#KGPA-24-01 A few words on upholding public confidence and integrity in our planning process Public Comment from Ming & Dan MunzingAimee Brunckhorst
From: Ming Lovejoy <minglovejoy1 @gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 1:58 PM
To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject: EXTERNAL #KGPA-24-01 A few words on upholding public confidence and integrity in
our planning process
Dear Honorable Mayor Johnson and Members of the Kalispell City Council,
We are writing to share the impact of recent conversations with neighbors and members of the local
community from whom you may not be hearing regarding your upcoming vote to amend the growth
policy in order to annex property to develop the high -density Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing
subdivision adjacent to largely rural housing and farmland—#KGPA-24-01 .
The individuals and families of whom we speak have shared with us that they are not submitting
public comment and some are not bothering to sign the circulating petition because they feel it's of
no use to do so.
Notwithstanding strong sentiment opposing the Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing
development from these community members, we've had numbers of individuals share their apathy
and lack of confidence in the city's processess.
Some share a belief that the city council will turn a deaf ear to the legitimate and far-reaching impact
of safety, functionality, and direction while giving into a single deveoper's influence and hasty
pressures.
The 584 people who have at the time of this writing signed the circulating petition are voicing their
opposition to an amendment to the growth policy and annexation to the city for the purpose of 380
new lots to be built.
Those individuals and the hundreds (if not thousands) of folks who have not voiced their concern
would love to be heard with the same respect and influence that a single developer seems to get.
However they simply don't believe that is possible.
In conversations with these individuals, they've shared with us that they see through the facade —the
"affordable housing" pretense and the "Housing! Housing! Housing!" cry which seems to be catch
phrase and marketing message that legitimizes EVERY development, whether appropriate, well-
advised, and beneficial to the community.
It's important to note that these concerns are not coming from individuals who are against
development or growth in their backyards (NIMBYs), but rather from those who believe this particular
subdivision simply does not fit this neighborhood AND who do not believe their voices will truly
matter to a city that seems hellbent on approving any and every proposed subdivision that comes
their way.
The concerns cited include appropriateness and fitting into the largely rural character of the
neighborhood, safety, traffic, access & egress, water, wildlife, and other critical issues.
We've heard sentiments, and comments, and literal statements like "What's the use?" "They don't
listen anyway," "The fix is in," "All the city cares about is the money they get from more taxpayers,
even if it's a bad idea" and "Its a done deal." That last one we've heard many times.
Some folks have expressed suspicions about the integrity of the approval process. This perception,
whether true or not, erodes public confidence in our institutions and public figures.
When public opinion and confidence in our public institutions wane, it can lead to unfavorable
consequences —including decreased civic engagement, increased skepticism towards government
actions, and a breakdown in the community's trust.
It's essential for the City Council to demonstrate its integrity and commitment to transparent and fair
governance.
By voting "no" on amending the growth policy KGPA-24-01 to create an isolated high -density island of
development in the midst rural agricultural farmland on a narrow county road with 2 blind hills and a
host of traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, seemingly to benefit a single developer, you have the
opportunity to reaffirm your dedication to the principles of responsible and sustainable planning as
outlined in your very own growth policy.
Please show our community that decisions are made based on merit and the collective good, rather
than narrow interests, hastiness, or external pressures.
Your vote can restore trust and confidence in our city's governance.
A "no" vote on amending Kalispell's current growth policy for this single instance of annexing and
allowing development of Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing would demonstrate that our City
Council is committed to making decisions that reflect the best interests of all residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please vote "no" on #KGPA-24-01 the amendment to the
growth policy before you.
Sincerely,
Ming & Dan Munzing
213 Tronstad Rd.
Kalispell, MT