GREAT FALLS CITY STAFF, ZONING BOARD AT ODDS OVER FOX FARM DEVELOPMENT

Jeni Dodd on December 4, 2017

An interesting new wrinkle in a Fox Farm area planned unit development (PUD) for a hotel complex has city staff at odds with the city planning advisory board/ zoning commission. The proposed ordinance covering the change, Ordinance 3182, comes to the city commission with a negative recommendation from city staff and a positive recommendation from the planning advisory board/zoning commission.

The city commission will consider whether or not to allow a major change to a previously approved Tietjen Triangle Addition PUD at their December 5 meeting. The commission approved the PUD for the dual-branded Mainstay Suites and Sleep Inn hotel building at their May 2 meeting. This will be the last opportunity for public comment on Ordinance 3182, which would eliminate a condition of approval in the PUD.

That particular condition of approval required the applicant, Billings Holdings LLC, to legally secure access from the proposed hotel development site onto Alder Drive. The city incorporated the following language into the PUD document:

“The applicant is required to obtain an access easement through the property legally described as Country Club Addition, Section 14, Township 20 North, Range 3 East, Block 003, Mark 6. This will allow motorists accessing properties in the PUD to legally utilize an already established vehicle circulation point from Alder Drive. Proof of easement, future design of this access, and associated directional signage on Alder Drive and Fox Farm Road must all be approved by the City prior to the issuance of any building permit for the 2.6 acre tract in the PUD.” (Great Falls City Commission Agenda, December 5, 2017).

On October 24, 2017, the planning advisory board/zoning commission recommended the city commission approve the request from the applicant to remove the access easement condition of approval from the PUD. Billings Holdings LLC requested the major change to the PUD because it failed to secure the access easement.

However, Great Falls planning and community development staff recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.

“Staff finds that the applicant has not provided complete or compelling information sufficient to remove a previously approved condition of approval,” (Great Falls City Commission Agenda, December 5, 2017).

The planning advisory board/zoning commission disagreed and by a vote of 8-1, the board supported the applicant’s request and brought it to the city commission. The proposed ordinance seeks to amend a previous ordinance approving the PUD, Ordinance 3152.
It is important to note that the city refers to the applicant’s request to drop the access easement requirement as a MAJOR CHANGE. What does this mean according to the Official Code of the City of Great Falls?

In the OCCGF 17.16.29.100 , Changes in Planned Unit Development, it states that:

“Major changes in the plan of development or supporting data similarly approved shall be considered the same as a new petition, and reapplication shall be made in accordance with the procedures for a new application.”

From my reading of the city code, it would then appear that the applicant must reapply/re-petition for the PUD, since the city has categorized the removal of a condition of approval as a major change. Can the city simply use an ordinance to amend the original ordinance in this case?

It would be helpful if the city included in their documentation why a reapplication/ re-petition is not required or requested. I tried to clarify that with the city commission at the first reading of the ordinance but didn’t get an answer from them.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, either for or against this project, but I do feel that the city commission should follow city zoning codes with all applicants and in all instances, hence my concerns. I’d like to hear from other folks—Do you feel the city commission is following the code on this zoning change?

The December 6 city commission meeting agenda, containing documents pertaining to Ordinance 3179, can be found at:

https://greatfallsmt.net/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_commission/meeting/packets/126981/agenda_2017_12_5_commission_entire_meeting_packet.pdf

Madison Food Park Questions

Jeni Dodd on December 1, 2017

I’m not taking a side; I just have some questions. I repeat, I’M NOT TAKING A SIDE–yet! I want more information to form an informed opinion.

First off, a complaint–Why did Great Falls Area Concerned Citizens plan an informational meeting about this important county-wide issue on Tuesday December 5 at 6:45 pm when there’s a regularly scheduled Great Falls City Commission meeting the same day at 7 pm? Didn’t they think to check whether there were other important meetings going on? Commission meetings are posted months in advance. Or did they know and just not care that some people might want to attend both? Now those people have to make a choice. City commission only meets twice a month. You’d think this group would try to avoid those times. Just another example of the poor planning which has become Great Falls modus operandi.

Mr. Nikolakakos, you’ve stated it’s opportunity for Friesen to “ship Canadian animals to the US and obtain USDA certification while avoiding more stringent labor and environmental rules.” An “opportunity” does not equal a done deal. Do you know the livestock laws well enough to make that statement? What about the local ag producers? Have we heard from them? What’s their level of interest and involvement in this project? Will they utilize this facility?

You also stated, “The submitted application calls for over a billion gallons of water usage a year from the Madison aquifer, putting area wells and water quality at risk.” That sounds like a heck of a lot of water, I grant you that and it sounds potentially harmful. But where is the data that it would be harmful? If you want to fight this, you’re going to need more than speculation. It also seems that the MT DNRC would look at this regarding the potential of affecting water rights of others in the basin. Any word from them?

You also wrote, “Prior to 2017, this plant could not have been approved under agricultural zoning regulations. This was until CEO Edward Friesen recently visited county offices. After the meeting the county, coincidentally, began amending our regulations to match virtually word for word what Friesen needed.”

Okay then, I want to hear more about the meeting between Friesen and county. Did he meet with the county commissioners? Did he meet with county staff? At which meeting did the commissioner vote to change the zoning regulations to match what Friesen needed? If it happened the way you claim, it is perhaps the biggest part of this story.

Isn’t this facility now an allowable use under county zoning? Therefore, wouldn’t some part of their application need to be deficient in some way for the county to refuse to approve it? Deficient in that it doesn’t follow county codes, zoning regulations or is likely to break a law? I don’t believe an unpopularity contest amongst county residents can legally stop it. But then again, I’m not an attorney.

For someone who is an intelligence analyst in the military and therefore should be well versed in critical thinking skills and the use of logical arguments, I’m a bit disappointed in the argument as you’ve presented it. It appears based more in the emotional, rather than the analytical.

Point Counterpoint

Philip M. Faccenda on November 30, 2017

This morning, we published a post by George Nikolakakos, leader of the Great Falls Area Concerned Citizens group opposing the slaughterhouse.

In the interests of balance, several days ago we also reached out to Todd Hanson of Norseman Consulting Group, who has been working with project developer Friesen Foods. We hope Hanson will take us up on our offer to write.

Since this is a such an important community issue with many layers to it, I would also invite anyone else who has some degree of knowledge and who can write to please do so.

We want your IDEAS!

Nikolakakos: Growth At What Cost?

George Nikolakakos on November 30, 2017

The proposed slaughterhouse is the talk of the town, as well it should be. If constructed, the facility will clearly define Great Falls for generations to come. This industrial complex, with a footprint larger than Malmstrom, would be the largest in the North West and sit just four picturesque miles from city limits. The submitted application calls for over a billion gallons of water usage a year from the Madison aquifer, putting area wells and water quality at risk. For context, this is about as much water as the residents of Butte use each and every year. The application also calls for 300 million pounds of animal solids waste production annually as well as a rendering plant which Friesen Foods’ consultant refers to as a “value add further processing center.” Rendering plant, you see, is a bad word widely associated with horrendous travelling stench and countless municipal lawsuits. The health and environmental risks associated with these kinds of facilities are well documented and accessible via a quick internet search. The massive feedlots sure to spring up in this plants wake are their own monster entirely.

Friesen Foods is pitching 3,000 jobs as “opportunity.” It is definitely an opportunity for them to ship Canadian animals to the US and obtain USDA certification while avoiding more stringent labor and environmental rules.  Their sales pitch, however, is the same one other communities around the nation have heard before. They make big promises of jobs and new technology that will finally put an end to smells and health issues. Each time, however, the results prove the same for those duped. Towns like Tonganoxie, Kansas and Mason City, Iowa recently ran away similar plants for good reason. Midwesterners know the cost benefit analysis of these nightmares all too well. Will we learn in time?

Despite Friesen’s wage claims (that they can never be held to) the Bureau of Labor Statistics has median hourly wages for meat processors at $12.78. We have countless employers who can’t fill positions at those wages right now. The truth is the same non-straight shooting guy who speaks of “value add further processing centers” also knows that these jobs won’t be going to people in Great Falls, or even Montana. This industry has a proven foreign labor recruiting system nation-wide. They know these vulnerable people can be taken advantage of and are less likely to complain and unionize. The reality is Americans just don’t take these jobs.

“Growth” some say. Well, tumors grow. The right question is “growth at what cost?” A Michigan University study focused on the pain experienced by towns accepting slaughterhouses. Decimated property values, overcrowded schools, burdened medical services, surges in crime, exhausted welfare services/infrastructure, and a general collapse in quality of life are major themes.  This proposal represents toxic growth. In fact, it is a sure way to chase out young families, professionals, and military retirees who fuel real, sustainable, and long term positive growth.

Even those who support this plan should be troubled by the way it came about on the grounds of honest and transparent government. Prior to 2017, this plant could not have been approved under agricultural zoning regulations. This was until CEO Edward Friesen recently visited county offices. After the meeting the county, coincidentally, began amending our regulations to match virtually word for word what Friesen needed. That, however, is a long story for another day.

The bottom line is, this proposal is a bad deal for our community and our families. There is a clear answer: Bad deal, no way. If you agree, visit us at www.protectthefalls.com.

On Tax Abatements: Billings Says “Yes” Where Great Falls Says “No”

Rick Tryon on November 29, 2017

Back in the day, oh, forty or fifty years ago, there was an ongoing friendly competition between Great Falls and Billings as to which was the best and biggest city. The two Montana big dogs battling for bragging rights. I remember because I was a young sprout at the time, delivering the Great Falls Leader, going to the Liberty Theater for Saturday matinees and ice skating at the indoor Civic Center rink.

Well, Great Falls has been left in the dust by our one-time rival Billings. According to the US Census Bureau, Billings’ population as of 2016 is 110,323, and Great Falls is 59,178.

According to a presentation by Great Falls Development Authority President Brett Doney at a recent neighborhood council meeting, Billings has an industrial tax base of around 19% while Great Falls is at about 3%.

Why? There are several reasons, like the closing of the Anaconda Mining Company, a reduced BN railroad presence, no major college, we’re off the east-west interstate highway etc., but with each passing year the various “reasons” begin to sound more and more like excuses.

A good example of why Billings won the dogfight and continues to win can be found in a recent article from the Billings Gazette.

Two weeks ago, Yellowstone County approved a tax break for the Phillips 66 oil refinery in Billings for a $298 million project:

“The project added 18 full-time positions, bringing total workforce to 320 full-time and two-part time positions. Average wage of new employees is $71.30 per hour, including benefits.”

In contrast, in December of 2016 the Great Falls City Commission voted to deny a $6.3 million tax abatement spread out over 10 years for Calumet Montana Refining Co., which had just completed a $450 million expansion here in Great Falls. Approval of the abatement could have meant more jobs and more economic activity for local business. From the city staff report:

“Staff Comment: The expansion of the refinery has had a very positive impact on employment opportunities within the City. According to data provided by Calumet, the total cumulative effect of adding 40 full-time refinery jobs is anticipated to produce 276 jobs in the industry. It is not known how many of the 276 jobs will be located within the City of Great Falls or Cascade County.”

But no.

To be fair, I was conflicted about the approval of the Calumet tax abatement at the time and reluctantly opposed it after having read the city staff’s reasoning in their recommendation to oppose. Hindsight is always 20-20. I was wrong.

My reasoning at the time was basically that homeowners, especially those living on a fixed income, were going to end up paying more of the cost of local government and infrastructure if we didn’t spread those costs out more to our industrial tax base.

Boy, was I wrong. In the intervening year and a half we have seen our local homeowner taxes continue to go up, up and away with no end in sight. The relief and breathing room for working class citizens and small business I had anticipated has not materialized.

We’re not really in a friendly competition with Billings anymore. They’ve left Great Falls in the dust when it comes to growth and opportunity. But we can get back on track if we’re willing to look at what other state and regional communities are doing to prosper and expand and if we’re willing to adapt and adopt their winning policies and strategies here.

Poll: Slaughter City?

ECB Staff on November 27, 2017

At this point, most everyone knows: Canadian company Friesen Foods wants to bring the largest meat processing plant to Montana — just outside of Great Falls.

Are you in favor of this project or not?

Better yet, tell us why in the comments!

[poll id=”7″]

Developer: Why Is Great Falls Tax Money Leaving Great Falls?

Steve Alley on November 26, 2017

I’m a long-time resident of Great Falls and a developer. Like a lot of folks, I’ve invested a lot of time and money into seeing our community thrive — in particular, downtown Great Falls. As a commercial developer, I pay my share of taxes, and so I tend to pay attention to where our money goes.

So, I was more than a little surprised when the Great Falls Public Schools District chose an out-of-town architect with an out-of-state partner to complete their $37 million upgrade project for Great Falls High School. That $37 million was raised through as part of a $98 million bond, voted on by local taxpayers. One thing I recall that was said often by the School District was that they would ensure that design and construction would go to local firms whenever possible. That was part of their selling point to the community on this bond issue.

When that did not happen, I started asking around.

The School District hired NE45, a Bozeman firm that has had one licensed architect for years and looks like they just hired a second. In addition, they partnered with a Seattle, Washington-based firm to win the project. There goes our taxpayer money to people who have not invested into this community. Another thing, a firm this small will have to outsource most of the project to their out-of-state partner firm to even get it done, and that will take most of the money out of state as well as drive up project design costs.

I talked to a couple of the local, competing architects. They said the other firm was chosen because of their expertise with historical buildings. Give me a break! That’s all we’ve got in Great Falls! I’ve done my fair share of remodels on my own projects; some were historical. This project, from what I can tell from the proposal, is basically going to be a messy remodel and addition, with phased, occupied construction along with some historical components. All the Great Falls firms have proven experience in this type of project.

I think the community and the local taxpayers deserve some straight answers on this. I am a quiet guy, I work hard and I don’t stir the pot. But this one really has me fired up.

Shots Fired In City Parks Gun Debate

Jeni Dodd on November 25, 2017

The national gun debate has nothing on what is poised to be a hotly contested local
Second Amendment battle.

Yes, concealed weapon permit holders are currently allowed to carry their weapons
in city parks, including the River’s Edge Trail, according to our City Attorney Sara
Sexe. Sexe reported at the November 17 city commission meeting that she had
researched Montana Code Annotated references and looked at the history and
intent of the 1997 city commission, before determining that permit holders are
allowed to carry concealed in city parks. She put that opinion on the record at that
meeting and again at the November 21 city commission meeting.

I concluded as much from my research of the Official Code of the City of Great
Falls and the Montana Code Annotated more than two years ago. When I expressed
my finding that it was legal to acquaintances who kept telling me it wasn’t legal,
they vehemently disagreed with me. So I was vindicated when Sexe confirmed
what I had already determined to be true.

I’ll admit that at first glance the city code appears to ban concealed weapons in city
parks. Even the Great Falls Tribune got it wrong on their website. In articles dated
April 7 and November 17, the Tribune featured a video which further perpetuates
the myth that it is illegal to carry firearms, whether open or concealed carry, in city
parks in Great Falls.

Now that the city commissioners are aware of the “loophole” in the city code, it
seems at least two of them would likely push the opposite agenda, which would
make it illegal for permit holders to concealed carry in city parks.

The matter was made public at the October 17 city commission meeting, when a
group of local residents asked the commissioners for clarification of city laws
regarding concealed carry for weapons permit holders in city parks, including the
River’s Edge Trail. Some of the commenters were from the Missouri River Women
Shooters, a local organization that educates and supports women in the proper use
of firearms. Many had heard a variety of interpretations of local law and thought it
best to hear from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

Commissioner Burow mentioned that he had heard from some folks recently, who
wanted clarification about the code. Mayor Kelly wanted to have City Attorney
Sara Sexe to do further research on the matter before more discussion took place.

The city code currently reads:

9.8.020 – Prohibiting and suppressing the possession of weapons.

A. The carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons (MCA 45-2-101 (76), and as
such statute may hereafter be amended) to, on, or at a public assembly, publicly
owned building, park under City jurisdiction, or school is hereby prohibited.

B. Exceptions are as otherwise provided by MCA 45-8-351(2)(b) which allows for
display of firearms at shows or other public occasions by collectors and others,
and MCA 45-8-317 which states what persons are allowed to carry weapons, and
as such statutes may hereafter be amended.
(Ord. 3158, 2017; Ord. 2732, 1997).

The exception refers back to the Montana Code Annotated 45-8-317 which
provides for concealed carry for permit holders, except where prohibited under
state law.

What further muddies the water is MCA 45-8-351. It contains contradictory
language that leads off with a subsection restricting local governments from
enacting more restrictive weapons laws, except as provided in a later subsection
which allows them to do so for public safety reasons.

In November 1997, the Great Falls City Commission passed Ordinance 2732. The
commission meeting minutes state:

“The purpose of Ordinance 2732 is to exercise the power given in MCA 45-8-351
by establishing an ordinance prohibiting the carrying of concealed or
unconcealed weapons into a public building or to a public assembly.”

Note that the city commission back in 1997 didn’t include concealed carry in city
parks in their statement of purpose. By also inserting the reference to MCA
45-8-317, it seems their intent was to allow permit holders to carry in city parks.

At the November 7 commission meeting, even more Great Falls residents came
forward to show support for concealed weapons carry in the parks and to get an
official clarification. The fact that folks want to see this more clearly defined and
codified, speaks volumes about the public’s perception and mistrust of the city
commission and city government. A city attorney’s interpretation of the law isn’t
enough for them.

Commissioner Bronson made it clear that he wanted to hear from the opposition.
“It’s true that while we have rights of ownership I was always taught that having
a firearm is also a privilege. It’s a privilege from the standpoint of listening to
what my neighbors and friends have to say about it…

“We have to have a community conversation about this because, quite frankly,
after the presentation three weeks ago, I was approached by some people and
what they told me is they were scared of what they heard here that night. I said,
“Why are you scared. I know a lot of these people, they’re wonderful folks.
They’re no threat to you.” Well, they think you are. They’re afraid of people who
carry guns. And while I don’t share their fear, I understand where they’re
coming from….”

Mayor Kelly also made it clear that he wanted to postpone any action on the issue
until after the newly elected commissioners were seated.

“This conversation is appropriate and it’s timely and is driven by concern and
fear, which is warranted. There’s an opportunity to continue this discussion and
I hope to do that in the new year….

“Anytime you talk about increased gun availability, gun usage, gun issues, it’s an
emotional side. As I said three weeks ago, we’ve heard from one side and we
haven’t heard from the other. There’s time to do that and we will do that. My
goal here is to have a community dialogue about this, perhaps not even in these
chambers, but as a community forum, so that the sides, the different sides of this
issue can look at each other and talk about their fears and their concerns,
because there’s warranted discussion on both sides….I’d also like to give an
opportunity to the two new commissioners who are going to be sitting up here an
opportunity to be in that discussion and to listen to the community and go
forward from there.”

One must wonder if the current commissioners, minus Commission Burow, are
postponing any action until the new year in order to get unanimous support for a
government-knows-best political agenda of further restricting firearms within the
city. Commissioner Burow, who came forward in support of clarifying the current
code, rather than opening it up to more debate, would be gone. By all appearances
the two newly elected commissioners, Mary Moe and Owen Robinson, would
support more local governmental restrictions on gun rights in Great Falls.
Moe’s support of a more liberal agenda leads me to believe that she would vote to
ban concealed carry in our parks. I may be generalizing here but it seems to me
that anyone who wants to remove historic statues in the name of political
correctness is probably miles away from the right-to-bear-arms camp.

Owen Robinson would likely oppose it as well. At the October 17 city commission
meeting, Tammy Evans, organizer of the Missouri River Women Shooters, asked
for a show of hands supporting permit holders to concealed carry in city parks.
Most hands in the room went up. Robinson was at that meeting but his hand stayed
down. A pretty solid indication of the way he’d vote.

I hope they both prove me wrong.

At the November 21 city commission meeting, we heard from some opposition to
concealed carry in parks. The gun paranoia was obvious.

BJ Angermeyer stated she was, “Speaking on behalf of many of my fellow citizens
appalled that the guns may possibly be in our beloved parks and trails.”
In response, Mayor Kelly said, “We’ll have an opportunity to hear from you in
greater length etc. at a meeting we’ll have in the new year.”

Sharon Patton Griffin opined that, “We have a past practice of not allowing
concealed carry in parks.” She went on to claim that should have carry some
weight in the matter.

She stated she had a letter from her husband and then explained why he didn’t
come.

“I tell you quite frankly that he was afraid to come tonight because he said you
know, there’s gonna be some gun nut there that will shoot all of us there that don’t
believe in…ah…”

Someone interrupted and said, “That’s ridiculous.”

I’d have to agree. If you don’t feel safe in a room with members of the Great Falls
Police Department in attendance, guns at the ready, where would you feel safe?
Also, permit holders aren’t allowed to bring weapons into public buildings and
know it. The person more likely to enter a public building or public assembly with
guns blazing will not be a concealed carry permit holder—I think that can be
shown by looking at past incidents.

These scared-of-firearms folks should be more worried about criminals who carry
guns and aren’t going to follow the law, than about law-abiding citizens who
follow the law and exercise their God-given and Second Amendment affirmed
right to carry.

A potential rapist on River’s Edge Trail won’t choose to follow the law and not
carry a weapon, just to break another law—that’s ludicrous. The gun paranoia
folks, by banning concealed carry in city parks and trails, will just create more soft
targets. The Great Falls police can’t accompany ever citizen who wants to walk the
River’s Edge Trail. What’s it going to take for these folks to realize we are better
off with an armed citizenry, instead of a disarmed citizenry unable to defend
against armed thugs?

The debate is on and it looks like it’s not going away as some had hoped.
Interestingly, weapons include more than firearms under Great Falls and Montana
law. For example, knives having a blade 4 inches long or longer are among the
objects defined as weapons by the MCA.

Consider this: if you brought a 4 inch, or longer blade knife to Gibson Park to cut your picnic watermelon this Summer, and you are not a concealed carry permit holder, did you break the law?

We’re Back

Philip M. Faccenda on November 25, 2017

After several months of inactivity, E-City Beat is back! We have spent our hiatus adding contributors and developing an improved reader-centric site and we think we have succeeded. Our core values remain the same: to examine and to comment on important and timely issues that matter to residents of Great Falls, our Central Montana region and our State. We will continue, with your help and commentary, to advocate for Accountability and Transparency in our various units of government, be it our City Commission, our School District, or our Montana Legislature and State Bureaucratic maze.

Remember that you own the resources of our community, its City government, its Parks and its Schools. If you are tired of USA Today and Associated Press sourced and slanted reporting, then E-City Beat will be for you and you won’t have to keep your thoughts under 250 words, or wait 60 days before you can comment again on issues you care about. E-City Beat is all about YOU, whether your focus is on Economic Development, creating a more business friendly environment in Great Falls, the importance of Art in our community, or if you just want to share the world’s best brownie recipe, we want to hear from you. As Brett Doney recently said: “Great Falls needs to Retain and Recruit Talent”. We need your IDEAS.

We invite all points of view from writers and cartoonists on relevant issues facing our City and State.

Fox News Report: Gianforte Also Punched Guardian Reporter

ECB Staff on May 24, 2017

Holy sh*t.

What else can really be said about the stunning news of Republican Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte allegedly body-slamming a reporter, the Guardian’s Ben Jacobs, today in Bozeman? The audio, which you can listen to here, doesn’t sound good for Gianforte.

After an hour or so, Gianforte’s press secretary, Shane Scanlon, offered the following statement:

“Tonight, as Greg was giving a separate interview in a private office, The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg’s face, and began asking badgering questions,” Scanlon said. “Jacobs was asked to leave. After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground. It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.”

According to a Fox News team, though, the Gianforte statement is hogwash, and the Republican nominee actually choke-slammed and then punched Jacobs:

At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, “I’m sick and tired of this!”

The report continues:

To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff’s deputies. 

You can read the whole thing here.

Again, this first-hand report is not from Buzzfeed, the New York Times, or the HuffPo — it’s from Fox News.

While this likely happened too late to change the election’s outcome, it will be ironic if the outcome does change — after the state GOP blocked a mail-only ballot that would have all but ensured no impact for exactly this type of situation.

Unbelievable.

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