Always time for another profitable outrage or two before headin' back to the ranch.
UPDATE: Timber firm drops road use request ("When we heard about the concern for further input, we said, 'Well,
that makes sense,' and we apologized and set up some [public]
meetings," said Kathy Budinick, a spokeswoman for Plum Creek)
The squeaky wheel ...
Forest Service paves way for development in Montana woods:
Washington Post
January 4, 2009
The
Bush administration appears poised to push through a change in U.S.
Forest Service agreements that would make it far easier for mountain
forests to be converted to housing subdivisions.
Mark Rey, the
former timber lobbyist who heads the Forest Service, last week signaled
his intent to formalize the controversial change before the Jan. 20
inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama.
As a candidate, Obama campaigned against the
measure in Montana, where local governments complained of being
blindsided by Rey's negotiating the policy shift behind closed doors
with the nation's largest private landowner.
The shift is
technical but with large implications. It would allow Plum Creek Timber
Co. to pave roads passing through Forest Service land. For decades,
such roads were little more than trails used by logging trucks to reach
timber stands.
But as Plum Creek has moved into the real estate
business, paving those roads became a necessary prelude to opening vast
tracts of the company's 8 million acres to the vacation homes that are
transforming landscapes across the West.
Scenic western Montana, where Plum Creek owns
1.2 million acres, would be most affected, placing burdens on county
governments to provide services and undoing efforts to cluster housing
near towns.
"Just within the last couple weeks, they finalized a
big subdivision west of Kalispell," said D. James McCubbin, deputy
county attorney of Missoula County, which complained that the
closed-door negotiations violated federal laws requiring public comment
because the changes would affect endangered species and sensitive
ecosystems. Kalispell is in Flathead County, where officials also
protested.
The uproar last summer forced Rey to postpone
finalizing the change, which came after "considerable internal
disagreement" within the Forest Service, according to a Government
Accountability Office report requested by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).
The report said that 900 miles of logging roads could be paved in
Montana and that amending the long-held easements "could have a
nationwide impact."
Tester and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.),
chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, then
asked for an inquiry by the inspector general of the Agriculture
Department, which includes the Forest Service.
"I think we need
another set of eyes on it," Tester said Friday. "I don't think that's
running out the clock. If this is a good agreement, then what's the
rush? Why do it in the eleventh hour of this administration?"
Obama
sharply criticized Rey's efforts during the presidential campaign,
citing concerns that a landscape dotted with luxury homes would be less
hospitable to Montanans accustomed to easy access to timberlands.
"At
a time when Montana's sportsmen are finding it increasingly hard to
access lands, it is outrageous that the Bush administration would
exacerbate the problem by encouraging prime hunting and fishing lands
to be carved up and closed off," Obama said.
Rey vows to act
soon. In a Dec. 12 letter to Tester and Bingaman, he repeated his logic
for granting Plum Creek the changes it requested, then closed with a
promise to schedule briefings "to describe how we plan to proceed."
In
a phone interview Wednesday, Rey said he would act immediately after
the courtesy meetings with the lawmakers. "Probably in the next week or
so, before this goes forward," he said. Tester said he had not yet
heard from Rey's office to arrange a meeting.
On environmental
questions, the Bush administration has a checkered record of following
through on promised eleventh-hour changes, said Robert Dreher, a lawyer
with Defenders of Wildlife.
"I suppose it's a legacy issue,"
Dreher said. "They've already backed off on a couple of things they
said they were going to do," including proposed changes on marine
fisheries and industrial emissions.
On the other hand, the Bush
White House went ahead with controversial changes to the Endangered
Species Act, despite opposition from environmentalists.
The Plum
Creek deal could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen. Because it
amends existing easements, the change involves no 30-day waiting
period. But the step carries a political cost that the administration
evidently has been assessing since June, when Rey said he expected to
formalize within a month the change that half a year later is still
unresolved.
"It's conceivable they don't want to leave office
looking like bad guys," Dreher said. "There's been a lot of concern
about the nature of the process and the lack of inclusiveness. You've
got the county government in Montana angry over it. If they do this
walking out the door, they're kind of ramming it down their throats."
Never too late for incentives in Franklin?
Last night the Franklin Common Council voted 4-1 to approve a $9,000 "grant" for a Class B reserve liquor license for Staybridge Suites Hotel (Alderman Olson voted no).
In other words, Staybridge will not have to pay $9,000 of the $10,000 fee.
The FranklinNOW online story states: Alderman Timothy Solomon said the hotel would bring much needed new revenue to the city.
"Would bring...". Not "will." So, Staybridge Suites is convinced to break ground now that this incentive is in place, right?
No - - Staybridge Suites is scheduled to open next month - - anyone driving past the corner of Ryan and 27th Street can see the structure pretty much ready to go.
Wha...?
Call me crazy, but perhaps a $9k "grant" could be better spent incentivizing a commercial opportunity in Franklin that is not days from opening!
As promised, I've submitted the issue for discussion as an agenda item for the next Economic Development Commission meeting (January 26).
In the meantime, Mark Hansen Director of Sales and Marketing Staybridge Suites has posted a comment on Greg Kowalski's Franklin Today blog which raises more questions than it answers.
Here is the text of my agenda item (with downloadable PDF as well); Download Staybridge EDC agenda item
STAYBRIDGE SUITES:
$9000 LIQUOR LICENSE “GRANT” ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
It’s my goal to examine this specific instance in proper detail in order to improve policy and communications regarding economic development measures under consideration now and in the future.
Suggested non-commission participants:
Mayor Tom Taylor
Our discussion should include, but not limit itself to, the following:
1) Define the parameters of the “grant”
2) Create a detailed timeline showing
• Where and how this proposal was generated
• Who made the primary approach (did this originate from STAYBRIDGE or the City of Franklin?)
• At what point was this issue discussed by/brought before the EDC, if at all? What, if any, was the EDC’s recommendation?
3) Communication issues
• Why is a comment on a blog the first place people read/hear about the specific details of this grant (see attachment: “Franklin Today” blog comment: Mark Hansen Director of Sales and Marketing Staybridge Suites Franklin)
• Is Hansen’s description accurate?
4) Precedent issues: pro and con
• Strategy: Does this “grant” bind the City of Franklin in discussions with other developers?
• Legal: Does this “grant” bind the City of Franklin in discussions with other developers?
• Fairness: Can this “grant,” or one like it, be offered as an incentive to a locally-owned business?
• Example: Coffee/snack shop in front of Franklin library on Drexel/Loomis corner to spur community/commercial development in a focused area of public space.
5) Benefits
• How does the $9000 “grant” create a better economic development situation for Franklin?
6) Deficits
• How could the $9000 “grant” adversely affect Franklin?
7) Straw poll
• EDC membership votes “for” or “against” the Staybridge “grant” in nonbinding open vote
Submitted 1/7/09.
Posted at 12:15 PM in Absurdity, Close to Home, Commentary, Corporate Socialism, Current Affairs, Economic Development Commission, Transparency | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
| Reblog (0)