Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

October 1997 Successful Community: A Small Town Copes with Rapid Growth By John Clayton

 

After many decades of decline, the coal-mining town of Red Lodge, Montana began to grow rapidly in the early 1990s. Between 1989 and 1995, real estate prices quadrupled. There was too little planning and no thought of sustainable development with the building boom. As John Clayton writes, between 1992 and 1995, when a land-use plan was approved, the town engaged in the sort of process and encountered the same obstacles that apply to many small communities in the U.S.

The residents of Red Lodge knew there was a need for land-use planning. Yet they had seen failures in other towns where the opportunity to create or update a land-use plan had become a war where anti-government types decried additional legislation telling them what they could do with their land. Members of the town felt that if people could agree on the community's goals, they could agree on strategies to reach those goals.

Community members also felt that a land-use plan was necessary to preserve the natural areas and wildlife surrounding the town. Without the process, Red Lodge's future was uncertain and it may have fallen victim to detrimental development in wildlife corridors, improper placement of sewage facilities and poor quality housing.

The Genesis

In early 1992, several Red Lodge citizens came together to put on a "Successful Communities" workshop. That event, as well as the organization or movement it spawned, was called the Beartooth Front Community Forum (BFCF). The workshop was extremely productive. One hundred and forty people attended from many diverse segments of the community. Participants reached a general consensus on the area's assets, including: a neighborly sense of small-town community, natural beauty and quality of the environment, recreational opportunities, history and architecture, agricultural influence, and rural setting.

One of the committees formed at that forum was charged with investigating the role local governments could play in land-use issues. Their first task was to research what had been done in other communities of similar size, or facing similar challenges. The land-use committee, which also included people not at the original forum, was comprised of concerned citizens, current and former public officials, landowners, developers, and others. At a second community-wide forum held that September, the land-use committee reported on its research and received encouragement from the assembly. The community then proceeded to hold information-and-discussion meetings in other parts of Carbon County. These were less well received since other parts of the county did not face the same growth pressures as greater Red Lodge, and expressed greater fears of perceived infringements on property rights.

Master Plan

Similar concerns arose in discussions with county commissioners and the County Planning Board (CPB). Although a county-wide land-use plan existed, some people felt it was vague and outdated while others, including some members of the CPB, felt it was sufficient. At one point the CPB voted to update the county plan, but the effort never got off the ground. Approaches to the Red Lodge town government were, however, more fruitful. The town had no master plan and the town itself owned a great deal of property which it was unsure what to do with. Town council members were also swayed by the argument that it might be easier for the town to get grants if a master plan was in place. Eventually the town agreed to put up money to fund a master plan. Throughout this time, the land-use committee engaged in public education efforts. Experts on land-use planning were brought in to speak. There was also coverage in the local newspaper.

In early 1994, an interview committee was formed to hire a planning consultant. The interviewers decided by consensus on Lee Nellis of Pocatello, Idaho. Nellis was approved by the town council, and spent that spring and summer gathering data, which he put together in a report and introduced at a public meeting in August. In September, he facilitated an all-day discussion to kick off the planning process and garnered townspeople's opinions on a variety of planning concerns. Both attendees and organizers expressed pleasure at the quality of the feedback.

For the next six months, Nellis scheduled a series of public meetings intended to get input on specific aspects of the plan: the historic downtown, community entrances, residential neighborhoods, mountain views, rural subdivisions, and infrastructure. At each meeting, Nellis gave a background lecture and took participants through a series of choices or questions for the Red Lodge plan. He also handed out materials that people could read and comment on. The first portion of every meeting was devoted to comments on the previous meeting. Attendance was high, averaging over 70 people.

The thorniest debate came over the boundaries of the proposed planning district. Development pressures exist far beyond town limits, and indeed are greater outside the town where there is more undeveloped land. Thus many people felt that a planning district should extend several miles north and west of town. Some residents of those areas, however, were reluctant to be considered part of greater Red Lodge. Nellis recommended that a planning district include only areas that might potentially be annexed by the town, or that might affect the town water supply.

The Obstacles

During this time, there were several controversial projects that potentially conflicted with sound land-use policies, including a cement batch plant and three gravel pits in residential or agricultural areas, and a widely-criticized remodeling in the downtown historic district. Concerned citizens wanted immediate action, while planning advocates had to call for patience. They also had to lose these high-profile battles to win the war, and do so knowing that any eventual plan might prove too little, too late.

Another obstacle was lack of public funding. BFCF overcame this by going to the town instead of the county, and pledging to raise almost half the money from private sources. Even then, working with public officials involved careful balancing. Because some town taxpayers feared that the un-elected BFCF would control public money, decisions always had to be left in the hands of elected officials. Partly as a result of BFCF publicity, attendance at County Planning Board meetings soared, and that board's decisions came under much heavier scrutiny. Some of them were happy about this; others feared a meddling public. BFCF leadership tried to encourage educated, thoughtful, and constructive public comment. They expressed support for public officials, and encouraged them to do their jobs as well and fully as possible.

One major developer was a hindrance. He would occasionally express support but regularly issued conflicting statements, sometimes participating in the process and sometimes threatening to bring it to a halt. The land-use committee had two strategies to deal with him. First, they kept inviting him to the meetings since they wanted this to be an inclusive process, and they wanted him to believe he had had a say from the beginning. But they also carried a big stick: the will of the public. The "Five Tips for Reaching Consensus on Land-Use Planning" shows what public participation can do.

John Clayton is the BFCF Steering Commitee secretary. For more information or to make a tax-deductible donation, write to Box 454, Red Lodge, MT 59068, 406-446-3939, or contact: John Clayton (406-446-3843) or clates@wtp.net; Gary Ferguson (406-446-2388), or the Corporation For the Nortern Rockies (406-222-0730 or CNR@DESKTOP.ORG

Five Tips for Reaching Consensus on Land-Use Planning

1. Involve the entire community

There must be wide-based public support, not just a cadre of "progressive thinkers" or even just the "movers and shakers." Be sure that representatives of all segments of your community are invested in the process and its outcome. Make sure meetings always include a social element (ideally afterwards, when people can discuss the ideas raised). Meetings should be fun as well as work, an exercise in community bonding as well as decision-making.

2. Be goal-oriented

When you say "land-use planning," most people think either "communism" or "incredibly dull." But when you talk about goals for the community -- e.g., a vibrant downtown district, preserving scenic views, protecting a public water supply -- people are often interested, opinionated and unified. Once the community decides such goals are important, it will endorse planning as a tool to reach them. The community will never endorse planning itself as a goal, nor should they.

3. Take your time

Public policy doesn't change overnight. When citizens urge desperate, futile measures to stop specific projects, respond that the only effective solution is a comprehensive long-range plan. Achieve early successes. For example, in Fall 1994, the Postal Service proposed building a new post office on the edge of the town. The town, BFCF, and Nellis argued that the current post office was a key to the viability of downtown Red Lodge, and won the battle.

4. Let developers "win"

Developers -- who are part of the community -- have a lot invested in their property. You must let them make money at it. When developers are getting what they want out of the process, they will support it. Red Lodge was particularly fortunate because what developers wanted was close to what the community wanted.

5. Broaden your scope

BFCF involved itself in a lot more than planning. Starting the Red Lodge Boys and Girls Club, it organized a group concerned with water quality to test local creeks and examined affordable housing, sustainable economic development, education, and several other local "quality-of-life" issues. By presenting planning as one of many tools to reach stated goals for the community, BFCF gained credibility.

Back

Next