Sarah Dettmer, the Great Falls Tribune’s education reporter, seems to have it out for Elsie Arntzen.
Yesterday, Dettmer published a heavily self-referential, self-congratulatory article to explain away some of the blowback from her hit job on the freshly-elected Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction, Republican Elsie Arntzen.
Dettmer writes:
Then, Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey stood up to ask her question about federally funded preschools. It was a tense moment. The biggest player in education in Great Falls was politely, but pointedly challenging the biggest player in education in Montana.
As further research on Dettmer’s part would indicate, there is virtually nothing that Arntzen — a state official — can do to change federal funding of preschools. And there was nothing “polite” about Lacey cheaply invoking Arntzen’s granddaughter to frame what should have been a substantive question. Evidently more concerned with gamesmanship than with policy, the GFPS Superintendent seemed to relish poking at the OPI chief.
Nevertheless, Dettmer established her moral authority as a journalist to intervene — against Arntzen:
The fact is the story changed. As a journalist, I cannot sit in the back of the room and listen to a publicly elected official avoid her constituents’ questions and then go back to the office and not address it. It is my job to hold officials accountable for their words and actions.
Dettmer conceded that the crowd reaction affected her reporting.
I focused more on the audience reaction than I typically would in an article, but in this case I thought it was important to bring the reader into the room and to capture the palpable emotions. This was not a typical introductory meeting.
What exactly did Dettmer expect? One of the worst-kept secrets in Helena is that Democrats, Eric Feaver and the MEA-MFT, can’t stand Arntzen (a Republican), and that — in this venue — Arntzen was speaking to a room full of hostile administrators and union members who detest her. Yet, Dettmer deliberately chose to omit this necessary context.
She concluded in a similar vein:
Despite Arntzen’s claims in other publications that I misinterpreted her words through my transcripts, I look forward to working with the superintendent over the coming years and hope we can move forward with a professional relationship.
But, I will continue to hold her and her administration accountable for their words and actions just as I hope she does for me.
On this, Dettmer isn’t wrong. Arntzen, a government official, should be held accountable — and so, too, should Tammy Lacey, the School Board, and Great Falls Public Schools.
But by singling out Arntzen’s administration — and no one else’s — what does that tell you about which way the Tribune leans?
After our reporting (and thanks to our tipsters!), KRTV ran a story about Brett Doney’s gloomy review of the Great Falls job market. Apparently, the state of Montana disagrees with Doney:
But the Montana Department of Labor says the GFDA report is inconsistent with state numbers.
Chief Economist Barbara Wagner says there were roughly 300 jobs lost in Great Falls between July 2015 and July 2016 which could be attributed to the closure of the Asurion call center in downtown Great Falls.
Wagner says job growth through the rest of 2016 cancelled out the loss, showing virtually no change in the number of jobs in Great Falls.
The GFDA and the Montana DoL clearly rely on different metrics. It’s unsurprising, then, to see conflicting data on Great Falls jobs. What is surprising, though, are the conflicting reports from within the GFDA. We were intrigued by a Facebook comment by Sandra Guynn, who opined:
So who at the GFDA knows what they are talking about? According to an article in the Jan 28 print edition of the Great Falls Tribune, the chairman of the GFDA board, Ted Lewis, was quoted as saying, ‘the year 2016 was one of the best years for the Great Falls economy in many years. We’re very excited about our prospects for 2017, including several that haven’t been announced yet.’
So, which is it? Are we doing well, or aren’t we? And if the GFDA wants to push a mill levy, shouldn’t they develop some sort of coherent narrative explaining to the public why it’s a good idea? Should we vote to raise our taxes because we’re struggling and need the extra resources, or because we want to keep up the positive momentum?
We’re open to supporting this levy. But first, we’d like to know exactly why our community needs it.
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 ownwealth 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, 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.
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.
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.
…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?
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.
2) Put a 3-milleconomic development levybefore 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.
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:
Trebas bill on cellphones became quasi debate on city rights vs. state rights.
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?
The Great Falls Tribune got its smarm on today in dissing Rep. Jeremy Trebas:
Somebody might want to pick up the phone and remind Jeremy Trebas that as a Republican, he’s supposed to be for small government and local control.
This type of rhetoric is always rich. The Trib’s editors are not Republicans. They’re just happy to give advice to elected Republicans on what Republicans believe.
The Trib is referring to Trebas’ idea, which he’s written about here, to pass a state law that would forbid local governments from playing nanny to Montanans who use cell phones while driving.
“Just as Montana lawmakers would cry foul if a ban on cellphone bans came from the feds, so, too, should city officials decry attempts by the state to overstep its bounds on this issue.”
So under this logic, what is the Trib’s limiting principle? What shouldn’t cities and counties be able to regulate?
Teacher accreditation? (That’s currently a matter of state policy, not local school boards.)
How about hunting tags? (That’s a state FWP thing, not local conservation districts or county commissions.)
How about whether a city gets to set up an electric utility? Well, that used to be a city power, admittedly. Maybe City Commissioner Bill Bronson would offer the same defense about the City of Great Falls’ history in that business as he offered in the Trib today about the cell phone ordinance:
“We spent a great deal of time studying this.”
The state took away the keys from city governments on that issue, because they simply could not be trusted to make that decision.
Cities don’t get to make their own special laws with respect to DUIs. They don’t get to make their own special laws regarding reckless driving. The state has decided that a uniform code that is generally applicable to drivers throughout the state is the better way to go. Why? Presumably because drivers — like teachers, like wildlife — are mobile.
They are less a part of a given city or a school district or a county, than they are part of a state. It makes sense to have a standard, to promote the concept that, unless there is a very good reason to the contrary, Montanans who drive from one city to another can live under the same set of rules everywhere in our state and not risk getting home-town’ed.
Zoning of property might be one thing. But is there really any argument that the streets of the City of Great Falls, and the people driving on them, are so different from the City of Kalispell that it should have a different set of driving laws?
