Category: City Election 2021

Last week, E-City Beat received an email from a reader and concerned citizen with a picture of a partisan, machine-sponsored letter sent to Great Falls residents endorsing mayoral candidate Bob Kelly and City Commission candidate Susan Wolff.

The letter is signed and paid for by two out-of-town organizations, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana in Billings, and Forward Montana in Missoula.

The endorsement letter from these two groups raises several observations, but a basic question should be asked first:

Why are these far-left Democrat organizations from out of town paying to promote candidates in a Great Falls municipal election?

Perhaps the following observations will help to answer that question.

• Kelly and Wolff are running as a team, a political ticket. They are coordinating campaign efforts which is obvious to anyone who has observed their campaign signs in tandem in yards around Great Falls.
• Kelly and Wolff are both Democrats. Anyone who takes the time to ask around or look into current and past campaign contributions and ties to and involvement in the Cascade County Democratic Central Committee will clearly see the political party affiliation of both Kelly and Wolff.
• Kelly and Wolff are smart, politically connected operators who know how to leverage support from the statewide Democrat machine, which is ramping up once again in our local citywide election. Why?
• Kelly and Wolff didn’t and won’t answer specific questions about local issues and policies because they prefer to have their positions remain vague while at the same time allowing outside, far-left advocates to campaign for them while they themselves avoid the appearance of coordination with or connection to those groups. Slick.

So, to return to the question: Why are out-of-town Democrats, that are pro-abortion and well beyond the Great Falls mainstream, campaigning for Kelly and Wolff in the Great Falls election?

Answer: Because unlike the voters of Great Falls, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana and Forward Montana know what Kelly and Wolff will actually do if elected.

One final observation:

The Great Falls faith community and pro-life movement should be aware of and spread the word that Susan Wolff and Bob Kelly are endorsed and supported by the abortionists of Planned Parenthood.

E-City Beat recently received a couple of emails from readers basically asking the same question: How do we know which political party the candidates for Great Falls city commission and mayor belong to?

The answer is that the municipal election is officially nonpartisan so the candidates aren’t required to designate party affiliation.

But Great Falls is a small enough community that such things as political party identification and the political ideologies held by candidates and public figures are fairly obvious to anyone paying even a little bit of attention to public discourse and issues.

Plus, social media has exposed a lot more about local folks than what they had for dinner last night.

In that vein, we noticed a fairly recent Facebook post from local GOP state representative Jeremy Trebas.

That seems spot on.

If you use party affiliation as a guide to how you vote and there aren’t any D’s, R’s or I’s next to a name on your city ballot, you can’t go wrong following the Trebas analysis here.

The public is invited to an open house and a chance to meet some of the candidates for Great Falls City Commission and Mayor.

The event will be hosted by Groves Taxidermy And Firearms at their new location at 1201 10th Ave South, Suite 200 from 11:00 AM until 1:00 PM, Saturday, October 9.

Local municipal candidates in the upcoming city election have been invited to the event to answer questions and talk about local issues.

Everyone is welcome.

City commission candidate Joe McKenney responded to our issue questionnaire by declining to answer the specific questions, which you can read here.

Here is McKenney’s response:

“Perception – Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your candidate questionnaire.

City Commissioner Rick Tryon frequently mentions his concern about ‘perception’ when it comes to public policy. I agree with him, perception is important.

Therefore, I’m concerned this questionnaire may give a negative perception of the Great Falls City Commission. Why? It may appear to the public that decisions are made before community engagement. Imagine yourself preparing to speak at a City Commission hearing only to find out the Commissioners have already publicly stated their vote, days or weeks, beforehand. What would be the point of having a hearing? And does that give you confidence in public involvement?

It is vital to encourage public participation as we move forward as a community. It is important everyone has a fair shake to express themselves before decisions are made. Not everyone is comfortable at a public hearing. I will make myself available both publicly and privately to listen to concerns. I am active in the community, or you may see me shopping at a local store. I urge folks to approach me with their thoughts and concerns.

Like most people I have inclinations on many of our local challenges. However, any decision I make as a City Commissioner will only be made after fully engaging interested persons on all sides of the spectrum concerning our community issues.

I look forward to serving our community.

Joe McKenney

www.facebook.com/mckenneyforgreatfalls”

Editors note: Here are candidate Joshua Copeland’s replies to our request for brief, specific answers to seven focused questions. Copeland’s answers are in bold type below each question.

1. Would you vote to increase the Great Falls Park District 1 assessment on local homeowners and businesses to cover financing costs if the City goes over budget on construction of the new Aim High indoor aquatics facility, if additional funding is necessary for the ongoing operations of the facility, or if the City Park & Rec Department requires additional resources to fund its regular programs and operations?
   It is unfortunate that the current commission dropped this squarely on the shoulders of incoming commissioners without asking themselves these questions before breaking ground.  However, we cannot allow the money we have spent to go to waste and allow the new aquatics center to fall to the same fate as the Natatorium.  I would support responsible increases for upkeep of the facility.
   
2. Should the City’s official policy regarding the Big Sky National Heritage Area and its agenda be to support, oppose, or remain neutral? The City’s current policy is to support.
   The city should oppose, and this will be one of the very first things I go to work on.
   
3. Would you vote to support using City zoning regulations to prevent recreational marijuana shops from operating in Great Falls neighborhoods and business districts?
   No.  I-190 is a VOTER passed resolution.  No elected official has the right to tell the voters that they can’t have what they voted for.  I would recommend imposing similar ordinances and rules to marijuana shops that bars and liquor stores must follow.
   
4. Would you vote to send a local public safety levy to Great Falls voters in order to pay for additional law enforcement and local criminal justice system resource?
   No.  We don’t need to create a prison industrial complex in Great Falls.  The best way to address our rising crime is to bring jobs and housing.  We have created a vacuum with our workforce stagnation.  Good people who want to earn top wages and work skilled and technical jobs have very few choices to stay and Great Falls and therefore leave.  We lean on public assistance programs, grants and government funds to keep the city afloat and that attracts more people who seek assistance and not progress.  Crime follows poverty, and while there are prosperous cities with crime, historically across the nation the most prosperous and growing places on the map have lower crime rates and lower drug use.
   
5. Which is a greater priority for Great Falls – low income housing or workforce housing?
   Both are a priority.  We cannot attract a workforce or companies that would bring prosperity and better paying jobs to Great Falls if we don’t have housing for those people to live.  Likewise, our ineffectiveness to allow housing projects in Great Falls has created a tight squeeze on our low income families by driving up demand and the cost of housing. 
   
6. Would you vote to allow development in proximity to the currently unused runway at MAFB?
   Absolutely.  I personally built buildings on the parking aprons when stationed at Malmstrom in the 819^th REDHORSE Squadron.  The base has already allowed structures to be built on base and the parking aprons and hangars to be made unusable by aircraft.  There is no risk that an airplane will ever land at MAFB ever again. In fact, we will likely see the designation of MAFB change within the next decade to “Malmstrom Space Force Base.”
   
7. Do you support or oppose the proposed ordinance to prohibit long-term parking/storage of RVs, boats, and trailers on public streets in residential neighborhoods?
   I oppose the proposed ordinance as it is written. It does not allow sufficient time for RV owners to use and maintain their RVs. The argument of “Safety” as a reason to prohibit long term parking is also arbitrary.  The city provided no data of how many accidents were caused by RVs or trailers being parked on the streets when presenting this ordinance.  Also, if a trailer is parked on the street for 36 hours in a week or 100 hours in a week it presents the exact same hazard that proponents of the ordinance are using to pass this measure. 

Editors note: Here are candidate Paige Turoski’s replies to our request for brief, specific answers to seven focused questions. Turoski’s answers are in bold type below each question.

1. Would you vote to increase the Great Falls Park District 1 assessment on local homeowners and businesses to cover financing costs if the City goes over budget on construction of the new Aim High indoor aquatics facility, if additional funding is necessary for the ongoing operations of the facility, or if the City Park & Rec Department requires additional resources to fund its regular programs and operations?
   Should the city require additional funding for the Aim High Big Sky Aquatics Center, I would encourage the city to explore every source of funding possible before even considering an increase in the Great Falls Park District 1 assessment. Should there be no other option but to acquire the funding from an increase in the Great Falls Park District 1 assessment on homeowners and businesses; then I would not vote to increase the assessment and continue to advocate for other sources of funding. Unfortunately, the city was only able to match the grant for the center by bonding to use a portion of the Park District 1 assessment.¹ In accordance with MCA 7-5-131.2(d), a locally elected officials’ powers of initiation do not extend to “the levy of special assessments pledged for the payment of principal and interest on bonds”.² This means that as commissioner I could not make the assessment increase a ballot measure to let the residents and businesses of Park District 1 decide whether or not to provide the funding for the AHBS Aquatics Center, otherwise I would initiate the process and bring it to voters. Owning a home and a business is expensive enough. The city should try not to increase those costs.
   
2. Should the City’s official policy regarding the Big Sky National Heritage Area and its agenda be to support, oppose, or remain neutral? The City’s current policy is to support.
   The city’s official position on the Big Sky Country NHA should be representative of what a majority of our residents want. I have not spoken with everyone but of those who have actually heard of it, not many seem to support it. As a resident I am opposed to the designation, as a potential commissioner I would support a city-wide survey to gauge resident’s support. If a majority are either opposed or unaware, then the city has no place supporting such a designation without the informed consent of its residents and I would move that the city oppose the BSCNHA designation.

3. Would you vote to support using City zoning regulations to prevent recreational marijuana shops from operating in Great Falls neighborhoods and business districts?
   I would vote to support using zoning regulations to prevent recreational marijuana shops from operating in Great Falls neighborhoods. Much like liquor stores, tobacco shops, and casinos, they should not be around schools, churches, or homes where people are raising their children. As someone who loves freedom and values personal liberty, I fully support the individual’s right to use whatever they wish. I have also studied, and can appreciate the many medicinal purposes that cannabis has^3,4, as well as how safe it is compared to other drugs, like morphine^.5,6 There are many who find it easier and less embarrassing to self-treat rather than be looked down on for seeking an alternative to narcotics. As well as veterans who are afraid of losing benefits for seeking the same thing.⁷ I support the will of the voters and am willing to give this industry a chance. Should it prove troublesome for our city, I would have no problem making the changes necessary for the well-being of our residents.

4. Would you vote to send a local public safety levy to Great Falls voters in order to pay for additional law enforcement and local criminal justice system resources?
   Absolutely. I am in full support in involving voters in as many ways possible when it comes to the decisions that affect the city they call home. Especially when that decision will have a direct financial impact on residents.

5. Which is a greater priority for Great Falls – low income housing or workforce housing?
   Workforce housing is a greater priority for Great Falls. An issue my husband and I faced when trying to rent a two-bedroom to welcome our oldest, and again when buying a home to grow our family, was a lack of options in the “middle”, which is where our budget was. One of the biggest issues facing Great Falls is our stale economy. The type of housing we have available will affect what types of businesses we both have and continue to get. An abundance of affordable housing will attract lower paying jobs, and vice versa, an abundance on the other end of the spectrum has the potential to turn us into another Bozeman. Neither of which lead to sustainable economic and population growth.

6. Would you vote to allow development in proximity to the currently unused runway at MAFB?
   I don’t see why not. I am not incredibly familiar with the area or any proposed developments. However, I have heard that it is expensive to develop on the east side of town due to the cost of hooking up to city water/sewer services, as well as the ground itself being somewhat difficult to build on. Once again, I’m no expert, but as long as the city is ensuring the cost of development does not outweigh the benefit of the potential constructions then I don’t see a problem with considering developing the area.

7. Do you support or oppose the proposed ordinance to prohibit long-term parking/storage of RVs, boats, and trailers on public streets in residential neighborhoods?
   This is a difficult one for me to answer because I have personally dealt with neighbors who abuse the allowed long-term parking of these vehicles and create not only a nuisance in the neighborhood because of the dilapidated state of the vehicles but a hazard to people who live and commute on our street. We have also dealt with our neighbors allowing people to inhabit these vehicles for extended periods of time. At the same time, I understand and appreciate the fact that a majority of people potentially affected by the ordinance, as proposed, do not behave in this manner and genuinely try to be considerate of those around them. The commission’s move to table the ordinance until there was an opportunity for in-person public comment was the best decision they could have made. This ordinance will affect many, and no decision should be made until every single resident who wants to make a public comment has had the opportunity to have their voice heard. It should remain tabled until in-person commission meetings return.

Editors note: Here are candidate Fred Burow’s replies to our request for brief, specific answers to seven focused questions. Burow’s answers are in bold type below each question.

1. Would you vote to increase the Great Falls Park District 1 assessment on local homeowners and businesses to cover financing costs if the City goes over budget on construction of the new Aim High indoor aquatics facility, if additional funding is necessary for the ongoing operations of the facility, or if the City Park & Rec Department requires additional resources to fund its regular programs and operations?
   If the bids coming in are higher than expected, other funding sources should be explored. A park district assessment increase would be a last resort.  The aquatics center will most likely always need some funding from the general fund. It will receive the amount of funds that has been allocated to the rec center and pool.
   
2. Should the City’s official policy regarding the Big Sky National Heritage Area and its agenda be to support, oppose, or remain neutral? The City’s current policy is to support.
   I do NOT support the Big Sky National Heritage area and I would hope our city commission would have enough sense to publicly say NO.  I feel that is an attack on private property rights by a self-appointed private corporation

3. Would you vote to support using City zoning regulations to prevent recreational marijuana shops from operating in Great Falls neighborhoods and business districts?
   Our current city zoning prohibits pot shops in city limits. I have no cause to change it.  There are places in the county that they can operate.

4. Would you vote to send a local public safety levy to Great Falls voters in order to pay for additional law enforcement and local criminal justice system resources?
   I would support a safety levy that would have a clear path to hold criminals accountable for their crimes.

5. Which is a greater priority for Great Falls – low income housing or workforce housing?
   Work force housing is the most important.  Almost every business is looking for employees.

6. Would you vote to allow development in proximity to the currently unused runway at MAFB?
   Malmstrom runway has been closed for 25+ years. It takes an act of congress to reopen.  If we want to retain the incident zone, the county commissioners should negotiate a lease with the owners and put it on the ballet for the voters to decide if they will pay for it.

7. Do you support or oppose the proposed ordinance to prohibit long-term parking/storage of RVs, boats, and trailers on public streets in residential neighborhoods?
   State law covers this problem for 5 days. We relaxed requiring a paved parking pad in your yard to a more affordable gravel pad. The proposed ordinance in its current form is complaint driven. I do not support complaint driven ordinances.