Dear editor,
Big Sky is an unincorporated census designated place that exists in two counties, a situation which many people might believe is both unusual and directly hinders our ability to progress.
In fact, the opposite is true. First, unincorporated communities exist everywhere in the US—including areas with very large populations—and in fact, are the most common type of community in Montana—129 to 235. Second, in the 34 years Big Sky has been my year-round, full-time home, I’ve seen what our version of a de-centralized, dual-county, citizen-led democracy can do, and it’s not nothing.
In the last three decades, Big Sky locals have created many if not all of the infrastructure and services offered by a municipality from the ground up: A hospital and a high school, playgrounds, parks and trails, a community transportation system, a chapel, a library, improved sewer and water, a performing arts center, a housing trust, a community recreation facility, softball fields, summer camps, a daycare center, a federal post office, expanded fire and search and rescue services, a chamber of commerce, an on-site sheriff office—even the resort tax itself. Along the way, the idea of a formalized incorporated government was also explored, and failed; it was voted down once and removed from the ballot the second time.
Nevertheless, last spring, acting upon the request of a dozen unelected citizens, the resort tax paid $339,750 to a Helena-based consulting group to answer an unpublished list of “lingering questions” about how Big Sky operates and how that could change if we wanted. So far, the discussion that exists on the website and in a few public meetings has centered on what this would cost, how formal governance could happen, where it would be possible, and what would happen to all of the districts and services we already have in place.
But the essential lingering question about this study and governance is both more basic and more vital. Big Sky has always operated on a need-based model—we see needs and we fill them. So what services, exactly, are we still missing? And is a change in governance the most democratic or fastest way to provide them?
Our answers to these questions will take us beyond in-the-weeds discussions of cost, legal mechanics and scenario-building to something both more central and important: We must talk about what we want and why, before we can reasonably talk about how to change.
Our community’s historic accomplishments more than prove Big Sky’s ability to get things done in our current state. Focusing our input on what—if anything—we still need will ensure what we can—and cannot—accomplish tomorrow.
Barbara Rowley,
Big Sky, Montana
