Destination resorts the best way to economic stability for Jefferson Co? Not so fast.
Carla Axtman
Destination resorts in Jefferson County are expected by proponents to be one of the best ways to generate tax revenue. At least that's what they tell us.
Deschutes County is "ground zero" for destination resorts. Counties like Jefferson are telling legislators that they simply must have the revenue generated by these resorts. But what if it turns out that counties can make more, alot more, by protecting habitat for fish and wildlife?
A recent study by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Travel Oregon identifies the economic impact of hunting, fishing, shellfish and wildlife viewing in Oregon--and the results should make the Jefferson County Commission stand up and take notice. That is, if they're really interested in generating tax revenue for their area.
Highlights from the findings:
- In 2008, Oregon residents and non-residents spent $862-million on hunting, fishing, shellfish and wildlife viewing trips in Oregon. This includes spending on fuel, lodging, groceries, meals, retail purchases and other travel expenses.
- Hunting, fishing, shellfish and wildlife viewing is very important to Oregon’s economy, especially in rural areas. The $862-million spent on trips for these purposes is about 10% of all travel-generated expenditures in Oregon. (“Travel-generated expenditures” are for overnight trips or trips of more than 50-miles one way.)
- Fish and wildlife based recreation is a significant portion of all travel expenditures in some counties. According to the study, in Deschutes County in 2008 ($20 million was spent on travel-generated expenditures for FISHING. $42.8 million was spent on travel-generated expenditures for WILDLIFE VIEWING.)
In contrast, tax revenues generated by destination resorts in Deschutes County for 2006-2007:
DESCHUTES COUNTY TAX STATEMENTS 2006-2007
Sunriver/Crosswater: $14,832,273
Caldera Springs: $7,683
Black Butte Ranch: $6,827,217
Eagle Crest Resort: $5,198,130
Pronghorn Resort: $1,885,242
Deschutes County Resort Tax Total: $28,750,545
In other words it seems a reasonable conclusion that more economic benefit for Deschutes County will accrue from the continued preservation of wildlife and native fish habitat than from destination resorts.
In additon, if resort housing were to be built within an urban growth boundary, counties would still obtain the same tax revenue. But if resort overbuilding should lead to degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, Deschutes County could lose a significant amount of fish and wildlife tourism revenue.
It makes sense that the same scenario translates to Jefferson County--and the Metolius River Basin.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 18, '09
Carla, Far from reasonable, aren't you being just a little misleading?
This isn't a zero sum gain where the added economic benefit from additional destination resorts would mean the loss of the economic benefits from fish and wildlife recreation. That's what you're suggesting.
Evidence is abundant that shows both can easily co-exist.
The UGB is no remedy. If resort housing were to be built within an urban growth boundary, it wouldn't be in a resort environment. That suggestion is without any consideration for either the resort objectives or the failure of the UGB approach to guard against overcrowding chaos in our cities.
But you're attempting to sound alarms about resort overbuilding while disinterested in the urban overbuilding UGBs promote.
That's called biased.
Theorizing that Deschutes County could lose a significant amount of fish and wildlife tourism revenue from added resorts is a biased pitch to stop resorts.
IMO you're just propagandizing to help stop the resorts in the Metolius River Basin.
I'm all for both the resorts and fifh and wildlife habitat and see Oregon benefiting greatly while preserving the Metolius Basin which you misrepresent will be lost.
12:43 p.m.
Mar 18, '09
Far from reasonable, aren't you being just a little misleading?
Nope.
This isn't a zero sum gain where the added economic benefit from additional destination resorts would mean the loss of the economic benefits from fish and wildlife recreation.
Once a destination golf-style resort is built on that land, the wilderness hosting fish, wildlife, etc can't be recouped. So yes, in fact it is a zero-sum.
The rest of your comment is opinion without basis in fact or evidence to back it up. If/when you care to pony up a reality based comment, I'll look forward to reading it. Until then, the rest is a waste of time for both of us, Richard.
1:37 p.m.
Mar 18, '09
One thing to watch out for here: Be sure not confuse overall economic activity with tax revenues. Those travel numbers look like they're overall economic activity.
Now, if public officials are being smart and strategic, they want to boost overall economic activity. It's good for the community, and it boosts tax revenues.
But comparing the numbers gets you into some dicey math. (At the federal level, it'd be like comparing GDP and federal tax revenues.)
2:40 p.m.
Mar 18, '09
K: The ODFW #s are overall economic activity. You are correct that tax revenue #s should not be conflated.
Mar 18, '09
This is simply incoherent. Please, let's make it apples-to-apples.
2:55 p.m.
Mar 18, '09
Mike:
I'm not sure a complete 'apples to apples' comparison on taxes can be done without a massive study (that I'd love to see, btw).
I think we can extrapolate from the overall economic activity #s for 2008,however.
Only covering the two tourism areas of fishing and wildlife viewing for 2008 in Deschutes Co, travel expenditures totaling $62.8 million were seen. I didn't see a # for hunting, but I would expect that revenue to be a good amount as well. If the county takes advantage of the opportunity to provide services to individuals engaging in those activities (hotels,restaurants, groceries, touring services, etc), it would appear that there's a solid argument that the tax revenue can be substantial, perhaps over and above that which we're seeing from destination resorts.
Mar 18, '09
Another consideration, supporting the logic, is that things like golf courses are largely irreversible and have large footprints. Environmental tourism (even if you include hunting) allows for infinitely greater changes in future use policy. We don't know what the revenue would be from those future potential uses, but we know that it would be zero from a golf course.
Mar 18, '09
Oh, and "private parks", like golf courses, that build within five miles of a National Forest, should have to open their trail system to public access.
Mar 18, '09
For further reading:
A blog post I wrote: http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2009/03/pacific-northwest-should-require-resort.html
And an economic study by the Central Oregon LandWatch: http://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/content/landwatch-releases-fiscal-and-economic-impact-study-destination-resorts-oregon
1:11 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
The quality of jobs and the kinds of jobs and businesses supported by public land fishing, hunting and other recreation is quite different from the destination resort model. The latter has the potential to put money into the local economy via jobs and, at least initially, construction, but most of the permanent jobs are service industry jobs that pay so poorly the resorts have to import workers from abroad to do them--locals can't afford to even drive to the site for what they'd be paid.
Instead of eating in the resort restaurant, hunters and fishers eat at local restaurants, likely buy ammo or other supplies locally at small shops, and stay at a wider range of motels, RV parks or similar locations owned by small business people. If ranchers/farmers are provided with reasonable fees and benefits for keeping land open to hunters/fishers, they benefit as well. This helps build and sustain a true "ownership economy" based on small business instead of an "employees economy" of which destination resorts, Wall Mart and similar enterprises are based. Democracy depends on the economic independence of our citizens from corporate serfdom and low-paying service industry jobs for corporate giants are the wrong model to follow for many different reasons.
Mar 20, '09
As a pro environment Democrat adamantly for wind power, recycling, raising the bottle/can deposit, etc..., I don't think the proposed resort at Jefferson County is such a bad idea. There are a lot of people of who would love to enjoy the scenic beauty there just like at two state legislators do. Jefferson and other counties have watched Deschutes reap resort befits, so I understand why they want to join in. The figures you show, Carla, probably make it even more tempting for Jefferson COunty to build. In a relatively small county, $2 - 14 million annually could make a difference.
I grew up in Wheeler County became the smallest and poorest County when it lost its mill town, Kinzua in 1978 ) The Tom McCall bio, Fire at Eden’s gate discusses the decline of KInzua and other mill towns. In the late 1980's , my mother and some others in Wheeler were actively involved on the Goldschmidt administration’s regions strategies for economic development. They settled on tourism, as I'm sure did other counties. Twenty years later, Wheeler remains the smallest and poorest County in the state (although Grant sometimes has a higher unemployment rate.)
Yes, many people love to hunt, fish, raft, and camp there, but it's fleeting. They come for short trips, and usually are already loaded up with supplies from their hometown when they show up. They often camp and don't stay at hotels/motels. Nearly all of the hunting seasons are in just two months, Sept. and Oct. Sure, those visitors bring in $, but it's short term and doesn't seem to make a major economic difference.
The fact is that many rural areas in OR like Wheeler COunty have never recovered economically from the demise of the timber industry. Deschutes County is one of the few rural that has thrived, and I think that is in great part because of their tourism-resort base. I don't blame Jefferson County for wanting to follow their lead.
Mar 20, '09
Whoops, had a few typos I should correct, for anyone who is reading that closely. I will also add that a resort isn't necessarily going to displace wildlife. OK, a city like Bend, which I think has probably grown too much/ too fast is going to drive out deer, elk, etc..., as is the Portland area, for that matter, where most Blue Oregon readers probably live. I can tell you, though, that deer freely roam through Fossil in Wheeler County and the nearby six hole golf course that draws many summer visitors, many of whom live there.
Corrected:
As a pro environment Democrat adamantly for wind power, recycling, raising the bottle/can deposit, etc..., I don't think the proposed resort at Jefferson County is such a bad idea. There are a lot of people of who would love to enjoy the scenic beauty there just like at least two state legislators do. Jefferson and other counties have watched Deschutes reap resort befits, so I understand why they want to join in. The figures you show, Carla, probably make it even more tempting for Jefferson County to build. In a relatively small county, $2 - 14 million annually could make a difference.
I grew up in Wheeler County, which became the smallest and poorest County when it lost its mill town, Kinzua in 1978 (The Tom McCall bio, Fire at Eden’s gate discusses the decline of Kinzua and other mill towns.) In the late 1980's, my mother and some others in Wheeler were actively involved on the Goldschmidt administration’s regional strategies for economic development. They settled on tourism, as I'm sure did other counties. Twenty years later, Wheeler remains the smallest and poorest County in the state (although Grant sometimes has a higher unemployment rate.)
Yes, many people love to hunt, fish, raft, and camp there, but it's fleeting. They come for short trips, and usually are already loaded up with supplies from their hometown when they show up. They often camp and don't stay at hotels/motels. Nearly all of the hunting seasons are in just two months, Sept. and Oct. Sure, those visitors bring in $, but it's short term and doesn't seem to make a major economic difference.
The fact is that many rural areas in OR like Wheeler County have never recovered economically from the demise of the timber industry. Deschutes County is one of the few rural areas that has thrived, and I think that is in great part because of their tourism-resort base. I don't blame Jefferson County for wanting to follow their lead.
10:40 a.m.
Mar 20, '09
I don't think the proposed resort at Jefferson County is such a bad idea. There are a lot of people of who would love to enjoy the scenic beauty there just like at two state legislators do.
Grant:
Forgive me, but the "enjoy the scenic beauty there just like at two state legislators do.." gets us where, exactly? There are lots of people who own pieces of private land out that way. Your comment infers that somehow "two state legislators" are working to keep the rest of Oregon out, including the developers. Not only is this not the case--it completely disregards the hundreds of people FROM THE AREA who aren't legislators or elected officials--who have spoken out strongly against these resorts.
I too grew up in a rural Oregon county that's been extremely hard hit by the erosion of the timber industry (Grant County). Given the dollars in Deschutes from the ODFW study, it's apparent that tourism can in fact draw significant economic stimulus for the region. It's competitive if not better than the destination resort model.
Yes, many people love to hunt, fish, raft, and camp there, but it's fleeting. They come for short trips, and usually are already loaded up with supplies from their hometown when they show up. They often camp and don't stay at hotels/motels. Nearly all of the hunting seasons are in just two months, Sept. and Oct. Sure, those visitors bring in $, but it's short term and doesn't seem to make a major economic difference.
In Deschutes, that doesn't seem to be the case. How can that model be transmitted to other counties in Oregon? Hunting season is only a very small part of the draw for tourism. I would expect fly-fishing/trout fishing (which has a much lengthier season) and wildlife viewing to actually be the larger tourism hook (so to speak..LOL) Shops like this one can partner with local hotels and restaurants to set up tour packages, for example.
Mar 20, '09
Yes, many people love to hunt, fish, raft, and camp there, but it's fleeting.
That's the point. Does usage = irreparable assimilation?
Mar 21, '09
Carla, I GET IT!
You are one who is against any and all resort development in Oregon. OK, no need to post a little disclaimer after the fact. Your post here is more than a little intellectually dishonest, you assume that development + golf courses = no wildlife, fishing or other tourist $$$$.
The premise fails from the very start. My family and I have visitied Sunriver on a regular basis over the past 15 years. Each visit includes river rafting, fishing, exploring the lava caves, hiking and visiting the wildlife museum. In winter months we go to Mt Bachelor for skiiing. I'm certain that plenty of other families do the same. Clearly Deschures County gains extra income from our visit and the property taxes from the resort.
Were it not for Sunriver Resort we most likely would have gone somewhere else. In fact I am not much of a golfer, having hit so many trees on the Sunriver course I'm asked to please not whack there anymore!
Mar 21, '09
I think many of the businesses that benefit from outdoor sportsmanship would find customers among the resort set. You see the same effect in places like Hawaii where people go on sport fishing charters, volcano hikes, etc.
There also emerges around high end resorts a market for arts and crafts, antiques, etc. You also have massage therapists, hair stylists, and other personalized service providers moving in. Some specialty restaurants would start up.
Tourism and especially efforts to bring in an affluent class of tourist have their drawbacks, but in the end it's one of the greener things you can do in a tough economic environment.
Mar 21, '09
Ever been to Aspen Colorado? Twenty, thirty years ago it was the best skiing & 'regular' Coloradans could afford it; now it is basically a 'gated community' in the sense of elitism. Most of the mansions are retreats for the rich and seldom in use.
And yes, low paying service jobs for immigrant laborers who have to live 30 miles away is the wonderful economy.
Sound like what you all want? I suppose if you aspire to that lifestyle...doesn't seem like Oregon to me--more Southern California perhaps?!
Mar 21, '09
The North Shore of Lake Tahoe was and is exactly the same way. Ersatz, disconnected, indigenous locals unable to support basic life on the work available outside of a tight subset of casino-related jobs. Stratification of worker against worker as a result of this grueling anti-laborer structure. And the natural environs made inaccessible to those who live there - one must pay to enter the beaches gated off by the timeshare trolls.
This is utterly and diametrically opposite to all that is Oregon.
Mar 23, '09
In the UK they are finally getting to the point that they don't just sigh and say, there goes the neighborhood. To whit:
Jill Thompson is 71, a churchgoing pillar of her community and not the sort to condone vandalism. But she makes an exception for the still unidentified locals who daubed graffiti condemning second home owners and other incomers on a nearby estate of expensive new houses.
"I don't really make a habit of encouraging criminality," she said on the doorstep of her terrace house in Worth Matravers, one of perhaps 40% of properties in the pretty Dorset village to be occupied all year round. "But if I'd known it was happening I'd have given them the paint."
"And made a cup of tea for them afterwards," added her next-door neighbour, Jan Dart, 55.