Dear editor:

In response to Marion Morrison’s recent letter to the Cody Enterprise, if Park County Planning Director Joy Hill “has no incentive to play favorites,” perhaps she should stop publicly advocating for her interests and steering the conversations accordingly. Early on, a survey with leading questions such as “do you like open space” was put out to the public to solicit “data.” Those answers opened the door for Ms. Hill and Clarion consultants to claim what the public and special interest groups (not the landowners) wanted to see with the new LUP. They used that “data” and recommendations from WYGF, PEP, Forward Cody and environmental organizations to push for things like the big game overlay and 20-acre minimum lot sizes county-wide. There were 111 pages of comments to the draft document, and the majority were against things in the plan. There were significant concerns with government overreach and the attack on private property rights. Ms. Hill responded by arguing with and dismissing people she didn’t agree with via her own comments. There were no changes made based on those major concerns raised, and the county plowed ahead with the adoption draft. People filled the room at the October 2023 commissioner meeting because those concerns had been completely ignored. The commissioners did the right thing at that time and reversed course.

Additionally, Ms. Hill should directly engage landowners instead of courting NGOs and the unaffected public since regulations only impact landowners. Ms. Hill and Clarion intentionally decided against mailing out surveys to all landowners to solicit feedback as was done during the 1998 update. Ironically, Ms. Hill cited “expense” as her supposed reason and yet the county is now into this for over $700,000. It is extremely dishonest for Ms. Hill to state the county has “no control over who provides input.”

In Kay Anderson’s letter to the Tribune on May 8, she correctly points out that if you don’t actively fight whatever changes get suggested to your property (by your neighbor, an NGO, the county planner, or someone in town), then it becomes the recommendation likely to pass through the rest of the process. Comments from unaffected parties have succeeded in proposing many things, and those draft documents will soon move to the next step. Here are just a couple examples: 1) A new zoning category called “estate residential” which includes large areas south of Powell to Willwood, west of Powell, Eaglenest Subdivision, Sage Creek, large areas of the South Fork, Clark, and Meeteetse, and smaller portions of every other planning area — in ALL these locations, as proposed, your kids will NOT be able to have 4-H/FFA livestock projects and you will NOT be allowed to keep/feed a steer(s), hog(s), or lamb(s) for slaughter. In most of these areas, as proposed, you will NOT be allowed to repair or maintain your own tractors; 2) significant lot size increases county-wide such as 40-acre recommendations in ALL agriculture areas — farmers, as proposed, the value of your land will decrease to about 30% of what it is now and good luck trying to split off pivot corners. Anyone who thinks they’ll be grandfathered in somehow had better think again. Perhaps you will be safe on some things until you try to change, expand, sell or transfer to the next generation, nobody knows.

Did the regulations need a spruce up? Did some language need clarified and processes streamlined? Yes. Instead of thoughtfully and precisely addressing what needed attention, Ms. Hill and certain county commissioners have upended the entire county. They can sugarcoat it all they want, but they are trying to steal from landowners. It’s not too late for them to reverse course and stop trying to turn us into Teton County.

Carrie I. Peters

Powell