Is It Time for County-Wide Zoning? Would It Win a Referendum Vote?

by jhwygirl

With the approval of the Rattlesnake’s Sonata subdivision last night, and today’s hearing before the Board of County Commissioners regarding JTL’s proposed gravel pit-across-the-street-from-another-gravel pit up near Lolo (the only thing that can stop that is zoning), I’ve been thinking for the last few days about how long it would be before we got county-wide zoning.

How many lawsuits will the county have to defend?

How much of Plum Creek Timberlands’ lands will be subdivided before we zone?

I spoke with a Ravalli County planner today. They are on-schedule for county-wide zoning by this time next year. Same with their streamside setback regulations.

County-wide zoning for Ravalli is the brainchild of a group of citizens who got sick and tired of unregulated growth and sprawl. They repeatedly went to the county commissioners requesting that zoning be undertaken, to no avail. Frustrated, they collected signatures to force a referendum vote, and last November a referendum was approved which enacted emergency interim zoning and required the county to adopt county-wide zoning.

The project is ambitious. I watch and follow with some amount of awe. Actual planning being done! How amazing!

The planner I spoke with is both excited and exhausted. I was told that they are all working feverishly on the plan – often working until 10 p.m. each night. “It’s not easy,” he/she said, “while a lot of the community is participating, there are, of course, a group of people that simply don’t want it. Period.”

I asked how the “takings” lecture went back about 2 weeks ago. He/she said that the meeting was extremely well-attended – more so than the zoning meetings which are also well-attended. The public was shocked, he/she said, at the information: that streamside setbacks are rarely found to be “takings”- that in order for a takings to occur, property has to be rendered unusable. Simply because you don’t get to do what you want to do isn’t a taking.

~~~~~~~~

It’s really hard to stop sprawl when you can go anywhere and ignore the comprehensive plan and subdivide to 1 acre lots. State law and legal precedent do NOT allow the comprehensive plan to be the sole and only reason for subdivision denial. (I wish that someone would have said that at last night’s Sonata hearing. It wasn’t city council’s fault. Without health, safety or welfare concerns that can’t be mitigated, they really had no legal standing to deny the request.)

Further, in some ways, we’ve got the city and the county working against each other. The city can – and is – working on a zoning rewrite. But without county-wide zoning, we are going to have development all over the place, sprawling traffic and increasing degradation to air quality. (Yeah, did you read that one this weekend?) If you can’t do what you want to in the city or out in the meager zoned county ‘donut’ – go out into the not-so-hinterlands, and go to one-acre lots. They’re hard-pressed to deny, really, in the end. And now probably even more so, considering Richards’ recent filing against the county.

~~~~~~~~

I stopped by our courthouse the other day to inquire what the process was to put a referendum on the ballot. I guess I’m not thinking that the county commissioners would put it there willingly.

A resolution would have to be prepared, presuming that the referendum would pass and the county commissioners would have to sign it. A petition would also have to be prepared. That resolution and petition would be reviewed and approved by the county elections officer and the county attorney. Once approved, roughly 12,000 signatures would have to be gathered in 90 days. The latest those signatures could be submitted would be early in August (so the elections office had time to verify that the signatures were valid.)

I took a poll around the office of both city and county residents – of course, everyone in the city said they would sign the petition. What surprised me was that every county resident, also, said they would sign it.

So I wonder – what do YOU think?

Is it time for county-wide zoning?

Advertisements

  1. Jedediah Redman

    The same crowd who engineered the notion of county wide zoning also engineered the Democratic sweep of the board of County Commissioners.

    I remember when Friends of the Bitterroot engineered an end to clearcutting forests.

    I’m hoping both of these crowds will continue to hold sway; but I keep remembering that the old families–and the good old boys–have yet to be heard from…

  2. I don’t know that Ravalli’s so-called “Democratic sweep” and the county-wide zoning was “engineered”, as you put it.

    I think the citizen’s were fed up with having been ignored. Democrats and Independents in Ravalli have been walked all over for years. They had finally had enough – and spoke. With their ballots.

    Chilcott’s next to go, if the last election was any indication. His conflict-of-interest pro-developer stance to development will make it hard for him to keep his seat.

  3. Robin Carey

    Regarding health, safety issue that would have allowed Council to deny Sonata Park, have you read the paper on pipeline dangers submitted to the record by the group from Bellingham, Washington, detailing the horror story of the Bellingham pipeline break (three children killed) and other accidents like it across the country? Combined with unstable soils and seismic risk in the Sonata area, not to mention new residents drilling holes, it’s a tragedy waiting to happen. Council, b y enlarge, didn’t even bother to read the report.

  4. I’ve seen mansions built on a mountain that is a major fault line that is capable of putting out (and eventually will) an 8.0 earthquake.

    A geotechnical report will come back and tell everyone what needs to be done to build – not that it isn’t buildable. They may have to drill 30 feet down to solid bedrock for foundation support, but it can be done.

    What is the maximum predicted risk? 5.0? Frankly, I was relieved when I moved here because the risk and maximum output was so low.

    That pipeline runs through other subdivisions, no?

    It is a known risk – accepted by the property owner, and will be accepted by others. What danger it poses is there whether there is a subdivision there or not.

    How does the city deny a subdivision because of a pipeline when it’s approved others? I ask that sincerely….

  5. I also ask, really – what is your opinion on county-wide zoning?

  6. Binky Griptight

    Would it pass? The enthusiasm of those in currently unzoned areas would be very telling, even taking the possibility of protests from Plum Ck. out of the question.

    If the majority of Missoula support country-wide zoning and the majority outside of Missoula don’t, then how is the Board of County Commissioners going to respond?

  7. Do you mean city vs. county people? If the majority of votes came from in the city and it passed?

    If it passed, it passes. They BCC would have no choice – the voters would have spoken.

    I guess I’m not sure that those unzoned would vote against. We’ve got mini-metros in Frenchtown, Lolo and Seeley. All of those communities have asked for zoning.

    A good deal out on Mullan might support it – they deal with a whole hell of a lot of traffic. Upper Granite Creek and Nine Mile – they’ll want to preserve what they got. Same with Potomac.

    I don’t know if you could protest it if it were a referendum vote. (darn – where’s goof?)

  8. goof houlihan

    Goof’s getting out of Iraq.

    I’m still puzzling out the zoning by election idea. It doesn’t seem legal to me, but there it is. County zoning is pretty severely legislated in the state law and I’ll have to go back and look it up, it’s been a while. And it’ does have protest provisions but those are geared to a percentage of landowners within a district, whether a 101 or 201 district. My State subdivision and zoning reg books are all 2001–pretty out of date.

    The simple answer to your question, for counties like Missoula, Flathead or Gallatin, even Broadwater or Madison, is “YES”. Big time. Zoning, and impact fees that are based on proximity to the population centers, both are needed to give us any chance of preserving the reasons our counties are special.

    It couldn’t be like “emergency zoning”, I’m pretty sure.

  9. JC

    For a County-wide referendum vote, would only the residents outside of Missoula city get to vote, as most everything within the City is zoned? Or will all residents get to vote? Otherwise we end up with the situation of a huge majority of Missoula City residents voting to zone the minority, out-of-city residents in the County. Rather dictatorial. And I don’t think that will bode well for a civil election, and could lead to a lot of potential for litigation if the law is murky enough about this issue.

    While I support County-wide zoning, I see Missoula City/County in a much different way than I see the Bitterroot with its much different rural/city character. There is no one city in the Bitterroot to sway an election like there is in Missoula.

  10. Goof’s out of Iraq. I love it. :-)

    JC – a county-wide referendum would be put before all of the county. That does include city dwellers.

    Now, in the Bitterroot, there are some (mostly the Darby area) that are less than pleased. I don’t know the results of the referendum. Maybe I should go and look it up.

    As I mentioned above, regarding City/County – and what you refer to – We’ve got mini-metro areas: Frenchtown, Seeley, and Lolo. Between Frenchtown and the city and between Lolo and the city we’ve got suburbmania, little or no different from living in suburbs of Denver or Chicago or Seattle.

    That will make people bristle, I know – but that really is the reality. Open the eyes, I say. A whole bunch of that mini-metro area and suburbmania in between is unzoned.

    So would a favorable vote for county-wide zoning in a referendum be the city pushing their will on the majority of Missoulians? In amount of land, yep – but a vote is by the number of voters – and in this case, I’m preliminarily saying that I think that the majority of voters in the county would vote “yes.”

    Would like to figure out about protests – if the whole county is zoned at one time, via referendum, is there the ability of a protest? And how does it work?

  11. goof houlihan

    As I’ve said before, I don’t believe there can be county zoning by election. Ravalli county might’ve enacted emergency zoning as the result of a referendum, but unless somebody can show me the statute that provides authority for zoning by commission, I’d guess there isn’t one. Here are the two methods for county zoning that I know of:

    76-2-201. County zoning authorized. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a board of county commissioners that has adopted a growth policy pursuant to chapter 1 is authorized to adopt zoning regulations for all or parts of the jurisdictional area in accordance with the provisions of this part

    2-101. Planning and zoning commission and district. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5), whenever the public interest or convenience may require and upon petition of 60% of the affected freeholders, the board of county commissioners may create a planning and zoning district and appoint a planning and zoning commission consisting of seven members

    Also as I said, “freeholders”, that is property owners, not voters, are allowed to protest the zoning. The one process is very much landowner driven, not voter at all. The second process, “top down” zoning, is the statute that would give county commissioners the authority to zone all unzoned county areas.

    There is no “zoning by referendum” jhwygirl, that I can find in Montana statute.

  12. goof houlihan

    thats “authority for zoning by election” not by commission, in the first pp. The county commission has sole authority for creating zoning within the county, except as authorized for municipalities.

  13. goof houlihan

    More of title 76

    Procedure for adoption of regulations and boundaries. The board of county commissioners shall observe the following procedures in the establishment or revision of boundaries for zoning districts and in the adoption or amendment of zoning regulations:
    (1) Notice of a public hearing on the proposed zoning district boundaries and of regulations for the zoning district must be published once a week for 2 weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the county. The notice must state:
    (a) the boundaries of the proposed district;
    (b) the general character of the proposed zoning regulations;
    (c) the time and place of the public hearing;
    (d) that the proposed zoning regulations are on file for public inspection at the office of the county clerk and recorder.
    (2) At the public hearing, the board of county commissioners shall give the public an opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed zoning district and regulations.
    (3) After the public hearing, the board of county commissioners shall review the proposals of the planning board and shall make any revisions or amendments that it determines to be proper.
    (4) The board of county commissioners may pass a resolution of intention to create a zoning district and to adopt zoning regulations for the district.
    (5) The board of county commissioners shall publish notice of passage of the resolution of intention once a week for 2 weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the county. The notice must state:
    (a) the boundaries of the proposed district;
    (b) the general character of the proposed zoning regulations;
    (c) that the proposed zoning regulations are on file for public inspection at the office of the county clerk and recorder;
    (d) that for 30 days after first publication of this notice, the board of county commissioners will receive written protests to the creation of the zoning district or to the zoning regulations from persons owning real property within the district whose names appear on the last-completed assessment roll of the county.
    (6) Within 30 days after the expiration of the protest period, the board of county commissioners may in its discretion adopt the resolution creating the zoning district or establishing the zoning regulations for the district. However, if 40% of the freeholders within the district whose names appear on the last-completed assessment roll or if freeholders representing 50% of the titled property ownership whose property is taxed for agricultural purposes under 15-7-202 or whose property is taxed as forest land under Title 15, chapter 44, part 1, have protested the establishment of the district or adoption of the regulations, the board of county commissioners may not adopt the resolution and a further zoning resolution may not be proposed for the district for a period of 1 year.

  14. goof houlihan

    on a related note, will english ever get a singular gender neutral pronoun? Can we make one up?

  15. jhwygirl

    Ravalli’s referendum required the county to adopt county-wide zoning. So they are going through the zoning process now.

    I wholeheartedly agree – we really do need a singular gender-neutral pronoun.

    Maybe I should dig around today and try and find the wording on it.

    Real curious about the protest possibilities…

  16. goof houlihan

    I think that’s part of why I doubt Ravalli’s actions will survive it’s legal challenges. I have talked to people who are suing them.

    The statute requires protest. The referendum is treated as a binding emergency zoning, when really, it’s the commission who used an advisory referendum to put in emergency zoning.

  17. goof houlihan

    you can email me on it and we can discuss the issues if you’d like

    the referendum required emergency zoning and wasn’t “advisory” as I said before, but even so, it’s got some challengeable provisions.

    I wouldn’t want to do it that way.

  18. on a related note, will english ever get a singular gender neutral pronoun? Can we make one up?

    Er…how about this? “It“! It’s all the rage down at the skate park…

  19. jhwygirl

    Jay! :-( Put “it” in one of my sentences: “It’s not easy,” it said, “while a lot of the community is participating, there are, of course, a group of people that simply don’t want it. Period.”

    Do you think that works?

  20. I don’t have much to contribute to this discussion concerning the legalities and political saliency of introducing county-wide zoning. Just to express my agreement that zoning really needs to be done at a regional level to have much of an effect on many of the things that we value about Missoula.

    I’m glad that you are banging the drum about this. Before it’s too late to do much.

  21. So how would a ballot measure like that work, anyway? Just a single default zoning for all unzoned areas? Or a whole complex scheme? Seems like that could get crazy.

  22. jhwygirl

    Those guys that were suing Ravalli got bad news the other day goof.

  23. Put “it” in one of my sentences: “It’s not easy,” it said, “while a lot of the community is participating, there are, of course, a group of people that simply don’t want it. Period.”

    I was just responding to goof’s plea!

    As a former editor and proofreader, the correct usage would be to use a gender neutral noun:

    “It’s not easy,” said my source…”

    Etc. Specific language is always a welcome panecea to our language’s ambiguities…

    : )

  24. Jim Lang

    Why a referendum? Why not lobby the Commissioners? Are they all dead set against county wide zoning or something?

  25. Jay, your skills as a former editor and proofreader show.

    Carol – Ravalli did a 2 per acre density zoning. Really wasn’t the best wording, and caused some (did I say “some”?) discord before it all got settled out.

    I’m not sure what I’m thinking – would there be a referendum that merely requires the county to implement county-wide zoning? Would it include some interim emergency zoning measure? Could it be interim zoning based on the comprehensive plans?

    Seems like everyone wants everything denied because it “doesn’t meet the comprehensive plan.” I do see relying more on the comp plan – if the referendum were to include interim zoning – is better than attempting something based on density. Having seen the problems that it caused in Ravalli, you’d have to write book of a referendum, and that certainly wouldn’t be good.

    What has/is occurred in Ravalli is that subdivision development has slowed down and everyone is now at the table – everyone with essentially the same goal – to protect their property rights and property values. There’s a thousand different views as to what that means – but nonetheless, the goals are essentially the same.

    I just don’t think that we should continue to have everyone griping about traffic and sprawl and growth and not do anything about it. Saying that, for example, what I propose is ludicrous (and I’m not saying that you said that) isn’t productive unless you (or anyone) offer some other solution.

    I guess I’m hoping we (Missoula) would quit bitching and complaining and saying “no” to everything and start seeking and suggesting solutions.

    It’s gotta start somewhere.

  26. Ed Childers

    Grammar stuff:
    “it’s” is a contraction for “it is.” Never use “it’s” to indicate possession.
    The possessive is “its.”
    Whose is it?
    It’s its.
    Hey, you started it.
    Now, regarding the nasty singular gender neutral pronoun, Everybody Should Do It Like This:
    When a person wants to use a singular gender neutral pronoun, they should simply use “they.”
    See how that works? “They” is fine for singular or plural; it’s been used that way for centuries until, quite recently, probably during the early era of Political Correctness, an unoccupied English teacher invented the grotesque conconction “he/she.”
    Countywide Zoning would be far more controversial. :)

  27. Again, from the depths of my editorial experience, “they” is sloppy and imprecise. I’d also recommend against using “one.” Sounds…I dunno…un-good.

    If you’re giving instructions, it’s now common to use the second person. “Press the Enter key to execute the comments. You can find the key near the right edge of your keyboard.”

    Or, using Ed’s example, a better way to say it would be: “If you want to use a singular gender neutral pronoun, simply use the second person.” That way you won’t be juggling between the contradictory “a person” and “they” and the singular/plural composition of their associated verbs, which is confusing.

    If, as in j-girl’s case, you’re referring to a specific person of unknown gender (here due to anonymity), use specific nouns. “My source said,” or “the city planner thought.” It may feel awkward writing it, but it’s a pleasure to read.

  28. Jedediah Redman

    I’m way over my head here; but I agree that they is necessarily inexact; but I disagree that one is too clunky.
    To the contrary it seems more contrived to me if one were to always resort to three or more words when one would serve very well…

  29. goof houlihan

    One gets quite uppity sounding referring to one’s self in the, quite possessive, third person.

    Okay, you didn’t email me, but I do know quite a bit about the news, good and bad out of Ravalli county.

    Carol, I seriously doubt zoning can be put in place by election. It wasn’t in Ravalli county. What happened was that emergency zoning was considered and turned down by the commission of that county.

    A referendum was petitioned onto the ballot overturning that decision and the commission was forced to adopt emergency zoning, even though their findings didn’t support it…ahem. There are some substantial issues that have not been addressed yet as the legal processes go on, but suffice it to say, you can’t protest emergency zoning. I doubt you can make it retroactive, either, btw.

    I’m not going to get into any of the lawsuits, which are many and from both sides. However, it’s not “the developers got stuffed in the court and that’s it” at all.

    I will get into this: the emergency zoning, and the lawsuits and the settlements, are all somewhat to very iffy. However, the county is working on the zoning ordinance, which will have to go through the processes above, with the hearings, and the findings and the protest period, and the very specific conditions and considerations required of zoning. It will be subject to protest by the freeholders. It has to consider all the things that any zoning district must, and cannot be “two units per acre everywhere”.

    The emergency zoning lasts two years.

    As for my illegal use of “it’s”; it’s a speed typing while feeling guilty faux pas.

    But I’ve got my two years of A’s in grammar eye on you now, Ed.

  30. goof houlihan

    Oh, and Jim Lang, you’ve got it right. The commissioners should do it.

  31. goof houlihan

    And jhwygirl, I wanted to correctly sequence the events so you’d know how tough it would be to do something like this in Missoula county. Jim’s right; get it done with the commission.

  32. Nothing I wrote, goof, said the referendum “zoned” the county – I said it required the county to adopt zoning. It’s what I’m suggesting might be what’s needed in Missoula – the county to adopt county-wide zoning. I wasn’t insinuating that they just get up there and declare the county zoned. As you’ve noted, there is a process, of which I’m intimately aware.

    The “two units everywhere” was whack.

    But I do think that our county commissioners would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to even consider county-wide zoning – thus the petition and referendum suggestion.

    Good luck with that eye on Ed – he used to teach English, if I recall.

  33. I know the sequence events goof – when I said “adopt” I was completely aware of all that it takes….

    The commissioners are far more willing to put a $20 million dollar bond before the citizens for a PAC than they would be to put a referendum on the ballot to see whether the citizens of this county would support a county-wide zoning attempt.

    Thus the petitioned referendum suggestion.

  34. goof houlihan

    See, that’s what I’m saying. It didn’t happen that way in Ravalli, and it doesn’t have to happen that way in Missoula.

    Never mind the referendum. It’s a path full of land mines.

    Remember, we both support county wide zoning.

  35. goof houlihan

    The Ravalli referendum challenged a previous commission decision to not adopt emergency zoning. See that distinction from what you are saying? Has the Missoula commission done that?

  36. The emergency zoning was whack. I’ve said that. I can’t think of any health, safety or welfare situation that would justify zoning the whole county – interim or emergency – at 2 per acre. It created a mess.

    No one’s asked the BCC to do that – I don’t know that anyone would.

    We have everyone who complains about a subdivision – seems to be pretty common – saying it doesn’t comply with the comp plan.

    They’re right. A lot don’t. But they also don’t need to – they’re unzoned. My proposal is to, by petitioned referendum, to either just require the county to proceed with adopting county-wide regulations OR to pair that up with interim zoning that is based on something. I pondered, above, it that second part was necessary.

    You know our BCC – do YOU think that if a group of citizens went to them and asked them to either (a) put a measure on the ballot requiring the county to adopt county-wide zoning, or (b) simply begin procedures to adopt county-wide zoning, that they’d do it?

  37. Is a referendum that does just (a) above a pathful of landmines?

  38. goof houlihan

    Well, I’m puzzled. Would a commission opposed to county wide zoning put a referendum legislating county wide zoning on the ballot? I don’t think so. So you’re back to implementing emergency zoning by petitioned referendum.

    Check out Ravalli’s sequence again. the commission refused. Then a petitioned referendum DID legislate emergency zoning. (I’m sorry I confused you and myself earlier, way way back, I was wrong about the advisory nature, the referendum did the legislating that the commissioners wouldn’t do.) So it went, commissioners say no to emergency zoning, referendum says yes. Commission forced to implement the emergency zoning. Gets sued, settles. Settlement challenged by lawsuit. Sued over implementation, too. Meanwhile, commission begins a county wide zoning ordinance.

    I’m gonna say it again, Skip all except the last sentence.

    I think you need two commissioners to zone. No matter what. Count to two.

    I only know one of the county commissioners and yes I do think that one commissioner would zone. You need to either convince one other, or elect one other. What’s the need of a referendum at that point?

    If you can pass a referendum, you can elect a commissioner.

    I know you feel a sense of immediacy. All of us in fast growing counties feel it. Maybe Ravalli has shown us the way, but then, I still don’t think they’re out of the legal woods.

    Anyway, that Ed will slip someday, and I’ll get him. ;-)

  39. So you’re back to implementing emergency zoning by petitioned referendum.

    I see two options presented – one to merely require a county-wide zoning process, the other to pair it with some call for interim zoning (with some parameters, and I’ve suggested the parameter be based on the comp plan densities).

    You have a somewhat valid point with elections, I guess…but they seem to vote in a block if they all can’t agree (at least to me) – they rarely go 2-1. That being said, now might be the time to “bite” on that method, given it’s Larry Anderson who will be running. I don’t think he’d be a “yea” vote on zoning.

    Ed better watch out!

  40. Ed Childers

    First, for our grammar quotient, here’s a response to

    “…but I agree that they is necessarily inexact; but I disagree that one is too clunky.”

    Disagreement is the norm.
    Here’s some other info that might be interesting to a grammar geek, if their interest has not flagged. :)
    Grammar Girl’s take on “they”
    they
    Bartleby on “they”
    they
    Oh: I’ve never taught English. I am a product of the UM creative writing program 1965-1971. Kittridge, Crumley, Ganz, (used to be) Sister Madeline deFrees, Lois Welch.

    Now to the countywide zoning issue, about which I know remarkably little, so here goes.
    Countywide zoning is a great idea. Once property gets zoned, everybody knows just what to expect.
    Sort of. Some of the time.
    In the county, a legal protest stops a zoning proposal. Unlike in the city, there’s no provision for a supermajority override of a protest.
    In another thread, there’s a good quote from a Missoulian article about Plum Creek’s place in the zoning puzzle. Its place is this: Plum Creek gets whatever Plum Creek wants.
    Zoning is an agreement among landowners. If a zoning scheme is not mutually beneficial, agreement is problematic at best.
    The Government can only get away with as much as people let it. Locally, at any rate.

  41. Hey, EC, I didn’t realize you were a writing program product, too! Dang. So there still is hope of respectability, eh?

    As for the “they” usage, you know in which camp I fall, heh heh. I always was a populist.

  42. goof houlihan

    Again, I don’t know if you can “require”. You can legislate with a referendum, that is, adopt emergency zoning. I doubt you can legislate regular zoning, because of the need to consider all the variables, etc. It’s all legalese-d up and that’s the rub.

    “Within 30 days after the expiration of the protest period, the board of county commissioners may in its discretion adopt the resolution creating the zoning district or establishing the zoning regulations for the district. However, if 40% of the freeholders within the district whose names appear on the last-completed assessment roll or if freeholders representing 50% of the titled property ownership whose property is taxed for agricultural purposes under 15-7-202 or whose property is taxed as forest land under Title 15, chapter 44, part 1, have protested the establishment of the district or adoption of the regulations, the board of county commissioners may not adopt the resolution and a further zoning resolution may not be proposed for the district for a period of 1 year.

    There’s the Plum Creek problem: 50% of the land taxed as forest land in the district gets veto power.

  43. Ed Childers

    If folks’ intention is to apply zoning of some sort to Plum Creek’s land, they’d need to discover PC’s intention and wangle some zoning PC would like.
    Failing that, it might be possible to zone all the rest of the county. That’s assuming a scheme can be developed that more or less fits everyone’s needs.

  44. Ed Childers

    Jay: indeed, I may some day become respectable!

  45. TMM

    Jay,
    One wonders what he/she would think if your grammarian was unsure of it’s facts; I think they would disagree. Me? I’d just call ’em all bastards, that way you can offend everybody equally ;)

  46. See? There you go! You’re with me, TMM, you prefer specific languate to anonymous pronouns! If it’s a bastard yer talkin’ about, call that bastard a bastard and have done with it!

  47. Ed Childers

    Kudos to TMM. I’ll work on implementing his/her solution! :)

  1. 1 All I want for Christmas is (are) … « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] Is It Time for County-Wide Zoning? Would It Win a Referendum Vote? […]

  2. 2 County Takes Up Interim Zoning (Again) in Lolo « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] honestly, why bother? I say that, please note, as someone who has wholeheartedly supported county-wide […]




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,670,114 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,738 other followers

  • December 2007
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov   Jan »
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: