Pacific Northwest should require resort developers to be responsible
Oregon and Washington have the two strongest growth management laws in the country. As far as of designating areas for urban growth and protecting working farms and forests goes, nothing compares.
Unfortunately, there's a loophole in both laws which allows the development of big resorts outside of designated urban areas.
In Oregon, they’re called “Designation Resorts” (ORS 197.435-467). In Washington, they’re called “Master Planned Resorts” (RCW 36.70A.360). That the Washington loophole mirrors Oregon's is not surprising as Washington's Growth Management Act (passed by the Legislature in 1990 and 1991), was largely modeled after Oregon's law, adopted in 1973.
Both provisions are meant to provide vacationers with increased opportunities to connect with nature and to provide rural counties with economic development. But do they achieve either of these objectives?
Joseph Sax, the well known public trust law scholar, proposed a new wild lands management approach in his book Mountains Without Handrails.
His thesis was that land should be managed to maximize a visitor's chances of gaining a significant appreciation for nature. I think such an approach is how we must treat the siting of resorts and what amenities are offered.
While both the Oregon and Washington statutes require these resorts be located in rustic areas, developers rarely make an effort to actually place vacationers in a setting that can be described as natural.
The resorts almost always coddle their guests with indoor recreation and golf courses. For example, Suncadia, a master planned resort near Roslyn, Washington (located east of Snoqulamie Pass), offers two eighteen hole golf courses, indoor swimming pool, fitness center, and ice skating rink.
Semiahmoo, a master planned resort near Blaine, Washington, offers two eighteen hole golf courses, a spa, and five dining options. The Resort at Port Ludlow offers twenty seven holes of golf, “exceptional” dining, and a marina for luxury yachting.
In Oregon, the Running Y Ranch, a destination resort near Klamath Falls, Oregon, offers an Arnold Palmer designed eighteen hole golf course, an ice arena, sports and fitness center, and several dining and retail opportunities. Then there's Eagle Crest, a destination resort near Redmond, Oregon. It offers three eighteen hole golf courses, an indoor and outdoor pool with spray park and wading pool, eleven miles of paved trails, a fitness center, and several dining options.
The Pronghorn Club near Bend, Oregon, offers both Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio designed golf courses. The Brandon Dunes Golf Resort on the southern Oregon coast, offers four golf courses and not much else.
All these artificial amenities - which are pitched to vacationers before and during their trip - leave little time for enjoying our region's natural wonders or the scenic landscapes these resorts are purposefully set in.
What's to be done about this unfortunate situation?
A good first step would be to ensure that resorts actually connect their vacationers to nature. Activities should be geared toward the surrounding environment.
There are a few resorts that at least provide some opportunity to do more than play games in the midst of rustic countryside. The Brasada Ranch, a destination resort in Eastern Oregon, provides an equestrian center with 1,800 acres for roaming and stocked ponds and streams for fishing, although the developers couldn't resist also including a golf course.
The Running Y Ranch provides opportunities to experience Western life on horseback with trail rides, cattle round-ups, and barrel racing, as well as guided fly-fishing trips, scenic boat tours, kayaking, canoeing, whitewater rafting, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, bird watching, bird hunting, and geocaching.
And the Rosario Resort on Orcas Island offers essentially only sea-based adventures to explore the Puget Sound.
A second step would be to take preventative action to protect our environment from further destructive development.
Two proposed developments in and near the Metolius River Basin in Oregon provide a striking example of how resorts can harm ecosystems.
The Metolius River is a crystal clear river that magically appears from an aquifer in the eastern Cascades. Federally designated as a Wild and Scenic River, the river is home to one of the world’s finest bull trout populations – who grow up to thirty inches long! This great place, loved by generations of Oregonians, is threatened by two very different resorts.
One resort, the Ponderosa, isn’t actually within the upper basin of the river, but just over the ridge. However, the Ponderosa is meant to be a whopper of a resort, with two golf courses and residences for up to nine thousand vacationers. Its wells would draw two and a half million gallons of water.
How will that impact the Metolius River and those precious bull trout (which, by the way, are listed as a threatened species)?
The other resort, the Metolian, seems more benign as it is intended to be much smaller in size and will supposedly be built using the principles of Natural Step. However, even this resort adds six and hundred and thirty residences, which at least triples the existing development within the basin.
Thus, the Metolian essentially dumps a huge subdivision in the middle of Oregon’s equivalent of Tolkien’s Shire.
When and where are we going to draw the line? Can't we agree that urban development is just completely inappropriate for some places? Like the North Cascades, Zion, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Olympics, Glacier, or Hells Canyon?
The Metolius is one of those places.
The development threat may be neutralized by the Oregon Legislature, administrative regulations, the Oregon Supreme Court, or private action through a land trust. Nevertheless, the proposed urban oases in the Metolius symbolize what is wrong with resort development today.
Too many modern resorts fail to connect vacationers with nature, deprive others of the ability to enjoy our environment, and harm ecosystems.
An important reason for allowing these islands of development outside of designated urban areas is the supposed economic boon they provide to local communities. Sadly, often resorts fail to pay their own way.
A county can receive some compensation through impact fees for the public services the county provides to the resort.
Unfortunately, a county can come under pressure from the developer to reduce impact fees so as to incentivize the construction of the resort, which the developer argues will bring general economic development to the region.
Counties may also be hampered by asymmetric information or uncertainties regarding costs, resulting in inadequate compensation.
Cities are in a worse position. Cities that are located near these resorts often see an increase demand for public services. More traffic rolls through town. More people use parks. The city's fire services may be needed in an emergency.
These cities have no way to recoup these costs through impact fees. Only the counties have the authority to collect the fees.
Again, what's to be done about this? Here are a few specific ideas:
Unfortunately, there's a loophole in both laws which allows the development of big resorts outside of designated urban areas.
In Oregon, they’re called “Designation Resorts” (ORS 197.435-467). In Washington, they’re called “Master Planned Resorts” (RCW 36.70A.360). That the Washington loophole mirrors Oregon's is not surprising as Washington's Growth Management Act (passed by the Legislature in 1990 and 1991), was largely modeled after Oregon's law, adopted in 1973.
Both provisions are meant to provide vacationers with increased opportunities to connect with nature and to provide rural counties with economic development. But do they achieve either of these objectives?
Joseph Sax, the well known public trust law scholar, proposed a new wild lands management approach in his book Mountains Without Handrails.
His thesis was that land should be managed to maximize a visitor's chances of gaining a significant appreciation for nature. I think such an approach is how we must treat the siting of resorts and what amenities are offered.
While both the Oregon and Washington statutes require these resorts be located in rustic areas, developers rarely make an effort to actually place vacationers in a setting that can be described as natural.
The resorts almost always coddle their guests with indoor recreation and golf courses. For example, Suncadia, a master planned resort near Roslyn, Washington (located east of Snoqulamie Pass), offers two eighteen hole golf courses, indoor swimming pool, fitness center, and ice skating rink.
Semiahmoo, a master planned resort near Blaine, Washington, offers two eighteen hole golf courses, a spa, and five dining options. The Resort at Port Ludlow offers twenty seven holes of golf, “exceptional” dining, and a marina for luxury yachting.
In Oregon, the Running Y Ranch, a destination resort near Klamath Falls, Oregon, offers an Arnold Palmer designed eighteen hole golf course, an ice arena, sports and fitness center, and several dining and retail opportunities. Then there's Eagle Crest, a destination resort near Redmond, Oregon. It offers three eighteen hole golf courses, an indoor and outdoor pool with spray park and wading pool, eleven miles of paved trails, a fitness center, and several dining options.
The Pronghorn Club near Bend, Oregon, offers both Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio designed golf courses. The Brandon Dunes Golf Resort on the southern Oregon coast, offers four golf courses and not much else.
All these artificial amenities - which are pitched to vacationers before and during their trip - leave little time for enjoying our region's natural wonders or the scenic landscapes these resorts are purposefully set in.
What's to be done about this unfortunate situation?
A good first step would be to ensure that resorts actually connect their vacationers to nature. Activities should be geared toward the surrounding environment.
There are a few resorts that at least provide some opportunity to do more than play games in the midst of rustic countryside. The Brasada Ranch, a destination resort in Eastern Oregon, provides an equestrian center with 1,800 acres for roaming and stocked ponds and streams for fishing, although the developers couldn't resist also including a golf course.
The Running Y Ranch provides opportunities to experience Western life on horseback with trail rides, cattle round-ups, and barrel racing, as well as guided fly-fishing trips, scenic boat tours, kayaking, canoeing, whitewater rafting, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, bird watching, bird hunting, and geocaching.
And the Rosario Resort on Orcas Island offers essentially only sea-based adventures to explore the Puget Sound.
A second step would be to take preventative action to protect our environment from further destructive development.
Two proposed developments in and near the Metolius River Basin in Oregon provide a striking example of how resorts can harm ecosystems.
The Metolius River is a crystal clear river that magically appears from an aquifer in the eastern Cascades. Federally designated as a Wild and Scenic River, the river is home to one of the world’s finest bull trout populations – who grow up to thirty inches long! This great place, loved by generations of Oregonians, is threatened by two very different resorts.
One resort, the Ponderosa, isn’t actually within the upper basin of the river, but just over the ridge. However, the Ponderosa is meant to be a whopper of a resort, with two golf courses and residences for up to nine thousand vacationers. Its wells would draw two and a half million gallons of water.
How will that impact the Metolius River and those precious bull trout (which, by the way, are listed as a threatened species)?
The other resort, the Metolian, seems more benign as it is intended to be much smaller in size and will supposedly be built using the principles of Natural Step. However, even this resort adds six and hundred and thirty residences, which at least triples the existing development within the basin.
Thus, the Metolian essentially dumps a huge subdivision in the middle of Oregon’s equivalent of Tolkien’s Shire.
When and where are we going to draw the line? Can't we agree that urban development is just completely inappropriate for some places? Like the North Cascades, Zion, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Olympics, Glacier, or Hells Canyon?
The Metolius is one of those places.
The development threat may be neutralized by the Oregon Legislature, administrative regulations, the Oregon Supreme Court, or private action through a land trust. Nevertheless, the proposed urban oases in the Metolius symbolize what is wrong with resort development today.
Too many modern resorts fail to connect vacationers with nature, deprive others of the ability to enjoy our environment, and harm ecosystems.
An important reason for allowing these islands of development outside of designated urban areas is the supposed economic boon they provide to local communities. Sadly, often resorts fail to pay their own way.
A county can receive some compensation through impact fees for the public services the county provides to the resort.
Unfortunately, a county can come under pressure from the developer to reduce impact fees so as to incentivize the construction of the resort, which the developer argues will bring general economic development to the region.
Counties may also be hampered by asymmetric information or uncertainties regarding costs, resulting in inadequate compensation.
Cities are in a worse position. Cities that are located near these resorts often see an increase demand for public services. More traffic rolls through town. More people use parks. The city's fire services may be needed in an emergency.
These cities have no way to recoup these costs through impact fees. Only the counties have the authority to collect the fees.
Again, what's to be done about this? Here are a few specific ideas:
- Ensure resorts are not residential subdivisions, but are truly destinations for low impact tourism.
- Make resorts pay their fair share for county and city public services, including emergency response. Grant cities the ability to charge an impact fee.
- Ensure resorts do not interfere with commercial farm, ranch, or forestry operations on EFU or forestry lands.
- Site resorts at least ten miles away from any wilderness and at least five miles from any Wild & Scenic River.
- Resorts must have no net negative impact on water quantity or quality of in-stream flow.
- Resorts must have a net-zero carbon impact, including estimated vehicles miles traveled to the resort by tourists, workers, and residents.
- Keep resorts out of critical habitat for state and federally listed species and ensure resorts will have no net negative impact on listed species.
- Ensure resorts have no net impact on big game habitat or migration patterns.
- Require resorts, as a core mission of the enterprise, to provide educational programs for the engagement of visitors with either the surrounding ecosystem or an integrated agricultural enterprise.
- Prohibit the construction of resorts within ten miles of another resort or urban growth boundary.
- Prevent further development within five miles of the destination resort, as of the time the development permit is issued and in perpetuity, accomplished either through a TDR program, land trust, public-private partnership, or zoning.
- Recreation not based on ecological experiences, such as golf courses, tennis courts, basketball courts, and swimming pools, must be limited to a certain number of acres.
# Posted by Brock : 10:00 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment