Methow Valley Citizens' Council
Newsletter Archives
MVCC Archive Index
The Valley Voice
News from the Methow Valley Citizens Council
Winter 1998 |
 |
The Subdivision Versus Housing Development Debate
- Editorial
Many Methow residents have questioned which of two development scenarios
would be the least damaging to the critical wildlife habitat along the
upper Methow and to the human community in the valley: the Merrill family's
proposed housing development and resort, or the subdivision that could
result if the development is abandoned.
The Merrill family proposes to divide the 1200 acres in question into
514 house lots, 2 lodges, a resort village with condominiums, convention
halls, shops and restaurants, a golf course and an equestrian center. 295
of the lots are for large houses; the suggested price of the 3/4 ace lots
alone is $250,000, according to Charlie Wright of the Merrills. The total
"dwelling units" of this plan, icluding hotel accommodations, is over 800.
The proposed development is not "clustered," it is spread across much of
the available 1200 acres. Most of the "open space" is in the flood plain
of the river, on which it is illegal to build dwellings anyway
If the proposed housing development is prevented, the Merrill family
has said that they will subdivide and sell the land. The property would
be subdivided into 20 acre parcels, and buyers could legally subdivide
many lots to 5 acres. Under this scenario, over 240 lots could result.
It is MVCC's judgment that even this dense subdivision alternative would
be far less ecologically and socially damaging than the houses, condos,
cabins, lodges and trimmings advocated by Merrill. Should the current Mazarna
residents' proposal to raise the minimurn lot size to 10 acres succeed,
subdivision density would be halved.
Furthermore, this subdivision scenario is unlikely to actually occur.
Among a number of possible variables are the following: 1) Some parcels
would probably be sold in larger units (i.e. 10 and 20 acres rather than
5), 2) Many of the parcels that did sell might very well never be built
upon, or would not be developed for many years (this has been the pattern
with lots in the upper valley), 3) Some of the most valuable of the wildlife
habitat on the Merrill's property could be purchased 'in a conservancy
buyout. While the Memills have said that they have no interest in protecting
this habitat, several conservancy groups have offered to seek funds to
purchase the most critical areas, 4) With no resort, reduced lot value
could incline Merrill to accept a reasonable conservancy offer for all
or part of the property for sound financial reasons.
Even the Arrowleaf EIS population projection predicts a comparatively
benign development scene should the resort proposal die. The EIS predicts
120 new residences would be constructed between 1990 and 2019 in the Early
Winters census area, including the Arrowleaf site, the Mazama area, lands
between Mazama and Winthrop, the Chewuch, and the Rendezvous. The Arrowleaf
site comprises a relatively small percentage of this geographic area and
could reasonably be expected to represent a small percentage of the 120
residences projected with no resort. Even 20 percent of the total residences
would produce only 24 dwellings at the site. While Merrill claims that
467 dwelling could be squeezed onto the property (sans resort), their own
EIS projections show this threat to be unrealistic.
It is the judgment of MVCC that a conservation buyout, or a combination
of buyout of critical habitat and subdivision elsewhere is far preferable
to the impact of a large scale and upscale housing development of the size
and design proposed by Merrill. The latter will enrich the coffers of the
Merrill family, but their financial gain will be extracted at considerable
cost to the natural beauty, the precious wildlife, and to the sense of
community in which many current residents find their sense of wealth and
well being.
MVCC Archive Index
Design by Floradora