Dear HCN,
Beauty has definitely not
eluded the Beast, and this Beast does not turn out to be any Prince
Charming … In the past I have greatly enjoyed and appreciated the
journalism of HCN. The Nov. 28 article on the Methow Valley,
however, was exceedingly optimistic. The idea of development based
on compromise and an environmental foundation sounds great on
paper. However, Tom Robinson’s job is intimately connected to the
proposal. He is neither unbiased nor disinterested in this
development, his past environmental credentials
notwithstanding.
A foundation to protect wildlife
after the fact of development is absurd. The development parcel is
a slender finger approximately one-half mile wide surrounded by
Forest Service land, Paysaten Wilderness, Chelan Sawtooth
Wilderness, and North Cascades National Park. The development area
itself needs protection. No mention is made of the Forest Service
documents that show the entire development area is used extensively
by the largest migratory mule deer herd in the state as both
staging areas and migratory corridor. The general area and directly
adjoining public land is also shown to be home to spotted owl,
bear, cougar and bald eagle. In the adjacent wilderness area,
wolves have begun to make a tentative
comeback.
Maggie Coon suggests that absence of a
downhill ski resort will tone down real estate speculation. The
publicity generated by your article, the efforts of Merrill, et al,
and the recent three-page spread in the travel section of the
Washington, D.C., Post, should suffice to dispel any
fantasies.
The article also fails to closely
examine Merrill’s development. Merrill has chosen to pursue
piecemeal development, thereby avoiding (at least so far) a
comprehensive environmental review. Instead they have divided out a
convenient parcel in order to begin development with the Wilson
Ranch. There is no attempt to be open with complete plans, although
the majority of acreage is yet to be
developed.
Merrill claimed to welcome the public
in their Wilson Ranch development, and intended to include public
access to their initial ski lodge. But, lo, they had already
maximized the allowable density and ran into inconvenient problems
with sewage treatment. So now the public gets access to porta
potties instead.
The ultimate build-out numbers
of 500 to 600 units mentioned in the article are of interest. Where
did they come from? Merrill has yet to make public its full plans.
Instead, they are now asking the county to vacate 2.5 miles of
county road. My calculations show this would revert land of
approximately $100,000 in value to Merrill, and extinguish all
public access to their property. Merrill says the road
configuration does not fit with their development plans. In order
to make rational assessments, the full development must be
revealed. Merrill seems to prefer to gain as many concessions as
possible while revealing as little as
possible.
No mention is made of the fact that
Beulah LaMotte, my neighbor, has quit the Methow Valley Citizens’
Council. A number of other locals have quit in disgust also. Many
spent countless hours and dollars in the 1980s taking the last
developer all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court – and winning.
There is dismay at the co-opting of local development by the
Friends of the Methow in Seattle, and dissatisfaction with the MVCC
development direction. Merrill chooses to sit down and negotiate
away the hard-fought gains of the “80s with select individuals who
endorse development.
Impacts on an area always
correlate to numbers of people. The more people, the more impact.
Subdivision into five-acre parcels is held out by Merrill as the
ultimate boogey-man. In fact, if the entire 1,200 acres was divided
into five-acre lots, a total of 240 dwelling units could be
created. Compare that to the 60-plus units in the Wilson Ranch
alone and the 500 to 600 cited in your
article.
Washington state documents from the
departments of fisheries and ecology show this river basin to be
over-allocated in its water use, and the salmon runs to be severely
depressed. Creation of five-acre lakes for the benefit of real
estate developers is not helpful. The whole water issue is in
question. The legal challenge has yet to be settled, and is being
vigorously pursued. Merrill’s lands hold claims from the turn of
the century that are questionable in their validity and quantity.
The issue of turning questionable old agricultural claims into
lakes, golf courses and development raises legal questions for
local farmers and other water users, as well as the previously
mentioned issues of over-allocation and
fisheries.
It was with great disappointment that
I noted the omission of the above issues in your article. There are
valid and pressing reasons why this development is no better, and
in some ways worse, than previous proposals. The fundamental
question is not whether to have a downhill ski resort or a
cross-country/golf resort. The fundamental question is: Can any
resort in this location be
justified?
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline No development is justified in the Methow Valley.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
