Month: November 2019

by William Skink

Letters to the editor making specious claims about the South Avenue Bridge that WILL eventually replace the “functionally obsolete” Maclay Bridge continue trickling in.

Thankfully, letters countering the bullshit are also getting written up and submitted.

For example, when Sharon Sterbis made the claim that “a new South Avenue bridge could also cost Missoula County Millions,” Bridget Johnson replied with this:

Sharon Sterbis’s recent letter claimed “a new South Avenue bridge could also cost Missoula County Millions.” She cites an Oct. 11 County Public Works meeting that she did not attend. If she had been there (or read the notes), she would have heard (as I did) Shane Stack and Erik Dickson explain 1. their cost estimates are rough numbers, and would be lower if work is done by the county instead of contractors; 2. South Avenue improvements have many potential funding sources without increasing county property taxes.

Johnson lists the many funding sources, then closes with this:

Bottom line: Her claim South Avenue improvements will increase taxes is groundless. But there is a very real threat of large property tax increases if the county abandons the South Avenue Bridge project.

The small group of obstructionists (enabled by Commissioner Dave) who have been waging this decades long fight aren’t just using a deceitful numbers game to drive people into opposing a new bridge at South Avenue. No, they’re also speculating that a dirge of Bitterroot traffic could start using this as a bypass for the Reserve/highway 93 intersection. Here is a good letter countering that line of bullshit:

I read with interest the (Nov. 20) letter submitted by John Shafer of Superior regarding the South Avenue bridge. It is obvious that he has never driven the “shortcut” he refers to.

As a former resident of the Big Flat for over 50 years, I believe that I am qualified to comment on the road in question. The road from 93 to the new bridge site is windy, narrow, and without a complete rebuild requiring substantial removal of Blue Mountain, cannot be improved. Not to mention the irrigation ditch which has an absolute right of way on the mountain side of the road.

Anybody taking this “shortcut” would face at least five right angle corners in addition to the above mentioned problems. Believe me, it will never be a commuter solution for the Bitterroot.

Instead, we have a small group of people who built in the path of the new bridge, knowing that the bridge was in the works, who are handing out a campaign of disinformation in an attempt to scuttle a very worthwhile project for the hundreds of people living in O’Brien Creek and on the Big Flat who will benefit from the new bridge.

Maybe you don’t care that a retired civil structural engineer thinks those of us using this bridge could take a cold dive at any moment, or that Commissioner Dave has a dubious role in stalling for these obstructionists, but anyone reading this does care about money–we have no choice on that–so if you think giving back a million dollars in federal funding and adding a rough estimate of 15 million the County will have to find to rehab Maclay bridge, well, those are real dollars that have to come from some where and we know where that ends up being.

In my hotter moments I envision personally delivering a door-to-door survey to this little Missoula enclave at the end of South Avenue in order to better ascertain how far they are willing to go in order to disregard the established, goddamn-evidence-based reality that a bridge is going to be built there, and soon, before something bad happens.

To be continued…

by William Skink

I thought it was a joke.

Meth. We’re on it is a new ad campaign recently launched by South Dakota Governor, Kristi Noem.

I am trying to wrap my head around the fact multiple people were involved in developing this ad campaign and no one stepped back and said, hey, wait a minute, aren’t people going to immediately start making fun of this like we’re saying these people are actually on meth?

Literally any thing else would be a better ad than this.

How about FUCK METH! Be edgy, get people’s attention. Or how about a play on the brilliant OK, BOOMER thing going around (which I tried out on old Pete Talbot and it seemed to be quite effective).

A blunder like this has real consequences. Why? Let’s start with the fact actual money was spent on this bullshit, tax money. No entity that provides treatment anywhere in this country has all the funds it needs to treat the amount of people who need help.

And THAT is what you need to be spending money on in a drug crisis–TREATMENT!

Am I making myself heard?

In Montana it’s the same thing, cuts to services, then political grandstanding about the resulting worsening of the crisis. This is where Montana Republicans leave their fiscal conservative bonafides at the door. They are willing to spend more money on government if it means paying for something like a drug test.

Any money spent on ads has proven to be a waste of time. Along those lines, a recent post at MP caught my eye about the Montana Meth Project.

The post has good information, despite being a set-up to go after Tim Fox as he runs for Governor. Check it out.

As for the meth, I think it was Nancy who said JUST SAY NO.

How’d that work out?

by William Skink

Claire Thompson, an environmental studies grad student, has penned a great op-ed that appeared in the Missoulian earlier this week. Thompson offers some critical pushback against the trend of pitching outdoor recreation opportunities as a recruiting tool for bringing tech jobs to Missoula.

Here’s an example of the boosterism local media, like Montana Public Radio, is offering tech sages:

“There’s a very strong (return on investment) on someone that makes a software developer’s salary, in terms of the houses that they buy (and how it) increases (the) taxable base,” Evan Tipton, the founder of a local digital-marketing agency told MTPR.

After quoting this statement, Thompson goes on to voice her concerns:

I waited for the follow-up about Missoula’s affordable-housing pressure and homeless crisis, and the shortage of living-wage jobs for Montanans without a white-collar, tech-focused skill set, but it never came. Tipton’s statement sounded like a celebration of displacement.”

Thompson continues:

Attracting out-of-state talent to high-paying positions does increase our tax base, and it can benefit local businesses, especially those selling high-end outdoor gear and other trappings of the lifestyle these potential employees seek. But a single-minded focus on growing Montana’s the industry, if not accompanied by a long-range strategy to both expand affordable housing and manage increased impact on natural resources, harms Montanans who do not directly benefit from a comfortable tech salary.

Last week there were three articles from the Missoula Current about homelessness in Missoula. The common thread in the articles is Missoula County’s inability to do anything about the dozens and dozens of people living in vehicles and fifth wheels and tents around the County, like in East Missoula:

“This is a problem we’ve been working on for over three years now, at least,” said Lee Bridges, chair of the East Missoula Community Council. “I’ve got emails from 2016 about homeless people camping in the public right of way adjacent to Hellgate Canyon Storage, and it has become a mounting problem over the years.”

Kristi Lawrence, owner of Hellgate Canyon, said overnight campers often occupy the right of way outside the storage facility. Some have abandoned their vehicle or taken up long-term residence by placing trailers on blocks in the street.

Others have expressed concern for public safety, saying children use the right of way to access local schools and parks.

While the county’s resolution was ready for adoption Tuesday, questions over what constitutes a vehicle couldn’t be immediately answered, delaying the new rule for a few more days.

“The concern I have is the things that fall outside the definition of a vehicle – the camper on cinder blocks or the motor home that was left out on Highway 200 and sat there for weeks and weeks,” said Lawrence. “The county’s response was that it’s not a vehicle and we can’t tow it.”

And Frenchtown:

At a meeting Thursday, members of the West Valley Community Council in Frenchtown reported transients parking in the public right of way, leaving behind sewage and garbage, and sleeping on a popular bike path in town.

Council chair Jeri Delys said there’s no easy way to address the issue.

“Law enforcement doesn’t have any way to enforce it unless there’s a sewage leakage, unless there’s a hazard, so they can’t ticket,” she said.

Seeking guidance on the matter, West Valley called on Missoula County Commissioner Dave Strohmaier to offer his advice at a community meeting Thursday night.

But Strohmaier explained that even the county can’t do much, as commissioners are not authorized by the state to enact a “no camping” ordinance. What they can do, however, is regulate parking.

With the Reserve Street camps, the Missoula Current took a different approach and attempted to humanize those living in the camps by telling the partial story of one couple. Unfortunately, for those experiencing empathy fatigue, elements of this couple’s story probably won’t be well received. Like this:

The couple met at a homeless shelter in Colorado but arrived in Missoula on separate paths. Legault hitchhiked into town and decided to stay. It was “a gut feeling” about the place, as he put it. Barnett fled what she described as a series of broken relationships, each as violent as the next.

Now the two work as a team, making ends meet on $700 a month in disability. When the money runs out, Legault crosses the bridge to “fly a sign.” He prefers North Reserve near the Burger King restaurant.

This couple already has a housing voucher, but why spend limited funds on rent when they can live in homeless camp rent-free?

But while local homeless advocates would like to see the likes of Legault and Barnett leave the camp for permanent housing, the two aren’t sure they can make it work.

For one, Barnett said, one of her two dogs isn’t yet certified as a service dog, and that drives up the required down payment, even if the landlord accepts pets. That down payment is another hurdle on an income of $700. They fear rent and utilities would consume the entirety of their limited income, leaving little means for other needs.

“I mean, I really don’t want to be out here,” said Legault. “But you can’t rent a place and pay your bills for $700 a month. You can’t even move into a place for $700 a month.”
…
“Right now, I have a Section 8 voucher and we’re trying to find housing, but the application fees range from $10 to $60 a piece, and If you don’t get approved you lose the money,” said Barnett. “I have a voucher but we’re on that waiting list for housing.”

And even if they get into housing, the need to supplement their disability income by flying a sign probably won’t abate:

“On disability, it doesn’t do very well and it doesn’t go very far,” said Barnett. “Even if we had a place to live, he’d still be out flying a sign, but he’d be flying a sign sooner than we do now. Now, his income lasts a week or two, though maybe not this month because of what we had to buy.”

I appreciate the Missoula Current actually going to the camps and telling this story because it highlights the dynamics at play, and the main destructive dynamic fueling homeless encampments and people living out of cars and campers is economic inequality.

This growing economic inequality is getting worse and could fuel a backlash against helping those who choose to relocate to a mountain town with a 3% vacancy rate in the rental market of a low-population state with a fragmented Medicaid support system.

I don’t see how these trends are going to improve when our elected leaders can’t even bring themselves to include inclusionary zoning as a tool to require developers add affordable housing to their building projects.

Instead Missoula County will keep playing wack-a-mole with band-aid resolutions to keep County streets from becoming the next homeless hot-spot. This will not inspire confidence from Missoula residents as they are asked to pay more and more in taxes ever year as systemic problems like homelessness worsens.

by William Skink

Don’t be fooled by the “charitable” intentions of wealthy people, people like Wisconsin transplant Lord Checota. In today’s Editor’s Choice op-ed, where the Missoulian gives out chokecherries for bad things and huckleberries for the ostensibly good things happening in Missoula, I found this part about a charitable donation to be quite interesting:

Shelves lined with huckleberries to the plans taking shape for the new five-story Missoula Public Library, with a special shelf dedicated to Nick and Robin Checota for their recent $50,000 donation. The Checotas’ gift, made through their Logjam Foundation, will go toward the library’s art space for children, which will be supplied with books of course, but also offer a host of other media and even a climbing structure. The library foundation is still working to close its steadily shrinking fundraising gap, with only $450,000 more to go.

How dare I criticize a charitable donation, you say? Well, don’t take my cynical word for it, take it from Investment News. There actually is a non-altruistic incentive behind parking money in foundations. The jargon the article uses to make it sound exotic and incomprehensible to Joe and Jane is “donor-advised funds”:

It’s all the rage in charitable giving — and it’s actually got some charities worried.

Donor-advised funds — money that grows tax-free in individual accounts — are reshaping the landscape of U.S. philanthropy. After creating their account, donors choose how it’s invested, and the money compounds until they decide where to dole it out. DAF assets mushroomed to more than $85 billion at the end of 2016 from $30 billion in 2010.

Not everyone thinks that’s good news. Critics say the approach may slow the flow of money directly into nonprofits that serve the needy on a daily basis. Moreover, it injects charitable affiliates created by for-profit financial players such as Fidelity Investments and Charles Schwab deep into the big business of philanthropy — a boon for them and their clients, but, some worry, not so clear a win for the causes.

Why would anyone think this is not great news? Well, when you actually look into the beneficial tax reasons (not altruism) for creating these foundations, you understand the real incentive. Here’s more from the article:

The financial services industry’s interest in giving is tied to a looming generational wealth transfer — and a desire not to see assets walk out the door. (A common DAF marketing theme is the ability to leave a legacy of giving for heirs.)

The money in many of these accounts started out as highly appreciated, publicly traded stock and illiquid “complex assets” such as shares in closely held businesses, restricted stock, oil and gas royalties, and real estate interests. Then there’s the art, the cruise ship, the bitcoin and bushels of wheat and soybeans DAFs have liquidated to fund accounts.

If the donor sold them, those assets could produce huge tax bills. If they’re donated to a DAF, they bring huge tax benefits and a bigger pool of charitable funds than if they’d been sold and the proceeds donated.

Got that? Good. So let’s get back to Lord Checota’s noble offering…for the children.

I went to the Logjam website to see how they are framing the “charitable wing” of Logjam Presents and here is what I found:

The newly formed Logjam Foundation has been created to serve as the charitable wing of Missoula-based entertainment company Logjam Presents. The mission of the Logjam Foundation is to cultivate and incubate arts and culture in the Missoula community. Additionally, the Logjam Foundation is committed to the sustainability of the community in which it operates. Logjam Presents appreciates the strong support of Missoulians for live music and that they work hard for the money required to support live music. As a result, Logjam feels it is important to reinvest proceeds earned from our concerts back into the community to incubate a strong arts culture and to help maintain a sustainable environment for Missoula.

What a bunch of bullshit.

If Lord Checota wants to cultivate and incubate arts and culture in the Missoula community, how about not depleting the MRA piggy bank by 16.5 million dollars so that money can be used for something else.

Or how about paying a higher wage to your employees? Maybe offer more full-time jobs with benefits. Seems to me if Lord Checota was genuine in wanting to do what the above quote claims, there are better ways than creating a foundation where illiquid assets can be transformed into “charity” while conveniently avoiding fiscal nuisances like the capital gains tax.

So, like I said at the start of this post, don’t be fooled by the charitable intentions of the wealthy because altruism is NOT the driving force behind the proliferation of donor-advised funds.

Thus concludes today’s lesson in crony capitalist shenanigans. Next week, let’s review the proper use of the guillotine.

(that is intended as a joke and not a threat of violence to our benevolent Lord, who may smite me one day should I not show the proper respect for his Lordly contribution to our humble mountain town)

by William Skink

It’s sad reading this article about a 40-unit condo project proposed for the riverfront in the University district. Why is it sad? Because it highlights how the Engen regime has kept City Council impotent when it comes to requiring new development to include affordable housing. From the link:

Council member Heidi West asked about the possibility of including any affordable housing units in the project, but the engineer said the cost of land so close to downtown and the university made it hard to charge an affordable price for the condos.

Smith said the development would probably be about 25% rental units, with the rest sold as condos, and all of them priced at market rates.

“(The developers) are targeting empty-nesters looking to downsize from single family homes into a downtown setting,” he said. “This demographic is an important customer base for existing downtown restaurants, shops and services, and it furthers the ‘focus inward’ goals of the city’s growth policy.”

City Council is impotent because Engen’s Housing Office decided NOT to include an inclusionary zoning tool in its array of policy suggestions. Last June, Hermina Jean Harold, the executive director of Trust Montana and a community organizer for the North-Missoula Community Development Corporation, begged Council to learn the lessons of Bozeman and Whitefish:

Recently, the Missoula City Council was handed a slate of housing policy recommendations to review, and they have work to do before the June 24 vote. The policy recommendations are skewed in the direction of developer incentives. These types of incentives largely failed when Bozeman and Whitefish tried them. Both cities have now switched over to mandatory inclusionary zoning policies.

We don’t have the luxury of time to wait and see if the incentives work and then change course. A University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research study from 2018 reported that when median wages are compared to median home prices, Missoula housing is already less affordable than Bozeman, Denver, Seattle, Portland and Miami.

I am asking our City Council and Missoula Redevelopment Agency to enact two regulatory policies to stop the displacement of working people: 1) mandatory inclusionary zoning and 2) Tax Increment Finance District affordability requirements.

Sadly, this common sense request fell on deaf ears. Had these tools been implemented, City Council would have more leverage when it comes to MRA-enabled development, like the Riverfront Triangle project, and other development, like this 40-unit condo project.

But Council doesn’t have these tools, so all they can do is ask impotent questions that developers will easily dismiss due to their bottom line being more important than anything else.

And that, Missoula, is by design.