I'm reporting on this not to pick a fight with two of our County Commissioners, but because I think it's important that people understand just how the issue of destination resorts is being legislated in Deschutes County.

Earlier this week, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners held a final scheduled worksession regarding an application from the resort industry that if approved would significantly relax the county's resort guidelines. Additional Details are here, but most significantly these rules would allow resorts to back out of the obligation of providing dedicated overnight lodging units and instead allow them to pursue potentially limitless numbers of private residences. In other words: less resort, more subdivision.

In December, the Deschutes County Planning Commission voted 4-1 to turn down the application, citing lack of need as well as concern over impacts. Since then, well over twenty parties have submitted testimony in opposition while the applicants have stood alone in supporting their cause.

I'm writing because really no one attends these worksessions, yet that's where a fair amount of deliberation occurs, and it's often quite revealing. Here are a few highlights:

Following nods of support for the resort industry and their proposal from Commissioners Dennis Luke and Mike Daly, Commissioner Tammy Baney asked the other two what they knew that the Planning Commission didn't when it voted 4-1 to oppose the industry's request. Five seconds of silence passed before Commissioner Daly commented that he didn't want to see resorts go broke. Then Luke agreed. No other explanations were offered.

A few minutes later, Commissioner Luke posed three questions: Is this a magic bullet for resorts? Is this going to lead to negative impacts? Or will the impacts of this be negligible? In response to his own questions, Luke replied, "I don't know."

In regards to assertions of resorts going broke, no substantiation was offered. In regards to passing legislative amendments without any clue of or concern for negative consequences, Luke offered that if there are impacts, we can always change the law again later.

I'm posting this more or less without comment except to say that the lack of concern here is alarming. Only Commissioner Baney seems to have really weighed this on its merits. If you're interested, I've posted a recent letter to the Commissioners as well as LandWatch's final in-depth testimony on the potential impacts of these decisions below. A vote on this is scheduled for November 5th.