Myths & Truths of the planning board
Why do the organized pro-planning-board activists refuse to even acknowledge Montana law which states that if we create a Growth Policy for Sanders County we will be required to implement it with a zoning law. Could it be they believe that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough it becomes the truth?
Here are some myths currently being circulated by these activists:
Myth: The commissioners saw a large majority in favor of the planning board at the public meetings in May 2007.
Truth: Commissioner Carol Brooker said it was about 50-50. Actually, toward the end of that series of meetings, people were changing their minds left and right from support to opposition at an increasing rate, as the truth about the future of the planning board was revealed. Also, conveniently unmentioned are the written comments and 150 signatures in opposition submitted to the commissioners during that period.
Myth: The three commissioners are all in agreement on the need for a planning board.
Truth: Two of the three have stated they are not convinced it is the best thing for the county and one is taking no position.
Myth: It is only “unplanned growth” (by government) that impacts the infrastructure of the county.
Truth: Growth of any kind; planned or unplanned (by government) impacts infrastructure. We can deal with infrastructure changes as the need arises, as we have always done.
Myth: “A (Sanders County) planning board does not necessarily lead to zoning.”
Truth: The commissioners have made it crystal clear that the purpose of the proposed planning board is to create a growth policy. By Montana law (MCA 76-1-601) such a growth policy must be implemented. The implementation document is the zoning law, by whatever name you want to call it. Hence a planning board will lead to zoning laws.
Myth: “It (a planning board) will protect your property rights, rather than demeaning them.”
Truth: The resulting zoning laws will deny access, restrict uses, and prevent property splits and sales. All of these effects are loss of property rights.
Myth: A planning board is necessary to provide county infrastructure.
Truth: Infrastructure can, and always has been, provided when the need arises. Infrastructure upgrades can be paid for through an impact fee system which is far different and far less costly than a planning board/growth policy/zoning law.
Myth: “We certainly need direction for the development that has been occurring in the county.” — implying that we need centralized government direction.
Truth: We need direction, and are receiving it, from the marketplace. What we don’t need is centralized bureaucratic direction that reduces the efficiencies created by a free market.
Myth: (a) A planning board is necessary to efficiently handle subdivision processing.
(b) A planning board will decrease the workload of the commissioners in dealing with subdivisions.
Truth: When the commissioners were asked if a planning board would reduce or increase their subdivision workload they admitted it would actually be increased, therefore reducing efficiency.
Myth: A growth policy will be a home-grown document, with all local content, tailored strictly for Sanders County needs.
Truth: Out-of-county/out-of-state consultants will be hired, as has been done in surrounding counties recently. These consultants will write smart growth policies because that is what they have been trained to do. These are cookie-cutter documents derived from models produced by the American Planning Association in Washington, D.C. found in their “Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook.”
Myth: “Planning itself doesn’t affect how a person can develop their property…(i)t’s when a government adopts land use controls that these restrictions might be seen.” The implication is that we will not be hit with a growth policy and zoning law.
Truth: The growth policy resulting from this planning board by law will have to be implemented with those very “land use controls” (i.e. zoning laws). The pro planning board activists admit that a growth policy is their primary initial purpose. Therefore, they know that these land use controls will be enacted within a short time thereafter.
Myth: “A planning board is one more way to increase the level of public input.”
Truth: A planning board puts one more layer of bureaucracy between the people and their elected officials. Every one of us in the public can participate now directly with the commissioners. Why would we want to reduce our input by having to go through another, unelected, body to express our views?
Ron Olfert
Plains