“Plum Creek is the largest private landowner in the country, in Montana and in Missoula County, and they're turning from a timber company into a real estate company,” said Ann Mary Dussault. “That will affect every single taxpayer out there.”
Dussault is chief administrative officer for Missoula County, and she believes the company's conversion from timber to subdivisions “will have what is probably the most significant impact on Missoula County and western Montana as anything we've ever seen.”
Rey contends the controversial negotiations with Plum Creek have simply “clarified” old forest-road agreements, guaranteeing Plum Creek access across public land for all purposes, including real estate development.
Others believe the talks resulted in expanded road rights for Plum Creek, and as such should have involved public comment.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said the fact that the parties negotiated for well over a year in order to, ostensibly, make no real changes at all “implies it's a little more complicated than Mr. Rey's trying to make it appear.”
In fact, many in the Forest Service have long interpreted company access rights to be far narrower - for timber management only.
Local governments, alarmed by the closed-door talks, have raised concerns about whether taxpayers can afford to provide urban services to far-flung woodsy neighborhoods.
Others say the conversion of timberland to subdivisions could affect Montana's lumber mills. Wildlife and recreational forest use also could be affected, and the cost of more homes built in forests prone to wildfire is on many minds.
Dussault also worries about who will end up with these roads in the future.
The Forest Service, through the recent negotiations, has handed off any future maintenance costs to Plum Creek. Plum Creek, in turn, is handing off future costs to the new homeowners.
But Dussault's experience - and the experience of officials in many counties - is that as neighborhoods grow and sprawl and grow some more, homeowners associations tend to disappear. Then, when there's trouble - maybe the neighborhood water system fails, or the winter road is impassible for ambulances - the homeowners demand help from local government.
Inevitably, she said, counties end up holding the bag, “and yet we weren't even told what was happening, let alone invited to the table to participate.”
Taxpayers, Dussault said, need to understand the subsidy they're being asked to pay for Plum Creek's profits.
At issue is not whether the Forest Service will grant Plum Creek access - all federal land management agencies must provide private property owners reasonable access. Instead, the argument revolves around whether that access will be automatic, or negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
“It is in the counties' best interest to deal with these roads on a one-by-one basis,” Dussault said, “just as we deal with subdivision requests on a one-by-one basis. That way, we can see the costs and find ways to mitigate those costs. Each situation is different, and we as Montanans should have some say in what our future communities and tax obligations look like.”
Rey, however, has not been keen on giving Montanans that say, and neither has Plum Creek.
When confronted with complaints about the closed-door talks, Rey responded by requesting more closed-door meetings, this time with county commissioners. Likewise, Plum Creek representatives requested private meetings with Missoula and Flathead county officials to explain the new access agreement, but then canceled when the public and media were invited.
In an e-mail to the Montana Association of Counties, Forest Service officials said they “would appreciate your help in setting up (Monday's) meeting, and if possible to not have this be a public meeting.”
And that, said Flathead County Commissioner Joe Brenneman, “is a fine example of exactly what's wrong. I guess they still don't get it. All we want is to do this thing out in the open for everyone to see.”
Dussault - who called the secretive nature of the negotiations “simply appalling” - agreed, saying “we've had requests from both Plum Creek and the Forest Service for private meetings, and I can tell you that isn't going to happen.”
She also is frustrated because Plum Creek has long been negotiating with Missoula County on development issues - “supposedly in good faith” - even as company talks were under way with Rey's office.
“Going behind our back totally sabotages what we have been trying to accomplish on the ground with the company,” she said. “It's just beyond the pale. It's not right.”
Monday's meeting will be open, Rey said, but will not be a forum for accepting public comment. Instead, he promised to “answer questions, talk through the issues and provide information.”
“There's a basic information exchange here that needs to occur between governments,” Rey said. “That's what I've committed to do.”
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)