Why Republicans Should Say, “Thanks, But No Thanks,” To Greg Gianforte

ECB Staff on January 31, 2017

After waging the only unsuccessful state-wide campaign among Montana Republicans, former gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte seems to have the inside track on his party’s nomination for the upcoming special election for the U.S. House. After weeks of contrived “Will he or won’t be?” speculation (was there ever any doubt?), Gianforte is now officially in the mix. With all due respect to Mr. Gianforte, Republicans should say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Considered alone, the arguments for Gianforte make sense. He possesses high name ID, a strong fundraising apparatus, and a willingness to campaign hard. But his strengths are belied by considerable negatives, all of which the Republican Central Committee ignores at its peril.

Voting electors within the GOP should carefully consider all of the following before tapping Gianforte:

  • In a year when every other Republican won state elections, Gianforte lost. Right now, his name ID, while prominent, is a bug, not a feature. Democrats successfully (albeit unfairly) painted him as a “billionaire from New Jersey.” This strategy decimated his run against Bullock, and Democrats will use it again just as opportunely. The millions of dollars spent on negative ads by Democrats still have purchase today, and they will for some time.
  • Public lands. In similarly dubious fashion, Democrats pilloried Gianforte as a restrictive plutocrat who would block access to Montana’s public lands. While untrue, the narrative stuck, and certainly will endure through this election, as well.
  • Dinosaurs. TV ads featuring paleontologist Jack Horner labeled Gianforte as an anti-science creationist who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old. According to a Fox News report, Gianforte’s (excellent) communications director, Aaron Flint, “forwarded a comment made last year by Gianforte in which he said, ‘I believe young people should be taught how to think, not what to think, and a diversity of views are what should be presented.'” In spite of this sensible rebuttal, too many Montanans found Gianforte’s creationist ties disqualifying.
  • As The Western Word’s Mike Brown points out, “[Gianforte] is too far to the right for many people.” Brown, who was Sen. Conrad Burns’ former deputy state director, knows a thing or two about Republican politics in Montana. Gianforte’s struggles with independents and his inability to expand his core constituency in the face of an upstart opponent (more on this later) could cost Republicans a special election they have every reason to win.
  • Montanans validated their approval of Ryan Zinke, who won re-election in a landslide. Since Zinke has occasionally carved out moderate stances on issues, wouldn’t it make sense  — if the goal is to win — to appoint someone who is closer on the political spectrum to a winner like Zinke, than to prop up a losing and far-right candidate like Gianforte, who is more ideologically aligned to the flailing Tea Party?

Republicans should not underestimate Democrats in this election.

Imagine the following scenario: a “straight-talking” political outsider, born and raised in Montana, one with the endorsement of a popular former governor in Brian Schweitzer, barnstorming the state — with Schweitzer on the stump — on a populist platform of “Montana values” who will “keep public lands public” in opposition to the wealthy, “out of state” Gianforte. The candidate performs short musical riffs on social media, which quickly go viral. Aided by a friendly press, this upstart has no political record to speak of, and thus is largely exempt from Republican attack and media audit. In a truncated election cycle, where anything can happen, Gianforte struggles to win over the same centrists who rejected him in November. His opponent, a Democrat from Cut Bank, successfully turns the conventional political narrative on its head and captures just enough outsider-leaning, rural voters who embraced Donald Trump to eek out an upset. Can you say, Congressman Rob Quist?

Meanwhile, Zeno Baucus, U.S. attorney and son of Max, is reportedly mulling a run for the Democratic nomination. Decades of electoral evidence have affirmed the Baucus name in Montana. If left to face a candidate like Gianforte, who couldn’t get it done in an enormously favorable year for Republicans, even after injecting $6 million of his own wealth into his campaign, Democrats could, in this scenario, too, steal the election.

So who should Republicans pick? Other far-right choices like Scott Sales and Ken Miller are Gianforte Lite. If the goal is to “out conservative” the field, they might as well settle on Gianforte. (They also might as well spot Democrats 7-10 points off the top and prepare for a fight they may lose.)

But if the goal is to pick the strongest general election candidate, and to keep the seat in Republican hands for at least a decade, this one isn’t close: it’s Ed Buttrey.

Sen. Ed Buttrey

Sen. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls

Sen. Buttrey was the first to declare for the vacancy, and brings with him more advantages than does Gianforte.

Buttrey is a Montana native and also a successful entrepreneur. His business background is diverse — he founded Cable Technology, a manufacturing company with significant military and aerospace contracts, and he owns real estate and tavern holdings. Unlike Gianforte, he has actual legislative experience.

And while Buttrey’s role in expanding Medicaid has rankled much of the far-right, that seems to be just fine with the Great Falls senator:

Buttrey said his work as a senator isn’t about following the party line wherever it leads, but about finding solutions. His work on Medicaid shows that.

On his campaign website for the 2014 election, he said he would support the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but also makes the concession that it is law and pledges to work within the law to find a solution.

“It’s the easiest thing in the world for a legislator to do to spout rhetoric and vote no on everything,” Buttrey said. “You’re popular, you can defend your positions, but do you get anything done?”

Buttrey is one of very few legislators — from either party — to actually get things done in Helena. No other candidate is better equipped for the frenzied culture of Washington wheeling-and-dealing.

It’s this commitment to solutions, not ideology, that make Buttrey the stronger, more representative pick for all Montanans. If House Republicans drift to the unhinged right (as they are sometimes wont to do), Gianforte will almost certainly follow the establishment herd, whereas Buttrey, in Ryan Zinke and Donald Trump fashion, will break from party ranks, if necessary, and side with the people.

Moreover, successful Congressional representation is to a large degree a seniority game. Tenure matters. Why gamble on a wishy-washy Gianforte over a stable Buttrey? Would Gianforte treat the House like his former colleague Steve Daines did, as a jumping-off point to challenge Tester in 2018? Or to run again for Governor in 2020? With only one vote out of 435, we would like to see Montana’s next Congressional member commit to sticking around for awhile. Buttrey has promised that he would.

Finally, we couldn’t help but smile at the opening line in Gianforte’s announcement email to his supporters:

I wanted you to be among the first to hear that when my good friend Congressman Ryan Zinke is confirmed as our Secretary of Interior and a Special Election is called, I will seek the nomination to fill our open House seat at the MTGOP Delegate Convention.

Cozying up to Zinke is clever, but anyone who follows Montana politics knows that Buttrey is much closer to Zinke than Gianforte is — personally, politically, etc. Republican Central Committee members know this, too.

Greg Gianforte had his turn, and he lost. It’s time for the GOP to look in a new direction, and go “all in” with a personable and proven legislator who won’t leverage this House seat as a stepping stone for higher office.

It is time, finally, for insider Republicans to put Montana voters ahead of party ideology, and the surest, most decisive way to do that is to nominate Ed Buttrey.

(The featured image is attributable to Rowebotz under the Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.)

On Anonymity

Gregg Smith on January 31, 2017

A number of people, including the target of the piece, Tammy Lacey, took issue with the fact that a contributor to this blog posted anonymously about Tammy Lacey in a piece about her comments toward the OPI Superintendent, Elsie Arntzen.

In short: Get over it.

Here’s something from the first iteration of Electric City Weblog after the Tribune outed me after a piece I wrote gained some public traction:

Anonymity gives one the freedom to vent and when I started a couple years ago, blowing off steam over news events was a primary reason to write here. I can appreciate those who suggest anonymous commenting is not useful in our political process, but I disagree. Believe it or not, there are those in the public and private sector who are petty enough to hold a person’s opinions against him or her. Further, anonymous political chatter has a long history in our culture. In fact, the famous “Common Sense” was originally anonymous.

Ask yourself why a government official would be so concerned about who wrote some ideas, rather than about the ideas themselves? Why does it matter who wrote them? Could it be that government power might be used against the author (or at least the long remembered will to use it against the author)?

Whenever I have had this discussion with people in power, guess what they say?

“Oh, we would never do that.” As though government employees, or in this case, educators, are somehow unique and not subject to the same petty vanities and prejudices that the rest of human beings struggle with.

Some people prefer to write anonymously. It’s perfectly legal. It’s not chicken-sh*t, it’s not a cheap shot, it’s not bad form. It’s legitimate, and there are people who prefer to write that way.

My advice to public officials now that there’s a ‘new blog in town,’ just get over it and either contend with the ideas or ignore them. (Of course, if we have our way, we can eliminate the latter as a viable choice!)

And remember, too, you get to come at us anonymously. All we require is an email address and, in this day of gmail, those aren’t too hard to come by.

Dismal Jobs Report Means It’s Time For Real Change In Great Falls

Rick Tryon on January 30, 2017

We should be at the Defcon 1 level of concern after hearing Brett Doney’s comments about our local economy. His analysis in this instance is very disturbing but not surprising.

Not surprising to me because I’ve been watching what I call the ‘Glass Half Empty/Half Full Switcheroo” for a long time in this town. Here’s how it works:

Politicians and the heads of taxpayer funded non-profits and government agencies all understand that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The various organizational and political poobahs have become adept at massaging statistics to meet their situational needs. When it’s election time or time for the public and/or higher-ups to be convinced how great you or your organization are, out come the ‘facts’ and figures showing how rosy and wonderful everything is. But if you’re not an incumbent or your organization needs more funding, you trot out the dim and dire numbers to convince everyone how essential you or your organization is to the survival of common interests.

Doney’s statements are disturbing for obvious reasons. A net loss of 707 jobs in our already stagnant, low-wage economy is potentially devastating. To hear such alarming stats and assessments coming from the leader of our local economic development agency makes me wonder when the usual suspects who comprise the good ol’ boys and girls network here are going to start calling for his head for such negative blasphemy.

“We’ve lost the equivalent in the last couple of years in the City more than the nation lost in the Great Recession.”

“And frankly, these numbers scare the hell out of me.”

Good heavens! If I were to make a public statement coming anywhere even close to these made by Doney, the City Commission and the downtown elite would have my head on a spike in front of the Civic Center with a placard reading, “Such will be the fate of all nay-saying nabobs of negativity who dare to question.”

The fact is that Doney’s pitch for CDBG grant funds here actually contains the brutal and inconvenient truth: things are not all sunny and rosy right here in River City. I’m afraid that because most of the power players with money and influence who are currently calling the shots in Great Falls are doing well, they assume that everybody else must be too.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that the little bubble of old Great Falls money, non-profit organizations and government entities is blissfully unaware of the struggle going on here. Doney touched on it by pointing out that there are too many citizens working two or three low wage service sector jobs to make ends meet. And this lack of higher wages combined with a stagnant population “…puts tremendous pressure on the City, on the County, on healthcare, and all of the social agencies in town.”

Great Falls has a thriving poverty industry – non-profits and government agencies that do pretty well for themselves under the mandate to help the less fortunate. It’s a good mission but the goal should be less poverty and dependence and fewer non-profit/government jobs, not more. And certainly not a local economy based on poverty which benefits the few. We are also seeing a growing child abuse, substance abuse, gambling and crime problem here, which are all exacerbated by low wages and a stagnant and limited tax base.

We need a growing population and an expanding economy with more primary, private sector employers paying higher wages. Unfortunately, Doney’s assessment makes it clear that we are moving in the opposite direction.

My personal opinion is that we’ve been doing the same thing and getting the same results for a long, long time in Great Falls. We should try something new, encourage new and different solutions from outside the box. We should invite new and different voices and try some bold action. We have a whole lot of potential in Great Falls but we need more hard and honest evaluation, and most of all we need a common vision and agreed upon goals.

Showboatin’

ECB Staff on January 29, 2017

Showboating.

Grandstanding.

Those are the only words that readily come to mind to describe Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey’s tirade against the recently elected, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elsie Arntzen. According to the Tribune, Lacey “asked the superintendent whether she had plans to publicly fund preschool for the less fortunate children in the state, unlike Arntzen’s own granddaughter who is lucky to ‘have a full tummy every day.'” Aside from the gratuitous cheap shot against Arntzen’s family–discussed below–the bigger issue here is whether this is a legitimate complaint. (Wait, what? Did she just use the word “tummy” in a professional meeting? Or, maybe, she was just being condescending…)

Did you know that the Great Falls Public Schools operates a preschool? We do not doubt that somewhere in our State and Local District’s significant budgets there is money for early childhood care, probably from the federal government. But if you review the statutes governing the Office of Public Instruction, you will, we think, agree that the primary duties relate to schools and students. Likewise, the duties granted district superintendents focus on “pupils,” which are defined as “enrolled in school.” Under such circumstances, we should be able to agree first that there might be different priorities, and second that our newly elected State Superintendent is not deserving of a public shaming simply because the focus of her efforts might be, oh, on the students in the schools, rather than students in preschool who, by definition are not in school yet. Perhaps Lacey and her administrators might focus first on scholastic success and, when every student that graduates from GFPS marks a 36 on his or her ACT, then they can save the world with our money. Or, better yet, how about when every student graduates?

Oh, we know, we know. If students are hungry, they can’t learn. If kids are hungry before they are even school aged, they’ll be set back. OK, that’s Lacey’s priority. But it might not be everyone’s priority. And, by that logic, maybe the GFPS should get a levy for some programs dealing with prenatal care? Because you know, without prenatal care, kids are less likely to be born healthy. If not born healthy, they won’t develop as well, and won’t be ready to learn when they hit kindergarten. You know, maybe there’s an even better idea. Maybe GFPS can fund family planning services so potential moms who are likely to have bad prenatal care won’t get pregnant in the first place?

Or, maybe, like Arntzen suggests, we can make the actual students in the schools a higher priority? Seriously, have these highly-educated educators never studied the concept of scarcity? Because they’re supposed to be teaching our kids about it in high school.

Look, we get it. There are needy families in Great Falls. They need help and there is some help available. We have a whole state department, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, whose job it is to feed the hungry. Why isn’t Lacey drilling the head of that Department about needy families? Frankly, one could make a reasonable argument that all food programs for needy families should be shifted under the umbrella of the Office of Public Instruction. Schools already have contact with the vast majority of these families, and already have a bureaucracy in place. If Lacey was really looking for an outside the box solution, that might be one.

But Lacey’s theatrics weren’t about solutions. This little ‘show’ was all about virtue signaling.

To take a cheap, personal shot in a public forum was simply unprofessional pandering to the audience. (2-1 Lacey runs for OPI superintendent.) Did Arntzen deserve the cheap shot because her family must be able to feed its children? Is Lacey starving? Should the rest of us who pay our taxes and, therefore, Lacey’s salary, be publicly shamed because our families aren’t starving and we disagree with her? Maybe Lacey should remember that these same taxpayers elected Arntzen.

We’ve seen some pretty unprofessional displays in our time–Mayor Stebbins comes to mind–but Lacey’s stunt demonstrates misplaced priorities. Feeding non-student, preschool kids is just one possible goal out of many, many goals for our OPI. Maybe it’s Lacey’s priority, but that does not mean anyone who has different priorities within the universe of choices is evil, or deserves a public flogging. Lacey should be figuring out ways to work with Arntzen to achieve her ends, not trying to undermine her in search of cheap political points with her audience of administrators.

Poll: Economic Development Mill Levy

ECB Staff on January 28, 2017

As we reported a couple of days ago, and as the Tribune reported yesterday, the GFDA is recommending that:

…Cascade County commissioners place a three-mill economic development levy before county voters this spring during a special election to generate $450,000 a year that can be used to create more jobs.

It won’t be a large one:

A three-mill levy would add about $6 to the tax bill of a county resident owning a home valued at $150,000, Cascade County Budget Officer Mary Embleton said.

So, we thought we’d ask, will you support this levy?

[poll id=”4″]

Brett Doney Said What?!

ECB Staff on January 27, 2017

Phil Faccenda made reference to it in his very good piece yesterday, and we have received a number of tips about it recently… but we’re still grappling with some of the comments made by Great Falls’ economic development chief, Brett Doney, at the Jan. 3 City Commission meeting. Most glaringly, Doney said that Great Falls lost “707 net jobs” in 2016.

He also said:
And frankly, these numbers scare the hell out of me.
The jobs drain has been comparatively worse in Great Falls than nationally, even in darker times:

We’ve lost the equivalent in the last couple of years in the City more than the nation lost in the Great Recession.

Doney is clearly alarmed:

I don’t have any prescriptions for you, I just want to say that I have never in my 32 years in economic development seen numbers as scary as these, and we need to continue to work together to address them.

To be fair, Doney also cited strong growth in manufacturing (despite the City’s “F you” to Calumet), among other positive happenings. Speaking under the Public Hearing portion of the Commission agenda, a discussion on CDBG funds, he billed himself as otherwise a “cheerleader” for Great Falls, which is true. Doney and the GFDA do excellent work in this regard. (You can read the latest GFDA newsletter and sign up to receive it here.)

Two days before Doney’s appearance before the Commission, on New Year’s Day, the Tribune ran glowing, above-the-fold coverage about a resurgent development sector in Great Falls. The reader is left with the distinct impression of a soaring Great Falls economy.

So, what gives? Construction is one thing, and an area in which Great Falls is strong, but aren’t jobs also an important metric when evaluating the economic health of a community? How well are we really doing, and more importantly, how should our community address this issue?

We appreciate Doney’s candor. After all, the first step to solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is one.

GFDA Angling For Mill Levy

ECB Staff on January 26, 2017

There are some interesting items in today’s GFDA Quarterly Investor Letter, and perhaps none more so than priority #2:

2)  Put a 3-mill economic development levy before Cascade County voters on the special election ballot to replace Ryan Zinke. Passage of this small levy would generate about $450,000 a year to make Great Falls and Cascade County more competitive in securing business investment for startups, expansions, and attractions. We need to raise $90,000 to mount this effort and ask that you consider a special one-time investment.

If successful, the GFDA will pose this question to voters 85 to 100 days after Ryan Zinke officially vacates his Congressional seat. Zinke is set to be confirmed as Secretary of the Interior on Feb 6.

 

On Calumet: Red Lobster Or Red Herring?

Philip M. Faccenda on January 26, 2017

Ask your average person on the street what they would like to see relative to economic development in Great Falls and there is a good chance they would say, “Red Lobster.” Then ask them if they would rather see a Red Lobster, or an expansion of the Calumet Refinery, and again they would probably answer, “Red Lobster.”

Evidently, the citizens and the Great Falls City Commissioners are in sync. The City Commission’s unanimous decision to deny Calumet’s application for a graduated tax abatement was shortsighted and unfair to the company, which recently made a $454 million dollar commitment to the future of the only true manufacturing company left in Great Falls. By that, I mean a manufacturing facility that takes a raw material and makes something out of it.

Since 1922, the refinery has processed crude oil, first the Shelby fields, and more recently from the Bakken fields and Eastern Montana, and produced fuels and asphalt we use every day. The refinery is the remaining operation of what was once a booming Great Falls manufacturing backbone that supported many local families by providing good paying jobs. Of course, agricultural processing is also as old as Great Falls itself, but gone is the potato chip company, the corn nut company, the foundry, the brick plant, and of course, the Anaconda Company. These companies provided great paying jobs that supported families, educated young people and donated to our community in many ways – in addition to paying taxes.

The City’s staff report confirmed that Calumet’s application met all statutory eligibility criteria, that the expansion had a significant positive effect on the overall tax base of the City, that it had a positive impact on employment, that it will likely result in additional industrial development, that it contributes to the goals of the City’s Growth Policy, and that, overall, it is in the best interest of the City. The Calumet expansion is responsible for the creation of 40 new refinery jobs, and should spin off 276 new jobs worth a total earning impact of $14 million annually. Calumet paid $3.9 million in County property taxes in 2015 and with the abatement schedule it still would have paid a total of $46.5 million through 2026.

So what’s the rub? Well, with the tax abatement on the new investment of $454 million, Calumet would contribute $6 million less to the City and $6 million less to the School District over 10 years, but that would not have reduced its existing tax liability, only the future tax liability of its $454 million expansion. In other words, Calumet is being penalized for making a huge investment in our community, while other companies making much smaller investments have received tax abatements.

Recently, Brett Doney of the Great Falls Development Authority reported to the City Commission that the City lost 707 jobs in 2016 and that he has never seen numbers so scary in his 32 years working in economic development. But aren’t these exactly the types of jobs the City should be doing everything in its power to attract and retain?

You can have your personal opinions about tax abatement incentives on a whole, but the City’s denial of Calumet’s application was wrong, shortsighted, and not in the best interest of Great Falls.

On one hand, we don’t have a Red Lobster because we are half the size of Billings and not growing at the same rate as the other major cities in Montana.

The City’s decision to dismiss Calumet, by far our largest manufacturer and one of our community’s leading charitable donors, sends an ominous message to businesses: “You, and all of those you would employ, would be better off someplace else.”

And that is the real reason why Great Falls does not have a Red Lobster.

Trebas’ Bill Defeated In The House

ECB Staff on January 25, 2017

Rep. Jeremy Trebas’ bill to ban municipal cell phone bans died in its second reading Tuesday night by a 63-37 vote.

Whether or not one agrees with the practice of singling out gabby drivers (versus, say, hungry drivers who snack behind the wheel, or any other type of distracted drivers), we argued that because virtually every other driving-related offense is codified by the state of Montana — and not by cities — the issue of cell phone use should fall under the state’s purview, as well.

This question framed the discussion in the House:

Notably, every House Democrat, save for Box Elder’s Jonathan Windy Boy, voted against the bill.

Who knew Democrats were such staunch advocates of local control?

Gregg Smith And Rick Tryon Discuss The State Of Great Falls

ECB Staff on January 24, 2017

Recently, the Tribune’s Peter Johnson wrote about Great Falls’ building boom; 2016 was the City’s strongest year for development since 2008. A lot of folks agree with the notion that Great Falls is on the uptick, while others point to a lack of good-paying jobs, low population growth, and drug abuse as significant community problems.

We thought we’d ask Gregg Smith and Rick Tryon to participate in an email back-and-forth to tell us what’s really going on in town…

ECB STAFF: In your most recent Tribune column, Gregg, you concluded that, on a number of issues (including opinions of Great Falls), “maybe all sides are right.” Rick wrote in the comments section:

“I mostly agree with my friend Gregg here but take a little exception with the implication that someone has to get a bank loan and open ANOTHER casino or gas station before they can credibly comment on the state of the GF economy. I think that anyone who busts their butt everyday at the 2 or 3 jobs it sometimes takes to make a living here is fully qualified to comment any time they please …”

Gregg, does Rick have a point here, and moreover, how do you generally assess the state of Great Falls moving into 2017?

SMITH:

This answer to this question can be addressed on so many levels, economic, cultural, social, it is hard to answer without writing a ‘book.’ First, though, yes, of course Rick has a point. All is not daisies in Great Falls, and any citizen is entitled to comment on it. Most of us have real lives where people depend on us, so we cannot go to the City and County Commission meetings every week to keep up with what these folks are doing. (Which, as an aside, is one of the reasons for this blog.)

I was a little taken aback by his response to my suggestion, though, that some of the naysayers complaining about the lack of economic activity make some of their own. As someone who has borrowed money (lots of it) to stir up some economic activity with the hope that there will be some left for me every month, I am a little bit resentful of the people who complain about the lack of good restaurants, etc. If you want a different restaurant, no one is stopping you from opening one. If  you think there are too many casinos or gas stations, then open something else!

But my column that started this discussion, though, was not intended to poke at Rick Tryon, a fellow I like. Instead, it addressed, and this response will address, the general attitude of inferiority in this town.

You stated that some “point to a lack of high-paying jobs, low population growth, and drug abuse as significant community problems.” I agree that these are community problems, but I also think that my fellow Great Fallsians(!) tend to focus on these things more than people in other communities.

I remember a few years ago I was at a planning session for a local charity board I was serving on at the time. We had a facilitator come in from Missoula. When we were asked to brainstorm about how Great Falls is perceived, someone shouted out, “Meth Capitol of Montana!”

The facilitator stopped, cocked her head, and said, “Really? I would have that that was Kalispell and the Flathead Valley.”

My point is this: Yes, Great Falls has problems. Yes, other communities grow faster, or have a Costco or a Chic-Fil-A.

But I think that Great Falls is different from other Montana communities in that we have a really high percentage of our population, including at the more active levels of business and government, who often walk around like Eyore, complaining that we’re not Missoula. This matters, because other people from other places who interact with us absorb this as the face or character of our community. When you meet a Missoula family whose kids are here playing in a basketball tournament with your kids, and you put down your own town, that fuels their perception of our town too.

I can’t explain it. But it has been this way almost as long as I can remember, and that dates at least into the 80’s.

I like it here. Yes, there are problems. But there are a lot of good people in this community, and not everyone who makes a buck is a “crony” or a part of the “old boy network.” Putting people down does not make them more inclined to work with you.

I think if we can improve our residents’ perception of this town, this is an important first step in improving the town itself.

TRYON:

Gregg, just to reiterate my earlier point – anyone and everyone who works hard and pays the taxes that pay the bills in this town has every right to voice their concerns about our economic and jobs situation. And they should be able to do so in any forum they choose without fear of being labeled a ‘naysayer’ or a ‘negative nanny’. It’s not just the folks who take risks to open casinos and restaurants who create economic activity; it’s also the people who spend their hard earned money around town and who pay the taxes for the streets and utilities and the jobs for city employees, who create economic activity. So, yeah, those folks should be listened to and their opinions respected, not brushed aside as Eeyore clones.

When I hear local Great Fallsians (Great Fallsites?, Great Fallsters?) say they wish that “they would open a Red Lobster here,” I think what they’re really saying is, “I wish our local economy was such that we could support a Red Lobster or Olive Garden.”

We both know that opening an Olive Garden or Chic-Fil-A is not the answer to economic development in Great Falls. Chain and franchise operations like that are the result, not the cause, of true economic development. And I love me some Chic-Fil-A spicy samich and curly fries!

We also both know that a casino/motel/gas station economy is a dead end. Only so much local money can be traded around. Right now it looks a little like a game of whack-a-mole around here – one restaurant closes and leaves an empty hole, another opens somewhere else. One casino goes belly up and another opens on the other side of town. By the way, just anecdotally and judging by the number of empty commercial buildings and office space I see around town, it looks like there’s more whack than mole lately.

Now having said all of that, believe it or not, I am extremely positive and upbeat about the future of Great Falls. We have enormous human and geographic potential here, being the center of the state, and having a hardworking, well-educated populace, for the most part. I remember that we were once a thriving, bustling, busy community with lots of stuff going on and we will be again, I’m certain. But to get there we have to be honest about where we are now and we have to have a common vision and goals.

I love this piece of God’s good dirt called Great Falls. I was raised here, raised my kids here and now my grandkids are being raised here. Four generations of my family live here right now, so I am staked inexorably to this community.

Let’s never mistake honest evaluation for negativity or the desire to see us live up to our potential as being “down on Great Falls”. I know you want the best for this town also, Gregg, so let’s agree to find the common ground and make it happen, my friend.

ECB: Most everyone agrees that Great Falls is a great place, but there always seem to be questions about the role of local government in economic development. Recently, the City Commission denied Calumet a large tax abatement request. Were they right to do so?

TRYON:

I admit I’m a little conflicted on this issue, but in the final analysis I have to agree with the City Planning and Community Development Department’s recommendation and the City Commission’s decision to deny Calumet’s request for a tax abatement in the wake of its expansion in Great Falls. Government, whether city, state or federal, doesn’t create jobs. The role of government in economic development is to create a jobs-friendly tax and regulatory environment, but to do so within the means of everyday taxpayers while still providing public infrastructure and services.

Calumet requested this tax benefit from the City at a time when we are still in fiscal recovery mode brought on by the disastrous Electric City Power boondoggle and a major national recession. The loss of revenue to the City of Great Falls, had Calumet been given the tax abatement, would have been unfair to local homeowners, small business and other taxpayers, who are already being hit repeatedly with tax increases and raised City service charges and fees.

The estimated cost to the City in lost tax revenue over 10 years would have been $6,345,185. For the school district the figure is an additional $6,222,143, and for the county it’s $4,930,365.

Tax benefits for companies providing good paying jobs is a good idea and the tax abatement tool is a powerful one. Certainly the Calumet expansion is a positive thing for Great Falls, providing 40 new full time, good paying refinery jobs. This is why, as I mentioned, I am conflicted about this issue.

In my opinion, the tax abatement tool should be reserved for bringing in new development and jobs rather than rewarding an expansion of an existing enterprise. Even then we should be very careful in making sure we’re not “giving away the store” and passing on the cost of additional city infrastructure and services to local taxpayers. Quite frankly, I’m hearing from friends and family that they are starting to feel like their homes and small businesses are being treated like ATM machines to fund local government.

One of the many factors to be considered when assessing this issue is well-stated on page 6 in the staff recommendations submitted to the City Commission for consideration:

However, Calumet’s expansion has an impact on public safety, planning, training, and response that cannot be specifically quantified, but cannot be ignored. 

There will also be operational impact to the City’s Waste Water Treatment Plant and discharge regulation in terms of compliance monitoring, permitting and treatment as Calumet’s processing capacity increases as a result of the expansion.”

I think we should be very cautious in using our taxing tools for job creation here. We should be focusing on growing our population and raising income levels by examining and re-doing our city/county regulatory environment and policies first. A subject for further discussion I hope. That and the topic of TIF’s going to local good ol’ boys to develop more huckleberry syrup shops, casinos, and motels which pay minimum wages to part-time employees.

SMITH:

I am going to have to confess ignorance here, because like many issues in this community it was not well-publicized in advance (hopefully E-City Beat can change that!), and then when the Tribune did cover it after the fact, the coverage was so bad that I couldn’t make heads nor tails of what actually happened. Therefore, I am going to have to default to some general principles here.

First, in a free market economy, the government has no role in subsidizing any private enterprise. Government should be doing what government does, i.e., streets, police, armies, and keep its nose out of the marketplace. Of course, that model has been irretrievably altered in the United States as virtually every municipality, county, state, etc., offers tax and other incentives to businesses to locate there. Thus, we have to play the game if we want development.

Second, I think Rick raises a good point that, perhaps, the City’s budget is still tight because of the Electric City Power fiasco. If that is true, it sure isn’t being reported. And if that is true, it’s a damn shame. It’s an example of city government hindering, rather than helping, development.

Because you can be sure this decision will hinder development decisions, at least from Calumet, and quite possibly from other large companies who are thinking of expanding into the Great Falls market. ‘Word on the street’ is that Calumet feels betrayed, and that Calumet’s management had every reason to believe this abatement was going to be granted. (I’ve also heard rumor that all charitable contributions in Great Falls by Calumet stop now.)

Rick points out that some people get breaks and some people don’t. Welcome to Great Falls (or, should I say, small town America?).

I think the City was wrong to deny the tax abatement, while admitting I do not know all the details that could change my mind. The best way I have to look at it is prospectively. If a company in Great Falls, any company, came to the City Commission and said, “We are going to invest nearly half a billion dollars in your community, and create at least 40 permanent jobs paying $30,000.00 a year, if you will give us a $600,000.00 a year break on our taxes for just 10 years,” would we take that? Or, as many in the business community suspect, does the City just view a new or expanding business as a revenue source? What can you do for me?

COMING NEXT WEEK: PART II…