Ameya Preserve: Part V

The Race to House the Super-Rich

By David Nolt, 12-24-07

Editor's Note: This is the final installment of a series about the proposed Ameya Preserve development near Livingston, Montana.

• Click here to read Part I
• here to read Part II
• here for Part III
• here for Part IV.

	The gate to Bullis Creek and the Ameya Preserve. Photo by David Nolt.

There are many unique aspects to the proposed Ameya Preserve development south of Livingston, but in one key respect the project is almost commonplace in the New West: it's aimed at the ultra-rich, those who can afford to spend many millions of dollars on a second or third or fourth home.

There is a lot of competition in this niche. In Montana alone, there is, famously, the Yellowstone Club, which boasts a private ski resort and what may be the world's most expensive single-family home (and which was, not incidentally, made possible by timber trader Tom Blixseth's shrewd swap to acquire what was once public land). There is neighboring Spanish Peaks, where the price of entry is a bit lower. Just up the road is the new Moonlight Basin ski resort and accompanying real estate development (the owners there recently announced they were seeking partners to speed the build). There is the Rock Creek Cattle Company near Deer Lodge, where the amenities include a working cattle ranch (and whose owner, Fidelity National Financial chairman William Foley, counts Whitefish Mountain Resort and several restaurant chains among his Montana holdings).

There is Saddlehorn, near Bigfork, which is also touting its environmental friendliness. There is the Wilderness Club, near Eureka, the Iron Horse Ranch, outside of Whitefish, and the venerable Stock Farm, the Charles Schwab-driven development in the Bitterroot Valley.

Indeed, the biggest challenge for the Ameya Preserve may have less to do with local opposition and state land politics than with basic business issues. With the real estate market in a slump and so many developments aimed at the same high-end demographic, will Ameya sell?

On one level, the Ameya Preserve and its developer, Wade Dokken, are taking a risk by not including some standard luxury second-home amenities, especially a golf course. Ameya also lacks any kind of waterfront; man-made ponds are part of the plan, but there are no lakes or on-site river access. Nor is there a ski resort nearby; the closest one, Bridger Bowl, is almost an hour away.

What the developers hope will set Ameya apart are its eco-friendliness and its emphasis on cultural amenities. Call it the thinking-man's second-home community, or, if you're more cynical, the liberal elite's luxury retreat. “It’s not an escape hatch for the pampered and privileged,” an Ameya brochure insists. “It’s a gathering place for the curious and accomplished.” A recent Wall St. Journal story referred to a competition to equip developments with "PC Amenities," and Ameya Preserve topped the charts.

	A rare green view of the meadows at Ameya Preserve. The area near where this picture was taken will include 35,000 square feet of community buildings. Photo courtesy of Ameya Preserve.

The cultural features will include the restaurant and cooking classes, courtesy of Alice Waters, the reknowned Berkeley-based chef. There will be the dinosaur digs with Jack Horner. Readings, lectures, and what Dokken says will be the largest observatory telescope in the state. Ameya has done an impressive job of recruiting interesting people to be a part of its programs, even if some of them are less than fully committed (former Metropolitan Museum of Art Director Thomas Hoving, who is featured in Ameya literature, told NewWest.Net he was only considering it).

Certainly, the demographic forces driving the high-end home market in the Rockies are very powerful. Wealthy baby-boomers are retiring, or semi-retiring, and looking for less-hectic lifestyles. Technology and the Internet have made work less location-dependent than ever before, bringing a wave of upscale, educated telecommuters to the region. And macro-economic policies over the last two decades have helped create an ever-larger group of people with very large fortunes.

Nowhere have these forces been more powerful than around Bozeman, once a sleepy ski/cow-town. According to the Bozeman Planning Department, the city was approximately 6,210 acres (9.7 square miles) in size in 1990. By the end of 2007, it will be approximately 11,540 acres (18 square miles). That's an 86 percent increase in 17 years.

The resort community of Big Sky is 50 miles south of Bozeman near the west entrance to Yellowstone National Park, and it is responsible for a fair share of the growth around Bozeman. Big Sky is home to Big Sky Ski Resort, the Moonlight Basin and a whole lot of luxury homes including the Spanish Peaks and Yellowstone Club developments.

Part I: Conservation, Development & Class Conflict: The Case of Ameya Preserve Part II: The Rural Subdivision, Deluxe Part III: Montana State Land for Sale Part IV: Private Property, Public Access and Montana Values Part V: The Race to House the Super-Rich

The median price of a single family home in Big Sky soared from $452,750 in 2004 to $1,625,000 in 2006, according to the Gallatin Association of Realtors, and since transaction prices don't have to be reported in Montana those numbers may not even include some of the most expensive sales. (The median price has dropped to a mere $1,411,000 in 2007.) If Big Sky is emblematic of one aspect of the new Montana, the Yellowstone Club is emblematic of the new Big Sky. “The world’s only private ski and golf community” includes 13,400 acres replete with a $155 million home, a Tom Weiskopf-designed golf course and a private ski resort plush with open bowls of “Private Powder™.” Membership in this club is invitation only, with a $250,000 membership fee and homesites starting at over $2 million.

The Yellowstone Club makes few environmental claims – in fact, it was fined by the state and the EPA for pollution violations during its construction – but it does incorporate conservation easements, a model developers across the state are beginning to utilize more. Property owners can give up certain rights of ownership by protecting portions of their land as open space. Owners receive income tax deductions in return, although the IRS is increasing its scrutiny on easements because of some serious abuses.

Conservation easements like those at the clubs in Big Sky not only preserve valuable land and water, but they also give developers a valuable selling tool. Properties with access to open space easements are hot commodities in the housing market, particularly in places like Montana where potential buyers come to enjoy big skies.

The new Saddlehorn development on Flathead Lake near Bigfork, Montana is also citing environmental friendliness as a key selling point. The developers quote World Green Building Council Past President Kath Williams in their promotional materials, stating that “Saddlehorn has made the strongest commitment to sustainability for a rural community that I have ever seen.” Phase One at Saddlehorn includes about 70 homesites ranging in price from $237,000 to $844,000.

	Another high-end home up goes up in the Spanish Peaks subdivision near Big Sky. The median price of a single family home in Big Sky soared from $452,750 in 2004 to $1,625,000 in 2006. Photo by David Nolt.

The looming question is, are there buyers for all these developments? So far, the real estate bust appears to have hurt the very high end of the market less than other segments, but there are certainly signs of weakness. Figures on actual lots sold at these developments can be hard to come by, with county records often showing only inscrutable transactions among corporate entities.

And will environmental-friendliness turn out to be an effective selling tool? Or will it fall by the wayside in favor of more conventional luxury amenities?

Paradoxically, it's hard not to get the sense that some of the opposition to the Ameya Preserve is because of, not in spite of, all the environmental claims. Most Montanans are instinctively sympathetic to people's right to make money from their property, and while they may not like seeing so much land being sold off to the wealthy, they accept it. But when a developer insists that he's not a developer at all, and that he's developing the land in order to conserve it, people begin to wonder.

Is it realistic to say that building up to 300 luxury homes on an arid and infamously windy greenfield site rich in wildlife can result in environmental balance and also pencil out economically? Wade Dokken is betting a lot of money, time and energy that the answer is yes.

“It’s totally realistic,” Dokken emphatically argues. “One-hundred percent of the evidence supports that.”

But like other grandiose statements made by Dokken, “100 percent” will be a tough claim to prove.

Editor's Note: This is the final installment of a series about the proposed Ameya Preserve development near Livingston, Montana.

• Click here to read Part I
• here to read Part II
• here for Part III
• here for Part IV

[End of article]

David,

Can you imagine doing this type of story on Tim Blixith? Would he even answer your phone calls?

It seems to me that Mr. Dokkens sin is the one the good Lord admonished us for in Matt 7:1 - "Do not judge lest you be judged. FOR IN THE WAY YOU JUDGE, YOU WILL BE JUDGED; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."

Because He has said this is an environmental development he is being judged on that basis.

But everyone should be cautious of the same error - if you judge harshly without facts you will be judged as someone who is harsh. If you judge before (pre) hearing the facts you will be judged as prejudice. If you judge one person for something and yet let another slide for the same thing you will be judged as showing favoratism or as an elitist.

I have said in previous comments that it is curious to me that a person could split this into 160 acre parcels and totally destroy the habitat without a public review or permit or probably even public outrage - but let someone pop thier head up with another type of plan and they are crucified. If Mr. Dokken was Tim Blixith who has no regard for any sense of environment or community this debate would be over.

The lesson is clear; If you want to develop land - keep your head down and stay out of sight - be as low profile as possible because there are a lot of armchair planners and politicians out there who will blow your head off if you stick it up.

Fortunately, they won't get out of the chair to be involved in the planning process or make the time to comment when it counts. In the end you just need to avoid the lazy people, do whatever you want and make a ton of cash.

If Mr. Dokken is being truthful then it may be refreshing - if he is not then people will have one more thing to complain about at the Chico Bar or it will simply be added to the long list of Mr. Durgans complaints. But whatever the outcome, you can be assured that the peanut gallery will be intact and there will be no shortage of people willing to meet out their standard of measure oblivious of how they themselves are being judged.

Thanks for the great series of articles. The sad truth is that Montana is a corporate, third-world colony. Political corruption is as big an issue here as it is in any third-world economy. As long as Montana is dependent upon federal government welfare checks, the super-rich and powerful corporations will do what they damn well please. The "two-party" system is bankrupt.

Someday, we really need to become a true state of the United States.

Both of the above posts fail to recognize three things, as does the article.

1) Much of this development is attributed to the complete lack of teeth in zoning laws in Montana, which many of the citizens refuse to acknowledge. They don't seem to understand that zoning laws can protect their property, state, and heritage rather than diminishing their rights as property owners. Unfortunately they are learning that their point of view regarding private property has put them in this mess. Without the laws the DEQ and City Councils around the state have very little power to stop this type of development.

2) These developments and the literal plundering of mountain communities is happening all over the country, not just Montana. These issues are simply a microcosm within a macro picture of this country, both politically and economically. The few rich (like that bastard Tim Blixseth, not Tom folks) continue to roll over the large majority of middle class and working class folks while claiming they are friendly to the communities they have manipulated. Personally, I have been hoping for a financial and housing crisis in this country for years and I would like nothing more than those folks to suffer from the consequences. They could handle a dose of humility. I mean, really, when is enough...enough. They have everything one could possibly want, yet they just want more, and more, and more.

3) Bozangeles is becoming the worst of them all in Montana. It is a replica of what Vail, Jackson Hole, and Tahoe once were before the same folks came in and destroyed those communities.

The bottom line is that Montana needs to pass zoning laws at the state level ASAP and tell these folks to go to hell. As a resident of the state, I love the place and I would hate to see it fold in the face of schmucks like these folks. Also, the citizens of the state need to come to our senses and realize that these folks do not influence the economy within the state at all as part time residents. They could care less about the well being of the citizens of the state because it simply a place for them to continue to hide from us common peasants that are such a nuisance to their lifestyle. It should come as no surprise that all of these developments have gates around them. These folks don't want any contact others in the state because they want to continue to live in their own reality and bubble that they have created for themselves and all their cronies. Hell, they probably sit around and discuss other places and people they can manipulate and take advantage of in the future. Watch out Alaska.

Mmmm. Such bile, Jason.
I notice you say resident but no mention of tenure...lemme guess. You're from back "there" -- probably back East, maybe even the coastal Metroplex? And now you're here and ready to save us all? You clearly have an answer...yep, let the economy go belly up nationally so all those pension funds and investments go pooey, too. Then everyone joins the exodus from Montana. Right...actually, that's probably the nocturnal emission of most environmentalists. So let me guess some more, I bet Jason is an environmental studies major. Gotta be.
Whatever the case, David brought up something interesting, the uber-rich. The thing to remember here is, even now, there are only so many ultra richies out there, and the West is still pretty big. Yes, the megas are insulated from the daily cares of us rabble, and even if the economy GDP drops 50 percent, they'll still have half of a bazillion. But they won't buy every ranch, or subdivide everything. I doubt that the Paradise will be wall-to-wall. It's had a late start. As David says, it's an hour from Bridger Bowl. It's windy and cold there, sometimes awesomely so.
The solution here is to pray for snow. A string of 8 or so normal winters would have Ameya clients wondering what the heck they've done with their money. And even if they like it, most rich people aren't teenagers. Their joints will creak and Palm Springs will start looking better and better.

On this Christmas I ask all ecotarians to join in this wish:

May neighbors respect us,
Trouble neglect us,
The angels protect us,
And Heaven accept us.

In the end, it is about Montana transitioning from a resource extraction economy to a service economy. A service economy is a trickle down redistribution of money, as service creates no wealth, only distributes time and resources produced elsewhere, using local labor.

What a better way to have enough wealth in the community, merchants thriving and skilled labor living well, than to have a healthy McMansion demand. Masons, skilled wood workers, architects, interior designers, purveyors of recycled timbers and great slabs of granite and marble, the list is endless, and the results are sometimes stunning. I just love to tour Helena and see the century old results of the old money gained from selling goods and services to the miners of old. All those grand old mansions and their elegance shining in an oasis of architecture and design for the ages. If Ameya brings that to Paradise Valley, then there is a blessing in that if environmental concerns can be resonably mitigated by Dokken.

The very wealthy buy expensive stuff with grand markups because they can. They eat a fine restaurants, tip well I would imagine, purchase art and other decor for their homes. They support arts and charitable ventures. And all the while their money is spent in the local community, their very expensive property pays taxes, the merchants and trades pay taxes, the service folks have more than seasonal employment. I have a very hard time finding the down side of that kind of activity.

The snapshot idea of the world, where you don't want something you love to change, where you want it always to be just as you saw it last, is best explained by looking through your photo album. You changed. It is visible. All you know and see changed. And so will the local landscape, even if it is stand removal fire like over in the Boulder or way up 8 mile and across to Trail Creek. Wolf reintroduction is a change, celebrated by some, and bemoaned by others. And development and another's vision of how the land should look is a part of ever changing landscapes. Rocks erode and so do visuals. The constant is change.

Money is like manure more than we want to admit. But judiciously spread, it does make things grow and prosper. You might think one person's idea is crap, but in time, some will think it is just ducky. That is diversity of opinion, to be appreciated, no more nor less, than the diversity of people.

More and more, every day, ranching is less and less an economic path that can be maintained, and people who don't want Ameya are people who would like to run ranching out of the West. That is apt for Christmas, and the season of giving, because many times you get what you least want, even if you thought your gift of cattle free was wonderful!!! You got McMansions in your stocking!!!! It could have been an open pit low sulfur coal mine to light the East. Be thankful. And have a Merry Christmas!!

David,
Thanks for a great series. Well done.

I couldn't agree more with Jason's first point about zoning. We should be planning ahead for new development rather than just reacting to it after the land changes hands. Relying on the good intentions of developers or going to court over every new development is not land use planning.

Possible bile, maybe simple frustration with the ongoing status quo. I ask you Dave: Are you satisfied with the disappearance of the middle class in this country? The "backbone" of the economy and society as they say. I am.

Hmmm. davey skinner is NOT a environmental studies major from "back there". Nope, not davey boy! In fact, he's not a major in anything! Hmm. Let me guess. Dave's a groupie. Yep, that's right. He's a working man groupie. He just likes to hang around working men! He likes bein' around big, sweaty, muscular guys! And part of dave's schtick is to attempt to ingratiate himself to his working men heroes by badmouthing enviros. So, groupie, tell us just how many trees you cut today! Or how many mineshafts you've been down! Or how many bricks you laid. Or how much hod you carried. Or just WHY we should believe that you're anything but a millyvanilliy whiner wannabe! Oh, and davey, tell us just how long YOU'VE been in Montana! For you see, you surely seem to write like someone from "back there" who's been here for ten years or so! In other words, davey, you sure appear to be a phoney! Hmm.

Jason, glad you brought that up. The destruction of Montana's resource economy on public lands has been singularly devastating to the state's middle class. Back in the day, the mines and mills paid usurious property taxes -- which they could afford -- that supported a good education all the way up to the universities. It was a matter of course for those kids who wanted it to work in the mill, save up, go to school, go back to the mill, until graduation. I could make it through college on what I earned summers, by working union-scale jobs. Those are gone for the most part.
As for the middle class themselves, a lot of people have fallen away from that status in large part because the businesses that paid them well, paid them benefits, and were stable enough to have pension plans and all that groove...are gone for the most part.
I could go on, but it's clear to me that "environmentalism," supported by ignorant foundational sponsors, has been the single most socially destructive force of the last 20 years in Montana and many other western states. So no, Jason, I am quite upset with the disappearance of the middle class. Sorry to see you are satisfied with that...but I can't say I'm surprised you feel that way.
As for Larry Kralj, eco-militiaman, uber-blogger, nee New Age Montana Educator and government employee,
I've been a railroader and a commercial carpenter, poured plenty of mud, flown lots of red iron and call myself darn lucky not to have been a hoddie. Cut wheat, too. I did okay at those jobs, and learned a lot....especially respect for my co-workers who were and are so much better at connecting their heads to their hands than I could ever be.

Sorry, davey. I am NOT a govt. employee. And you were a "railroader"??? Whaaa that heck?! What kind of person QUITS THE FRIGGIN' RR to bitch about enviros?? Sumthin' ain't right here. And let's be real, shall we? You blame your own personal inadequacies in obtaining gainful employment in a changing economy on envrionmentalism?! Sad, so sad. You see, davey, we're all in this together. MOST of us don't bitch and moan and assign blame to one group or another. We either just retrain ourselves for the new economy, or just find another job and get on with our lives. In fact, many people just simply start their own businesses! You sound like a whiner. And no one likes a whiner. In fact, you sound like a professional whiner. By that I mean a guy who basically bases his entire existence on being against something. But the reality of the situation is that public land is just that. Public land. The peoples' land. And hence, it belongs to us all. Resource extraction had its day. It was great for immigrants new to this country who had few job skills, strong backs, and couldn't speak English too well. But times have changed, and so has the value or public lands. Guys like you who long for the old days are much like the Native Americans waiting for the return of the buffalo. When I actually see buffalo sh*t on the prairie, I'll start believing you both! In the meantime, get over it. You ever hear of the Luddites? Well, they ain't got nuthin' on guys like you.

Interesting articles. I hope Mr. Dokken has great success. He doesn't seem to be any thing like Mr. Blixeth. I agree with bearbait, and Mr Skinner as well.

Here's hoping Mr. Brininstool never has to go near that horrible Bozeman.

"Personally, I have been hoping for a financial and housing crisis in this country for years and I would like nothing more than those folks to suffer..." Now there's something truly evil about wishing such a thing. Something only America's enemies wish for. Is there really any difference between Pat Robertson's gleeful announcement about america deserving what it got on 9/11 and Mr Brininstool's wishful thinking?

Used to live in Bozeman. Since that time I've seen it change dramatically over the past five years and it is NOT because of those that Mr. Skinner so heavily praises. Mr. Skinner, Judge not lest you be judged sir. I've paid my dues: timber framer in Spanish Peaks, sold my soul to the Yellowstone Club for a season, built furniture for Montana Furniture Co. (all of these for the super rich), stocked grocery stores on the graveyard shift, sheet metal worker, worked with those in need (drug addicts, mentally ill, and homeless), delivered newspapers, waited tables, dish dogged, short order cook, and bartender, and yes, even a federal employee for the USFS.

My vision and views have been shaped by my experiences, travel, and a loss of place, no matter what my educational background and where I have lived previously. I stake no home, but now Montana is home. I've been in 46 out of our beautiful 50 states and my perspective has been shaped by all of those journeys. Bottom line is these developments are meant to shut out folks like you and I and they have little benefit for the local economy. That myth needs to be done away with as little of their money is spent in our state. For example, the largest debtor in terms of state taxes in Montana is an out of state, third home owner, NOT a working class hero as yourself. You probably don't believe in taxes though, so that point is moot.

I do agree with your views on the landscape (I believe you posted that one?). That region in the valley is damn cold, windy, and volatile. You are correct as well that there are few amenities. At the same time you overlook an important fact: if there are no amenities for these folks they will simply build what they want, usually in the form of overpriced boutiques, stretch malls, interior decorating stores that we would never touch (I think), etc., etc., etc.

Really, Mr. Skinner, what benefit does a development like this have for you or the people of the state? Construction jobs? That is short term. A boost in the local economy? Laughable. Why do you take their side? What benefit have folks like Mr. Dokken and previous developers brought to you DIRECTLY, or INDIRECTLY for that matter? It must be the old and failed philosophy of the "trickle down" effect. If you're still waiting on that then you are living in a bad dream. The citizens of this country have been waiting for those benefits since Ronnie Reagun and all we received in return was a recession and continued tax breaks for folks like Mr. Dokken. We see how that worked out for us.

Not indigenous: That wasn't Pat Robertson, that was the other evangelical bigot, Jerry Falwell who said we deserved what we got on 9/11 due to our continued sin of accepting homosexuality. I wonder if Mr. Falwell resides in heaven or hell? I am no enemy of this country. I am grateful every day for the place I live, which is why I will continue to stand up against projects like the one mentioned in this article. I'll take our public lands any day over Mr. Dokken's development. It seems that if you're a Patriot you would care about the plight of the land owned by us all, since you pay into the pot as well.

Dave, let me clear something up so this doesn't continue and I apologize for the misprint. I meant to say that "I am not" satisfied with the disappearance of the middle class. My grandfather worked for Michigan/Bell Telephone Co. stringing wire for over 30 years (after stringing communication wire for this country in the Pacific during WWII), my mother is a public school teacher, and my father works in the produce department of a local grocery store. I am all for the rise of the middle class and unionized labor as well.

David Nolt, thank you for your well-researched exposé on Ameya Preserve. Unfortunately, numerous posted comments have diverged from what I view as the major issue – i.e., Mr. Dokken claiming that Ameya Preserve is the new standard for conservation and environmentally sensitive. Tim Blixith and other developers are generally irrelevant to this issue, because they have not made bold and widespread claims that their money-making schemes are sound conservation and preserve natural resources that couldn’t be preserved by any other means. Such unsubstantiated claims set Mr. Dokken apart from your run-of-the mill developer, while inviting people to question those claims. Shame on Mr. Dokken for claiming that those who question his empty advertising are suffering from class envy. Your actions really demonstrated who you are, and many of us find that distasteful.

I find it disheartening that not a single conservation/environmental organization has taken Mr. Dokken to task regarding claims of environmental sensitivity and being “new standard” for conservation. Organizations such as Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), American Wildlands, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Trust for Public Lands, just to name a few, maintain offices in Bozeman or Livingston, and have remained silent. Does their silence imply that they embrace the conservation ethic of Wade Dokken? Or, could it be that these so-called environmental groups do not wish to speak out against Mr. Dokken and call Ameya Preserve what it really is for fear of preclude themselves from handsome monetary donations in the future? Unfortunately, bureaucracies at these organizations appear to be more concerned with obtaining money from wealthy donors adhering to their professed conservation goals. What happened to lean and mean grassroots organizations in Bozeman? The contradiction between actions and stated goals is precisely the reason I dropped my membership to GYC more than a decade ago.

However, my hat is off to Park County Rod and Gun club, for not rolling over for money or a token opportunity to kill game. While I'm not a hunter, I appreciate the role sporting groups play in conservation efforts. In the case of Ameya Preserve, thank you for taking a stance and pointing out what Ameya Preserve really is.

If Ameya Preserve truly is our new model for conservation as Wade and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition contend, then wildlife is screwed.

There is no way that any development is as wildlife friendly as a ranch. Enviros make "public land" off limits to livestock, to motors, etc. In other words they want private preserves paid for by tax payers, so the ranches are sold to those with money to buy them. Look in the mirror and give yourselves a high five, you make these developments possible.
The other thing you guys need to get over worrying about dirty and messy. Coal is dirty, it also keeps us from freezing the winter and having heat stroke in the summer. Gas and oil are dirty, but they take us a lot further than walking. Autos and planes spew stuff out into the atmosphere, again it beats walking...or even a horse (it poops).
Farms are not the pristine view that many enviros want, but you'd get hungry without them. Cows also poop, perhaps you won't mind so much if you realize it is also called fertilizer. On top of that they provide: food, clothes, glue, and a multitude of other benefits.
It is time for enviros to grow up and realize that the Garden of Eden went down the tubes with man's first sin. There is no perfect world, we work, we sweat, and we get dirty and the world is the same. We were given a bounty of natural resources in this country, but we have to work to use them to make a better life for all of us, it is honest work even if dirty.

I've noticed that people poop too, marion, as you've just done. A BIG dump, and it ain't called fertilizer. But, marion, why don't you MOVE to W. Vigirnia where you can enjoy mountaintop removal? You see, you hate it here in Montana. So just move. Easy answer to your problems. That way, you're happy living in crap, and we in Montana are happy living in our "pristine" public preserves paid for by morons like you! I don't see a problem here. Do you?

Sharon raises a good point. It would be interesting to know if Dokken has bought off the various and sundry. Given his generosity to national and state Democrats, and given that enviros are usually if not always (okay, Jim Leach and Chris Shays and Sherwood Boehlert) Democratic supporters, the lack of screaming is, um, loud.
Maybe gated subs are fertile ground for 501c3 funding.
And Jason, you think the changes in Bozo reek now, well, just imagine what has happened since 1985, when I took my last quarter? Used to be you could hitch up to Bridger from that parking lot on the corner, forgot what the bar in the tin building was called.
There was nothing past 19th and Kagy, pretty much, and going out to Belgrade on 7th, there WERE farms out there.

Sharon,
Re our position on the development, I spent about an hour on the phone with the reporter on two separate calls. Unfortunately, he did not include my statements that:
1. If Mr. Dokken is going to claim this is a green development, than we believe he should be held to a higher standard.
On that note, I also said that given the location, you can try to make this as green development as possible, but it will never be the greenest development, because that developement would be close to town, existing services and in a less sensitive place.
2. We commented on the EA on the land exchange and said DNRC needed to do a more extensive analysis of the impacts on elk.
3. DRNC needs to respect Tom Lemke(FWP) concerns about this development and not proceed if those concerns are accurate.
We are going to review the analysis on the land exchange and we
may oppose it.

I personally spent two years working on the Park County Growth Policy, so I hope that the concerns expressed by people on this development will also be raised in regard to other subdivisions in the future.
The failure to address these issues overall by not having good standards in place is not going away and we all need to work on them.
Craig Kenworthy
GYC

As our nation prepares to ring in the new year, the U.S. Census Bureau today projected the Jan. 1, 2008, population will be 303,146,284 -- up 2,842,103 or 0.9 percent from New Year’s Day 2007.

In January, the United States is expected to register one birth every eight seconds and one death every 11 seconds.

Meanwhile, net international migration is expected to add one person every 30 seconds. The result is an increase in the total U.S. population of one person every 13 seconds.

Seems we are being forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I love in Colorado and hate to see Montana following in our footsteps. I would worry more about urban growth than these super-ranchettes, but it's good to worry about both and try not to have an economy dependent on ongoing construction.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com

Mr. Kenworthy,

I appreciate the additional information that you provided regarding GYC's position on Ameya Preserve. While the growth policy is important, the issue I raise has more to do with our culture and how we do business, The conservation community has been surprisingly silent on what amounts to a bastardization of the concept of conservation. Could it be that some nonprofit organizations are looking at Wade Dokken as a potential major donor and Ameya's prospective residents as new meat for the $1,000-per-plate martini and cigar fund raising events?

We’ve had full-page ads in the Bozeman and Livingston newspapers and internet claiming Ameya Preserve represents a “new standard for conservation,” and as “preserving natural resources that couldn’t be preserved by any other means.” There has been no correction from the conservation community. Planning a clustered luxury development does not raise a subdivision to the level of “unprecedented conservation.” That is simply regurgitating Ameya’s marketing sound bites. (see http://www.hallhall.com/ranches-for-sale/ameya-preserve.php ).

NRDC’s Wild Bear’s Project Director, Louisa Willcox, has an office in Livingston. Ms. Willcox has stated “for grizzly bears, the biggest problems today are people and their houses.”
( http://www.onearth.org/article/the-rancher-and-the-grizzly-a-love-story ). Ameya Preserve is within the mapped distribution of grizzly bears and is great black bear habitat. Building 1 or 500 luxury homes in undeveloped bear habitat does not constitute conservation. Why is NRDC silent? Does NRDC think we should promote such developments in previously undeveloped areas and call them models of conservation, simply because they are better designed than typical 20-acre ranchette-style subdivisions?

The huge evaporative water loss that will result from 20 acres of man-made ponds, water that would most likely feed into the Yellowstone River, is not unprecedented conservation. Building extravagant homes in remote fire-prone landscapes that are important wildlife habitat is not good land management practice and certainly is not sustainable.

Check out the renderings of Ameya’s homes at http://www.ameyapreserve.com/#/living/owning/pre-designed_homes and http://www.deniseandres.com/Downloads/Renderings.pdf . Bears, deer, and elk will be all over those nitrogen-fertilized lawns and wildlife-palatable plantings; which appears to be just what Wade wants for his naïve clientele (i.e., a live-in zoo). By referring to such a development as unprecedented conservation, GYC unwittingly has promoted development that will habituate wildlife. Do some of those depicted houses have copper flashing and copper rain gutters? How sustainable is that? Exporting the environmental costs to other geographic areas does not represent conservation. We should be cutting the timber, quarrying the rock, and mining the metals for these extravagances right in Ameya’s back yard (i.e., in the greater Yellowstone). Then maybe organizations like GYC would be a little more aggressive in identifying Wade’s folly.

GYC and other environmental groups should consider the hundreds of thousands of Montana residents who chose to live in existing communities or in well-planned subdivisions adjacent to existing communities, while owning a single modest home, to be exemplary of conservation. And, how about farmers and ranchers who exhibit good land management practices? How about the two large subdivisions recently annexed to the city of Livingston? They are far better examples of conservation than second and third luxury homes in undeveloped wildlife habitat.

Get with it!

Sharon

See Nathalie Article http://www.plentymag.com/blogs/ecoeats/2007/11/in_deep_waters.php

Nathalie is absolutely right. The important point here is dialogue. While Pete F. claims to be 'not decided' on the project (other postings), he seems to be very quick to post rebuttals to anything approaching acceptance on any posting or website available.

The Ameya Preserve is developing a large chunk of land in Montana - primarily for second and third residence homes - just like many other developments all over the west. Is this parcel environmentally more/less important that The Yellowstone Club or ANY other large parcel split into multiple house lots at ANY price?

The debate is not "Can they do this?" The answer is yes and is defended by the Montana Constitution and even Pete's concept of property rights. In fact, Mr. Dokken could split this parcel into 20 acre ranchettes complete with fences and roads galore. If Mr. Dokken wanted to maximize profits, he could cluster 1200+ homes on 1 to 2 acre parcels, install a golf course, a large (~120,000 ft2) lodge (plus another ~50,000 ft2 of out buildings) and a security gate (there are no indications that this community will be gated - in fact I've read transcripts of commissioner meetings that specifically state that there will be no gates - that would not be allowed by fire regulations anyway) and a private hunting park and follow in lock-step the well established economic patterns of the majority of high-end developments in this country.

Frankly, I am amazed that Mr. Dokken is willing to avoid the key 'lures' that seems to be the benchmarks of these types of developments. I've personally spoken with many high end developers in Colorado, California, North Carolina, Florida and overseas and they all think that Ameya is nuts because it does not have one of the 3 'keys' - Golfing, Trophy Hunting, or Skiing.

Right out of the gate, Mr. Dokken seems to be setting a precedent of wanting to be in the "high-end' market without the 'required' amenities. So how is he going to 'fill-the-gap' and attract buyers? Answer: Arts, Music, Dino digs, archeology, wildlife viewing, etc.

Will it work? Who knows? But it seems like he has certainly committed to a lot of what he has said because he is under no pressure from ANY government organization, public regulations or land planning, or local or national development precedent to say anything that he has said.

As to whether he will actually do what he says he will do, I believe everyone has overlooked the most powerful commitment Mr. Dokken has made: Public marketing to purchasers! He has advertised nationally what his intentions are - if he does not or cannot do it; the least of his concerns will be Pete gloating. The very thing that everyone is up in arms about is the only thing that will tie his hands to his promises.

My grandfather always told me: 'If you have to piss someone off - Don't piss-off someone who has the resources to sue you’ and believe me, the clientele that Mr. Dokken is pursuing will not let him off the hook if all is not delivered.

Do I like this type of development? No. Why do I not like this development? I have to be honest and say it’s because I cannot belong to it. I would love to have the opportunity for my children to be exposed to the largesse observatory in the state, dino digs in Montana and Mongolia, private fishing and wildlife viewing or 'photo-hunts', nationally renown artists and poets and whatever else they will have up there - but God has not seen fit to grant me that wish. Does that give me the right to hate others for their opportunity? That’s not how I was raised - hopefully that’s not how I will raise my children. If my dislike is class envy then I have the honesty to accept that.

Does the community have the right to hate what is going on? Maybe - although I find it somewhat amusing that the Bullis Creek Ranch started out as an end-of-the-line cattle ranch, was purchased by an assortment of multi-millionaires who land swapped thousands of acres of federal and state land to block the property, did not allow ANY hunting by the public (on the private or the Public lands) and all but stopped cattle production resulting in an oasis of grazing and hunting refuge for wildlife. All of this has been the status quo for the last fifteen years and yet now the public outcry is centered around loss of wildlife habitat, rich SOB’s changing the feel of the valley (welcome to the perfectly legal right for anyone to live anywhere they want to), and an absurd attack against environmental claims (from environmentalists!) as if the only environmental solution is either act like the Yellowstone Club so we can hate you justly or completely set property aside like Ted Turner does.

In essence, the wildlife issues that Pete and other biologists have brought up are a recent fabrication. The abundance of elk habitat is only attributed to the lack of owner activity and proper use of the land (‘proper’ being defined as farming and ranching-the true historical uses for Montana!). The cries for public land access and hunting on the property have never been present for the public to lose (The hunting/outfitter rights for the public land sections were held by the rancher to the south and there has NEVER been free-for-all public access to the state sections in the past and NO public access for the last decade).

Wildlife officials cry about wildlife displacement due to disturbance, complaints from adjacent parcel owners and loss of habitat (read: We are losing our personal elk study opportunity that we have been able to exploit for the last fifteen years) like this has been the status quo for the last hundred years, or more specifically like they have a right to claim that improper land-use now sets the wildlife precedent for the entire area.

I am familiar with what Ted Turner does with his properties and I applaud it – although I find it laughable that the same people who attacked Ted Turner for turning the Flying D ranch into an exclusive property, gated to the community, to be enjoyed exclusively by the super-rich, swapping in-held state lands that were never accessible for blocked lands that now are, brought outside SOB culture to Montana communities and politics, conducted massive excavation of land (he lopped off 10 feet of a mountain to gain a better view from his house!), complete fabrication of ponds, lakes and rivers to enhance fisheries and property values, continues to be a hostile neighbor to adjacent property owners and local officials (re: paving in the canyon) is now lauded as the environmental highmark that Mr. Dokken should be judged against. How quickly we forget…

I see one thing that Mr. Dokken is doing that in relation to land conservation that is lacking from Mr. Turners approach – perpetual funding. Mr. Turner set aside a vast portion of land in Montana and around the country – which a billionare can afford to do – but what happens when Mr. Turner and his fortune are long-gone? There is no endowment to continue to preserve the property. No funding to spray weeds, or manage wildlife or fight fires, or harvest timber 50 years from now! Mr. Dokken has set up a perpetual endowment based on transaction process to maintain the land. Imagine, a development that actually has set aside the money to spray weeds. Try to find that in any other development in Montana. As to the conservation easement, developers cannot disclose it publicly or he will lose the tax advantages associated with it (or is that now unethical to claim and still be a conservationist? Ted did!)

If it makes Pete feel better – ask them to fix the acreage on the website or plant triple the trees in Montana – or in the wildness areas that burned down last year.

The main issue here seems to be that detractors think that NO development can claim to be environmental and doing so only dilutes the conservation movement and should be vehemently attacked for claiming to be on ‘our’ side and yet cavorting with the enemy. This seems to me to be ideological debate about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

At worst, Ameya will be just like the standard high-end development, at best it will provide a market benchmark to prove that development can afford to make conservation steps and still be profitable (a stronger motivation toward conservation than any number of marches or blog postings) but without question, it has spurred a broad look at property rights, zoning, class warfare in America, the true nature of conservation and ‘the best way to get there from here’. In that respect Nathalie is right: the discussion is the best part of Ameya.

Good work, David Nolt!

I too salute the Park County Rod & Gun Club for refusing attempts to purchas their support.

Ceng1 doesn't seem to understand the issues.
Mr. Dokken has repeatedly provided misinformation (or lied). Such actions generally may speak more towards his sincerity than do his proclamations of concern for the environment and local community.

Many advertised claims were merely put out there to attract certain uninformed clients. Private heli-skiing in the Absaroka Wilderness; angling for native brown trout, an agreement with the Park County Rod & Gun Club to manage a hunting program, offsetting CO2 emissions by planting trees on 1,700 acres in North Dakota, claiming Corporation for the Northern Rockies to be a "partner", drilling an unauthorized test water well on state land and then claiming it was a mistake, etc. Actions do speak louder than words. I don't think questioning this behavior constitutes class envy.

Planting trees to offset CO2 appears to be one of several smoke screens. Mr. Feigley makes the point on several blog sites that Ameya couldn’t possibly plant enough trees on 1,700 acres in ND to come close to offsetting the CO2 from Ameya Preserve. So, why did Wade and The Conservation Fund advertise that it was so?

The entire concept of planting trees to offset CO2 production while cutting trees down to build luxury homes is somewhat self-defeating, even if there were value in carbon offsets from tree planting. The consumer habits of the US drive far more deforestation than reforestation for carbon offsets ever will. Besides, it will take 40 to 70 years to realize the carbon uptake from the planted trees. Also, just how is Wade computing CO2 emissions. When you take into account all the consumer habits of individual Ameya residents, construction, appliances, travel, etc., planting trees seems rather foolish. Also, planting trees has essentially zero net effect because they are part of the carbon cycle – vegetation takes up CO2, but through rotting leaves and wood release methane gas; and methane is up to 15 times more damaging than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Maybe Wade’s next advertisement will be fertilizing the oceans with iron to increase CO2 uptake.

Bottom line - we spoiled Americans need to consume less. Providing meaningless gestures does nothing to address the real problems. Maybe that is what Mr. Feigley has suggested?

If you do a little searching, you can find much more on the realities of carbon offset schemes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/ncarbon119.xml

Read what U. MT professor has to say about planting trees to offset CO2: http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17281

Controversy over planting trees to offset CO2: http://www.pacificforest.org/news/MediaClipsPDF/TreePlanting-LandLetter-3-01-07.pdf

I would also like to say Thank You to the Park County Rod and Gun Club and Pete Feigley for standing up for the public’s property land and wildlife, Bravo!

There is no doubt that there was political payoff in getting these State sections sold off to Dokken. ( I understand the deal is to be finalized soon)Under the rules of the Landbanking Program these land should have never been put on the auction block. When DNRC was presented with this, they did a little song and dance and the protesters backed off not wanting to piss off the Schweitzer Administration. Schweitzer spent too much time in Arab land to remember that Montana is full of independents that don’t like to be taken to the cleaners by deep-pocketed supporters and willing politicians. He was a great campaigner but is proving to be a lousy administrator.

Where have all the watchdog groups gone? Since Schweitzer was elected, they all have but disappeared. I think it show the true colors of this groups who profess to have a mission of saving wildlands, wildlife, and habitat yet are afraid to take on politicians policies that are blatantly subversive to their mission. They appear more like political allies than truly concerned conservationists with a mission do.

If these resorts for the super rich are so great for the locals, why have we seen hundreds of illegal workers at Spanish Peaks, Yellowstone Club, and the others? Why do these rich folk insist on having cheap, under the counter paid workers instead of allowing the free market to work? Without the illegal workers supplanting the work force, the demand for local workers would increase and so would the wages. Montana is still a third world country being exploited and the politicians still look the other way.