We couldn’t help but notice two related local topics this week:
Tracy Houck announced her intention to run for reelection to the Great Falls city commission.
The City of Great Falls is proposing doubling downtown parking meter fees.
We find it rather ironic, and quite amusing, that Houck is using the slogan “A Leader Who Listens” as part of her campaign branding.
In 2016 Mayor Kelly “tasked” Houck and then Commissioner Fred Burrow with finding solutions to our downtown parking problems, partly by staying plugged into the citizens Parking Advisory Commission.
According to meeting minutes, since January of 2016 there have been 41 Parking Advisory Commission meetings – Houck attended a total of 4 of those meetings.
There were at least 5 PAC Special Planning meetings during that period – Houck attended none of them.
If we really want to change the ‘negative narrative’ about Great Falls then we need to address the actual reasons for that narrative. There’s no better place to start than the ethics and conflicts of interest problems that have plagued the Great Falls city commission for a long time.
Let’s do a quick review of some recent examples of whats wrong and why so many citizens are losing trust in our city commission. Keep in mind these examples are merely the tip of the iceberg. There are deeper and far more troubling examples which will be explored in future articles, but the following will suffice for now.
Commissioners ‘Pet’ Projects
At the April 2, 2019 city commission meeting and vote on the issue, Commissioner Owen Robinson revealed that he and Commissioner Moe had been secretly meeting with a group called Animals First to discuss plans for a partnership between the city (taxpayers) and Maclean Cameron Animal Adoption Center. After lots of public outcry about conflicts of interest and backroom dealings the commission was forced to revisit the issue.
Unfortunately, and almost unbelievably, according to a report from KFBB News neither Robinson or Moe seem to have gotten the message, “During this waiting period, two city commissioners Owen Robinson and Mary Moe continued their work looking into a potential joining of the GFAS MacLean adoption center.”
Here’s a novel idea for Robinson and Moe – instead of secret meetings with GFAS MacLean’s board members to negotiate a merger between them and the city animal shelter, why not invite them to a city commission work session to discuss the issue in public?
See, that way the taxpayers who pay for ALL of the city’s facilities and resources can have the benefit of transparency and an official record.
Houck’s Ethics Panel Debut
On February 6 of this year the newly constituted Great Falls Ethics Panel met to deliberate on an ethics complaint concerning Tracy Houck. No surprises there.
But here’s something that is surprising – according to the city information packet concerning this hearing, “The City has retained outside legal counsel Jordan Crosby, of Ugrin Alexander Zadick,P.C., to represent and advise the Ethics Committee during the hearing.”
The Zadick partner in the law firm hired with your tax dollars is Gary Zadick, who is a past board member of Paris Gibson Square and the husband of Nancy Zadick. Nancy Zadick is the president of the Board of Directors for Paris Gibson Square. Tracy Houck is the paid Executive Director for Paris Gibson Square.
Of course, this is no reflection on either of the Zadicks, who are both longtime active members of our community.
It is however a questionable decision by the City of Great Falls to retain legal counsel to advise the ethics panel on an ethics complaint against a city commissioner who is employed by the wife of a partner in that firm.
Additionally, three months later there are still no posted minutes on the city website from that 2/6/19 Ethics Panel hearing in which Houck was found to have engaged in the appearance of an ethical violation. Where’s the transparency? We have to do better.
The solution going forward? Zero tolerance for conflicts of interest in our city government and a demand for transparency and honesty at all times.
Here are three action items to help solve some of the problems discussed here.
Prohibit any employee or board member of any organization receiving taxpayer funds or resources from serving on the committee/board that recommends or approves allocation of those funds or resources.
Require all local elected and appointed public officials to fill out and sign annual conflict of interest forms and agreements.
Require the mayor and city commissioners to make public on the city website a list of any of their personal potential conflicts of interest. This would include business/professional associations and clients, personal and family member affiliations with organizations who lobby the city for resources, and campaign donors who do business with the city or seek official consideration from the Commission.
In an article I wrote last week called ‘Mr. Narrative Comes To Great Falls’ I discussed the bogus notion that a ‘negative narrative’ is the reason that Great Falls continues to struggle to remain stagnant. In that piece I referenced the local Future of the Falls young professionals group and their upcoming event, BaseCamp.
As I said then and will say again, I appreciate and applaud the hard work being done by the volunteers in Future of the Falls even though I am dubious about the motives and extent of involvement by the original organizers of the group – Mayor Bob Kelly and Commissioner Mayor Moe.
Subsequently several current and former participants in the group have contacted me to express their opinions about my article and the Future of the Falls/BaseCamp organization. All of them said basically the same thing – the group went from ‘several hundred’ participating in forums last year to the current number of around 35 because many participants were disappointed in the goals and mission of the effort as pushed by Moe and Kelly.
…the group went from ‘several hundred’ participating to the current number of around 35 because they were disappointed in the ultimate goals and mission of the effort as pushed by Moe and Kelly.
Here’s an example of an email I received and have permission to publish on the condition that the sender remains anonymous, for obvious reasons:
“Rick,
First, I wish to remain anonymous but your latest piece hit me where I live, if you know what I mean. I was at the FoTF (Future of the Falls) events initially and this is how it ended. I came away with a strong sense of disappointment that never recovered.
I invite you to look into the attendance numbers from the FoTF events right up until the real agenda was revealed and anyone not committed enough was invited not to return. As I remember it, there was significant support at that last meeting from many “young professionals” to continue with the FoTF forums and form the Basecamp group as a sub-committee for anyone interested but Moe saw it differently — “a cloud” as she says.
As such, it’s my impression that the entire thing was simply a screen for her ultimate goal: this Basecamp event. Only time will tell, and I do think Basecamp could be a good thing for the community, but as for the FoTF, I think we can safely say that the summit was the end game.
I felt this was relevant to your last piece so, without further ado, here’s how it ended:”
Following is the content of the email Commissioner Mary Moe sent to the October 2018, forum participants
“Dear Ones,
I am writing to confirm that we will meet next Wednesday, Jan. 16, from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. in the same room to plan the “summit” or whatever we’re going to call it. I am really excited about the potential of this event. I am even more excited about the prospect of seeing all of you roll out your potential and your considerable talents to plan and deliver it.
But mainly I am writing to follow up on the feeling that was in the room last night, a cloud I tried to push away with my closing comments. Although I think the discussion we had last night had to happen, I worry that many of you found it discouraging. Heck, I found it discouraging. But I never stay discouraged for long because I learned a long time ago only one person can keep me down. And that’s me. That’s as true of communities as it is of individuals.
You asked last night to see the feedback from the forums. I am attaching the spreadsheet I created for the feedback from the first one. I altered it slightly last night to protect the confidentiality of the commenters, but otherwise it’s the same document recording the take-aways people had as they left the forum into the October sunset. If you do nothing else between now and next Wednesday, look through those take-aways. You will conclude what I still believe: The one thing that binds this group together is not a interest in economic development or a distaste for the way “the city” does things. It’s a thirst for a more positive conversation in Great Falls, a more positive self-image, a more positive message that we send to visitors and new arrivals and to each other about who we are. And the second take-away is also worth remembering: There is an “ah” of relief that almost bounces off the spreadsheet: “I’m not alone! So many other people feel like I do!”
That’s where we need to start. That’s what we’re trying to build on with the summit. As I tried to convey last night with my “not getting married” comment, the summit isn’t the end game. But, boy, it sure is a good way to throw the first pitch. Great Falls has a great story to tell, and a lot of people want to know about it and figure out how they can be a part of it. Like all good stories, it has a lot of subplots and characters, and the summit is a way of not only telling the story but pulling people into it in the way they choose. Let’s engage in a little show-and-tell.
Believe. And if you don’t, no offense intended, but please don’t come next week. We have work to do.
Mary” (Emphasis added)
I suppose one could ignore that the “Dear Ones” greeting sounds downright cult-like if it weren’t for the last line in Moe’s email which actually is cultish – believe, or don’t bother coming back? What? I’m sorry Dear Leader Moe, that is really weird.
It’s also troubling that Moe seems completely oblivious to the reality that a lack of “economic development” and a genuine “distaste for the way the city does things” is precisely the reason there is a negative narrative here.
Trying to treat the symptom rather than addressing the cause is a fools errand. But Moe and Kelly aren’t fools. They understand perfectly well that by claiming that the boogie man is a “negative narrative” rather than failed leadership, they can deflect attention away from their own incompetence, cronyism and neglect.
Now here’s the good news.
Mike Bicsak, the sponsorship coordinator for the upcoming BaseCamp event, posted this on the comment thread on E-City Beat’s FB page concerning the article I wrote after he and I had a good conversation about the subject of partnering with city commissioners or the City of Great Falls.
“I had a very nice chat with Rick today over coffee. After this Facebook discussion I had a talk with a few other members of the Future of the Falls and we have decided that we will be proceeding on our own in the future.
Although there has been no wrong doing by anyone regarding BaseCamp or Future of the Falls, we agree that we can’t have the perception that we are puppets or pawns to anyone’s political agenda.
Good talk, Rick. Thanks again.”
And thank you too, Mike. I encourage everyone to check out the BaseCamp event on May 18th from noon to 6:00 PM at the Civic Center.
Heads up, Great Falls. There’s a new guy in town named Mr. Narrative.
Here is an actual comment on the BaseCamp Great Falls Facebook page from city Commissioner Mary Moe: “A group of young professionals in Great Falls is tired of the negative narrative about this community and is determined to turn it around.”
So, the city poobahs are going to try to give us a different shiny object to distract us from that mean old Mr. Negative.
Of course BaseCamp isn’t really a “group of young professionals” that spontaneously coalesced in response to the “negative narrative” about Great Falls. BaseCamp is another incarnation of the former Future of the Falls group that met a couple of times last fall. BaseCamp exists because, “Commissioner Mary Moe and Mayor Bob Kelly rallied us young professionals together…” as the BaseCamp spokesperson explains in a recent promo video.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that BaseCamp Great Falls is a great idea and can do wonderful things for our community. I admire and applaud the folks who are volunteering their time in this effort.
But let’s not kid ourselves – this is the brainchild of Mary Moe and Bob Kelly and is an obvious attempt to introduce Great Falls to the shiny new Mr. Narrative in the hopes that we’ll all be smitten by his positivism and bright sunny outlook rather than looking at the dishonesty, incompetence and cronyism still residing in our city commission.
The new positive Mr. Narrative is polished and slick. He’s such an important figure that the City has hired a Communications Specialist at a cozy salary figure (paid by us taxpayers) to make sure his voice is heard. As if the Assistant City Manager couldn’t possibly handle communications, as previous assistant city managers have.
Instead of a focus on public safety (and how about more police officers?), government transparency, careful avoidance of conflicts of interest and outstanding ethics on the part of city commissioners, we are paying for an opaque polishing finish with smiley faces tattooed on top.
The latest shenanigans by Commissioners Mary Moe and Owen Robinson, who’ve been secretly meeting (can we say ‘Transparency’?) to negotiate some deal with our tax dollars with the Animal Foundation, is another example of “they just don’t learn” (remember the Community Development Block Grant conflicts of interest?) and “they forget who their constituents are” – which is us, the taxpayers. Commissioner Robinson has a long and monied history with the Foundation. Can we say more conflict of interest? See The Electric’s excellent piece here.
Now after the red flag is raised on these secret meetings and conflicts of interest and the public has been made aware, Moe suggests the City get rid of the recently established Ethics Committee – “During the April 2 meeting, Moe said she would argue that the ethics committee is not needed since there are provisions in state law regarding ethics and public officials.” (from The Electric)
Well, maybe that will solve her problem of being held accountable to the public for obvious ethical violations but it doesn’t sit right at all with me and many others.
These are just a couple of the most recent examples of the reasons Great Falls continues to struggle to remain stagnant. I will continue to highlight examples like these in the coming weeks, in detail.
I really wish our so-called leadership would stop treating us like we’re stupid by trying to con us into thinking that a “negative narrative” is the problem rather than the actual, real-world reasons that folks are angry and speaking up about around here.
But we’ve seen this picture many times before. The mayor happily led the charge to slap the happy face of Charlie Russell, flying saucer included, on a parking structure that is bleeding for real fixes, not just fresh paint. And Commissioner Moe is helping to clear the path for Mr. Narrative.
In truth our City Commissioners do not seem to care what we think and seem determined to run their agendas behind closed doors.
So keep your eyes open for Mr. Narrative, I have a strong feeling we’re going to be seeing a lot of him around town saying, “Welcome to Great Falls where everything is fine and we’re getting better all the time. And if you don’t agree then shut up or leave.”
Folks, we’re being fed more propaganda from the Machine and I for one won’t be silent about this farce.
There’s really no other way to say it – Great Falls city commissioner Owen Robinson should not be voting on any issue regarding a proposed City of Great Falls partnership with the Maclean Cameron Animal Adoption Center. But he did anyway.
Robinson’s actions as a city commissioner stink to high heaven and anyone who is familiar with this matter knows exactly why.
Robinson is a former president of the center’s foundation.
Robinson donated a quarter of a MILLION dollars to the foundation.
Robinson is a long-time advocate for the Maclean Cameron Animal Adoption Center and the creation of a partnership between the city and the center.
At the April 2, 2019 city commission meeting, Robinson along with Commissioner Moe and Mayor Kelly voted to postpone the decision on a $462,000 contract for a cattery at the Great Falls Animal Shelter. Not only is this a major conflict of interest for Robinson it’s also another boneheaded commission decision potentially costing taxpayers another pile of hard-earned money and further delay in order to re-bid the addition at a later date.
To add insult to injury Robinson revealed that he and Moe have been secretly meeting with a group called Animals First to discuss plans for a partnership between the city (taxpayers) and Maclean Cameron Animal Adoption Center.
What??? Two city commissioners secretly meeting with a non-profit to discuss a “partnership” without any public scrutiny or input?
This is outrageous and totally unacceptable. And it appears that including only two commissioners in these meetings was intentional so as to avoid a quorum which would require public participation and the necessity of an official record.
Do these people never learn? What in the world makes Robinson and Moe think they can go behind OUR backs and meet with MCACC to discuss plans like this? What arrogance and total disregard for transparency.
The cronyism and good ol’ boys and gals nonsense continues unabated right here in River City. Regardless which side you come down on with the animal shelter issue itself there’s absolutely no way Robinson should have voted or be voting in the future on this issue given his past involvement with and his official position as president of the MCACC foundation.
And where is Mayor Kelly’s leadership here? Why didn’t anyone on OUR city commission insist Robinson recuse himself and that he and Moe immediately stop their secret negotiations with MCACC?
The damage to public trust here is significant.
No wonder Great Falls has the reputation of being run by the good ol’ boys’ and gals club. Better wake up fellow citizens, and soon.
Today I want to look at what I consider to be the most important thing our city government and city officials can do to help Great Falls go from struggling to remain stagnant to once again becoming the envy of Montana’s cities.
And here it is in a nutshell:
From the mayor and city commission to the various department heads and other city employees, when dealing with business and development issues the motto and attitude for all city public officials and staff should always be, “How can we serve you and help you succeed?” and not, “You can’t do that!”
We have a ways to go yet in order to instill that attitude into our city government’s bloodstream. It starts at the top, but unfortunately our city commission has missed the mark badly and repeatedly.
The M&D Construction debacle is just one example of why Great Falls has gained the much-deserved reputation of being an anti-business, anti-development community.
M&D Construction moved out of the city when our city commission unanimously voted against a conditional use permit for the company which employed around 30 people.
This anti-business, anti-jobs unanimous decision by the five Great Falls city commissioners, Kelly, Bronson, Moe, Houck and Robinson, against the conditional use permit was made even though City staff, the City Zoning Commission and Neighborhood Council 7 all voted unanimously IN FAVOR of it.
We’ve allowed wealthy old-money elites, who are pals with and campaign donors to sitting city commissioners, to have veto power over local business development and expansion. If this kind of high-level cronyism isn’t stopped once and for all in Great Falls we will never reach our potential.
While I believe we need a radical change in the way we do business and the way our city commission has incompetently and dishonestly operated recently, the changes and continued improvements in policies at the department level, where the rubber meets the road, don’t need to be revolutionary, just based in common sense.
I honestly think we have seen some progress and improvements over the past ten years or so in Great Falls when it comes to our business and development processes. But we can do better, in Some cases a lot better.
Here are three ideas for continued improvement (with plenty more to come):
One of the main complaints I’ve heard from developers over the years is that they have to call or visit multiple city departments to mitigate issues for a single project. A better solution would be to have one certain point of contact within the city for development issues. Having one city contact from the beginning stages of a project all the way through completion would help guide the developer through the process and greatly increase customer satisfaction.
Streamline the overall development process by improving the project review process. Either do away with the Design Review Board, which is currently suspended, or make it completely optional. The added expense and time involved for developers is an unnecessary burden and hassle for design issues that could be addressed in city code.
Make a verifiable document trail signed onto by city staff for every step of the development process required, including inspections and permitting. Having such a record for each project readily available, preferably online, would insure against future disagreements and misunderstandings between city staff/officials and developers. It would also provide accountability and transparency.
The City of Great Falls has undertaken various versions of some of these ideas and others but I don’t think we have made enough solid progress yet. Let’s keep the ball rolling and the ideas for solutions coming.
It all starts at the leadership level and with the right attitude.
Today someone sent these pictures to me with the following note:
“Interesting pictures of the City parking their tractor/trailer on M&D’s vacant lot while they are performing asphalt patching on an adjacent street. The same lot that they ran M&D off of for parking the same type of trucks there.”
The ‘M&D’ referred to here is M&D Construction which has moved out of the city since our City Commission unanimously voted against a conditional use permit for the company which employed around 30 people.
This anti-business, anti-jobs unanimous decision by the five Great Falls city commissioners, Kelly, Bronson, Moe, Houck and Robinson, against the conditional use permit was made even though City staff, the City Zoning Commission and Neighborhood Council 7 all voted unanimously IN FAVOR of it.
Why deny the permit? Well, it appears to me the reason is that the Blewett family strongly opposed the conditional use permit because they considered M&D to be a bit of an eyesore in their neighborhood, which also happens to be Mayor Bob Kelly’s neighborhood.
In addition, the Blewetts made campaign contributions to three of the commissioners and several times at the meeting when the decision was finalized, at least two commissioners referred to Blewett as a “friend” or “good friend”. You can look at the minutes, video and further documentation here.
When the Blewetts said “Jump!”, your city commission asked “How high?” on the way up.
Do I believe there’s anything nefarious or improper about the City now parking tractor trailers on the old M&D Construction site while doing work on streets? No. But I do wonder if the Blewetts approve.
And it also raises the very interesting question as to what will happen to that particular piece of property now. Who will own it and what, if anything, will be built or developed there?
I intend to follow this issue very closely and make sure the public is aware of the situation each step along the way.
Last year, we had the City of Great Falls’ Department of Housing and Urban Development/Community Development Block Grant funding conflict of interest debacle. Before that, we had the Electric City Power fiasco.
I think you get my drift. It’s important to be ever vigilant about the workings of our government, a government by and for the people. The Founding Fathers knew this and encouraged citizens to hold government accountable to the people. I just wish there were more people out there willing to be vigilant. It’s lonely at these city commission meetings.
The city commission voted at their November 7 meeting to suspend the Design Review Board for six months. City staff recommended the action because of current staff workload. The city planning staff is short on people. Apparently, working with the DRB with a planning staff shortage is more onerous than doing without the DRB for the time being.
I’ve interacted with a lot of people in Great Falls and through the years, I’ve heard nothing but complaints and grumblings about the DRB. Some people have told me it’s an unnecessary hurdle to development in Great Falls, particularly since we already have city building codes and zoning regulations. There were other comments too, including a business entity that told me they couldn’t use a supplier they wanted to use for a project.
I always take what I hear with some degree of skepticism. However, being both curious and concerned, I presented what I had heard from the public at the commission meeting and posited that there may be issues with the DRB. Additionally, I suggested that perhaps the DRB wasn’t necessary.
Commissioner Bronson (serving that night as Mayor Pro Tem) was verbose in expressing support for the DRB. To sum it up, he made it clear that he would agree to suspend the DRB for six months, but only to give the city staff “breathing room.” Bronson said he valued the DRB process and added:
“Quite frankly, the suggestion that this impedes development—I’ve always regarded as a myth,” he said.
Commissioner Houck insinuated that my comments were character assassination. Following the meeting when I approached her to assert that I was merely bringing up concerns and had no other motive, she doubled down on her vilification. She claimed my concerned citizen comments were “unfounded accusations meant to cause harm” and stated that I was “doing this for attention.” I told her in no uncertain terms that was not true. She then told me that I had no right to bring these concerns up during a public meeting.
Well, so much for transparency and government by and for the people of Great Falls!
Indeed isn’t this exactly what leftists/progressives in the resistance movement do to suppress free speech? Whenever someone says something that doesn’t fit into their world view, they re-characterize or re-frame the communication and ascribe a motive that attempts to shame, imply immorality or vilify the speaker in some way. In case anyone thinks that wouldn’t happen in Montana, I’m here to tell you that it has happened to me right here in Great Falls.
Further, Houck’s comment that I was “doing it for attention” couldn’t be further from the truth. I feel compelled to speak out but not for attention. In fact, in speaking out—I’ve lost what I thought were friends and I’ve lost work opportunities. It seems quite a few people in Great Falls can’t tolerate those who express a difference of political opinion or point out what they feel is an injustice. Though they claim to, they don’t really believe in civil discourse when the views stray too far from their views. It’s been a painful lesson but I’ve learned just who are the truly intolerant ones.
By the way, Commissioner Houck should know that privately meeting and discussing issues with citizens is the antithesis to transparency in government. She should instead be telling constituents to come to commission meetings to express their comments in a public forum. She should welcome it.
So it was something about the dichotomy between the Commission’s support of the DRB and what I’d heard around town that reminded me of the emperor-wearing-no-clothing parable. That and Houck’s nastiness to me about voicing my concerns compelled me to do some research.
A cursory search of meeting minutes from just one DRB meeting (by happenstance, the first one I looked at) led me to an example reminiscent of the city’s recent HUD-CDBG debacle.
The Official Code of the City of Great Falls, 2.21.050 (G) states: No officer or employee, or any business organization in which he or she has an interest, shall represent any other person or party except the City in connection with any cause, proceeding, application, or other matter pending before any agency of the City of Great Falls; except in the process of collective bargaining for public employees or where any officer or employee or members of his or her immediate family shall represent himself, herself or themselves, in negotiations or proceedings concerning his, her, or their own interests; (emphasis added).
In addition, Montana Code Annotated, 2-2-12. (5) states: A public officer or public employee may not participate in a proceeding when an organization, other than an organization or association of local government officials, of which the public officer or public employee is an officer or director is:
(a) involved in a proceeding before the employing agency that is within the scope of the public officer’s or public employee’s job duties; or
(b) attempting to influence a local, state, or federal proceeding in which the public officer or public employee represents the state or local government(emphasis added).
The Official Code of the City of Great Falls 2.21.040 (G) defines advisory board members as officers. Granted, Kraft recused himself from voting on the project. So there is that.
But isn’t it still a conflict of interest to present your employer’s project at a meeting where you also sit on the advisory board that would vote to approve or deny that project? Even if you do recuse yourself? Should a board member discuss a project with which he/she is involved at a board meeting? Should a board member even attend a meeting where his/her employer is subject to a board decision?
I’ve already heard the excuse some folks will give. They say that this is a small town and it is inevitable that conflicts of interest exist on advisory boards. I would challenge that assertion. There are others qualified to serve on advisory boards that have been turned down in the past—folks without perceived or actual conflicts of interest.
So are there more examples of this with the DRB? It’s disheartening for me to see yet another instance of a city advisory board with perceived or actual conflicts of interest.
Here’s how the KRTV story describes the Forum events:
“The next “Future Of The Falls” forum will be on Monday, December 3rd, from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm at the Civic Center.
Focus topics will be: 1. City Government: Help or Hindrance? 2. Economic Opportunities 3. Downtown
Young adults in Great Falls had an opportunity for their voice to be heard by community leaders, and brainstorm ways to make it better though conversation at the first “Future of the Falls Forum” in early October. Now, forum leaders are focusing on feedback and what comes next.”
This effort is organized by Connect Great Falls which is described as an organization of local young professionals and is an “affinity group of United Way of Cascade County”.
This seems like a sincere effort with admirable intentions, but after reading the article and digging a little deeper I have some questions regarding the involvement of the City of Great Falls and a couple of our city commissioners.
Who is paying for the use of the Civic Center and City resources for these events? Is the City charging regular rental fees for the use of the taxpayers facilities to host the forums? If not, why not? I was going to call and ask about this today but City offices were closed for the Veterans Day holiday. Stay tuned.
More importantly, I would ask why Commissioner Mary Moe seems to think we’re stupid?
More importantly, I would ask why Commissioner Mary Moe seems to think we’re stupid?
“How can we attract entrepreneurs, how can we bring higher wage jobs into the community, and we want to make sure we talk with young people who have done just that,” Moe said.
As a result of Moe’s actions in part, M&D Construction which employed about 30 people here in Great Falls, is now gone from their close-to-downtown location. Why should anyone believe Moe’s empty words about “attracting entrepreneurs” and “bringing higher wage jobs into the community” when her actions resulted in the exact opposite occurring?
More from the KRTV story:
“One specific idea that came out of forum was for a bike-loan program on the River’s Edge Trail. Commissioner Moe, along with Great Falls City Mayor Bob Kelly, already met last week with a committee to pursue this idea and talk about ways to implement it.”
A bike-loan program? Really? This is the kind of nonsense that passes for vision and real results for our town from these so-called leaders. Do Kelly and Moe really think that they can vote to drive real entrepreneurs who provide real jobs out of our city and then make it all good by meeting with a committee and palavering about a “bike-loan program on the River’s Edge Trail?”
I applaud the effort by Connect Great Falls and their young professionals (an increasingly rare breed in Great Falls) to reach out, collaborate and try to find solutions to the urgent problems here. Kudos to them.
What I object to and will continue to call out as BS is the phony and dishonest attempts by city commissioners to cover up their incompetence and neglect with glossy words and busywork which accomplishes nothing.
What I object to and will continue to call out as BS is the phony and dishonest attempts by city commissioners to cover up their incompetence and neglect with glossy words and busywork which accomplishes nothing.
“We have such talented young people in our community and they have great ideas, and what they don’t realize is that those of us who have been here for a long time, can’t wait to turn them loose. I’m just really excited about what we heard and the enthusiasm there,” said Moe.
The condescension and arrogance just drips from Moe’s statement here. Folks “realize” much more than Moe gives them credit for and no one needs to wait for her, Mayor Kelly or anyone else to “turn them loose”.
Real leaders don’t hide behind committees and forums or engage in pantomimes designed to give the false impression of results. Real leaders make hard choices and take actions that match their words, and we desperately need those real leaders in Great Falls right now.
It appears our Great Falls City Commissioner Houck has become the self-appointed arbiter of civility, political responsibility and justice. We’re in trouble now.
Houck lectured Senator Daines on Facebook. She opines that he doesn’t speak on behalf of the majority of Montanans and that he certainly doesn’t represent the views and wishes of her and her friends. She offered her “help,” by suggesting she had materials to help guide his future work and efforts in DC for all Montanans.
No, and HECK NO!
I’d like to remind Houck that there are other people in Montana—people that don’t share her views and values. People that think for themselves rather than gather under a hashtag. Houck’s views on Kavanaugh and Senator Daines certainly don’t represent me, my friends and, I would argue, the majority of Montanans that I’ve met. Her implication that Daines needs her help to understand all Montanans is just ridiculous.
And to her comment that she’d be “happy to share the statistics of the number of men and women who have been sexually assaulted in their life times”—share it as proof of what? Just what is the relevance of those statistics to the Kavanaugh accusations and Daines’ communication? What do those statistics prove, other than there are a certain number of sexual assaults? It certainly doesn’t prove that a man now accused of a sexual assault 36 years in the past—with no corroborating witnesses, no evidence and no accurate and detailed account of the incident—is guilty. Quite the contrary, I would say.
It’s actually embarrassing that someone so nonsensical is representing the city of Great Falls. It’s also embarrassing that Houck thinks she’s more astute about Montanans than our senator. Perhaps I should take a page from the resistance playbook at this point and say, “Not My Commissioner!”
It’s actually embarrassing that someone so nonsensical is representing the city of Great Falls. It’s also embarrassing that Houck thinks she’s more astute about Montanans than our senator. Perhaps I should take a page from the resistance playbook at this point and say, “Not My Commissioner!”
Interestingly, Houck claims this isn’t about being Democrat or Republican. I chuckled at that because, on the contrary, it most certainly is about that—it’s about a Democratic Party unhinged and taken over by progressivism/socialism.
And in the unhinged world of the progressivist/socialist resistance:
The accused are guilty until proven innocent.
Mere accusations are proof in themselves, with no need for corroborating evidence.
A so-called victim account, riddled with inconsistencies and outright discrepancies, becomes prima facie evidence of a crime.
Mob rule replaces a Constitutional Republic.
Political correctness trumps freedom of speech.
Feelings are more important than civil liberties, truth and logic.
The values, views and agenda espoused by Houck and progressives/socialists don’t represent the majority of Montanans, or of United States citizens for that matter—at least not yet—and for that I am grateful.
I am also grateful for Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. I believe he will faithfully interpret the Constitution, rather than legislate from the bench. I know many strong, courageous women throughout the United States feel the same, and that includes many sexual assault victims.
Those of us who value the Constitution, our justice system and a free market economy cannot become complacent about the damaging influence of emotion-based, progressivist/socialist group-think.
“Interesting pictures of the City parking their tractor/trailer on M&D’s vacant lot while they are performing asphalt patching on an adjacent street. The same lot that they ran M&D off of for parking the same type of trucks there.”
Why deny the permit? Well, it appears to me the reason is that the Blewett family strongly opposed the conditional use permit because they considered M&D to be a bit of an eyesore in their neighborhood, which also happens to be Mayor Bob Kelly’s neighborhood.
And it also raises the very interesting question as to what will happen to that particular piece of property now. Who will own it and what, if anything, will be built or developed there?
