In the Adirondacks, Joy and Fear Over What a Resort May Bring
The article begins by calling Tupper Lake, New
York, a “once-proud logging town in
the northern Adirondacks has an embarrassment of natural riches.” These include forested mountains,
pristine lakes, clean air, and streams with an abundance of trout. Despite these natural amenities, a
series of economic blows has caused the failure of local industries and the
population has been reduced by 1/5.
This negative trend is expected to continue without some larger-scale
intervention. Recently, the
Adirondack Park Agency approved a resort development on 6,300 acres—the largest development the agency has ever approved.
This approval came after nearly a decade of disagreement between
environmentalists and pro-development residents; it also came with hundreds of
conditions on the project. Some
residents argued that the town needed this project that would jumpstart their
economy, attracting a larger population to the proposed 650 units of housing,
hotel, ski area, marina, and equestrian center, as well as the addition of jobs
beginning with construction.
The
article points to the clash between the locals who support the development and
environmental groups, however, are the two mutually exclusive? Can the interests of the people with
respect to their economic needs of sustaining their town and the needs of the
land both be met, or must one survive at the cost of the other? At the end of the article, the author
encouragingly notes that even some of the environmental groups have conceded that
the development is indeed important.
Another note was that opposition to the project stemmed from concern
that “the resort proposal would set a dangerous precedent by carving up a large
section of the back-country for condominiums and single family homes, along
with ‘great camps’ on parcels.” The
implications of this project could be much greater than the more than 6,000 acres
it will touch directly. Does this
justify people outside of the community in having a say, or do the opinions of the locals who are losing their town take precedents? Other residents maintain that the
condition of the privately owned backcountry as it exists is far from pristine;
it is mottled with logging roads and hunting cabins. Is this imperfect condition a valid excuse for further disruption?
I see how some proponents of the development could use the argument that, since the integrity of the land has already been compromised, we should not be as wary to support the development, but I don’t think this is a sound reason. Logging roads and hunting cabins serve the locals directly through maintenance of local industry and lifestyle. The development of this massive tourist location, however, would compromise the park in a way that is altogether different, because it involves the interests of possible tourists directly and not the locals that live there. The development’s pros and cons should be weighed exclusively with the locals in mind (such as the instance of better employment prospects for Tupper Lake residents), and not what possible tourists or developers stand to gain.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, both environmental groups and development groups need to examine very carefully the opinions of all the residents of Tupper Lake. The residents will be the ones most directly affected by a development project, or a lack thereof. If the issue is important to development groups and environmentalists within the community, they will make the effort to make the process of negotiation as democratic as possible. This means making sure that all of the residents within Tupper Lake have accurate information and a voice in the negotiation. With that said, I don't think the needs of the opposing groups have to be mutually exclusive. Like the park agency has already made clear, there just needs to be a balance of conditions put upon the development project that minimizes environmental damage while still producing the benefits of development.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ofuga in that discourse is going to be the key to success in this situation. The residents need to be knowledgeable and empowered about their homes and their economic potential, but they also need to be aware of what they need to protect. I think that in this time period, when sustainable is trendy, they have a very good chance at becoming successful by hosting some aspects of a resort town without having their homes taken over. And they can reap the benefits from that as well, if they balance it out correctly with low costs. Sustainability may have a high initial cost, but the cost of maintainance is typically lower than most development ideas. In the long term, the residents of Tupper Lake could benefit from this and still be able to embrace their previous lifestyles without trying to drive to work through a hoard of tourists. However, if that is going to happen there does need to be significant amounts of discouse between the development groups and the residents, as well as clear articulation as to what each party wants and what they have in common with each other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the points discussed above, and I think this project actually has really great potential. If successful, I can see this development becoming a model for sustainable living and finding a middle ground between respecting the landscape and developing it. Recently, I visited a small resort town in Florida, and saw first hand the successes of building with sustainability in mind. Of course, every development will impact the pristine landscape, but through honest communication and clear goals and planning, this tourist town can be a positive, boosting the economy, while respecting both the locals and the environment.
ReplyDelete