Letters to the editor - July 11
Firework fanatics
Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776:
“… ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”
Fireworks have been an integral part of Independence Day celebrations from the beginning. From the outset, no less than John Adams stated that fireworks (illuminations) would be part of the celebrations. These brilliant, beautiful displays are indeed a favorite of many Americans, including me. However, I believe that there needs to be more regulation as to the personal use of such incendiary devices. More strict bans, such as those seen in larger cities and towns throughout Montana ought to be mandated here in the Mission Valley.
There are many well organized and highly entertaining fireworks displays put on by communities throughout the valley. I see no reason or need for individual citizens to have large mortar type explosives, nor for them to be set off in a residential street. The potential for disaster, not just to the persons setting off the explosives, but also to their neighbors is far too great. And while the ideals behind these celebrations are the very freedoms we have as American citizens, let us not forget that your individual freedoms end where mine begin. Let us leave the fantastic light show to the professionals. God Bless America!
Caroline Hanke
Polson
Taxation without representation
“Taxation without Representation” was the cause of the American Revolution. Yet, the Polson City Council has done essentially the same thing by their unilateral and unanimous approval of the dock and walkway projects connecting Sacajawea and Riverside Parks. What makes this decision even more concerning is that both of these areas had to be designated as “blighted” in order to secure the $900,000 of funding that now the people of Polson will bear the burden to repay plus interest, of course. Where is this blight? I fail to see it. The council chose to place Polson dwellers on-the-hook for that amount of money without a public vote by a process called Tax Incremental Financing (TIF). TIF is a way to immediately assess new taxes on so-called blighted areas in anticipation of their future improved value. What other future TIF projects are in the offing by the Polson government remain to be seen. Hopefully they will ask us next time, and that request will be in the form of a ballot box vote after all issues have been fully aired.
Both the recent tax burdens of the aquatic center and gymnasium roof were voted on by the people; an informed decision was made in both of these cases. However, the levying of unfair and new multiyear taxes for the dock/walkway project is nothing short of outrageous. Despite the objections voiced by concerned citizens about this project, it was passed unanimously. This action is much worse than taxation without representation. It is taxation with dictatorial representation. Are our elected and appointed officials truly representing the will of the people who are their employers? This is a question whose only acceptable answer should be yes, but now seems doubtful.
Steven Palmieri
Polson
DNRC Disclaimer
Live off the Rez? Not worried about Reserved water rights? Well the DNRC is, as you may read below.
“This right is subject to all prior Indian reserved water rights of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in the source of supply. It is the Tribe’s position that the exercise of junior water rights either within or outside of the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation may affect the reserved water rights of the Tribe within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation. It is the Tribe’s position that the economic investments made in reliance upon this right do not create in the appropriator any equity or vested right against the Tribes. The appropriator is hereby notified that any financial outlay or work invested in a project pursuant to this right is at appropriator’s risk. The issuance of this right does not reduce the appropriator’s liability for damage caused by the exercise of the right. It does not make the Department liable for damage caused by the exercise of the right nor is the Department liable for any loss to the appropriator caused by the exercise of senior reserved water rights.”
No, this is not on the Rez. This is what appears on a water right transfer off the Rez . You can find it on the DNRC web site. Or the Western Montana Water Rights web site. [http://westernmtwaterrights.wordpress.com]
First line: We are talking about reserved water rights, not treaty or aboriginal rights. Reserved rights are strictly on the Rez. How did the reserved rights get off the Rez, to which your transferred rights are “subject to”? There is no law or ruling defining reserved rights off the Rez, any Rez - see the Bilodeau Analysis.
Second line: “ ... the exercise of junior water rights either within or outside of the exterior boundaries ...” that would seem to include, among others, upper Flathead basin, Hungry Horse, etc. Surface or ground water? As the Tribe makes no distinction between surface and ground, most likely both. Do you have senior rights ... or thought you had? As evidenced and reinforced by the DNRC, you just may be junior. Again, “... outside the exterior boundaries...”
Read it again. At your risk, without recourse. Not even through the DNRC / Water Court. Does this affect the property values? If you are grandfathered in without the above phraseology, what’s your property’s new value without the “grandfather”. Dumb buyer will never know. Nervous sellers will disclose. Or will they? Realtors beware.
It this strictly for the Flathead? That’s not where it first occurred. Another county. Not Lake. Please be aware.
Christopher Chavasse
Ronan