Timber company backs out of controversial road deal with Forest Service.
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on January 7th, 2009 5:30 am by HL
Timber company backs out of controversial road deal with Forest Service.
Last week, ThinkProgress noted that Forest Service chief Mark E. Rey, who is a former lobbyist for the timber industry, was trying to “push through a change in U.S. Forest Service agreements that would make it far easier for mountain forests to be converted to housing subdivisions.” The last-minute rule change would primarily have benefited […]
Last week, ThinkProgress noted that Forest Service chief Mark E. Rey, who is a former lobbyist for the timber industry, was trying to “push through a change in U.S. Forest Service agreements that would make it far easier for mountain forests to be converted to housing subdivisions.” The last-minute rule change would primarily have benefited Plum Creek Timber, the largest private landowner in the United States. But now the company has decided that it will no longer pursue the changes “given the lack of receptivity” to the idea. Rey claimed the company’s decision was “not good news for the federal government or the public at large.”
January 7th, 2009 at 9:43 am
The real battleground in the fight against Plum Creek’s development plans is at the local level in counties such as Missoula County in Montana. Unfortunately, the planning and zoning laws in Montana are much weaker than those of many other states. Montanans have historically greatly cherished their property rights, and as a result vast swaths of private land in the state remain unzoned. Plum Creek, of course, has every intention of exercising its property rights to the fullest extent. This means that some of Montana’s most beautiful and ecologically sensitive landscapes have big residential bulls eyes on them. In some of these areas, county-level zoning efforts are just getting off the ground, and county officials are thus entering into uncharted political and legal territory.
One of the worst Montana statutes gives Plum Creek, as a large owner of timber lands, the ability in some instances to exercise a veto power over zoning regulations enacted by a democratically elected county board. Thus, a for-profit business can resist environmental regulation intended to protect some of the most beautiful and ecologically sensitive lands in the lower 48 states.
Paradoxically, despite Montana’s traditional solicitude for private property rights, Montana’s constitution, adopted in 1972, includes language elevating environmental values to a higher level than can be found in any other state constitution. In Montana, each resident has an alienable individual right to a clean and healthful environment, and the Legislature has a constitutional duty to make this right real and enforceable.
The Montana statute giving Plum Creek this veto power seems to be of dubious legal validity in light of such inspiring constitutional language. The veto statute flouts environmental values by allowing large landowners to resist governmental attempts at environmental protection in favor of the pursuit of private profit. The statute is also patently undemocratic in that it creates a preferred class of citizens who can resist the exercise of governmental power and authority in a way that no ordinary citizen can — and at the expense of the environment. Further, the statute delegates what amounts to unbridled legislative power to private parties (including, as a practical matter, corporations) who are free to pursue their naked self interest at the expense of the public welfare. Similar statutes in other states have been struck down in court.
People outraged over recent behavior by Mark Rey and others associated with the US Forest Service road easement issue should lend support to local activists in Montana who stand ready to make the most of the state constitution as the zoning process unfolds in sensitive areas. The Montana Legislature should modernize its laws.