Provost's Resort Plan Before County Again
Golf Course Watch, 11.06.2006 21:16
Dom Provost's plan to build a destination resort southeast of Ashland has resurfaced. The Jackson County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing at 1:30PM,Wednesday, June 14 at the Jackson County Offices Auditorium. This is farmland, a wetland along Neil Creek, & a historic prehistoric site that is yet to be documented between Crowson Rd.,HWY.66 & I-5. PLEASE ATTEND!
LATEST UPDATE HERE:
"Provost's Resort/Golf Course - Report Back"
http://www.rogueimc.org/en/2006/06/6786.shtml
* a double bogey bad idea *
S T O P C L E A R S P R I N G S
Time expired on application!
Provost's Ashland Resort Before County Again!
* A DOUBLE BOGEY BAD IDEA *
Attention Community Members! Dom Provost's plan to build a sunriver-style destination resort southeast of Ashland has resurfaced. The Jackson County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, Jackson County Offices Auditorium, 10 South Oakdale, Medford.
The Commissioners will be considering a Preliminary Development Plan for the Clear Springs Destination Resort, filed by Dom and Joyce Provost. The location of the property is farmland between Crowson Road, Highway 66 and Interstate 5. It is a wetland that feeds into Neil Creek as well as a historic and prehistoric site that is yet to be documented.
Provost has long desired to build a resort on this 255-acre farmland; including a golf course, a 96-room hotel, golf clubhouse, 110 golf villas and other residences. In the original proposal, filed in 1987, water for the Clear Springs resort would come solely from Neil Creek. But under the new proposal well water also would be used. According to the Medford Mail Tribune, Provost says the project will use 82,420 gallons of water a day on average for personal use from both the creek and wells. Annual water use for the fairways and other irrigated acres will amount to 270 acre-feet annually, or 88 million gallons from Neil Creek.
This land Dom Provost is so anxious to develop is home to red tailed hawks, coyotes, rabbits, Canadian geese and a variety of other wildlife. I disagree with the belief that we must develop every square inch of this valley at all costs. The end result will be a community where the quality of life is minimal at best.
The water concerns surrounding the proposed resort are real - golf courses use more than 2 million gallons of water per acre each year! Just as valid are the concerns around the leaching of phosphate and nitrate fertilizers, the potential damage done to fish in Neil Creek (let alone those of us drinking the well water) and disturbing other cultural resources that exist on this land.
It seems clear that supporters of this project are more concerned with their pocketbooks than with the quality of life in our community. If Provost truly wants to leave a lasting legacy in this community he should consider donating the land as a wildlife refuge.
Please attend the Public Hearing! Active citizen participation is the reason that this wasteful development plan has not happened yet, let's continue this more than 15 year opposition effort. For more information on the public hearing see http://www.co.jackson.or.us/Calendar. For more information on Provost's Clear Springs Resort plans see http://www.mailtribune.com. Search the Mail Tribune's website archives for "Clear Springs Resort," there are many articles, editorials and letters to the editor between 2001 and 2006.
| Download this article in pdf format >> |
| Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >> |
| Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >> |
| Email this article to someone >> |
| Make a quick comment on this article >> |
|
Uninformed... 12.06.2006 - 10:00 While I am uniformed and actually do understand the concerns, I have a few questions that maybe someone can answer. Where does the current treated waste water go from the waste water treatment plant? Is it possible to use the reclaimed water to supply the golf course? Has anyone who is concerned with the quality of life in the area and the infrastructure given any thought to how beneficial the influx of outside money would be to the local economy? Chane Sau> Wetland? 14.06.2006 - 19:46 Wetland? Is that documented? There is a very specific definition of wetland that triggers Federal protection. If there was indeed a wetland on the development, it would be very hard to get very far at all. That it got this far suggests to me that there is not a wetland on this property. If I recall from the first time this came up, the major concern related to water rights. Provost has substantial right to Neil Creek water and the prior attempt to develop was stopped because of concerns by other right holders. Well it is a start, anyway. local anarchist> Anxious? 15.06.2006 - 00:32 Anxious? Dom Provost anxious? Dom is an old man. Like 80 or something. His dream has been to take the land he feels is unfarmable and build a world class golf course. He has had that dream for decades. I would say it's wrong to declare him anxious. Looking at the expanse of land, I would say of the three choices that face that land, a golf course is not bad in comparison. choice 1) Preserve the land as a wildlife refuge, park or other open space. Clearly this will take some agency or group to step forward and aquire the land from Mr Provost. choice 2) Build a golf course and destination resort with care and deliberation. choice 3) Build a subdivision like Dollarhide or Chataqua Creek or Oak Meadows. County approval for that may be easier than a destination resort in time esp since the farm use of the land is questionable. What really serves the purpose of the county and the city? What really serves the purpose of the residents? Surely not another cookie cutter California transplant subdivision. Doesn't another employer truly serve the people of the area best? The question is not "when" but "what". Will someone step forward and buy this land for preservation purposes? Or is the resort the best alternative? hawkwing> Reality... 15.06.2006 - 17:05 The problem with the idea of buying it for a reserve is that the people that feel that is the best alternative don't want to pay the market value of the property. The fact that someone is willing to put the time and effort into a project that will bring in outside dollars and additional income to the local economy, but is being opposed by many that also complain because the cost of living is to high for the area, is truely ironic. Tourist dollars are the best alternative to keeping the quality of life you all seem intent on having without paying for it yourself. Another idea is to build a mill at the location and bring industry back to the area, any takers on that idea? Chane Sau> Wetlands 16.06.2006 - 15:58 There are wetlands on the property, they've been all been inventoried, the developers have already been in contact with DSL and the corps and such regarding jurisdictional wetlands. Juncus> Visit and learn 16.06.2006 - 18:53 If any of you are worried about the wetlands then maybe you should take a few days and visit some of the newer courses where wetlands have been actually built or mitigated and the quality that has insued. Once again I ask, Are you against the development or are you just against any development? What do you offer as reasonable alternatives? How would you reimburse the owner for their lost opportunity? Chane Sau> |