Having the Right Attitude, Why Saying No to Development is Not Unreasonable
"One does not have to be a hard core environmental activist to question the wisdom of letting corporations
develop ... land in order to service their debt and boost shareholder's profits without materially advancing
the public good." From "Downhill Slide" by Hal Clifford.
It is extremely important to understand that saying 'no development' does not make you unreasonable.
Protecting your surroundings, your quality of life, your peace and sanity when others are trying to trample
on them is not unreasonable. If your neighbor is blasting their stereo at 3am is it unreasonable for you to
have them cease? Do you start out by saying they have a right to enjoy their music anytime they wish in their
home (they do own it don't they) no matter what time it is? Or do you say "well 3am is unreasonable, how about
if you only play your music until 1:45am?"
One constantly hears the refrain 'development is inevitable'; we should either accept it or try to 'negotiate'
for the best deal possible. This is entirely a defeatist attitude. It assumes that developers have a right to
destroy your environment and you have neither power nor even the right to object. If you don't try to defend your
issues who will? And why would a developer negotiate unless they are forced into it...their motive is solely to
make as much profit as possible out of a community in which they have no personal interest; your motive is to
protect your community and your family from the dangers the development poses.
But here are some thinking points if you are the 'negotiating' type:
Is Development Inevitable?
Not necessarily so. Please do not start out by assuming the developer's viewpoint which is: "We plan to
build 3000 homes. We've negotiated with the community to only build 1200. Therefore the community has 'won'".
Let's be realistic and look at reality: "The current development on the land is zero. ANYTHING greater
than zero is a WIN for the developers. It is not our responsibility to give up our quality of life to
bring a developer's arbitrary number (eg the 3000 above) down (to the 1200 above). The 'fair' number to start
out with is the current one- zero! Get a community benefit for every single number above zero.
But don't developers have a right to recoup their investment?
Of course they have right to TRY. But we, and the politicians they contribute to, are not responsible for
ensuring that it happens. These 'businessmen' went out and: grossly overpaid for the 3000 acres they purchased;
bought a cross country ski area that has 'expenses that exceed revenues' (ie it loses money, and has for many
years); purchased a ski area that had employee housing but neglected to find out the housing was not owned by the
ski area and had to purchase the housing at market price; purchased an historic lodge (Rainbow) with the idea it
would then be sold off (it is on the market), only to find out it had a collapsed sewer system and therefore is
unsellable; purchased another lodge (Ice Lakes) and, despite being warned, put in a manager that ensured all the
employees would immediately quit before he even started, and had to close the lodge for several months 'for
redecorating and repair'; the reason for the purchased land was to develop high density housing- without having
a sufficient water supply for the new development and in an area that has had a building moratorium for several
years because the sewer plant is maxed out. It is not the responsibility of the local property owners to allow
them to create a large enough development to recoup these poor investment choices. It is perhaps not unexpected,
for a group of well intended investors, say a bunch of locals who want to build a 'community' lodge (like Ice Lakes)
to end up losing much of their investment (Ice Lakes share holders lost more that half their investment when Syme
bought it); the community was not expected to ensure the Ice Lakes Lodge investors recouped all their investment
(and Syme certainly did not ensure the local investors recouped their investment). But Foster/Syme do real estate
investment/development as their business. They know the risks and should know how to do due diligence. If I were
one of their investor/backers I would be pretty angry at their mishandling.
All you are doing is complaining... why don't you offer an alternative?
You are once again taking the developer's viewpoint: "I bought this land which you are making difficult for me
to exploit so you need to offer me an alternative". No, I don't. You made a poor investment choice. You're a big
boy, and your business is real estate investment/development. You will not always make a killing even if you are
the best in the business (even Donald Trump occasionally loses money). But if you are really that limited that you
cannot think of alternatives, here's one. Donate the properties to a land trust and take a massive tax deduction
which you can then use to offset future profits you make on any successful properties you develop.
