Letters to the editor March 22

Facts matter

I write in response to Mickale Carter’s letter about Judge Amy Eddy. I am recently retired after spending 29 years practicing family law here in Flathead County. I have never met Ms. Carter, but her description of Judge Eddy’s treatment of her and her client in a contested custody case was so unlike any of my experiences, I felt compelled to review the case records. Ms. Carter left out some facts, and in a courtroom facts matter.

When the child was seven months of age the mother was granted a temporary order of protection from Judge Allison after the father, Ms. Carter’s client, “threatened to smash (her) head against the pavement.” Two years later, after the father was arrested for assault with a weapon and citing his history of threats and violent behavior, the mother filed for divorce and requested that the father have supervised visitation for the safety of the child.

Neither party had lawyers, so Judge Eddy referred them to the court’s Early Resolution and Mediation Program where attorneys and mediators are provided free of charge. Unable to qualify for the program, likely due to the father’s history of violence, Judge Eddy then referred them to the court’s Family Court Services to do an investigation and make recommendations. Family Court Services recommended supervised visitation, which Judge Eddy ordered pending trial. 

Ms. Carter then become involved. In the course of a courtroom proceeding she interrupted Judge Eddy and also argued that the court’s decision — which adhered to the recommendation of the investigators — was of the sort that should only be given to a pedophile. At that juncture, Judge Eddy appropriately informed Ms. Carter that her statement was out-of-bounds (“beyond the pale”) and urged all parties to conduct themselves in a manner suited to the best interests of the child. A transcript of the hearing is part of the pubic record and you can read it. It reveals Judge Eddy’s exceptional professionalism. 

I have appeared in hundreds of court hearings before many judges, including Judge Eddy. She has always treated the parties and lawyers with respect, and she always kept the best interest of the children foremost when their parents could not agree. She has my unequivocal vote for the Montana Supreme Court.   

— Mary S. Obermiller, Lakeside

Patriotism

It seems there is some confusion among a number of Inter Lake editorial contributors around the definition of patriotism. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined it as, “the passion which aims to serve one’s country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity.” 

Wikipedia defines it as, “Patriotism is the emotional attachment, love and devotion to one’s country, often characterized by a willingness to serve, protect and improve it. It fosters national unity and civic pride without necessarily asserting superiority over other nations. Common examples include voting, paying taxes, serving in the military, waving the flag, and upholding civic values.”

It does not mean (at least by my reading) that anyone who disagrees with my opinion is not patriotic. Our whole nation is founded on the ideal of civic debate. 

When letter writer David Myerowitz proclaims that about anyone who disagrees with the recent attack on Iran, he is asserting that over 50% of our citizens are suddenly unpatriotic. The minute we are precluded from having differing opinions then we have destroyed the very essence of what the founding fathers most valued in our democracy. I am certainly not the arbiter of who is or is not patriotic, a Republican, a devoted Montanan, etc. And neither is anyone else.  

All of us should make our arguments, debate the details and live with the results of elections, as adjudicated by elected officials and validated by the courts. Stop the name-calling, demonization and trolling. Most of all, stop calling for people to go back from whence they came if they don’t like it. 

My family got to America with the early puritans, to Montana five generations ago — and there were already folks here. I don’t have any claim for special privilege because we got here earlier than most and neither does anyone else. As long as people come in legally and follow the law, no one has the right to say otherwise.

— Bob Lopp Jr., Kalispell

Public comment

Kalispell Councilman Jed Fisher’s recent comments about the lack of public participation regarding the new land use plan raises the question. Why?

Residents on the west side of Kalispell have already seen that public comment is a wasted effort.  A neighbor recently said, “there’s nothing we can do.” It seems he’s probably right. The plan is already finished. The only result of public input will be to allow Council to say that they heard from the people.  Yes, they listen politely but they don’t hear.

In the recent past, a housing development, Spring Creek Park, was up for consideration. The land was zoned for single-family housing. At the time, housing in the area was all single family. The approval required zoning changes for high-density housing. It allowed for townhouses requiring a height exception to 40 feet and over 400 high-density apartment buildings with an exception to a 45 foot height. 

If I recall, the only testimony favoring the development was from a representative of the developer.  

The result? Approved.

Another large development along Two Mile Drive received a plethora of negative comments from the nearby community. The response from the Planning Commission was a lecture regarding meaningful comment.

The result? Approved.

On Monday, before the public hearing, the Daily Inter Lake reported that Council had “tentatively agreed to allow four-plexes in all residential zones, despite staff warnings that the change would not be received well by the public.”

The same article indicates that the “councilors have completed their review.”

On Wednesday the Daily Inter Lake reported public comment requesting that an area within the city’s planning boundary used as a migration stopover for migrating sandhill cranes be excluded from development. In addition, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks expressed their concern and recommendations. This apparently conflicted with “the plan” and city staff subsequently recommended against removing the area.

Public comment is wasted when the Kalispell Council has already made up their minds. Mr. Fisher, give the public some credit for not wasting their valuable time.

I’m sure that the council is celebrating  the new regulations regarding public comment about specific new developments.  

— William Etter, Kalispell