"It’s going to get developed"
Upper Rattlesnake Subdivision Approved
By Jessica Mayrer, 12-18-07
After locals came out in droves to protest a proposed 37-lot subdivision in the Rattlesnake Valley, the Missoula City Council approved the Sonata Park Subdivision by a 10-2 vote.
The development, which will allow the construction of approximately one house per acre near Missoula’s North Hills, passed despite the vocal opposition.
Ward 6’s Marilyn Marler said it was inevitable.
“It’s going to get developed. It’s not going to be preserved,” she said.
Marler also pointed to the subdivision’s new, smaller scale, down from the original proposal of 53 lots to the current 37-lot plan. And hundreds of acres of open space are already preserved just next door in the North Hills, she added.
Rattlesnake residents who spoke at the meeting said the new subdivision runs contrary to a community plan charted out by residents in 1995. And many of them questioned the point of providing community input if the city council disregards it.
“You might as well not have neighborhood plans,” said Dave Berkoff from the Upper Rattlesnake Neighborhood Committee’s Leadership Council. “In the long term subdivision like this are not good for the area.”
And several in the crowd asked if this new subdivision, in an area largely unzoned, could pave the way for more infill.
Heidi Kendall and Dave Strohmaier, both of whom represent Ward 1, which includes the Rattlesnake, cast the lone ‘no’ votes. The original community plan would have limited the development to about 12 homes, Kendall said.
But Ed Childers from Ward 6 said the land is private property and open to development.
“The person who owns the land has something to say about this,” Childers said.
But as Missoula continues expanding, the council will continue to struggle with where to put the burgeoning population.
“People have to live somewhere,” Marler said.
[End of article]This might have played out quite differently if the land had been zoned. Yes, there have been attempts to zone this land in the past, but ultimately the Rattlesnake community has failed to convince the City Council that they had the zoning quite right.
If you want predictable growth, then you need to push for zoning to follow soon after the plans. If your planning efforts are inclusive and welcoming of different viewpoints, then there should be no controversy with the zoning. But, antagonize some major landowners in the planning area and don't be surprised if that antagonism comes back to haunt you in the political arena.
One wonders what the homeowners who lived in this area of Missoula said when the homes of the protesting homeowners were built. NIMBYs don't seem to understand that their homes came from somewhere and their neighbors probably didn't want them built. That is the nature of property ownership -- we don't want things to change. More importantly, NIMBYs also quickly forget that landowners have a right, guaranteed by the Montana Constitution, to own, use, and transfer their property. NIMBYs like to say that land use isn't regulated enough. That's ridiculous in light of the panoply of state and local regs that are imposed on landowners that subdivide. Really what the NIMBYs mean is that there isn't enough "politics" to STOP the new development. Get anti-growth city council members into office and your problem is solved. There are plenty of places in state and local regs upon which public officials can "hang their hats" to oppose development. The NIMBYs can't win the regulatory argument, but they can try to elect anti-growth public officials.
Comment By Helena, 12-18-07I'm a little confused - fewer homes on acreage is good? It would seem that if you're going to build houses, why not make them closer together, lessening the need for other development? It might also make them more affordable.
Comment By Gman, 12-18-07Helena, don't try to confuse them with simple economics!
Comment By Keith, 12-20-07Gman... Get a clue!
Many of the residents that complained were from other areas of Missoula. There are beautiful trails that connect from town to the rattlesnake recreation area above and below this property. This part of the North Hills is in the city's desired open space area. The Rattlesnake comprehensive plan also clearly stated a level of density that current residents were satisfied with. The current residents were not trying to stop all subdivision. They were willing to let the developer have 150% more than what was stated in the City Council's own Comprehensive Planning Documents!
This subdivision not only has a negative impact on the neighbors but for all users of trails in the North Hills Open Space and the Rattlesnake Creek Trails. Currently there is no sewer in this area of the Rattlesnake. This development requires sewer. There is also an adjacent development planned that is on land owned by Scott Cooney with an additional 65 acres of homes. Scott's property includes a currently used trail that connects to the north hills trail. All of this will now be gone for all residents of Missoula. If you actually went to the meetings or read the news you would understand that these developments are actually integrally tied together. After these two developments there are vaious other large parcels which will now be on the sewer and ready for development. If you like having a place for children and teenagers to learn about farming, you can probably forget about the PEAS farm now too. It is on School Board Land. With sewer in place the land's value goes up and the school board is interested in selling it for development.
Helena. The neighborhood group also tried to have the developer cluster the homes to allow for more density and more open space around the homes that was directly connected with current city owned open space. Most of this was completely ignored by city council. Gman has no clue!
I'll admit that I'm looking at this from afar -- Helena -- so I don't know all the particulars. Even so, it seems like property rights are on the out in areas like Missoula where residents think that their trails are more sacrosanct than one's property. In fact, many have elevated trails to a "right" that ought to compete with the right to own, use, and transfer property; which, by the way, is guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. That's why trail advocates love zoning -- it's the only way to legally trump property rights. Nevermind the fact that it breeds resentment between property owners and trail advocates. If possible, work with the landowner/developer and purchase a conservation easement for the trail. (Is there a non-profit in Missoula that raises money to purchase trail or other conservation easements?) On the other hand, the developer ought to incorporate the trail into the development because it adds value to it. Basically, is there a way that free people like us can get together and use market incentives to achieve similar goals instead of gov't coercion?
Comment By pendejo, 12-21-07The Rattlesnake folks now have open-range development to go with the chickens. All six of them mother-cluckers!
Tell your councilors to focus on the important stuff next time.
Get your group out there with sign up sheets. Staton them at every major intersection in this city and get as many signatures as possible demanding the resignation of the city council member who has a clear conflict of personal interest with the developer and their "consultants". Montanans MUST NOT accept Chicago style corruption!
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/upper_rattlesnake_subdivision_approved/C8/L8/