Development and growth are seemingly inseparable companions to human existence, and are viewed by many as the multi-headed monster of legends. Land development from its “natural” state into homes and businesses brings with it inevitable change, even here in the mountains where in the past there seemed to be plenty of land to go around. These changes are being felt by enough people now that questions are being asked: where will it all go, and what will be left of my beloved hills and hollers? I applaud the Smoky Mountain News for their coverage and copy space aimed at asking the important questions about growth and its accompanying change to our mountains and our communities.

I read with interest Thomas Crowe’s “Eden” article (SMN, Feb. 28, 2001) and the reply by Lara Huff (SMN, March 7, 2001) and while feeling Mr. Crowe’s pains and loss, I cannot help but wonder why he thought that his corner of Little Canada would be spared the development that is all too obvious in the rest of the county. The eastern portion of Jackson County and the Little Canada area, with its high steep peaks and tough, rugged terrain, has to my knowledge always been Jackson County’s remote “wild frontier,” sparsely settled and largely left to the rhododendrons. Growth there has been slow to occur due largely to limited road access and the high costs associated with building on the tough terrain. Both of those obstacles are being overcome and “tamed” by bigger roads, four-wheel drives for the masses, and more conveniences. Technology has produced bigger machines more efficient at tearing at the mountainsides, and the growing pool of American wealth has supplied the “economic horsepower” to overcome cost concerns for many. We have to remind ourselves that it wasn’t very long ago that those same obstacles kept Americans from settling these mountains or anything west of the Mississippi River.

I thought of how the Cherokee must have felt when the Scots-Irish began to settle here, or the Incas when the Spanish arrived offering Christianity. I suspect they, like Crowe, were less than delighted and wary of their new neighbors, concerned for their homeland and their threatened lifestlye. Ms. Huff offers a “positive, proactive solution” to the woes of growth, and again I think of the effects of best intentions of newcomers on many indigenous cultures; no matter how you slice it, it still comes out as change —- to the landscape and the community.

As a developer and an environmental advocate, I have found myself awash in apparent opposites, constantly being required to perform a careful balancing act between providing people a place to live and protecting the land from abuse and degradation. “Green” and “sustainable” developments are popping up across the country, and indeed have become buzzwords to realtors and developers seeking to provide the boomers an idyllic option and playing on their ingrained environmental awareness acquired during the past few decades. I commend and support efforts made to minimize impacts on the land during development and for the preservation of unique, fragile and scenic areas. Most people want to see the planet in good shape, but within “green, sustainable, or eco-minded” developments there are varying shades of gray.

“Greenwashing” is one technique developers use to appear environmentally committed while actually keeping their eyes tightly on the profit margins. The swampy section of land that can’t be developed is their “nature area,” etc. They have found that “eco” sells. For most people, developers included, fiscal decisions carry more weight in many cases than environmental or cultural concerns. Shareholders and corporate managers want to know their returns are guaranteed more than they want to save an old farm or some owl, fish or salamander. What is needed to minimize negative development impacts is a commitment to place a greater emphasis on the “eco-logical,” rather than the “eco-nomical” considerations.

Now there is a tough sell. It flies in the face of business as usual, and people who suggest such an option would be laughed out of most boardrooms, heckled with granola and birkenstock. For me and our eco-development efforts at Unahwi Ridge Community, it boils down to a question of intent. Where does the commitment to the environment and cultural identity lie? How much profit is one willing to forgo in the name of high ideals and “green” development? How much additional time, energy and cash is a person or corporation inclined to expend in the name of doing right by the land, natural resources, and the surrounding community? What additional practices, use restrictions, and limitations are we willing to apply to a development even if it means losing customers, maybe most of them? How much can we do without? How do we change the way America does business and measures success?

These are questions that need to be discussed by the community at large, indeed by anyone who wants to have a voice about the changes sweeping through these mountains. It will only be through thoughtful dialogue, clear intent, and personal commitment that we can hope to hang on to what remains of our cherished hills. The final answers and our future come down to the decision-makers on a case by case basis.

It’s a good thing there are so many shades of gray.

(John Beckman is a building contractor, organic farmer, and operations manager at the Unahwi Ridge Community in the Savannah Community of Jackson County. He can be reached at
www.unahwiridge.com)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News