interlocal agreement, said he wanted to rescind his vote. “I did not realize that it would turn into, in my opinion, the monster it is,” Hall said at the time. But it was too late. Hall lost badly, 69-31 percent, in the Republican primary to the late Jim Dupont, who campaigned on his support for property rights.
Meanwhile, public meetings on Whitefish’s growth pol- icies became heated. Citizens held up pictures of their chil- dren to show their elected officials what was at stake. Tears were shed publicly as passions ran high on both sides of the issue. And as the 2009 Whitefish City Council election ap- proached, it turned ugly.
In the run-up to the vote, wealthy philanthropists and third-party groups spent thousands of dollars on negative attacks – one accusing an incumbent councilor (an unpaid position, mind you) of “power-mad extremism.”
Since before that election, the fate of the dreaded doughnut has been tied up in court. First, the county voted to rescind its interlocal agreement with Whitefish. Then Whitefish sued the county. Then the state Supreme Court granted Whitefish a preliminary injunction that gave con- trol of the doughnut back to Whitefish.
In 2010, Whitefish city councilors approved a revised interlocal agreement, but Whitefish residents voted to re- scind that agreement. Back in court, a judge returned full authority of the doughnut back to the county. The city ap- pealed. The high court temporarily stayed the decision un- til earlier this month when it sided with the county, which now assumes control of this long-disputed area.
What’s different this time around is the tone surround- ing the decision. Mayor John Muhlfeld, who has supported the city keeping jurisdiction, released a conciliatory state- ment following the ruling.
“While the City may not necessarily agree with the de- cision, we have to live with it, and find a way to work coop- eratively with the County to protect the community values that make Whitefish such a special and desirable place to live, work and raise families," he said.
That, in essence, is progress. We’ll see how the city and county work together in the coming months and years to hammer out an equitable system for land-use planning in the two-mile radius surrounding Whitefish. Perhaps they can do it without filing lawsuits and causing people to cry.
OPINION FLATHEADBEACON.COM
TWO FOR THOUGHT
Local Topics, Opposing Views
GOP and Foreign Policy
By Tim Baldwin
Many polls show Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) leading all other Republican potentials for U.S. President in 2016. Other GOP potential, Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), sees this and is al- ready attacking Rand Paul to prevent his nom- ination. Perry’s point of attack: Paul’s foreign policy. For GOP establishment, like Perry, if you are not pro-war, you are anti-American. America does not need another president like that.
You can bet if there is an opportunity to send our troops overseas, Perry will. In sharp contrast, Paul thinks America should not un- necessarily interfere with other nations. Per- ry mischaracterizes this as “isolationism,” but Paul’s foreign policy message resonates with a broad base of Americans. Indeed, Paul’s foreign policy is the biggest distinction be- tween him and other GOP potentials. Rightly so. Americans, regardless of party, are tired of endless and needless wars and foreign inter- vention.
Do the people really want another gover- nor from Texas – a repeat of G.W. Bush – to become president? Will that excite people to vote for the Republican candidate? I don’t think so. Americans will have a rare opportu- nity in 2016: to vote for a Republican presiden- tial candidate who doesn’t march to the beat of a war drum. I hope Rand Paul wins.
By Joe Carbonari
Thinking about either Rand Paul or Rick Perry taking on Vladimir Putin in a negotiation gives me the shudders. Neither man inspires confidence. Neither wisdom nor temperament seem plusses for Perry. Rand Paul’s toughness has yet to be shown. Surely we have better.
Internationally, these have become danger- ous times. Innocent people are being killed both by accident and design. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and Ukraine, all are on the edge of being out of control – or over the edge already. Putin is acting the bully in Ukraine and looking to expand his areas of control. Assad in Syria is killing his own people and stirring an explosive Jihadist stew.
The U.S. must take a stronger leadership po- sition. Our world is too small and interconnect- ed for us to withdraw to a place of sure safety. We are all vulnerable, both physically and eco- nomically. Our only protection from the bad ac- tors of the world is joint, cooperative effort.
When norms of human decency are unac- ceptably breached it is the responsibility of the leaders of the world to bring the malefactors un- der control, or to remove them. This will occa- sionally call for looking the other guy, or gal, in the eye and making them believe that you mean what you say.
I wouldn’t send either Rand Paul or Rick Perry on the errand.
GUESTCOLUMN | BradJohnson
Higher Energy Taxes No Solution to Washington Fiscal Mess
As the summer driving season heats up, time is winding down for Congress to fix the ailing High- way Trust Fund. Though, in usual fashion, the out- come will almost certainly be another temporary patch rather than a long-term solution.
Maybe that’s a good thing, with President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress continu- ally proposing to hike taxes on America’s oil and gas producers as a way to fix whatever fiscal boogeyman they’re focused on at the moment.
Of course, they don’t come right out and admit what they’re up to. Instead, we hear phrases such as “closing loopholes” or “eliminating subsidies” to mask the truth that these are outright tax hikes.
Let me break it to you, the oil and gas industry is not subsidized – that is, they don’t receive direct government payments to augment their revenue stream. The industry does, however, get the same sorts of tax deductions and credits that businesses (and individuals) of all stripes receive. They get to write off the cost of doing business — otherwise they probably wouldn’t be in business.
Only in the warped world of Washington, D.C. could someone get away with equating a run of the mill tax deduction with a real government subsidy. But that’s exactly the type of rhetoric we hear al- most daily when it comes to the oil and gas industry.
By way of example, all American companies in- volved in manufacturing or production are allowed to deduct their production costs through the Sec- tion 199 tax deduction. Repeatedly, Washington politicians have proposed eliminating Section 199, but only for the production activity of oil and gas companies.
There’s danger in accepting the “subsidy” rheto-
ric. Singling out oil and gas for disparate tax treat- ment by taking away those common deductions and credits would mean increasing the cost of energy for all consumers. Doing so would simply be a tax in- crease that we’d all end up paying.
Sticking our oil and gas industry with an even larger tax burden couldn’t come at a worse time. Right now the industry is booming and we’re more energy-self-sufficient than we’ve been in over 25 years.
All that oil and gas activity is driving tremen- dous job growth. And not just any jobs, but high- wage, good-benefit, career type jobs in exploration, transportation, manufacturing and more.
We certainly know that to be true in Montana, where job opportunities in the Bakken have reached near-legendary proportions.
The economic boost energy production has giv- en our state is felt in every community. Tax revenue connected to oil and gas development gets distribut- ed to every school district and local government in the state. And job opportunities in the eastern part of the state have relieved unemployment as far away as Libby and Hamilton.
But the congressional proposals to increase tax- es on energy producers would throw a big bucket of cold water over all of that.
Higher taxes on energy producers is not a real- istic solution to fix the problems with the Highway Trust Fund or any of the other myriad fiscal holes our federal government has managed to dig.
I hope you’ll join me in urging Montana’s Con- gressional delegation to continue to oppose higher taxes on our important energy industry.
Brad Johnson is Montana’s former secretary of state