SHARE THIS SHOW:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

Central Destinations

AIR DATE: Monday, October 6th 2008

Download the mp3 for this show.

None

Where do resorts and conservation efforts intersect?

It?s been 30 years since the first few resorts sprung up in Central Oregon. Sunriver, Mount Bachelor Village, and Inn of the Seventh Mountain were among the first in and around Bend, drawing residents from other states to the region for outdoor activities and luxury resort amenities such as golf courses and spas.

The popularity of destination resorts has only grown over the years. Central Oregon will have 19 destination resorts after developers complete the four most recently approved. But some Oregonians have had enough of resorts, voicing concerns about too many people, traffic congestion, and not enough consideration for agriculture and forestland.

Are there destination resorts in your community? Where do resorts and conservation efforts meet? Is there a way to strike a balance?

GUESTS:

• Mara Stein Community resident and activist
• Rick Allen Lobbyist for a destination resort in Jefferson County, and former mayor of Madras
• Erik Kancler Executive Director of Central Oregon Land Watch
• Chris Pippin Project manager for Remington Ranch

Photo credit: fiveforefun / Flickr / Creative Commons

"Nineteen destination resorts .." That phrase alone should suggest why the voters here in Crook County initiated and passed a ballot measure that said "enough!" In one small area of the county there are three resorts, and preliminary approval has been given for a fourth. The word balance was mentioned frequently during the campaigning for the measure, as citizens envisioned the cumulative detrimental impacts of this one type of development. Let's stop and assess what we are doing to our environment and way of life, and specifically to the critical area of agriculture, before we approve any more resorts and golf courses.

Mollie — Mon Oct. 6th 11:38a.m.

It is too late to save Bend from the scourge of destination resorts (AKA sagebrush subdivisions). More important now is saving the Metolius basin from Ponderosa Land and Cattle. The Metolius area is far too precious to give it over to destination resorts.

Luckyrucksack — Mon Oct. 6th 12:18p.m.

Here we go again, with the aversion to anything that seems nice. I hate destination resorts like the ones in Oregon. But I hate them on aesthetic grounds, because they are all second-rate. Not, because I am a xenophobe, a traditionalist and/or think central Oregon is fine china. Central Oregon's economy wouldn't exist in any real way if it wasn't for these resorts, it has little else going for it. There is no real substance to these aversions---it is thoroughly cultural, and essentially a reversed bigotry. We can live here but you can't! This mentality is getting so boring and lop-sided and it really ruins it for environmentalists and other activists on issues of greater importance.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 12:23p.m.

Scott--I disagree that "there is no real substance to these aversions". While the resorts east of town do not pose much of a threat to anything beside junipers and sagebrush, the ones proposed on the Metolius are going to change that area permanently and dramatically. That is what needs to be focused on now. The Metolius is truly a national treasure that needs to be protected from these rapacious developers.

Luckyrucksack — Mon Oct. 6th 12:31p.m.

I am sure there are some cases with true environmental impact, but the real aversion is cultural and thoroughly unsubstantive---just read the comments on this site. This type of ignorant thought invades so much of Oregon, I expect it from conservatives, but I expect more from liberals. We hear the same irrational comments about the 'Pearl' in Portland---as if everyone in the Pearl is evil and everyone in NE are saints. (No I don't live in the Pearl.)

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 12:48p.m.

I don't know...most of the arguments on this page seem pretty rational to me: pulling water out of the river/aquifer, poor quality jobs, long commutes, destruction of unique environments, burden on infrastructure etc.

And I don't see anyone saying there is *no* legitimate place for destination resorts in Central Oregon. But do we really need *more* golf courses on top of the 23 we already have? (http://www.oregongolf.com/cent/)

As far as I'm concerned, they can build as many of these things out east of town they want. But enough with the golf courses, and I really, really hope they keep their filthy mitts off the Metolius!

Luckyrucksack — Mon Oct. 6th 1:06p.m.

You kind of answer it yourself, with "do we really need *more* golf courses"? Do you hate golf? I generally do. But, it doesn't mean I am about to require that people should stop building them. I guess, perhaps you are suggesting there is something cultural about golf that you don't like, because many of the people who play it are rich people. Which is my point, that this is about culture. Would low income housing be okay? An eco-village? This is very much about what is being built.

What about the natives, why the hell did they have to ruin the area by moving there in the first place? Or was that okay? First come, first served? I am a huge advocate against sprawl. I live in the city and walk most places because of these views, however I am not about to advocate against something, when the something is on shoddy ground---and is largely motivated by cultural and social views.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 1:54p.m.

Golf courses use lots of water, herbicide and have nitrogen runoff. They are used to prove that the development is a "resort" when it is, in actuality, a subdivision which violates the letter and spirit of the land use laws. Psydneyh

Psydneyh — Mon Oct. 6th 2:40p.m.

Is that the only way to prove something is a resort?

Can't they change the land use laws?

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 3:10p.m.

Sorry, I disagree with the statement: "While the resorts east of town do not pose much of a threat to anything beside junipers and sagebrush".

Those so called resorts aren't being built east of Brothers, but in Powell Butte. The area comprises thirty thousands acres of green Ag farms. It's rural, it's country, and it's great people. And guess what, the Crook County Destination Resort Overlay map that controls where you can site DR's consists of thirty thousand acres of Powell Butte. With the passage of the recent ballot measure, the Crook County Court is in the process of trimming back the Overlay Map to just the current approved DR's. For the record, this Overlap Map was generated by the first DR applicant in Crook County with strong influence by the real estate lobby. And finally, the DR State Statue (something out of Salem) ties the hands of local communities, as the statue's effectively trumps local zoning. I am sure if Statue Statue allowed airports to site new facilities where ever without regard to local community zoning, we all be hollering.

TDP555 — Tue Oct. 7th 7:29a.m.

I am at a loss as to where to get facts that back up a statement like,"Central Oregon's economy etc." Does it have to be big and growing to sustain the people in the area?

Michael Onstad — Mon Oct. 6th 1:12p.m.

I'm not sure what you are asking? What people in the area? The, we were here first, natives? The people that have moved to Central Oregon thinking its economy could support them? No, I suppose the economy in Central Oregon doesn't need to be large, it could just support the natives.

You are right. I was foolish to suggest that the resorts added to the economy, it didn't particularly add to my argument, the argument was strong enough without it.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 1:35p.m.

I would suggest google. Heh.

Luckyrucksack — Mon Oct. 6th 5:46p.m.

The costs of Central Oregon destination resorts have not been adequately quantified, and they are not being weighed against the purported economic benefits of resort development. Here are just a few examples:
How much is being spent on native fish reintroductions like steelhead and salmon that need greater flows in our waterways? And given the voracious water needs of 19 resorts, is that just money wasted?
What is the value of wildlife corridors and winter range for big game?
What is the cost to cities and counties to provide emergency services to far-flung resorts?
How much are taxpayers footing the bill for high-cost improvements and maintenance of roads that serve resorts?

At a time when the environmental, health and infrastructure costs of building exurbs are becoming widely recognized in our country, local governments should be including such concerns in their everyday decisions on how cities and counties grow.

Merry Ann — Mon Oct. 6th 12:25p.m.

I hadn't read your post when I made mine. you say it better. Resorts aren't a monolithic organization and they could be restructured to better asure benefit to all involved.

Michael Onstad — Mon Oct. 6th 1:01p.m.

Even if we know the answers to these questions how do we decide them? How do we make such distinctions? It didn't work well after Katrina, by suggesting it is an area not worth rebuilding, because the future risks are too great. Granted this isn't rebuilding, but building. Do property taxes generally cover many of these costs?

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 2:04p.m.

I am a Tumalo (Bend) resident who has lived in Central Oregon for 20 years. There are a few positives of having destination resorts. Sunriver provides miles of biking, walking and running trails, as well as canoeing and great community events such as the Music Festival and the Pacific Crest Sports Festival. Their pools are open to the public, as are their parks. Inn of the Seventh Mountain offers ice skating, rafting, horeback riding and mountain biking to locals. Others, however, such as Pronghorn and Crosswater, shut out locals. If you are not a homeowner or a visitor staying on the property, you are not welcome. I guess the residents can't be expected to associate with the like of regular Bendites.

A negative thing resorts do is widen the chasm between the wealthy and the poor. Although they offer many jobs, few of these jobs pay a living wage. In fact, most are minimum wage jobs. These workers who are hired to serve the wealthy (who else can afford a home or a vacation at these resorts?) are unable to afford housing or provide a decent living for their families. While the resorts get more beautiful by their labor, the surrounding towns take a dive.

gladcat — Mon Oct. 6th 12:26p.m.

As we enter the oil-expensive future, destination resorts will make less and less sense. The price of gas will make the tourism slow down, and employees won't be able to afford to drive to them. Economically they will not work in the future. In the future much of this land will have to revert to farming.

As far as "affordable housing" in Bend.... we are getting there quickly without intervention. Medians are dropping quickly and in a year or two we will see house prices that ARE affordable.

jonestim — Mon Oct. 6th 12:38p.m.

So, in the future if everyone drives an electric car, if oil goes down and the economy rebounds to amazing heights, or everyone rides their bike to Central Oregon, would the resorts be okay then? There is either something of substance wrong with the resorts of there isn't. Hypothetical asides and projections have nothing to do with it.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 12:54p.m.

I'm a resident of Central Oregon. My main concern with these destination resorts is their impact on our resources. One example is the level of the ground water in the aquifer I access to provide my drinking water. Thornburg?s golf courses will use millions of gallons of water per day, pumped from that aquifer, when they irrigate. This will lower the ground water levels over time which will force me and a lot of other people that live in the rural areas to drill deeper wells at a very high cost. It might cost me between $20,000 to $40,000. to drill a new well. It seems to me that is a very high cost to the rural residents of the county.

Peter m — Mon Oct. 6th 12:46p.m.

I used to hunt ducks and geese at Camp Abbott until John Gray destroyed that hunting area by building Sunriver. Then a few years later I was tracking a big elk when I got to the west side of the river and looked across right into someones huge living room window. Now you can't hunt within 500 yards of the river because Sunriver is there.

Sunriver destroyed a great local hunting area, so I'm not impressed.

In other words, my recreation opportunities were sacrificed so someone could make money.

Tom D Ford — Mon Oct. 6th 12:52p.m.

One point in support of resorts! Sunriver is great then if it took away the barbarism of hunting.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 12:57p.m.

There are a lot more questions than just do or don't. I would like to see a list of some of the questions and of places to get facts instead of oppinions about resourses, finances and impact.

Michael Onstad — Mon Oct. 6th 1:04p.m.

Michael Onstad,

Are you suggesting we can't have opinions about what motivates this concern? Even if it can be shown that there are economic and environmental concerns---which there clearly must be, we would also have to do comparisons, to show that these concerns were greater then the average concerns about developing any area, for these concerns to have some real weight.

Even so, the fact that this could be largely motivated by the cultural and social can still be equally valid---and this speculation or opinion would be incredibly hard to prove, if it is even possible to prove at all. It doesn't make this speculation irrelevant or inappropriate, it is after all speculation. I hope we don't reduce conversation to things that can only be proven by facts and statistics, it would leave us with a lot less to talk about.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 2:21p.m.

@ Scottmil:

Uh huh, and all those steaks eaten by Sunriver tourists were hunted by proxy, in slaughter houses hidden away from the tender eyes of the "civilized", non-barbarians.

Sheesh.

Tom D Ford — Mon Oct. 6th 1:06p.m.

Well, I don't eat meat. I don't applaud the steak eaters at Sunriver nor do I applaud hunters. I'm quite familiar with slaughter houses. So if some of those Sunriver residents are also hunters does this make them better people? Which is essentially what you are suggesting. Which is exactly why this problem is cultural.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 1:15p.m.

The question is not resorts yes or no but what are the resources, how is it managed, what is the impact/contribution. Resorts differ as do costs and benefits. Could you talk about ways to structure and assess

Michael Onstad — Mon Oct. 6th 12:57p.m.

There are plenty of towns in Central Oregon, we don't need to build any more. If you want to come visit, come to one of the already existing cities and towns.

Tom D Ford — Mon Oct. 6th 12:58p.m.

Yes. It seems to me that the people in the area now, not those with the most money to throw at it, should have first say about how the land will be used.

Michael Onstad — Mon Oct. 6th 1:08p.m.

So, if the majority of the people in any area want to do something, that makes it okay? Isn't that why we already have so many problems? Because the majority are often wrong.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 1:41p.m.

You right on. Local control is through a planning commission. Trouble is State statue for DR's trumps this. Go check out Brasada and what you find is 90% of it is still zoned EFU. For those that don't know the term - it means "Exclusive Farm Use". You pay a lot more tax on the little green grass in your backyard, then they pay on those big putting greens.

TDP555 — Tue Oct. 7th 6:25a.m.

There is one reason for the excessive number of these places: unbridled greed. The people of our state keep sending the same message to these folks: go away. They, their lawyers, and their lobbiests should do that.
Gary Beren

gberne — Mon Oct. 6th 1:02p.m.

There is already agricultural development. Why not allow destination development? What is so great about agriculture? Pesticides, antibiotics, polluted runoff into our rivers, farm machinery, exporting to other countries, use of illegal immigrants to compete with world wide produce prices, I don't think agriculture is such a great business to protect.

cathleenr — Mon Oct. 6th 1:02p.m.

I'm sorry, but this is a vapid comment. Do you propose we go back to hunting and gathering? What did you eat for breakfast this morning? Berries that you picked in you back yard?

Sure, there are problems with the food production system, but hating on farming is not going to get you very far.

Luckyrucksack — Mon Oct. 6th 1:14p.m.

You didn't know? Farmers are heroes! They are all such great people! They care so much about the land and the planet! I would love to hear the results of a survey about the kind of people farmers are. You would think they were running a charity they way we talk about them in America. I'm sure they are Sarah Palin's biggest fans!

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 1:20p.m.

Okay, so meat is out and agriculture is out. Do you have a hollow tree full of acorns?

Luckyrucksack — Mon Oct. 6th 5:51p.m.

Luckyrucksack,

Nobody said anything was out. I'm just not going to accept these ludicrous suggestions that farming is inherently noble or for the greater good, golf courses are inherently bad, and anyone but rich people are great. Which is in a nutshell what this is about. This is largely, as I said many times, about cultural and social values.

I don't like most of the Central Oregon resorts, I think they are tacky, and sub-par---I would never live in one. But, views on this are based largely on aesthetics, and hating the stereotypical culture of the type of people that comprise the community. But, then again I probably can't stand most of the people and the urban planning of a trailer park. That is the problem, this is based largely on personal preferences or styles, and it is very hard to find an acceptable place to draw a line.

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 6:17p.m.

oh yeah, and agriculture uses lots of water resources.

cathleenr — Mon Oct. 6th 1:04p.m.

I don't get how agriculture got dragged into this. We're talking about destination resorts here. So unless you are talking about golf courses as agriculture (see below), you might want to start a new thread on the merits of agriculture elsewhere.

Luckyrucksack — Mon Oct. 6th 5:53p.m.

Because in the header it says: "consideration for agriculture."

scottmil — Mon Oct. 6th 5:56p.m.

Most of the water that Ag uses at least recharges the aquifer. Water for golf courses has a 98% evaporation. As far as Ag, the State statue for DR's says they must be compatible with the surrounding community. Unfortunately, DR's have morfed into housing tracks. The destination "resort" feature of the latest DR approved in Crook County is RV spaces and it's across the street from a major Ag region in Powell Butte. That's why we have UGB to control the proper location for urban growth. That's also why the Ballot Measure passed by a 2-to-1 margin in Crook County to halt further DR's.

TDP555 — Tue Oct. 7th 6:50a.m.

Destination resorts have proliferated and have become a way to circumvent UGB in the state. Rural sprawl that gives Destination resorts more rights to develop sewers and gentrified Gated communities that are not tourist attractions but exclusive homesites in areas that would not be developed to the extent or place a huge demand on water resources that just normal development would not. Use of water determined on a resort by resort basis and not looking at a cumulative effect is a dangerous course. Contrary to a former Deschutes County Commissioners comments a golf course should not be looked at as just a another farm crop.

lapinerobert — Mon Oct. 6th 5:05p.m.

I'm in total agreement on stopping DR's near the Metolius, but I don't agree with the logic to dump them east of Bend. I assume, east of Bend means Powell Butte. We need to be unified in stopping this cancer. A not-in-by-backyard mindset is short sited. The DR's in Powell Butte are being serviced by Avion. Guess where this water is sucked from. It isn't in Crook County. Wake up folks. Bend is doing rationing, while those additional golf course's suck us dry. Let's face it these new proposed DR's coming on line are not a Sun River class resort. They're housing tracks outside the UGB. They trump local zoning. One in particular, Pronghorn is a gated community and they've pretty much given the middle finger to Deschutes County. The jobs these DR's provide are a joke. Nobody wants to scrub toilets in Brasada. We need to face the facts that DR's are incompatible. Deschutes County needs to follow Crook County in imposing a moritorium till we get real answers on the effect DR's impact on urban growth, water, roads, wildlife habitat, and fish. We don't need a myopic view, but a tri-county planning entity that isn't in the back pockets of the real estate lobby.

TDP555 — Tue Oct. 7th 6:12a.m.

George Carlin suggested, and I paraphrase: If we want to get serious about "saving the planet" we need to plow up grave yards and golf courses so we have land to grow food for starving people. Dead people are fertilizer. Golf is an elitist sport in which only the rich participate. I laugh every time I hear this bit because too many people fight for their self interest but not for what might be best for "everything" concerned. Central Oregon doesn't have enough natural water to sustain lots of folk without augmenting the environment dramatically. Do we have to pave over every square foot of the planet because some of us think we need to be fruitful, multiply and create enormous pseudo wealth built on the backs of soma-sucking slaves? I know, I'm heading to Room 101 right now. 2 + 2 is 5. I know the drill....

Winston Smith

trurl9 — Tue Oct. 7th 1:58p.m.

Comments are now closed.