-
7. Central Destinations
- University of Arizona Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
7 Central Destinations It’s not often that a place as extraordinary as the Metolius River is so unnervingly threatened by plans for massive residential developments. In Oregon, of all places, these sorts of things aren’t supposed to happen. —Erik Kancler, Central Oregon Land Watch, 20071 A high school government class that wanted to know how government really works could do much worse than follow the Legislature’s attempt to “protect ” the Metolius River Basin. . . . Look who’s involved. . . . There’s nothing like being a NIMBY with clout. —Bend (OR) Bulletin editorial, 20092 Go ahead and pretend that the process makes a difference if it makes you feel better, but make no mistake: Governor Ted Kulongoski wants to ensure, by whatever means necessary, that two proposed destination resorts near the Metolius end up in regulatory Siberia. —Bend Bulletin editorial, 20093 Oregonians will be grateful that we did all we could to protect the [Metolius River] basin from large- scale development. —Mike Carrier, Oregon natural resource policy adviser, 20094 We tried very hard to work with Jefferson County . . . [but] Jefferson County has simply continued to resist the whole notion of an area of critical statewide concern. —Richard Whitman, DLCD director, 20095 In this chapter, we turn our attention to Central Oregon—specifically Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson counties—and the intersection of politi- Central Destinations 181 cal and economic forces that have characterized the so- called New West, namely, the replacement of natural resource–based economies and cultures by a booming real estate market centered on natural amenities. Specifically , we explore the ways this transformation intersects with Oregon’s planning system, and the land use politics that have resulted. We focus on specific land use conflicts centered on the development of so- called destination resorts located outside urban growth boundaries (UGBs), which have generated enormous controversy over the past decade (Figure 11). Some see these resorts as engines of prosperity; others see them as de facto rural subdivisions that violate the spirit of Oregon’s land use laws. The story of destination resorts and the politics they have engendered contributes to our overall analysis by demonstrating the extent to which Oregon’s planning system has accommodated, albeit unevenly, the development forces associated with the New West. But more important, we document the lengths to which (and ways that) powerful individuals and actors can and will go—while carrying the shield of Tom McCall and the planning system—to steer development away from ecologically and socially important landscapes or, in the language of Oregon planning, “areas of critical state concern.” Sagebrush Subdivisions In recent decades, economic restructuring and associated declines in natural resource–dependent communities in the American West (Nelson 2001; Jackson and Kuhlken 2006; Travis 2007)6 have resulted in replacement of economies built on extraction by economies built on rural residences and recreation (Walker and Fortmann 2003; see, e.g., Brogden and Greenberg 2003; Ghose 2004).7 Amenity migration became an important factor in explaining population growth, particularly differences in growth among counties (Nelson 2006). High- amenity counties in the American West experienced faster rates of growth than did low- amenity counties, with nonmetropolitan areas characterized by much lower density growth than in nearby metropolitan areas and higher density growth than in low- amenity counties (Vias and Carruthers 2005; Nelson 2006). Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson counties possess many of the natural amenities that characterize communities elsewhere in the American 182 Planning Paradise West that have experienced rapid growth.8 The three counties are located largely within the Deschutes River Basin and contain significant stretches of the river or its tributaries. Likewise, significant peaks of the Cascade Crest, including Mt. Bachelor, and the high desert of Central Oregon provide an abundance of opportunities for outdoor recreation: world- class fly- fishing, hiking, horseback riding, skiing, mountain biking, and much more. Deschutes County proclaims itself the “outdoor recreation capital of Oregon.” Much of this land, and the opportunities it contains, is owned by the federal government and managed by either the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. In Deschutes County, the population grew from 30,442 in 1970 to 74,958 in 1990. Today, there are an estimated 158,456 people living in the county, with about half of this population living in the City of Bend, Oregon’s fastest growing metropolitan area since 2000 and one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States.9 In 1970, the Figure 11 Central Oregon map with destination resorts (P...