Wolf Creek Controversy
Development “Debate” is Everything But … Still Criticism Continues
By Ken Wright, 4-09-06
 | |
|
"All my life I have always wondered why there is antagonism toward developers," moaned billionaire B.J. "Red" McCombs at a one-sided "debate" over his proposed massive resort development atop the remote Wolf Creek Pass in southwestern Colorado. The event was boycotted by the only critics invited to the panel discussion -- Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, and Rep. Mark Larson, R-Cortez, announced they wouldn't attend after no other critics were invited.
Despite the sanitized event, the antagonism McCombs frets over was present. Inside the room, a standing-room-only crowd of nearly 300 listened to the speakers while protesters with signs made their point outside, watched over by a heavy police presence.
The event was held in the shadow of two other developments this week. On Monday, the Forest Service approved access across public land to the 288-acre inholding on which McCombs and Honts want to build their "Village." Also this week, though, a former Forest Serice official harshly criticized the agency's approval of the roads, saying he was pressured by his superiors to help the developers in the approval process.
Particularly absent from the invited speakers were representatives of Colorado Wild, the environmental group that exposed collaboration between McCombs employees and Mineral County and U.S. Forest Service officials in approving parts of the project. Appearing at the staged event with McCombs was Bob Honts, president of the Village at Wolf Creek, and a Mineral County official. Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Peter Clark refused to join the panel, reports the Durango Herald, but he answered questions from his seat in the audience.
Since no critics were on the panel, "questions" were drawn from written criticism on the project and from submitted queries from the audience. No rebuttals or follow-up questions were allowed.
McCombs aquired the property on a controversial land-exchange with the Forest Service in the 1980s that was initially denied by the local Forest Service office, but overturned in Washington. The resort would include 2,100 housing units and 222,000 square feet of commercial space, all at more than 10,000 feet on a high pass at the foot of the small, family-owned Wolf Creek Ski Area. The pass also is a major wildlife migration corridor linking the South San Juan Wilderness Area and the Weminuche Wilderness Area.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
But I guess I can understand why he'd feel the need to develop a high-elevation pass surrounded by public land. For one thing, it's his, and he can. It also must be pretty hard to find fulfillment in life owning a mere ten auto dealerships, Clear Channel Communications, an investment company, an energy (oil & gas) company with holdings in five states, ranches in TX & CO, and "a substantial inventory of undeveloped real estate." (See his website, http://www.redmccombs.net/Default.htm )
I wish McCombs could have some kind of "It's a Wonderful Life" or "A Christmas Carol" experience, wherein some angel or spirit takes him into the future and shows him the negative impact his greed has wrought upon the environment, the wildlife, the integrity of the land. He'd return from this experience a changed man and realize that, indeed, there IS a common, greater good more important than his bottom line, and he'd donate that 288-acre inholding back to the native wildlife and the American people. It wouldn't even make a blip on his portfolio's radar screen.
Am I dreaming? Yeah. I've spent lots & lots of time at and above 10,000 feet in the Weminuche. The land is fragile and utterly spectacular. I'd feel sorry for McCombs if his wealth, greed, and lack of vision didn't combine to make him dangerous. I'd feel sorry for him because he just doesn't get it, and has to spend all his life wondering. A great many of us look at that land and see something of immense value to be protected and cherished. He looks at it and sees real estate.
Now we can sit around with our signs, protest, bad mouth developers or take action. We can't stop developement and I'm not sure that I really want to either. What seems to be a possible anwser is to make the permiting process much more strict. One particular way to to this is through the water that they plan to use. How is there development going to effect the local aquifer or surface water resource? I think that it's bullshit when developers come in, subdivide 400 lots and then have each one of thoes lots drill their own domestic well simily to get around the water right applications. Make these guys develop communtiy water systems so that the cummlitive effect of the development would most likely be smaller from two large production wells tapped into the aquifer then 400 smaller domestic wells. Signs and name calling only go so far...we need sound and tight policy to manage how the west gets developed rather then hind site.
Ken, thanks for the article. Land sharks have been buying and selling the West since the West was Won. Here is how it works.
Step One: Get the poor, rural farming populace to move to an affluent city, sell them cookie cutter "dream homes" in poorly planned suburban sinkholes. Deprive them of social services thereby ruining the city for the Affluent city populace.
Step Two: Encourage the Affluent city populace to relocate to provicial McMansion "dream homes" in the (magically) unpopulated rural country side. Wait ten years, then create "NEED" for poorly planned suburban sinkholes around affluent McMansion. voila. back to step one!