Month: February 2020

by William Skink

Yesterday I put up a post critical of both the Missoula Current and the Missoulian’s omission of the full story of what transpired at this week’s Monday night Council meeting.

I was particularly critical of the Missoula Current article for its depiction of an unnamed individual who supposedly claimed in his public comment to have also produced a threatening video.

Here is the original quote, which has since been altered:

Monday night’s meeting got off to a rocky start, prompted by public comment rooted in false facts and conspiracy theories, including those surrounding the arrest of a Brandon Bryant – a man who threatened to murder members of the City Council and others.

One of those speakers, who has protested during public comment several times in recent weeks, admitted that he too has made a threatening video. Like Bryant, he also contends his video was taken out of context by what he described as a digital stalker.

He accused the council of trying to make an example of Bryant. But council members unanimously disputed the accusation, saying the Missoula County Attorney alone made the decision to arrest Bryant for threats of murder and intimidation against public officials, as permitted under Montana law.

The bold part of this excerpt is no longer there.

Here is how the piece reads now, with a comment at the bottom indicating the change:

Monday night’s meeting got off to a rocky start, prompted by public comment rooted in false facts and conspiracy theories, including those surrounding the arrest of Brandon Bryant – a man who threatened to murder members of the City Council and others.

One of those speakers, who has protested during public comment several times in recent weeks, accused the council of trying to make an example of Bryant. But council members unanimously disputed the accusation, saying the Missoula County Attorney alone made the decision to arrest Bryant for threats of murder and intimidation against public officials.

“I think it’s super important we don’t propagate misnomers,” said council member Stacie Anderson. “It’s really important the public knows that we had absolutely nothing to do with putting anyone behind bars. We don’t have that authority.”

This story has been modified from its original version to account for discrepancies in one man’s public comment.

I reached out to Martin Kidston after seeing a comment pop up claiming the individual never stated he also made a threatening video. To his credit, Kidston did provide a comment:

The comment made at City Council was rambling and incoherent at best, moving between first, second and third person points of view. We simply clarified the graph after the gentleman in question called with concerns over how his comments were reflected in the story as a matter of courtesy. His comments were ultimately rebutted by City Council, and we stand by that reporting. Thanks for reaching out.

Seeing this response I wondered why a “rambling, incoherent” public comment was worth including in the story about storage units, while Heather Harp’s letter stating her opinion that charges against Bryant should be dismissed was not included.

So I asked Kidston why the rambling comment was more newsworthy than Harp’s letter, and this is his reply:

We were there to cover the hearing on the storage project. The only reason the issue of the gentleman’s comment was included in the story was because it received sharp criticism from council members and a short dispute over decorum when it came to voting on claims, as it set a negative tone for much of the meeting.

While Kidston was busy altering his article before the litigious thoughts of the aggrieved commenter got too far, the Missoulian did run an article on this story, and it’s a good article I encourage everyone to read. Here’s an excerpt

Tuesday, Harp shared the reason she wanted to write the letter. She said she was not defending Bryant’s actions but wanted to treat him fairly.

“When we talk about better outcomes for criminal justice reform — especially for a defendant with mental health issues — it requires a paradigm shift in approach,” Harp said. “I advocate for the most vulnerable amongst us to be treated with compassion and fairness.”

At the meeting, Harp said that although Bryant’s actions caused “fear and intimidation,” she does not believe Bryant is a violent person based on time she has spent with him. But she said “there are times when you say violent things, and that scares people. As a City, we have to respond. We have to act to ensure the safety of our citizens. But we must also act with compassion and fairness.”

Heather Harp’s statements are very newsworthy. I hope Martin Kidston can get around to covering this development in a case that could put a well-known whistleblower and activist behind bars for a decade if he is found guilty.

by William Skink

Is it news that City Council person Heather Harp publicly asserted her opinion at Council last night that felony charges against Brandon Bryant should be dismissed?

According to the Missoulian, the only newsworthy thing that happened at Council last night was the neighborhood reaction to a proposed 3 story storage facility at River Road and Reserve Street.

The Missoula Current also omitted any hint of Harp’s appeal to Bryant, choosing instead to highlight “false facts and conspiracy theories” related to a person who provided public comment:

Monday night’s meeting got off to a rocky start, prompted by public comment rooted in false facts and conspiracy theories, including those surrounding the arrest of a Brandon Bryant – a man who threatened to murder members of the City Council and others.

One of those speakers, who has protested during public comment several times in recent weeks, admitted that he too has made a threatening video. Like Bryant, he also contends his video was taken out of context by what he described as a digital stalker.

He accused the council of trying to make an example of Bryant. But council members unanimously disputed the accusation, saying the Missoula County Attorney alone made the decision to arrest Bryant for threats of murder and intimidation against public officials, as permitted under Montana law.

“I think it’s super important we don’t propagate misnomers,” said council member Stacy Anderson. “It’s really important the public knows that we had absolutely nothing to do with putting anyone behind bars. We don’t have that authority.”

I think this is despicable reporting by Martin Kinston. What “false facts” were made in the public comment? What “conspiracy theory” was put forward? Kidston doesn’t elaborate on any of that, but he does allow Stacy Anderson to claim that Council members “had absolutely nothing to do with putting anyone behind bars.”

Oh really? So, some City Council members claim they feel threatened, they add extra police to Council meetings, the Council members who think they are at risk of being eliminated presumably have some degree of communication with the County Attorney’s office, but all that amounts to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

Bullshit.

It wasn’t until I went on Twitter this morning and saw this NBC Montana article that I had any idea Heather Harp called for changes against Bryant to be dismissed:

Harp wrote that she has met with Bryant and knows him to be nonviolent, although he did talk of violence. She added she does not condone his statements but understands now more about mental health and PTSD.

Bryant says he suffers from both PTSD and a traumatic brain injury.

Harp’s letter calls for compassion and ends with a request that charges be dismissed and that Bryant receive help.

Is this newsworthy? Apparently both the Missoulian and the Missoula Current determined it wasn’t. I’m glad NBC Montana did find this newsworthy and reported an aspect of the Council meeting last night that other media sources for some reason omitted.

by William Skink

Last Friday a “handful of local business leaders” signed a letter imploring Missoula County Commissioners to consider putting a 2-cent per gallon gasoline tax on the primary ballot in June.

For some odd reason the signatories of this letter seem to think local government can’t keep up with road maintenance:

Their letter, dated Friday, expressed concern that local government has not been able to keep pace with road maintenance and planning given budgetary constraints. Boosting the gasoline tax could help fill the funding gap without turning to property taxes for road-related needs, advocates contend.

“We know that infrastructure funding is a critical need for our community and supports business growth and quality of life,” the Friday letter reads. “There are limited sources of revenue for roads – almost all road maintenance funding comes from property taxes. The gas tax would be a new source of revenue that brings in money from outside the city and county.”

Gee, I wonder if there are any unstated factors that contribute to the fact that ever-increasing property taxes can’t keep up with infrastructure maintenance, like, say, capping tax revenue within urban renewal districts and redirecting the added tax value away from the general fund to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency.

Could that be a factor? What do you say Marion Alley, Shannon K. Hilliard, Christopher Anderson, Deborah Johnston, Jim Bachand, Jeanne Loftus, Melanie Brock, Brendan McCray, Dallin Carey, Melissa Mooney, Katie Carlson, C.B. Pearson, Dessa Dale, Jonathan Pederson, Travis Dye, Shannon Pederson, Dwight Easton, Donny Pfeifer, Matthew Gehr, Mandy Snook, Michael Gibson Hartwell, Carroll Anne Sowerby, Annelise Hedahl and Jolene Tatum?

A regressive gasoline tax would only raise about 1.1 million dollars annually. In contrast, Nick Checota is set to receive 16.5 million dollars in Tax Increment Financing to bring his Big D(rift) to fruition.

It should come as no surprise that the role of Tax Increment Financing is totally omitted from this letter of concern from Missoula business leaders and the subsequent article in the Missoula Current. Why bring attention to the captured TIF loot, especially when so many development projects monetarily benefit from TIF handouts?

When developers aren’t panhandling the County Commissioners for more tax money, they are spilling crocodile tears in the op-ed section about the threat of increased impact fees.

But don’t assume the financial threat is to their bottom line. Nope, developers, like Hank Trotter, like to remind the peasants that increasing impact fees don’t hit developer profits because they are immediately passed on to home buyers and renters:

Impact fees are used, in part, to fund capital improvement projects within the city. I fully support the projects impact fees help pay for. These projects make for a better, more livable Missoula. However, impact fees are unfairly burdening a few (new development) for the benefit of the many (everyone else living in and benefiting from the improvements paid for by impact fees).

City administrators like to say these fees are a way for development to pay its “fair share.” This is inaccurate and shows a lack of creative financing.

Last year around $1.2 million was raised through impact fees. They are charged to one entity — builders and developers — but are then passed along as the cost of construction to the family that buys a home, the entrepreneur building a new brewpub and even the renter in the new multiplex.

I’m not sure how many “capital improvement projects” can actually be funded with 1.2 million dollars, but it is dramatically less than what 16.5 million dollars could fund.

Hank is worried about impact fees, and he thinks we should have a conversation about it. Isn’t that adorable?

I think there needs to be a conversation about how the city is raising the revenue it needs. I hope that in the future the city administration and city council will look the fees charged to new construction with fresh thinking.

There has to be a better way to raise revenue.

I agree, Hank Trotter! And did you know that you are far from the only citizen of our little mountain town concerned about how the city raises revenue? In fact, there HAS BEEN a conversation about how the city is raising the revenue it needs.

I have a hard time believing Hank Trotter and the signatories of the gas tax panhandling letter are truly concerned about the tax burden of property owners, specifically, and the affordability of housing, generally.

If they were they might find a little space in their concern trolling to include some awareness on how diverting millions of dollars from the general fund creates revenue shortfalls that perpetual tax increases keep in-filling.

One question that never seems to get asked is how much public money does the Missoula Redevelopment actually control? I have heard upwards of 35 million is stashed in the coffers of MRA.

Any conversation about city/county revenue MUST include the role of TIF. If the role of TIF is omitted, the conversation will be incomplete, and the understanding Missoula citizens have of their tax landscape will be woefully skewed.

Is this what our local leaders prefer?

by William Skink

The study regime powered by public money just won’t stop, like a train chugging down the tracks. A loud train. With loud whistles.

Hey, I know, let’s spend $26,300 in public TIF money to fund a…RAILROAD QUIET ZONE ANALYSIS and TRAFFIC STUDY!!!!

I am unfortunately not kidding, the critical issue of loud train noises by train tracks is seriously something that public money will now be used to study:

On Thursday, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency’s board authorized the agency to provide up to $26,300 in Tax Increment Financing to fund a Railroad Quiet Zone Analysis and Traffic Study. The area affected would be generally near the lower Rattlesnake.

Tod Gass, a project manager with the MRA, said Missoula Mayor John Engen, City Council President Bryan von Lossberg and many concerned citizens have brought the issue forward recently.

TIF money is supposed to be used to address blight. How does the Missoula Redevelopment Agency justify using TIF funds for studies? Are loud sounds now considered blight?

I would also like to know exactly how many “concerned citizens” are making this an issue. Is there some threshold of concern that must be met, or can a few entitled idiots in the lower Rattlesnake neighborhood trigger the use of public money because they didn’t realize living by train tracks comes with loud train noises?

Train noise is not an issue that warrants the use of public money meant to address blight. The real issue is how public money is being misused.

In a Reptile Dysfunction exclusive, I have obtained a photograph of Mayor Engen handing over the City credit card to a stingy member of the private sector:

  
Is it time for another intervention?

  

I think the answer to that question is yes!

by William Skink

It’s been well over a month since a fight at the Poverello Center left Sean Stevenson dead and his family with serious questions about what happened that night and why local authorities have yet to file any charges.

While the alleged killer, Johnny Lee Perry, hasn’t faced charges for his role in Stevenson’s death, he has been in and out of jail for extra jurisdictional warrants.

In fact, just last night Perry was again picked up by authorities and put in jail on two outstanding warrants:

  

While Perry will probably be out on the streets again in time for lunch, Brandon Bryant’s appearance yesterday in court did NOT result in any change to the $100,000 bond keeping locked up:

Missoula County’s chief criminal prosecutor Matt Jennings requested Vannatta hold Bryant’s bail at $100,000 for concern of public safety. In the YouTube video mentioned in charging documents, Bryant speaks about the City Council, adding “those people who have wronged others … will be eliminated.”

“This isn’t the time or place to argue the merits of the case,” Jennings said.

Jake Coolidge, another public defender on Bryant’s case, said he had been in contact with Veterans Affairs staff to help handle Bryant’s disabilities if released from jail ahead of trial. Additionally, Coolidge said Bryant would abide by previously set conditions, which prohibits him from contacting City Council members in any way.

Vannatta declined to lower Bryant’s bail on Thursday, so Hammond asked for the earliest possible trial date, April 27. The move essentially limits the amount of time for prosecutors to gather more witnesses and evidence tying Bryant to the video, rather than waiving Bryant’s right to a speedy trial, which would allow the defense more time to bolster its defense.

The juxtaposition between how these two men are being treated by the criminal justice system in Missoula continues to be stark and confounding. Stay tuned as more information becomes available, like that autopsy report the County Attorney’s office should have by now.