The Source just printed an 1,800-word piece on Skyline Forest as well as a pretty lengthy side-bar on the man with the money behind the whole effort to develop a large portion of the Skyline Forest. LandWatch was given a few mentions and quotes as well.

I particularly like the part where 11-year-old Javier Colton told The Source, “I don’t really know that many people who don’t want to save it.”

Really, the kid’s on to something. Frankly – aside from those who want to develop it themselves – who does want to see the Skyline Forest developed? The question everyone is asking, however, is what exactly is the best way to save the forest? And to that question there appears to be some notable disagreement.

But first, let's talk about what's being proposed. At this preliminary stage, it appears to be a “destination resort” type of development with up to 1,000 homes, a golf course and miles of roads on a 5,000-acre block of land in the Skyline Forest. (For the sake of comparison, Sunriver has around 4,000 homes and condos on 3,300 acres and Black Butte has about 1,200 homes and condos on about 1,800 acres.) Actually, the developer is avoiding calling the proposal a “destination resort” because it isn’t providing overnight accommodations as all resorts must and because even destination resort law – which is the single largest unmitigated loophole in the state's land use system – doesn't go so far as to allow development in the critical big game habitat that encompasses the vast majority of the Skyline Forest. Because the developer can't build what it wants under current law, it needs to go to the Oregon Legislature to get the law changed. If the developer is going to have any chance of success, it will need the strong support of the Central Oregon community.

Why would the community advocate for removal of current laws that protect the Skyline Forest? The developer says that if it does not get what it wants, then it will sell off the property in parcels and it will get roped off and developed. On the other hand, if the developer succeeds in getting the laws changed, it would donate about 28,000 acres to the Deschutes Basin Land Trust.

The basic question here is whether part of the forest needs to be developed to save the rest of it. In other words, are existing state and local laws strong enough to protect the forest from future development? And even if they are, are those laws likely to be weakened in the future? According to the would-be developer, you would think that the answer to either one or both of these was an obvious “yes” and that this political compromise presents the best shot at preserving at least part of the Skyline Forest. But is the sky really falling on Skyline Forest? Do we have to develop it to save it?

We’re not convinced. We've asked the developer for its assessment of what could be built under Oregon’s and Deschutes County’s land use laws. So far, we haven't received a response. But because LandWatch has been fighting proposed developments around the Skyline Forest for the past five years, we have a strong understanding of how current laws protect the forest, and believe that only a handful of lots and houses at most could be built on the entirety of the 33,000 acre Skyline Forest.

What is this presumption based on?

1) No subdivisions, golf courses or destination resorts are allowed because the Skyline Forest is in the County’s F-1 Forest Zone and is in state-designated critical wildlife habitat;

2) The only allowed development in this forest area under Oregon law is a single-family dwelling on a minimum parcel size of 240 acres. (if all of the 33,000 acres of the Skyline Forest were divided into 240-acre parcels, there could be a maximum of 137 houses);

3) Before 240-acre parcels can be carved out of the Skyline Forest block, there has to be public road access to each parcel and the Deschutes County Commissioners would have to approve the creation of public roads out into this forest they have previously voted to protect;

4) Even if parcels were created, Deschutes County does not allow a house in a forest zone if it would significantly increase the risk of fire, risks to firefighters and the cost of firefighting; and frankly, with all of our serious forest fires, and the high cost and risk of firefighting, does it even make sense to have houses that far out there?

But if the developer sees a different legal picture out there, if it sees something we don't, we're all ears.

Sure, laws and policies can change, and you can bet there will be efforts to open up the Skyline Forest in the future. But really, it’s hard to see where the real threat lies. What's more, you’d think that if there really was a threat, that the developer would prefer to let the rest of us in on it and demonstrate a greater need to negotiate, thus improving their chances of not having to sell the land off for far less than they could make by developing 1,000 homes on it. Right?

What it all gets down to is that the developer’s proposal is based on the premise that Oregon’s land use system is dead or dying. If that truly were the case, then the best guarantee for protecting the forest would be to get it into the hands of a land trust. While we certainly would like to see the Deschutes Basin Land Trust secure as much of Skyline Forest as possible (preferably all of it) we’re not sure that giving up on Oregon’s land use system and agreeing to change laws that will hasten its demise (not to mention create an incredibly dangerous precedent for development on critical habitat elsewhere in the state) is a sensible approach. With the Tumalo deer herd already declining dramatically in population and health, with forest fires already raging through the area and with the Central Oregon area saturated with destination resorts and their many impacts, the developer needs to come up with a proposal that warrants the public’s best interests.

We're willing to listen, as we all should be, but so far with what we've heard from the developer, and what we've heard so far from members of the community, it seems we're still quite a ways off.