By Michael Squitieri and Saar Shemesh
Picture Tusayan, Arizona; a small hamlet just five miles from the south rim of the Grand Canyon, a few gas stations, some diners and the highway. Population: just nearly 600. In the coming months, a group of Italian investors, the Stilo Group, is looking to build on thousands of acres in this town, turning the beautiful desert landscape and precious land into hotels, stores and other services, including a dude ranch. But what is the human cost of this huge development deal? Where will the line be drawn between tasteful, sustainable development and obscenity.
Tusayan, Arizona: The Next Las Vegas?
This article quickly reminded us of the discussion Professor Aja initiated with his anecdote on sustainability in the rain forests of Costa Rica. We discussed how big business, in the pursuits of maximum short-term profits, would disregard the potential consequences of their developments in respect to sustainability, going on the path to, ironically, destroy the very land that produces revenue. This same lack of judgment is currently happening in Tusayan, Arizona, where the Stilo Group, wishes to add “resorts, homes, high-end stores…hotels and other attractions.”
The article also reminded us about the evils of corporations in government politics. As the article states, a town does not generally incorporate (establish itself as a governing county/city) without having a town population of at least 1,500, “but the Stilo Group, sitting on hundreds of acres of untapped land, saw incorporation as a way to negotiate with fewer decision makers,” and for such a large development deal, it is easiest to make decisions within a smaller group (although less democratic and highly exclusive). The town does have some hope though; in a few short weeks, “votes will be tallied in a recall election for three of the five seats on the Town Council,” but sadly “[all of the seats] have been occupied by supporters of the developers.” The Stilo group is a perfect example of how corporations have only their best interest in mind, disregarding others rights and liberties at the chance for a nice profit.
The article states, “with just two water wells, no public works department and the thinnest of bureaucracies, the town is barely able to hand its present population, let alone a flood of newcomers” that will come with the new development. Even when not considering sustainability, the new development may also diminish the natural wonder of the Grand Canyon that many tourists wish to explore, further questioning the environmental outlook held by the Stilo Group.
#1 by Hayoung Ryu on February 22, 2012 - 7:19 pm
What’s currently happening in Tusayan, AZ is definitely comparable to what has happened in the rain forests of Costa Rica. As I was reading through the article, I was once again reminded of how people in general in today’s society focuses so much on their own ego and greed to power and wealth as to not giving a single concern to whatever else that may be also affected by their doings. The investors of Stilo Group are the perfect example for proving this thought. It is obvious that the investors completely are either ignorant or have complete disregard for sustainability on the land and the long-run future of Grand Canyon. I also carry doubt to if the Stilo Group will keep the promise of building affordable housing for the current residents/employees in the town, and if so, how good of a quality the houses will be. It’s a shame that the Stilo Group was able to get hold of the local politicians and that the last chance to turn over this development only lies in the votes of the town residents. All I see here is the greed of the Stilo Group for high end profit, which would eventually hurt the local residents and business. And it cannot even be assured that the wonders of Grand Canyon will remain as beautiful and attractive as it has been over the years.
#2 by Deborah on February 22, 2012 - 10:43 pm
This, to me, illustrates a classic clash between the different pillars of sustainability: preserving the natural landscape of Tusayan and the Grand Canyon vs. incorporating for profit. I guess this is the flip-side of capitalism- an individualistic, short-term-minded society. I think the key question here is, as Michael pointed out: Where will the line be drawn? When corporations cross (what I consider) boundaries of decency, the only way to counteract this, after protest, is through legislation. Specifically, I think extra measures should be taken to protect the Grand Canyon, both as a natural marvel and as a tourist attraction. Sadly ironic, the Stilo Group’s development-for-profit scheme could backlash by decreasing revenue from tourism- a lose-lose situation for environment and economy.
#3 by Oleksandr Dudnyk on February 22, 2012 - 11:21 pm
This article highlights the necessity of responsible development that is considerate of the environment and its significance to the people that inhabit it. This article reminded me of the work of Anne Whiston Spirn, a professor of architecture at University of Pennsylvania, in the work “City and Nature” of the “Sustainable Development Reader.” She believes that we must take the natural environment into careful consideration before we decide to implement construction projects and develop an area. She states we must appreciate nature for its beauty and see that it is not separate from human life but is an integral part of it. I believe that the Stilo Group could benefit from reading her work. Not only would they see the value of preserving the beautiful landscape, but they would understand the significance of considering the natural environment in the building of hotels and stores. Building hotels and stores in the landscape would permanently alter everything that made Tusayan, Arizona so special and so attractive to tourists. The Stilo group could take away the charm and authenticity of the area by going ahead with its plans, and it is unfortunate that preserving the authenticity of the area is not on their agenda.
#4 by Anna Liang on February 23, 2012 - 12:04 am
The debate on commercializing the Grand Canyon is not unlike other environmental-based controversies, such as the one over drilling oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The task at hand is not only to make part of a desert habitable, but also to acknowledge the problematic targeting of natural environments as selling points in business proposals. It is important for organizations such as the Stilo Group to realize that profit, which can potentially be made off of the landscape, is temporary and finite. Hotels, resorts, and high-end stores are only attractive when they are situated next to one of the world’s natural wonders. Once the area becomes polluted with the byproducts of commerce and suburban lifestyles, however, the investments will be nothing more than a bunch of buildings next to a park at best, a giant hole at worst. Trading permanent beauty for a limited amount of money – talk about a bad deal.
#5 by Brian Ghezelaiagh on February 23, 2012 - 1:11 pm
People are opportunistic, a trait which doesn’t sit well with many contemporary environmental and social sustainability initiatives. As Leopold emphasized, there needs to be a kind of “land ethic” surrounding the preservationist mentality. Economically driven people will always seek to make a profit where there is a profit to be made and, because land equates to profit, no patch of desirable dirt is safe. In the clear absence of land ethic in which we find our current society, community-based grassroots policy and the enforcement of land protection of natural wonders must step in to take its place.
In the early 1900s there was a very steep decline in the sparrow population of North America. People who cared struggled to protect the species without organizational support – but to no avail. In the end, these concerned individuals needed to scrounge together haphazard evidence that sparrows where economically important because they retarded the growth of crop-destroying insects. Only then were the birds protected as a species on a large enough scale.
#6 by Vanessa Rene on February 23, 2012 - 2:25 pm
From a commercial point of view, it would make sense for a corporation to develop such an underpopulated place in order to attract tourists/business/etc. However, I don’t think that the degradation of natural resources and landscapes may not be worth the business the attractions would bring. These resources are only finite, once they’ve been worn down, it’s impossible to build them back up again.
#7 by Rahima Nayeem on February 23, 2012 - 3:12 pm
This reminds me of the article I had to read, “Collective Action toward a Sustainable City: Citizens’ Movements and Environmental Politics in Taipei,” by Hsiao and Liu. In a small Taiwan city, Taipei, the government and big businesses worked together to make the city a “world city” so that it could attract global capital and attention. To attract foreigners, they build housing developments, high-tech science parks, and trade centers in places that weren’t suitable for building projects. This lead to many environmental problems including over crowdedness, air pollution, and traffic congestion. Another problem was that the city was trying to impress foreigners at the expense of the people who were living there. City officials kicked out poor communities from slums in order to use that space for parks for the richer communities. The government didn’t care to stop this because all it cared about was economic prosperity.
The middle class communities in Taipei did come together to stop the government from making all their decisions, but they did it for selfish reasons. They protested against environmental degradation and voted for people who would help build more public parks for the city. They did get their parks, but they had the slum-dwellers kicked out. The Stilo Group is just like Taipei’s government. They’re doing what they are doing for economic gains.
#8 by Helen Yee on February 23, 2012 - 3:27 pm
After reading through this article, I think that it’s sad that some people are willing to make some profit at the cost of potentially ruining the beautiful environment of the Grand Canyon. I think the development that the Stilo Group proposed is a good example of how in our society development is largely based on economic values, corporations and politicians often disregard the environmental and social sustainability aspects of it. The Stilo Group doesn’t seem to be concerned with what disastrous effects that the development could have on the environment, potentially harming the Grand Canyon and the town due to overcrowding and the diminishing of water supply and resources. Also, although they did propose building affordable housing, this brings up the question of if it’s really affordable? The residents might be able to pay the rent, but the living expenses like food and supplies could be expensive due to tourism and a low supply of materials to begin with.