POCATELLO — The two opposing sides of an open space plan approved by the City Council Thursday are bitterly divided over its necessity, impact and how it was developed.

    Opponents of the plan say it was pushed through without significant input from important stakeholders such as developers and Realtors. They also believe the plan will stymie growth and development in Pocatello.

    Supporters of the 34-page plan point out it was the culmination of a two-year process and they say there was ample opportunity for input along the way. They also believe that far from being an anti-development document, it will spur development by improving the qualify of life for residents who live in the valley.

    The chasm between how the two sides view the issue can be summed up in comments offered following Thursday’s meeting by an opponent and a supporter of the plan.

    “The whole community didn’t know anything about this,” Sue Ann Hodge said following Thursday’s meeting. “I believe it will absolutely stymie development,” added Hodge, who joined others who held up signs during the meeting equating the plan with socialism and a loss of freedom.

    Karen Cordell, who is on Bannock County’s planning and development council, said the plan would actually make people and businesses want to locate here by improving and protecting habitat and other land and water resources.

    “I believe it’s a tool that can be used for development, actually,” says Cordell, who served on the county’s open space committee several years ago. She says there is plenty of evidence “that open space conservation is not an expense, but an investment that produces important economic benefits. If businesses are going to relocate to Pocatello, Idaho, they need to know there’s something to offer (their employees).”

    There is also wide disagreement between the two sides on whether the document truly represents the public’s view on open space considerations.

    Mayor Brian Blad, who cast the tie-breaking vote in support of the plan after the council was deadlocked at 3-3, said he voted in favor of it in large part because of the committee’s willingness to hear and accept alternate suggestions from opponents.

    Melanie Gygli, the city’s associate planner, noted the public hearing on the plan was postponed twice, for a total of 60 days, “so we could make sure we had everybody’s input.”

    And Councilman Steve Brown, who voted against the plan, credited the committee with listening to opponents and inserting language into the document that addresses their concerns. 

    Almost every suggestion opponents made was accepted by the committee “and I think that’s important to note,” Brown said.

    But developer Bill Isley blasted the plan and its crafters, who he claims ramrodded it through with minimal public input. Isley says he and another developer were added to the original 15-person citizens advisory committee that created the plan only after complaining the building and real estate sectors were not represented.

    He says he resigned after realizing the committee wasn’t truly interested in his input.

    Isley is particularly concerned about the consultant that assisted in developing the plan — the Center for Green Space Design out of Salt Lake City. He called the group a far-left green organization “that came here with a pre-determined agenda and outcome.”

    He noted that even the plan admits the city is growing at a rate of less than 1 percent a year, which is less than the natural rate of births minus deaths.

    “These people don’t care about private property rights, the size of government, growth, the cost of housing increasing substantially, or increasing the tax base,” Isley says. “They don’t want growth and they don’t want development. That’s their real agenda.”

    Isley says about 200 people total participated in the workshops, meetings and survey held by the committee and that total represented many of the same people counted multiple times.

    “The biggest lie about this was that it was the result of broad-based community support,” says Isley, who points out there are 70,000 people living in the valley. “The only people who do support it are people on the committee and their agenda is to stop growth.”

    The goals of the plan are to protect and enhance wildlife habitat and native vegetation; pursue available conservation tools (easements, land donations, transfers of development rights, etc.), to protect wildlife habitat and migration corridors; work with land management agencies and others to ensure open space on public lands remains undeveloped; and integrate wildlife and native vegetation habitat into the open space network included in the city’s comprehensive plan.

    Gygli says there is nothing in the plan that dictates what private property owners can or cannot do with their land.

    Supporters of the plan note that it was passed as a resolution and not an ordinance, which means it doesn’t have regulatory authority and only serves as a guideline for discussions about open space.

    Opponents worry that now that the precedent has been set, the plan’s backers will try to have it passed as an ordinance the next time the city’s zoning ordinances are reviewed.