OCR Text |
Show CLOUDROCK DESERT LODGE CONTROVERSY MOAB’S The author attempts to look at all sides of an issue that has caused such polarization in Grand County By Lance Christie On November 3, 2000, the Moab Mesa Land Company (MMLC) submitted a sketch plan for the luxurious "Cloudrock Desert Lodge" to Grand County for review and approval. This accelerated a firestorm of controversy which started when county citizens discovered that the MMLC had signed a Letter of Intent (development agreement) for the project with the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) on September 12 after months of negotiations we did not know about. The development agreement with SITLA specified a massive resort hotel, condominium and luxury poe project would be built, making development approval seem a “done deal." ITLA has repeatedly stated its lands are not subject to local zoning and land use codes. Many people in Grand County were irate because it appeared the county public was being given "an offer they could not refuse.” This was a poor introduction for the Cloudrock Desert Lodge which could redefine the economy, tax base, and housing market of Grand County. In my experience, the polarization of our community over Cloudrock is greater than that which occurred in 1987-88 over the proposed commercial hazardous waste incinerator, or the earlier controversy over locating the national high-level nuclear waste depository near Canyonlands National Park. Those past controversies pitted a toxic industrial SCG against an economic future based on enjoyment (and preservation) of the area’s environmental amenities by residents and recreationists. The Cloudrock controversy seems to pit those who want the Moab area to be a refuge from the economic striving and pollution of global corporate consumerism against housing markets. Their nightmare scenario is described by Greg Bear in his song, "Boom Town:" "The rich build sensitive houses, and pass their shit around. The rest of us live in trailers on the outskirts of town. Cause we're livin’ in a boom town..." Surrounded by federal lands, we don’t have a low cost "outskirts of town" around Moab. One of the points of public consensus in 1996 and 2002 General Plan scoping sessions is that citizens value the diversity of the local cast of characters and the rural nature of the place we live (90% agree). Income, political, and lifestyle diversity are overwhelmingly identified as valued social amenities by current county residents. Group A opposes Cloudrock because they fear it will initiate economic changes which _will wipe out the colorful diversity which is seemingly unique to Moab among rural ~ Utah communities. Group S (for subsidization") opposes Cloudrock because: (1) they suspect that the development is absorbing low cost, high quality water and other infrastructure capacity that was "budgeted" to meet the development needs of existing, less wealthy landowners later. (2) they see Cloudrock receiving special treatment and favors from local government during the approval process. The basic philosophy of Group 5 can be said to be: "I have neither the right nor the desire to refuse to share Grand County with rich people, but Ill be damned if I’ll pay for the privilege," and "Everybody has to play by the same rules." Opposing Views of a Desirable Place to Live The Cloudrock Desert Lodge proposal has brought out opposing worldviews about The view from t the rim_of Mill Creek Canyon. If built, the Cloudrock Desert‘Lodge will be almost'a mile long. — * e those who want to profit from taming global economic elite. : our area into aeae eee for the : -what constitutes a desirable place to live among our citizens. Cloudrock has become a symbol of what may realize, or ruin, that individual-vision of a desirable place to live. Cloudrock supporters generally like economic growth and. real estate value The Advocates : - Advocacy for the nuclear waste depository and hazardous waste incinerator was concentrated in an aging Eee rooted iin the uranium industry which collapsed in 1982. The leaders of the economy were often in opposition to these industrial-type developments iftthey thought the developments would harm our area’s marketing image as a tourist. destination. The advocacy for Cloudrock is strongest among community business leaders who are primarily involved in tourism services and real estate development. MMLC states that their initial promotional budget for the Lodge will be almost as large a sum per year as is spent by all other county promotional agencies combined. Simple math on the taxable value of the lodge, condos and housing indicate that Cloudrock Desert Lodge could easily be the largest property tax, sales tax, and transient room tax generator in the county when fully developed. Such a resort would not put a large tax burden on schools and law enforcement—the two. largest consumers. of local tax revenues. Advocates for Cloudrock see it as a tax base "cash cow" which will "jump start” recovery of the local tourist economy, which scared them by declining about 6% last year. Advocates also argue that high-end destination resorts have lower environmental impact than ordinary residential or commercial Ge Ormer The Opposition _ Opposition to the earlier industrial development proposals primarily arose from public environmental values, but..was not led by a core of environmental group members. Oppostion to Cloudrock is based on socio-economic concerns. Among Cloudrock opponents I observe two groups whose opposition arises from different issues. Group A (for “Aspen") opposes Cloudrock because they fear that its promotional campaign directed to an economic elite will be successful, resulting in the Moab area becoming "ground zero” for the trophy house set. The dreaded result would be inflationary pressure on real estate, forcing the 80% of Grand County households with moderate, low, and very low income tevels out of the Moab and Spanish Valley increases, and feel offense at.junk, old mobile homes,and unkept yards. Cloudrock opponents favor a place which is live-and-let-live, with a slower pace of life and lower cost of living than cities, so people can pursue unconventional lives according to their tastes. In terms of a concept from an Eagles song, Cloudrock opponents prefer.to “spend their money making time” to go enjoy the world, while advocates are more likely to enjoy spending their time making money. The Cloudrock Desert Lodge Proposal The approved Preliminary Plat for the Cloudrock Desert Lodge consists of a 225 room "Wilderness Lodge" located in a building slightly less than a mile long on top of a cliff overlooking the proposed Mill Creek Canyon Wilderness Area, 150 residential condominiums adjacent to the Lodge, and 110 homesites located in small clusters across the 1,935-acre Johnson’s Up-On-Top mesa, leaving 79.9% of the mesa top unaltered "open space." The mesa is located on the east side of Spanish Valley, with its north end cupping the Moab Golf Course. The MMLC was formed by Michael Liss, formerly General Manager of Butterfield and Robinson (B&R), one of the top five adventure travel companies in the world. (B&R generally rates first in the world among travel companies in the hiking and biking tour category.) The Cloudrock prospectus indicates that a million dollars in seed financin for MMLC was provided by. Paul Butterfield, with another $10 million in equity investment to be raised in minimum increments of $250,000 from investors. Investment solicitation will be first made to "B&R’s 2000 elite Premiere Cru travelers.” The standard of luxury anticipated for the resort can be inferred by the three destination resorts MMLC cites as comparable: the Amanjena Marrakech, the Four Seasons Nevis, and the Four Season Ka‘upulehu. Development of the Cloudrock Desert Lodge complex is plained! in four phases. The first phase, which is the only one "approved" by Grand County, is for construction of 48 rooms of the Lodge, plus support facilities such as restaurant, spa, offices, etc. Phase 2 consists of adding 27 Lodge rental units. Phase 3 adds 75 Lodge rooms, plus 75 condominiums and 55 employee housing units. Phase 4 adds the final 75 Lodge |