Showing 1-5 of 21
Add a comment | All comments »
We are lucky that Plum Creek saw the wisdom of not consummating a deal with the Forest Service that would have led to both bad publicity and legal challenges that would very likely have been successful. Missoula County will soon see how reasonable Plum Creek will be when the County Planning Board reviews the proposed Seeley Lake Regional Plan, which was recently transmitted to the Board by the Seeley Lake Community Council. Plum Creek has said that the proposed Plan is unfair and does not allow for as much new residential development as Plum Creek would like. Although the proposed Plan no longer includes earlier language that would have allowed Plum Creek 820 residential units in the area surrounding Placid Lake, the proposed Plan would still allow for enough development to ruin the natural character of the Placid Lake area. I encourage the County Planning Board to keep environmental considerations in mind as it reviews the Plan. I also encourage the County not to be intimated by a threat from Plum Creek that it might exercise its veto power state statutory law gives it over the zoning associated with the Plan. I believe that the veto statute is unlawful for numerous reasons, so that a veto by Plum Creek would not hold up in court.
Jim - Couldn't agree with you more. 820 homes around tiny Placid Lake would be a disaster...that whole chain of lakes verges on eutrophic (at best) and adding that many septic systems, lawns, roads and driveways into the surface and groundwater would likely cause significant nutrient loading to the system, ultimately destroying the very resource (the lakes) that Plum Creek would use to sell its lots. One good thing about the economic collapse is that big new subdivisions really aren't popping these days, so maybe, as I wrote, Plum Creek sees that handwriting on the wall and is making its bid to just get the federal and state dollars for lands they still get to log.
You got used on this story George. PC pushed this "backing-out" message to pre-empt their major layoff announcement with something they could spin into a positive. If you saw Karl Vick's piece in the Washington Post last week, you'd realize, it doesn't matter if PC backs out, or if Rey backs off. Bush already OK'd their development plans. It is a misnomer, and you, along with Missoulian and Newwest, took it up the gazoo. Well your readers did I guess. Kathy Budinick is smiling somewhere right now. Way to serve as an echo chamber. Excuse my cynicism but this isn't exactly "rattling the cage."
PDig, this story is ten times more complicated than the Post presents. The national media is concerned with the activities of the Bush administration in its final hours, which is valid. As Montanans, we need to understand the full picture. What Vick neclects to mention is that the administration attempted to validate this effort; they didn't concoct it. Whether or not the existing easements allow Plum Creek to develop the urban-wildland interface was, for good or ill, decided long ago, as a court will intepret in the coming months. By this outcome, the administration ultimately accomplished nothing. I repeat: nothing. I'll say it once more: nothing. Nothing. Everything is back to where it was in 2007, when the easements said what they said. This is an important issue, but it doesn't help Montana to presume that talking heads understand the controversy better than folks that watched the whole thing progress. Could Plum Creek still develop these lands? Certainly. Do the 145 jobs they shed lest week provide ample motivation for making this announcement now? Certainly not. Those jobs in the Flathead cut perhaps 1,000,000 in annual expenditures. The easement backout easily cost them a billion on the spot -- maybe more.
"Unfortunately, these steps are necessary to match supply with the eroding demand for our wood products." - Rick Holley, Plum Creek president and chief executive officer (in the Plum Creek press release). "Eroding demand for our products" isn't exactly the language any corporate executive wants to use about their industry; however, finally the timber industry is being straight and honest with the public, which is a good thing. Remember, as recently as a few months ago (and certainly over the past five years as many of us warned of the dire economic consequences of over-consumption and over-development) the timber industry and their supporters were still telling us that they needed more trees from national forests to solve their problems. That was never the case during this emerging economic crisis and it certainly isn't the case when you consider that Plum Creek is the largest private land own in Montana (and the nation) and has unlimited access to their own timber lands. Hopefully, elected officials and the public will now better understand the true and honest scope of the situation facing the timber industry so that we can better move forward with solutions. I've said all along that solutions not based on reality really don't get us anywhere and certainly don't help workers or communities get on the right track for a clean, green and sustainable future.
Comments (21) RSS