Central Oregon LandWatch has come out with a detailed study of the fiscal impacts of destination resorts, and resort developers and advocates aren’t going to like it one bit.
The conservation group hired the consulting firm of Fodor & Associates LLC to look at the public costs associated with a typical destination resort – in this case, the proposed Thornburgh Resort outside of Redmond – vs. the tax revenue it’s likely to generate.
The bottom line: a net loss to the taxpayers of about $46 million.
On the cost side, the study counted transportation (about $39 million), school facilities ($4.7 million), fire and emergency services ($581,000), other public safety ($4.6 million), parks and recreation ($464,000) and general government facilities ($1.7 million), for a total of about $51.5 million.
“To obtain an estimate of statewide fiscal impacts, the costs for the Thornburgh Resort were extrapolated to all of the destination resorts currently planned or under construction in Oregon,” the report’s executive summary states. “Based on the 22,374 residential units in destination resorts that are either under construction or proposed in Oregon, the total future fiscal impact is estimated to be a net cost of $747 million.”
And LandWatch’s report doesn’t even include the less quantifiable costs of resorts — drawing down the water table, damaging wildlife habitat, destroying open space, harming the quality of life in rural areas.
The report notes that the “destination resort” designation originally was created to encourage development of facilities for tourists in rural areas of the state, but over time the “resorts” have morphed into something very different: high-end residential communities built outside of urban boundaries.
“The State Legislature attempted to enforce the tourism aspects of these developments by requiring a certain minimum amount of overnight accommodations and certain visitor-oriented facilities,” the report states. “The intent was apparently that without such requirements, destination resorts would likely be little more than the classic, sprawling rural subdivisions that the Land Use Program was intended to prevent. However it is unclear that resorts are actually meeting their overnight accommodations requirements due to a lack of reporting and enforcement mechanisms.
“In spite of State requirements, residential lots and private homes outnumber overnight accommodations by more than two to one. Residential lot sales represent the primary feature of existing and proposed destination resorts. Questions remain as to whether the destination resorts are essentially rural subdivisions that are increasingly having adverse impacts on cities, counties and the state that are not adequately offset by tourism benefits.”
The job creation benefits of destination resorts are equally dubious, according to the report. Most of the jobs resorts generate are low-paying and seasonal – and many of them don’t even go to local people:
“In spite of high unemployment in Central Oregon, alarming information was reported in the Bend Bulletin last year that many of the local resorts were hiring from outside the U.S. to fill their jobs. According to the article, instead of hiring locally, the Sunriver Resort actively recruited foreign workers at overseas job fairs, hiring 85 workers from countries such as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. Inn of the Seventh Mountain hired 11 workers from Jamaica and Indonesia. Other resorts may be doing the same. Even if some resorts are not hiring foreigners, studies show that many of the new jobs they create will go to newcomers rather than locals.”
The importance of the LandWatch study is that, for the first time, legislators and the public have some hard cost/benefit numbers about destination resorts that don’t come from the resort industry and its lobbyists.
“The impact studies that have been provided by developers have portrayed an unrealistically optimistic and beneficial picture of the development project,” LandWatch says on its website, where you can also download a PDF of the whole report or its executive summary. “Unfortunately, it’s this view of resorts that has been allowed to set resort policy in Oregon and throughout the West. That needs to change.”
This article appears in Mar 12-18, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Man, you guys really are in love with LandWatch aren’t you?! I have to say though, this seems to be some pretty good work. I thought they were some little enviro group that just opposed things they didn’t like, but this report gives the arguments against resorts some pretty solid meat. Nice work.
“The importance of the LandWatch study is that, for the first time, legislators and the public have some hard cost/benefit numbers about destination resorts that donâ ™t come from the resort industry and its lobbyists.”
And believe me, these cost/benefit numbers will be just as skewed agin resorts as the resorts numbers or fer.
again goes to show another one sided bias story, were are the figures that show how much money that the resort will be generated by them being built, um I guess if you calculated that, it would dwarf the stated figure of cost, Quit being one sided!!! take sunriver for example, how much money has that resort produced since it has been built, surly more then what it cost in the first place.
Please no more golf courses, my Well drinking water is already bad! I do not need more fertilizers in it. Plus we do not need a reason for more outsiders to come. This place has already gone for the worse, do we want to make it worse?
There’s a link to the report at the bottom of the post, Wayne. And it’s got lots of numbers in it! You should check it out, but it sounds like you’ve already made up your mind so that may be pointless.
I think we the people have enough so called Destination resorts around here,they draw water from ground water resources,are way to exspensive to taxpayers,and with the economy,they should not be able to put any in for several years.Like they say,they are hiring out of the local area,taking up our open spaces and god forbid another stinking Golf Course that you or me would never be able to afford to play. I am going to get some bumper stickers made up to say “No to Destination Resorts”
“take sunriver for example, how much money has that resort produced since it has been built”
Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch are real RESORTS where people go for vacations, not housing developments posing as “resorts,” like Pronghorn, Thornburgh, Brasada Ranch and the other recent ones.
Go to the Pronghorn website and see if you can find ANY information on how to book a vacation there. These new “resorts” are not resorts any more than Broken Top is.
Thank you Mr. Miller and The Source for being the only beacon of light on this matter for these knuckle heads around here who get screwed, blued and tattooed by the so called “destination resorts”. Its another tax escape haven to let the little guy pay for their “city services” in the good old fashioned republican way or live like a king/queen and let the peasants pay for it. Don’t expect that piece of crap Bend Bulletin to do any objective reporting like this. Its too busy being the “catechism” for right wing Central Oregon republicans. Hopefully this destination resort development crowd (aka fat cat republicans) got a good wake up call on the Metolius latest recommendation.
these reports still don’t account for revenues that will be generated from all the work, materials and goods outside of the resort also, I still think it is missing some of the figures! and is an unfair report,
and also it will increase the selling values of homes around the area also. which in turn will increase revenues also. which is not included??
O al
this open space I believe is really owned by someone and not open space! and there is motor cycles ripping up hillsides and trespassing.
O cak, you should check on the fertilizer, most courses any more us ORGANIC fertilizers, so you should check that before you speak!! you should check the caseing on your well if thats making it taste bad.
So cast the first stone! unless you have just moved here, can any of you say that you have not made money from any of the resorts that have been built in the areas in which you live, in any way, ????
Face it folks this is not a logging town any more, or I guess most of you didn’t probably want that either. Face it this city is a recreation city, and resort city, tell me what feeds the economy here?? If you don’t let resorts or industry into this area so people can have jobs!!
I bet Wayne is a contractor.
sorry if you think I’m a contractor, your wrong. I’m not closed minded like everyone else that is against this. when these resorts are built it just doesn’t generate revenue within itself, it generates revenue in all surrounding, towns with businesses, this is a no brainier folks!!!
“Face it this city is a recreation city, and resort city, tell me what feeds the economy here?? If you don’t let resorts or industry into this area so people can have jobs!!”
This argument would make some sense if the “resorts” being built now were really “resorts” like Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch — but they’re not. How many tourist dollars do you think Pronghorn or Thornburgh brings into the area? These “resorts” are nothing but gated golf course communities.
“this is a no brainier folks!!!”
I think you need to get a lot BRAINIER about what today’s so-called “destination resorts” really are, Wayne.
I believe if you look at the plans, Thornburgh is both! These so called gated places have to buy there goods somewere don’t they. yes or no you answer. ever place that will be built will have to buy goods, food appliances, furniture, etc… wood, roofing and so on.and it is in a place were it will create revenue in sisters, redmond and tumalo and bend in some way or another.. thats the no brainer, and turth of the matter. plain and simple!!!
HBM can I ask do you have a fence around you house? see inside these gated communites they don’t build fences around each house, they build it around there neighborhood, so what is the difference, they bring in alot of revenue if they are gated or not! so get over it man!! do you think there is something secret going on behind the gates or what, get a grip. gates have nothing to do with the revenue for surrounding merchants that sell goods!!
Wayne:
You are exactly whats wrong with central oregon. We need to redevelop our economy AWAY from serving the snobs. Serving food, making beds, etc is slave wages. Central Oregon has had enough of slave wages and service industry jobs. A lifestyle economy sucks and everyone around here is finally figuring it out.
O my weekly reader, get a grip on yourself, we will have to change the whole country, good grief!!
“We need to redevelop our economy AWAY from serving the snobs. Serving food, making beds, etc is slave wages. Central Oregon has had enough of slave wages and service industry jobs.”
Mega-frickin’-DITTOES, man!
Tourism is a nice extra but it is NOT the foundation of a solid and prosperous economy.
And “destination resorts” that aren’t really “resorts” aren’t doing anything for tourism anyway.
HBM you no not what you say, They get payed more in the resorts then they do at Mcdonalds or any other fast food resturant and the above that you have describe!!!! Blame the city of bend for putting such a large price tag on businesses that wonted to move in, that they decided not to!! and another fact right know the service industry jobs are really the only thing that really is going right know, so why are you agianst these type of jobs??? And to me you need to look past the end of your nose sir!!!!
Wayne is right on. Most who oppose this thing are either newbies, or NIMBY’s like Ms. Johnson, who’s family has made millions off of timber, development, the environment, etc., etc. If you don’t think there’s a cost benefit to this stuff, and that it won,t directly and positively affect our economy, you’re nuts. As for those whiners in Camp Sherman…hello… all that is, is a development on the Metolius. (And a lot closer to it than any proposed resort!)
wayne: “we will have to change the whole country, good grief!!”
HELL YES! We DO need to change the whole country — get away from our crappy “service economy” and get back to an economy in which working people (not just the Wall Street pirates) can make a decent living. Believe me, such an economy CAN exist in America. Some of us here are old enough to remember when it did. I suspect you are not.
OMG HBM Well for the last thrity three years I’ have been working and supporting my family, and believe me its turned out just fine, and by the way this country can’t get by without the service economy, all people aren’t going to come right out of high school and have a 70,000 dollar job, you need to be real man!!! like I said you know not what you talk about, and I bet hard working poeple just love you calling them crappy servers!!!
Wayne, you sound like someone who stands to lose a lot of money if this resort does’nt get built. You exhibit a tone of desperation.
“Well for the last thrity three years I’ have been working and supporting my family, and believe me its turned out just fine, and by the way this country can’t get by without the service economy, all people aren’t going to come right out of high school and have a 70,000 dollar job, you need to be real man!!! like I said you know not what you talk about, and I bet hard working poeple just love you calling them crappy servers!!!”
Oh my, where to begin?
Okay, I’m not saying the people who work in service jobs are crappy — I’m saying the JOBS are crappy. And they are. The wages are low, the benefits are few or nonexistent, the job security is zero.
Everything has “turned out just fine” for you? That’s swell, and I hope your luck holds out. Because for millions and millions of Americans working in the service sector, things do NOT turn out fine. They hold down two or three jobs (when they can get them) and they’re still barely making ends meet. If the car breaks down or somebody gets sick or they miss a couple of paychecks for whatever reason, they’re screwed.
I’ll say it again: Things do not HAVE to be like this, and once upon a time not all that long ago they were not. But as long as people like you are content with the status quo and refuse to even imagine that things could be better, they won’t be.
Would you listen to yourself, HBM. the millions that you talk about don’t work in resorts so why do you take it out on them!! I’ve been through many struggles myself and am right now. were does it all stop, raise the wages then raise the product, and so on, and I have had no benefits for years, I’m sorry that you have such anger about the economy and whats happening to you right now, again it will create more revenue than what that report says!!!
“I’m sorry that you have such anger about the economy and whats happening to you right now”
Don’t worry about me, Wayne, I’m doing fine. I’m angry that millions of my fellow Americans are unable to earn a decent living and afford things like housing and health care thanks to 30 years of right-wing policies that have enriched the rich while screwing working people.
But you seem to be happy about being screwed, so I guess I don’t have anything further to say to you.
Or, HBM(drinker of the koolaid), it’s perhaps because millions of your fellow Americans over-spent, felt a sense of entitlement, and didn’t pay any attention to jack squat in school. They simply don’t know anything about saving a penny, living within their means, etc.,etc.,etc…
Sam: Yes, that’s the classic right-wing blame-the-victim response. The financial collapse was brought on by lazy self-indulgent middle-class Americans spending too much money. Deregulation of the financial markets (pushed by conservatives for 30-plus years) that allowed all sorts of fraud to flourish and the impoverishment of the middle class through regressive tax policies, union-busting and rewarding companies for moving jobs offshore had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, obviously.
Loosening the lending laws during the Clinton admin. so that more borrowers (previously unqualified borrowers) could purchase homes are what caused much of this problem. The bar was lowered too damned far. Fraud simply followed greed. Don’t get me wrong, the banks are just as guilty as the borrowers, but you still have to live within your means. You shouldn’t buy more stuff than you can pay for or have the ability to pay back. And part of living within your means should include saving some money, as well. That’s a classic response, not right wing or left wing. And if you try to defend the education thing, you’re crazy. Not very many people know much at all about personal finances, or how to handle them. That has nothing to do with politics.