| I was introduced
to Marianne Roose at the Orton Family Foundation's PLACEMATTERS06
Conference, which we both participated in last fall. I
was in a panel discussion entitled, "The Role of
Media in Local and Regional Planning." My discussions
with that panel's participants and subsequent discussions
with Marianne and others at the conference made me wonder
if there is actually a good deal of collaboration going
on that’s not being reported by the media.
In reviewing news articles about planning,
growth and collaboration in the Rocky Mountain West, I
found a great deal of coverage about conflicts over growth
and planning, but not a whole lot about grassroots efforts
undertaken by members of the community, government officials
and businesses to address challenges created by growth.
In my discussions with planners and local
officials at the conference, many criticized the media
for leaving out one critical aspect when covering planning
decisions. That critical component, those folks argued,
was that approval or rejection of subdivision plans hinged
on following the letter of the law. Some said media coverage
often began mid-way in the project, sometimes after projects
have cleared the preliminary stage.
Some of the people I talked with believe
that developers should be communicating with the media, urging
them to publish information on preliminary meetings and
early public comment deadlines in time for the public
to become engaged early.
A situation that occurred last year in Montana
provides a clear lesson about involving the public early.
A developer seeking to build a 36-unit subdivision
on 200 acres at the confluence of Rock Creek, a blue-ribbon
trout stream, and the Clark Fork River ran into serious
opposition to the project after he began moving dirt,
but before he filed for any permits for the subdivision.
First, a group filed for a temporary injunction
to halt the work, a request which was granted by a Missoula
County District judge.
Then landowners in the Rock Creek area presented
a request to the Missoula
County Commissioners, asking that they be allowed
to form their own zoning district.
The Missoula County Planning and Zoning
board — made up of the county’s three commissioners
— approved that request.
But the effect of the ruling is unclear
in that the three commissioners sitting as members of
the planning board split the vote — one for, one
against, and one abstaining — and for the ruling
on the zoning board to have merit, the Missoula County
Commission may have to approve it.
Both the developer and members of the Rock
Creek Protective Association said that even though the
ultimate effect of the planning board’s decision
was unclear, the message sent by the nearly year-long
legal wrangling was clear: Get everyone at the table,
sit down and figure out a compromise.
Tracking those negotiations in the media
could provide other developers and other neighborhood
associations with a template on how to talk about projects,
and perhaps avoid protracted legal disputes and the acrimony
such battles breed.
On the positive side of media attention,
if more was paid to consensus projects such as the fuels-reduction
project in the Kootenai National Forest in Montana discussed
in Marianne’s Western Perspective, that attention
could help other groups put together their own collaborative
projects.
Not that the Kootenai National Forest Stakeholders
Coalition is the only group doing such work in Montana.
Officials in Madison County have teamed up with the U.S.
Forest Service and private landowners to complete a hazardous
fuel-reduction project in the Beaverhead-Deer lodge National
Forest in Montana to make it easier to protect homes built
in the wild land-urban interface from wildfire.
It could be that more such groups exist
— or will be formed as more counties in Montana
and other western states work to reduce hazardous fuels
in areas where public lands and private property adjoin.
Such efforts may be flamed by the federal
government’s increasing drive to curtail wildfire
fighting costs.
After a scathing audit by the Government
Accountability Office on money spent by the U.S. Forest
Service fighting wildfires in 2006, including a particularly
disastrous year in Montana where dozens of homes burned,
it appeared federal officials were examining how states
were reimbursed for fighting wildfires.
Several bills that would tie counties' planning
decisions to availability of firefighting funds from the
state general fund were introduced into the Montana Legislature
this session.
Senate Bill 51 would require counties to
consider wildfire hazards when developing growth plans.
Senate Bill 167 would require counties to designate wild
land-urban interface areas, and would allow the state
to withhold firefighting funds for counties that did not
so designate such areas.
At the Jan. 11, 2007 hearing on those bills
before the Senate Local Government Committee, the committee
decided to send the bills to a subcommittee to take testimony
offered at that hearing, and combine the bills into one
piece of legislation.
Legislation such as that proposed in Montana
will add another layer of complexity to the planning process,
but it could also work as the impetus needed to bring various
stakeholders together to find a solution that
works for everyone.
The media definitely have a role in providing
residents insight into how legislation, such as the wild land-urban
interface bills in Montana, will affect the Rocky Mountain
West and what local officials think of the legislation
and how such measures could change the look of their community.
If the planners, local officials and other
people whom I met at the PLACEMATTERS06 conference are
a true representation of the people who are working across
the West, then there is a huge contingent of folks who
are bright, committed and passionate about
their work, and who are willing to bring everyone together
to create the best plan possible for their piece of the
West.
And the media should be there, following
the progress, and perhaps most important, reporting the
outcome.
|
