Friday, April 21, 2006

2025 creator makes his case

A Q&A with Chris Duerksen


By STEVE BENSON
Express Staff Writer

Chris Duerksen is the managing director of Clarion Associates, a national land-use and real estate consulting firm that was hired by Blaine County to assist in the 2025 planning process.

Duerksen is an expert in growth management and zoning, natural resource protection, and historic preservation. He is the author or co-author of six major books on wildlife habitat protection, rural development patterns, historic preservation law, environmental regulation for siting of major industrial facilities, river conservation, and national parks.

Earlier this week, he took the time to address a series of concerns and answer questions central to the Blaine County 2025 process.

Note—the memo Duerksen refers to in the following responses was drafted in response to several recurring points in the first three Blaine County 2025 hearings. It should be available on the Blaine County Web site (www.blainecounty.org) by today, April 21.

Idaho Mountain Express: Why does the county need these ordinances? What is the urgency?

Chris Duerksen: The county has been and continues to be under tremendous growth pressures by any measure. According to figures Doug Werth (a Blaine County Planning and Zoning commissioner) just forwarded to me, the county has grown at 40 percent every 10 years for the past 40 years vs. 1 percent a year for the U.S. as a whole. The county's ordinances were crafted a decade or more ago for a smaller community with smaller development proposals. Now Blaine County has four to five major PUDs either proposed or on the drawing boards involving literally thousands of new units scattered across the county (Cove Ranch, Diamond Dragon, Spring Creek, Rock Creek, The Ridge, etc). If new ordinances are not in place by the end of the moratorium in July, most of these PUDs will be reviewed under the old regulations (i.e., much higher densities allowed, very weak wetlands and wildlife habitat protection regulations).

IME: If these ordinances are not put in place, what could Blaine County be like in 20 years?

CD: If the citizens of Blaine want a glimpse of the future, they should look at the Roaring Fork Valley south of Aspen in Garfield and Eagle counties—towns such as Carbondale and Glenwood Springs have grown together, connected by sprawling high-end PUDs in place of wildlife habitat and ranches, because those jurisdictions failed to react to growth pressures a decade ago. Contrast that to Pitkin County that adopted modern development regulations and a TDR program, with a result that the county retains its open, rural character and its towns like Aspen, Basalt, and Snowmass are thriving.

IME: There has been a lot of concern about the TDR program, with many saying it simply won't work. Explain why you think it could be successful.

CD: This is virtually the same TDR program that was approved by the (Blaine County) planning commission three years ago after much discussion with the landowners, ranching community, etc. The receiving area has been slightly reconfigured and improved. The market analysis that was performed at that time is still valid. The receiving area has been calibrated to provide enough demand to make the program work. We have worked on successful TDR programs in Pitkin County, Colo., Larimer County, Colo., and other communities throughout the United States, and we feel that based on that experience the right ingredients are in place. The ordinance is written so that other sending and receiving areas can be designated in the future. (See memo.)

IME: Will there really be a strain on services if developments are allowed in the remote areas of the county? Or is that just an excuse the county is using to prevent development in those areas?

CD: There is already a strain on county services, and remote development will only increase the strain. See, for example, the comments by various county service providers like the sheriff in the background paper on county facilities prepared by Developing Green last year as part of the 2025 process—available on the county Web site. Does it make sense to scatter many more houses in that landscape from that perspective, let alone the impacts on wildlife, agricultural lands, etc? Look at current demand on county emergency/safety services and public works, among others, and the cost vs. projected revenues. Another way to look at the issue is with all the development that has been approved in the county, have taxes on county properties (not the mill rate, actual taxes) gone up or down? Counties in Idaho and most Western states are not structured financially to serve urban development or widespread, scattered rural growth. They are extremely limited in the sources of revenue available to them to finance services for such development.

IME: Why should agricultural land be preserved? What is the benefit?

CD: See the county comprehensive plan—it is a key goal that was reconfirmed by the 2025 process. Benefits include economic (ag is still a major economic generator), scenic, open space, wildlife habitat, and the rural character of the county. In other parts of the country, farmers and ranchers are recognizing the increasing world demand for food and fuel. Estimates are that by 2030 China will need more food itself than the world produces today. And world oil production will probably peak in the next 10 to 15 years—Brazil already produces 40 percent of its vehicle fuel from ethanol produced from crops. This will only put a greater premium on productive agricultural land and increase its value for those purposes vs. development.

IME: A lot of people are complaining that there simply wasn't enough time or public input to direct this process. How would you respond to that?

CD: See the memo provided to the county listing all of the public input—almost 60 public meetings, straw polls, hours of public testimony, scores of meetings with various interest groups (towns, ranchers), etc. The process has been going on for over a year now. It has been one of the most inclusive that we have ever been involved in, and we have worked all over the United States on comprehensive plans and zoning ordinance rewrites. We actually heard complaints from town elected officials last summer that it was time for the county to implement rather than talk—all of the multiple meetings conducted in 2005 by Developing Green for the county had exhausted them. The 2025 process confirmed results of statistically valid surveys undertaken in the late 1990s and strongly confirmed the key points of the comprehensive plan (e.g. focus development in the towns, preserve ag lands and natural resources, etc.). Some people may be confusing the fact that the recommendations don't fit their development plans with whether their positions were heard and understood, but rejected.

IME: There is a lot of talk about "new towns" in the county. What is your feeling on such proposals?

CD: If the idea matures, great care will be needed in selecting the appropriate location in terms of transportation, services, etc. Additionally, the county will need to carefully craft a development agreement to ensure that its citizens are left holding the bag financially—most studies show that new residential development rarely pays its own way. Having said that, it is an option worth exploring carefully. Additionally, care will need to be taken to assess the impact of any new town on Carey, Bellevue, etc. who have zoned land for development and desire additional residential growth to support their commercial districts. A new town may compete with and undermine their plans. By the way, the issue should be a new town (singular), not towns or a bunch of PUDs scattered randomly based on multiple landowners' desire to develop. (See memo.)




 Local Weather 
Search archives:


Copyright © 2024 Express Publishing Inc.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy
All Rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Express Publishing Inc. is prohibited. 

The Idaho Mountain Express is distributed free to residents and guests throughout the Sun Valley, Idaho resort area community. Subscribers to the Idaho Mountain Express will read these stories and others in this week's issue.