Montrose Citizens for Responsible Growth

View Printable Version (PDF)

To the Montrose County Planning Commission, Montrose Board of Commissioners, and the County Land Use Staff;

Recently a number of residents have expressed their concerns – indeed, opposition – to the county’s effort to update and revise the land use provisions of our Master Plan. We are now commenting to respond to that opposition. The Master Plan – while imperfect and outdated – is the only plan we have. It is precisely because of its imperfection and lack of updating – (mandated, but ignored for many years) – that we are now engaged in this difficult process.

In the face of relentless, unmanaged growth, a multitude of citizens have expressed concerns to the county over the contradiction between our Master Plans’ provisions and this indiscriminate growth. Consequently, the county determined that our Master Plan was outdated and lacking in “sufficient exactitude” and therefore unusable without updating/revision.

To the county’s credit – and under the direction of our professional land use planners – this revision process was begun last fall (2006). The county was sectioned into several areas, and citizen meetings were scheduled with multiple advance notices for each area. Any resident was encouraged to attend and comment at any meeting. Additionally, comments were solicited from anyone unable to attend.

The Rural Alliance for Private Property Rights circulated flyers to encourage supporters to attend the meetings – which they did, and forcefully expressed their views. Now – apparently dissatisfied with the results (which are hardly finalized), this group has submitted a letter – basically calling the process “unethical” and asking the county to suspend or cancel the whole process…

While we are quite confident in the county’s ability to defend itself – we would like to rebut each of the claims in this letter:

1) The accusation that the meetings were “purposefully scheduled to preclude a large number of citizens from participation” is not even remotely supported with any evidence. In fact, the meetings were scheduled over a 3 month period – well advertised, with clear provisions to attend any and all meetings, or submit written comment. Contrary to this accusation, all citizens were strongly encouraged to participate. Any chosen time frame would have been inconvenient to some citizens – hence, the 3 ½ month window.

2) The claim that meetings were held in “outlying areas of the county without notice to the whole county” is also not supported by the evidence. Each meeting was held at a location and time (early evenings) that was convenient to the area being reviewed; and, they were preceded by numerous notices encouraging attendance.

3) The letter states that the Olathe meeting date and time precluded farmers’ attendance because of harvest. Well, “harvest” lasts a couple months depending on your crop. No date and time will suit everyone. If a citizen – any citizen- wishes to be heard, he’ll prioritize that 2 hours and either attend or submit comment.

4) Certainly – “many interested people did not hear about the meetings” – but it wasn’t because they were not adequately publicized. Every citizen has to take the responsibility to stay informed. It is not the county’s job – nor is it feasible- to individually contact every resident before meetings. What kind of precedent would that set? Every special interest group will henceforth expect personal notification….

5) This claim is more of the same – challenging the quality of the input because of “short notice” and “very busy and stressful time of year.” Frankly, we don’t know of a non-busy or non-stressful time of year…

6) Written comment was encouraged until December 31st. Anyone was free to contact the land use office – a phone call away – if they had questions. “Creativity” was neither requested nor required. A five question “questionnaire” was in fact available and used at every meeting. If someone cared, he’d make the time…

7) We will agree that the maps that were used did not contain a lot of information. However, at each meeting, detailed aerial photos were posted so that residents who are presumably already familiar with the unique features of the area could reference those specific features of interest and indicate their preferences.

8) The assertion is made that “in general, the public does not understand what a Master Plan is…” Last October our non-profit organization - with input from our county land use staff - retained an independent, professional polling group to conduct a survey of our county’s “likely voters” on this subject. The results showed that approximately 50% of the respondents were unfamiliar with the Master Plan; but, of those who were familiar, approximately 67% were in favor of its adoption & implementation. (Copies of this survey, along with its methodology, were provided to the land use office, as well as every county commissioner.) So - yes, education is needed. These meeting were excellent opportunities for citizens to start that education.

9) This item asserts that “information on the process is limited and vague.” We would reply that - again - it is
not the county’s job to hold people’s hand… Information on this process was widely and repeatedly publicized in the Montrose Daily Press - a paper that should be commended for prominently publishing virtually everything submitted from all viewpoints, as well as doing its own, excellent articles on this subject.

10) This item asks: “Why are we changing something that will work…?” Well, a significant number of this county’s citizens have expressed concerns that what we have now - an outdated Master Plan without sufficient exactitude - is NOT working, as measured by the unprecedented, indiscriminate, unplanned growth that our county is experiencing. Our quality of life is diminishing; our rural, agricultural heritage is disappearing forever. Our county cannot keep up with the demands and consequences.

11) This item demands that “the meetings and evaluation of the data should cease”… citing a variety of reasons, and criticizing such things as “format” and “timing” without offering any constructive alternatives. These meeting were merely the first step in a laborious process; and, given the reasons above, we believe that this process should continue. The county has wisely built into this process ample opportunity for ongoing feedback and public input. It is not over; indeed, it has hardly begun…

12) We agree- that “all those willing to give their opinions must be heard in their own voice.” We also believe that it is the individual’s responsibility to become an informed participant. The county land use staff has done a good job of facilitating genuine opportunities for public input; and they should be commended, not ridiculed.

Approximately 1000 citizens participated in these meetings. We believe that it is counter-productive for the county to essentially ignore these citizens’ participation and input by acknowledging the largely unfounded criticisms of a relatively small special interest group that claims that they didn’t receive the word.

We acknowledge, respect, and share the legitimate concerns of farmers and ranchers regarding land use, zoning, and density decisions. We believe that a workable solution to our growth issues can only be achieved by going forward with the process of reviewing our citizens’ wishes- as carefully planned by our county’s professional land use staff. Our organization represents several hundred supporters and we strongly support our county’s land use staff’s efforts in this regard. We see no benefit to delaying the process that they have initiated, and we respectfully ask that you give them the authority to proceed in this critically needed process.

We ask that this comment be included in the public record. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely-

John Cossick & Mary Wood
Montrose Citizens for Responsible Growth
www.montrosecitizens.org
cc: Montrose Daily Press