Development

To some, they’ve become “sagebrush subdivisions” that threaten to overwhelm local resources including roads, water and wildlife.

To others, they’re a huge economic boost, creating jobs and increasing tax revenues for rural counties who need the money.

But whatever you think of destination resorts, they’re a force to be reckoned with, especially in Central Oregon where at least six resorts are under construction and four more are in the planning stages. If all the projects are completed, they’ll add more than 9,000 homes to Jefferson, Crook and Deschutes Counties.

The growing controversy over destination resorts is giving legislators a reason to take a hard look at the laws that created them. This afternoon the House Land Use Committee will resume work on HB 2227, a bill that could lead to a major overhaul of the rules that govern these large scale developments.

To understand how we got here, a quick history lesson. The laws for desination resorts were written in the mid-1980s. The purpose was to find a way to boost rural economies through tourism, creating high value sites that would attract visitors from around the region. Sunriver and Black Butte are the two best examples of what the laws intended.

But the laws also created a giant loophole by allowing destination resorts to be built outside urban growth boundaries and without having to go through Oregon’s complex land use system. Over time, the laws were changed to allow more permanent homes with less lodging and tourist facilities.

The result, according to environmentalists, is that destination resorts are now really subdivisions in disguise. Erik Kancler of Central Oregon LandWatch says developers are taking advantage of the law as a way of avoiding the close scrutiny the projects would receive if they followed the normal planning process. Others complain that these so-called resorts are really small towns being built without regard to their impact on water supply, wildfires, wildlife and local infrastructure.

Another group supporting this new look is 1000 Friends of Oregon. It wants the laws to be changed so that destination resorts go back to supporting tourism, and that overnight lodging is their primary purpose. Carol Macbeth of the Friends compares the newer resorts to gated communities designed to keep out visitors rather than encouraging them. The group also wants to make sure desination resorts are kept out of areas where there’s a high risk of wildfires, away from farmland and big game habitat, and closer to existing towns.

The work session on HB 2227 begins today at 3pm in Hearing Room E at the state capitol.

Earlier Stories:

Big Resorts And The Impact On Central Oregon

Those large scale destination resorts will be getting a lot attention this afternoon.

Starting at 1pm, the Land Conservation and Development Commission resumes work on a plan to protect the Metolius River Basin.  The LCDC has already voted to name the Metolius Basin as an Area Of Critical State Concern, which in theory, should limit or prevent destination resorts from being developed there.   But the Commission is still working on the details of the plan.

Two destination resorts that are being planned for the Basin have won local approval.  If this new plan becomes law, then the state of Oregon takes control over the area.  Whatever the LCDC decides, it goes to the legislature as a recommendation.

Then at 3pm the House Land Use Committee takes up the broader issue of destination resorts across the state.  HB 2227 directs state officials to look at current law to see if it’s working, and propose possible changes.  Environmentalists complain that many of the destination resorts under considering are really new subdivisions in disguise.  But they say developers are calling them “destination resorts” because that makes it easier to win approval.

It’s hard to imagine Central Oregon without thinking of big destination resorts. Names like Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch are almost as iconic as Mt. Bachelor and the Three Sisters.

But an environmental group is raising questions about the impacts of destination resorts on taxpayers. Central Oregon LandWatch says newer resorts are a drain on local governments, despite the tax revenues they produce.

To make its point, Landwatch hired a consulting firm from Eugene to study the impact of the proposed Thornburgh Resort near Redmond. Thornburgh was chosen because it would have a mix of homes and overnight lodging that’s typical for newer destination resorts, and because the plans include golf courses.

The conclusion? If you add up the revenues from property taxes and room taxes, then subtract the costs of government services the resort would use, you end up with a small surplus of about $466,000 per year.

But that doesn’t include certain fixed costs such as the price of building extra police and fire stations, and adding more schools and roads. Once those costs are factored in, local taxpayers wind up with a bill of almost $46 million dollars.

LandWatch Executive Director Erik Kancler says there’s a big difference between the older and newer resorts. “I don’t have a beef with Sunriver and Black Butte,” he says. Those resorts have a heavy mix of overnight rooms, which brings in more money for the local economy.

But Kancler says newer resorts, like Eagle Crest near Redmond, have a higher percentage of permanent residents. He says they’re more like subdivisions. But by selling themselves as destination resorts they go through a “loophole” in the planning process and avoid the kind of public scrutiny they might normally receive.

“We’re trying to answer a very basic question,” says Kancler. “The resorts are to the benefit of developers rather than the general public.”

Read the report at:

Central Oregon LandWatch