News

Montana’s economic future is in our hands…if we’re Smart

In the past year, three studies have looked at the strengths and trends of Montana’s economy, and all three reached the same conclusion.

By Tim Davis
Executive director, Montana Smart Growth Coalition
in the Center for the Rocky Mountain West- Headwaters

The studies looked at the economies of Ravalli County, Flathead County, and the counties around Yellowstone National Park — all booming areas. The studies agreed that Montana’s greatest economic advantage is its quality of life, that our quality of life is defined by our "open spaces and wildlife habitat, community integrity and uniqueness," and that we must protect these traits or we will lose our economic advantage to out-of-control, sprawling development.

Between 1990 and 2000 Montana’s population grew by 12.9 percent. But the amount of land we used grew by 100 percent. In other words, we used more land for new homes and businesses in the past 10 years than our parents, grandparents and their great-grandparents used in the past 150 years.

If you project this out-of-control growth pattern into the future, you find that sprawl will fill most valleys in western Montana by 2020. It’s already happening. Compare pictures of the Helena, Gallatin, Missoula, Bitterroot or Paradise valleys from 1990 with pictures of those valleys today, and you’d be stunned.

Montana’s dilemma is not whether to grow but how. To answer this, let’s look at those reports more in depth.

The report by the Ravalli County Economic Development Authority, published in November 2002, said "one of the most important measures" leaders can take for a strong economy is "to maintain and improve community livability in the valley." The report explained that the No. 1 reason people move somewhere is for the "area amenities and quality of life. As such, the greatest potential threat to the valley’s economic future may be that the very qualities drawing more and more people to the valley are being degraded and lost under current patterns of development as the number of new residents grows."

"In order to sustain growth well into the future," the Ravalli report concluded, "current growth must be better managed."

The Sonoran Institute’s "Getting Ahead in Greater Yellowstone" was published in June 2003. It found that Greater Yellowstone businesses were poised to outpace those from other states because "natural amenities, friendly communities and a relatively well-educated labor force are all comparative advantages in an economic world where location and the ability to attract and retain skilled employees are critical to success." But the report also found that "in some communities the growth is so fast that it threatens to destroy open spaces and wildlife habitat, community integrity and uniqueness ­ the very assets that guarantee quality of life for residents, and that have helped diversify the region’s economy."

The National Parks Conservation Association released "Gateway to Glacier: The Emerging Economy of Flathead County" in May 2003. It puts the issue bluntly: "The quality of the Flathead Valley’s spectacular natural environment is its chief economic asset. The valley’s communities must now create a clear strategy and focused initiatives to improve the well-being of Flathead residents and protect the area’s most vital economic assets."

The report described the needed protections at some length: "High-quality economic development means maintaining water quality, wildlife habitat, an appealing landscape, and the valley’s friendly small-town character. It means retaining working farms and forests, cultivating jobs with pay and benefits that can fully sustain workers and their families, and investing in a well-educated local workforce. Economic growth can be guided to support and protect the values that drive it, rather than leading inexorably to their erosion and loss."

These reports make clear that voters need to ask their leaders to end subsidies for sprawling development and protect our quality of life. Specifically, state and local leaders should:

* Ask where growth can be accommodated most efficiently. Then direct state agencies to use their spending on roads, sewer and water systems, affordable housing, schools, parklands, and economic development to promote affordable, attractive, and efficient development in those locations; and
* At the same time, ask which working farm, forest, and ranch lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, and water resources are most threatened by sprawling development. Then direct state agencies to coordinate state, federal, and local efforts to protect of those lands and waters while ensuring that state spending is not subsidizing sprawling growth into those areas.

By taking these two steps, our leaders can ensure that taxpayers are getting the biggest bang for their buck and keeping Montana’s economy growing.

http://www.headwatersnews.org/davis.071703.html

Sorry, we couldn't find any posts. Please try a different search.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.