Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.
After reading, and rereading, the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in the Whitefish planning doughnut case (Phillips v Whitefish), I think the logic of Chief Justice McGrath’s dissent is more compelling than the logic of Justice Rice’s decision. I also think the justices in the majority were looking for, and found, a way to uphold the county in order to uphold a principle of county supremacy.
It’s a tough loss for Whitefish, Ed McGrew, Dan Weinberg, and their fellow critics of county planning, zoning, and enforcement. These are good people, community leaders, and I hope for Whitefish’s sake they stay involved in land use planning issues.
These conflicts will continue, and not just in Whitefish. I live in a 40-year-old subdivision west of Kalispell. When I moved here, the city limit was a mile to the east. Now it’s 500 feet to the north, and the change is abrupt. No sidewalks or curbs run along my street. No streetlights pollute the night sky. But in the now close-by city, there are curbs, sidewalks, and streetlights, and the houses are connected to city sewer and water. At some point, my neighbors and I expect Kalispell to behave like Putin and try to annex our area against our will.
From an urban planning standpoint, doughnuts — extraterritorial jurisdiction — make sense because they make annexation easier — easier for both the city and the annexed. People willing to exchange liberty for the security of city services and authority support planning doughnuts. People who value liberty more than sidewalks, streetlights, city utilities, and higher taxes, oppose planning doughnuts. There is no middle ground, and there will be no middle ground. Boundaries will change, but as long as there are both cities and counties, the conflict will endure.