Editor
The Ledger
Thompson Falls

After reading Ron Olfert’s letter, Ledger, May 1, several things seemed incorrect. Checking these items was most revealing.

• One of his main claims related to his idea that a Planning Board and/or Growth Policy required zoning.

THE TRUTH IS DIFFERENT. The misconceptions regarding zoning were ably highlighted by Mike Hashisaki’s letter the following week. Mr. Hashisaki clearly showed that Olfert’s assertion was not factual. I will make no further comment, but let Mr. Hashisaki’s letter stand as a response to all assertions relating to zoning.

• Mr. Olfert asserted that there was no overwhelming support at the various meetings held by the commissioners throughout the county.

THE TRUTH IS DIFFERENT. At each meeting the commissioners had the audience sign attendance sheets and allowed room for the person to check off if they were for, against, or undecided about a Planning Board.
These papers are available at the Commissioners’ Office. They show 76.4% for a Planning Board and 23.2% against. In cold hard numbers it was more than 3 for Planning against each 1 opposed. Mr. Olfert signed in on line 7 and put his X for opposition on line 8. Mr. Olfert says these numbers ignore the written comments received by the Commissioners but those written are more than offset by the petition signatures obtained for a Planning Board in a drive led by a Thompson Falls attorney.

• Mr. Olfert states that “Commissioner Brooker said it was about 50-50” for and against a Planning Board.

THE TRUTH IS DIFFERENT. Commissioner Brooker did indeed say those words, but Mr. Olfert has taken them out of context and put his own slant on them. Mrs. Brooker said the greater numbers favored a Planning Board and it wasn’t until the last County Meeting that the opposition approached 50-50. In fact the attendance sheets for the last meeting show that 37 were for a Planning Board and 22 opposed. All other meetings were overwhelmingly for a Planning Board.

• Mr. Olfert asserts proponents of a Planning Board claim “the three commissioners are all in agreement on the need for a Planning Board.”

THE TRUTH IS DIFFERENT. Such a claim was never made and never will be made by FFRP – Folks For Responsible Planning. It does not appear on our website, does not appear on any literature we disseminate nor was it ever said in any presentation. Two Commissioners have publicly stated they are in favor of a Planning Board. At the Noxon meeting they were asked, “Will each of you separately state whether you favor a Planning Board.” Two responded “yes” with a few comments. One gave a speech and took no position. FFRP has and never will claim all three commissioners favor a Planning Board. Two of them do.

• Mr. Olfert also alleges that supporters of a Planning Board say, “It is only ‘unplanned growth’ [by government] that impacts the infrastructure of the County.”

THE TRUTH IS DIFFERENT. FFRP has never made such an assertion. Our statement is clear and has three parts. It is found on our website, www.responsbleplanning.org, and in some of our printed materials. It is supported by facts and studies. It is - Growth Increases Taxes; Unplanned Growth Increases Taxes More Than Planned Growth; Unplanned Growth Is a Drain on Government Coffers. These facts are based on several studies. Ohio State University found that it cost the local government $1.15 to $1.50 in services for each dollar a new residential site paid in taxes. The University of Wyoming in a study in that state found it was $1.13 for each dollar in taxes. A study for the state of Virginia found it “up to $2.56 for each one dollar in taxes. In Jefferson County, Montana it was found to cost $2.15 for each one dollar in taxes. In Gallatin County, Montana it was $1.35. Rutgers University made a study of savings realized with planning in reducing infrastructure costs. With planning, the additional cost for roads was reduced by 25%, for utilities it was 15% and for schools it was 5%. These findings are virtually echoed by a Colorado study which shows a reduction of 25% for roads, 5% for schools and 20% for utilities.

• Mr. Olfert contends that supporters of a Planning Board say, “A planning board is one more way to increase the level of public input.”

AGAIN THE TRUTH IS DIFFERENT. These are not the words of FFRP – Folks For Responsible Planning.
The fact is a Planning Board in Sanders County will be composed of Sanders County citizens. It will seek input from Sanders County citizens. To make a Planning Board’s recommendations to the commissioners reflective of the citizens’ wishes, the citizens must participate and provide input. In those ways it does provide for public input.

As you can see, the presentation made in the May 1st Ledger was lacking in complete disclosure, presented a slanted view, and was not based upon cold hard facts. You’re urged to look at the website, www.responsibleplanning.org, to learn more facts.

It is recommended that you reread Mike Hashisaki’s letter of May 8th, which destroys several untruths about zoning.

Get the true facts and then make a decision. We rest assured that all reasonable persons will see through the many unfounded arguments of opponents of a Planning Board and vote to create such a board in Sanders County.

Ernest Scherzer
Chair, FFRP
 

In the February 15th issue of The Ledger, Commissioner Gail Patton stated, "Land Values are escalating.  Subdivisions are getting bigger and more visible, and are becoming more often purchased by people from out of the area."

Of the 56 counties in Montana, at least 47 have planning boards and/or growth plans.  One has a planning board and/or growth plan which is currently in suspension so it has not been counted in the above total.  Sanders County has neither.  The other counties have not replied to our emails as to whether they have a planning board/growth plan or not.  That means at least 84% of the counties in the state have planning boards and/or growth plans.  In addition, at least 36 incorporated communities have planning boards.
 

From Sanders County Ledger Editorial

The following excerpts are from the Sanders County Leger editorial of September 27^th

“Right now we feel there is no reason not to have a planning board.  We have increased numbers of subdivisions, we have residents who want their property values protected and we have more and more need to keep certain property uses from setting up shop.  We feel a majority of the residents want some land use protection.”

“Seating a planning board of responsible citizens, with differing opinions, gives all citizens a better representation on land use issues than having no board and no plan at all.”

“We’ve said before, and we continue to hold this position, that the commissioners need to bite the bullet, appoint a board and live by the consequences.”

“Montana’s Legislature thought so.  They extended the authority to cities, towns and counties to form and seat a planning board without going to an election.”

“We’re sure the majority of the residents won’t be disappointed.”