Comments on a revision of the 2007 Flathead County growth policy have been pouring into the commissioners’ office as the Oct. 1 deadline approaches.

The commissioners recently passed a resolution of intent to approve the growth policy update, but allowed a 30-day comment period on the proposed revisions.

Since then, Citizens for a Better Flathead has conducted a letter-writing campaign, because the nonprofit organization believes the revised document has been stripped of policies that protect water quality, limit sprawl and reduce traffic congestion.

Comments also have been sent by property-rights advocates who support the revisions.

About 100 comments have been received by the commissioners’ office.

The Citizens group maintains the proposed changes, which include a property owners bill of rights, “make a political football of planning decisions by allowing a new, vague and narrowly defined property rights definition to trump all other policies in the growth policy when conflicts arise.”

Citizens also is taking issue with the commissioners’ decision not to hold a public hearing on the revisions before scheduling a final vote, and the absence of a document that shows the changes side-by-side with the original growth policy language.

“For the first time in my memory, the county is not providing a copy of the changes being made,” said Mayre Flowers, executive director for Citizens for a Better Flathead.

County Planning Director BJ Grieve said it was just too complicated and confusing to do such a comparison because of the extent of the changes.

“With an update of a large document like this, having literally thousands of pages of document online showing all revisions made in multiple draft versions of multiple chapters over 29 public workshops is terribly confusing, even for the Planning Board and staff who are in the middle of it,” Grieve said.

The final draft lists a number of requirements that must be met in land-use regulations “because of the increasing emphasis by the Montana courts on the ‘regulatory’ nature of growth policies.”

Among the property rights included in the update is the premise that “all landowners will receive fair and equal treatment during their interaction with the county and during the review and processing of all land use applications.”

In addition to the property owners bill of rights, a new chapter on gravel resources and a user’s manual are among the key changes to the nonregulatory document.

Flowers contended that when the commissioners passed a resolution calling for a growth policy update, the intent was to freshen demographic and economic data. Over a 16-month process, that was done, and after a public hearing in February, the proposed revisions “looked reasonable,” she said.

Then the Planning Board held further work sessions and “started to strip out policies,” with just one public hearing in June to consider substantive changes.

Because the growth policy is a “vision document,” if the changes involve more than just a basic update, there needs to be comprehensive outreach, Flowers maintained.

“The process has not been open and transparent and engaging of the broader public,” she said.

Margaret Davis of Lakeside wrote to the commissioners saying the insertion of a “politically charged section of property rights into the proposed 2012 growth policy update is a gratuitous slap in the face to those who worked on the first version of the policy and its 2012 update.

“In an area that has suffered profound economic consequences from the recession, the opportunity to re-assess growth and land use is well-timed,” Davis said. “With the loss of 5,000 jobs in the past five years, the county will be best served by a document that is readily understood, forward-looking, well-written, and sympathetic with all the attributes and resources of the area.”

Helen Pilling of Kila asked the commissioners to “please place the collective welfare of the community and current and future residents above the property rights and profits of those developing our values.

“Look into the future; just because the economic situation is meek now, it is time to be strong in our protective policies and not skimp on them for money now,” Pilling said. “This bit of paradise doesn’t need more pavement.”

Debbie Biolo of Whitefish took issue with the Citizens effort, calling it “canned opposition” to “changes that were worked on over many hours of authentic process.

“This is manipulation of authentic public process and should be considered as such,” Biolo wrote.

Russ Crowder, chairman of the American Dream Montana property-rights group, also criticized Citizens for a Better Flathead’s letter-writing effort and encouraged the commissioners to adopt the Planning Board’s recommendation to approve the growth policy update.

“Given the Montana State Supreme Court’s recent finding that growth policies and their amendments (neighborhood plans) are now ‘regulatory’ — zoning without using the ‘Z’ word — we would expect nothing less from anti-property rights ‘fringe’ groups like these when meaningful property-rights protections for county property owners are proposed as an addition to the county’s growth policy,” Crowder said in his letter.

“These amendments to the county growth policy that are before you represent the firm belief and conviction of the ‘majority’ of county property owners that property rights are important and worth protecting throughout the county’s planning process.”

Jeff Larsen, a Planning Board member who helped draft the changes, wrote that he is “especially in favor of the property-rights section because it respects a long-standing custom and culture that honors and protects private property rights.”

Written comments may be submitted to the commissioners until 5 p.m. Monday.

The final draft can be found at http://flathead.mt.gov; go to the Planning and Zoning Department and click on the growth policy link.

A final vote on the growth policy changes has not yet been scheduled.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.