Tronstad Meadows Meeting Monday Public Comment from Danielle TuhyGood Morning City Council Members,
I am coordinating at this point hundreds of community members opposed to the annexation of and development plat design for the proposed Tronstad Meadows Development. I plan to individually
contact each council member to discuss our concerns. First I have a few procedural questions.
There is confusion on the purpose of the meeting this coming Monday. It looks like it is to decide whether or not to even hold a meeting for public comment on this development. I can’t
imagine with the amount of feedback you have received you would choose not to hold a meeting for public comment. The Planning Commission meeting had well over 100 people there in opposition
to the development despite the notification getting lost in the mail. Not allowing public comment would be sending a clear message to your constituents that you have no intention of
considering their concerns. Is this more of a quick procedural thing? If there is any question on not approving a public hearing, I will ensure that many people come Monday to show
support for a public hearing. If it is just procedural however, that would likely waste your time. The public comment at the Planning Commission meeting went for hours, and we’ve
at least quadrupled the amount of people concerned about this since then.
Would you please let me know which meetings regarding Tronstad Meadows you would like abundant public comment on? There’s no reason for us to be obnoxious and make you all go through
the massive amount of public comment twice (or more). Please also clarify the process of public comment on this development so that I can ensure the community members I am coordinating
participate in the most optimal way. Prior to the public hearing I attempted to coordinate a meeting with PJ to learn the rules etc, however he refused because there is a lawyer involved.
However, I know that left Chad Graham frustrated by our lack of knowledge of the procedure. Obviously he handled it well, but I would much prefer to be prepared to participate correctly,
and I’d be happy to pass the information along to all of the other people I am working with.
I have quadrupled the amount of signatures on my petition against this development since the public hearing on it (450ish signatures currently). At what point, and how, would you like
me to present that to you? It is on Change.org, so I could send you a link that would allow you to see how many community members oppose this in real time, or I can bring a paper copy
of the signatures.
In addition, we learned that if we gather signatures opposing the development from I believe (please correct me if I’m wrong) 25% of the property owners within 150ft of the development,
it requires a 2/3’s vote instead of basic majority. It is easily attainable for us to go well beyond that. If we gathered signatures from 100% of those around the development, would
that change anything? Is there a benefit to you to know more than 25% of those around it oppose it? Based on what we’ve collected so far, gathering 100% of the signatures seems quite
attainable.
At the public hearing from the Planning Commission, it appeared that the planning commission felt like they are required to approve it, and that the onus was on us to prove it was poorly
designed for the community. Why is this? Do you have to approve development requests and annexation requests or put yourself at risk for being sued? Why does the city want to approve
this development? I could give you 100 reasons encompassing every aspect of city planning to oppose this, but that is time consuming for each of you to consider, and it definitely
appeared like at the public hearing there were only certain things the city had any interest in discussing. It also appeared that the city primarily considered what PJ said despite
us having many experts disproving his statements as false, which makes it seem like public comment isn’t actually considered. One of the main pieces of feedback I’ve received from
the people I’m coordinating is that the Planning Commission gave them a clear message that they had already decided to recommend approving the annexation and development, and that no
amount of facts presented would change that if PJ continued to recommend it. Will that be true at the City Council level as well? Is he really the one that decides this? Is there
a reason, or reasons, why the city wants to approve this that isn’t just because PJ recommends it, and if so, what are they?
Neighbors prior to attending this meeting assumed that the developers would have to prove why their plans benefit the city, just as we would need to prove why it wouldn’t. Instead,
the developers spoke very briefly, as if it was already decided, and presented maybe a few minutes total worth of argument for their development, with zero actual evidence besides their
opinion, and no expert opinions. They also had zero public comment via email in support of the development, and had one person that wasn’t the developers themselves there that spoke,
despite there being well over 100 people there, hours worth of public comment, and the developers having months to gather support, rather than the less than 2 weeks that we had. Despite
the newspaper quoting the developers as having a panel of community members supporting this, and the Tronstad Meadows website currently stating “We're working closely with a variety
of families—including policemen, healthcare workers, teachers, tradespeople,”, not a single one of this advertised panel that they’ve supposedly had for months was at the public hearing.
In case you’re interested they also were not at the listening session the development put on that I attended. This is very confusing to the community. Please explain why the default
seems to be approving this development and giving the developers whatever they want, and why you think that benefits the community. We don’t want to waste your time with the vast amount
of reasons we have to oppose this that don’t actually matter to you. If you give me a list, I can ensure that there are community members there that are professional experts in those
areas to give you better information to aid your decision making. We actually do have a group that includes dozens of teachers, healthcare workers, firemen, and tradespeople. Do the
developers have more say in this than we do, and if so, why?
In addition, why are their only 3 representatives for the development, and why are they very small minority owners? I would think you would want to hear from the actual majority owners/developers
that have the power to actually enforce any of the statements made. Currently the development hasn’t even had the respect for the city to have any of the primary owners of the property
present , even via Zoom, for information gathering. It obviously isn’t that important to them if they can’t take the time to participate despite having by far the most time to prepare
for this. Mr. Garner and Mr. Sonju specifically told us at the listening session they put on that they have no actual power in influencing the direction of this development. I’m curious
if you are unaware of that, and assume you are talking to the people in power. As city representatives I would think you would want to make these plans with the people that actually
have influence.
Finally, I would like to discuss a way to ensure that everyone interested in publicly commenting on this is able to do so. At the Planning Commission public hearing, at least 20 people
had to stand along the walls, and another 20 or so couldn’t even fit in the room. Because of this, many people couldn’t hear, and there were some people (elderly or with physical conditions)
that couldn’t be expected to stand for hours, and had to leave. Considering the amount of interest we have now had time to gather, I imagine there will be even more people interested
in this. I’m sure you’re aware of the overflow at that meeting. I would like to know what your plan is for ensuring everyone that wants to participate is able to do so. Do you have
a space that seats 200? As a primary coordinator for the opposition, I’d be happy to help you problem solve this ahead of time.
I appreciate you considering the length of this, and look forward to working with you to ensure the best for our city. My hope is that by discussing some of this ahead of time we can
better streamline these meetings for you and show the respect you deserve as council members. Side note - I’m interested in sharing your responses with the public, but I am more interested
in truly understanding your perspective. So if any of this is something that would feel disrespectful or misleading to put in something like a Letter to the Editor or on Facebook,
please let me know. In addition if some of this takes longer to respond to than other parts, feel free to email me quick and time sensitive answers initially, and then take your time
to respond to things that are not time sensitive.
Thank You,
Danielle Tuhy
Sent from Mail <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=05%7C02%7Cabrunckhorst%40kalispell.com%7C490764c83e194909eb2308dc
6b9a39a1%7C6219d736f71146359cbaff616a81b398%7C1%7C0%7C638503557361070770%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C80000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=b%2BHaBi4c%2
Bw3aXfAc%2Frbi8p6k5zUDAMSciMAssBiIv5A%3D&reserved=0> for Windows
w7+wFHnC1jtkw==