In his Sept. 22 commentary, Sutter Creek resident Jerry Bagley criticized Foothill Conservancy President Katherine Evatt's comments on Gold Rush Ranch Resort ("Gold Rush reverses trend of developments without mitigation"). Ms. Evatt provided facts about Gold Rush as presented in the draft environmental impact report.
The commentator used a tried-and-true PR technique: Attack the messenger and create doubt about the message by blurring the issues. It moves the focus away from the facts.
Nonetheless, these facts remain: Gold Rush will more than double the population of Sutter Creek. It will destroy more than 13,000 trees, including nearly 4,000 heritage oaks. Replanted trees do not provide comparable habitat for decades, if ever, and setting aside 1 acre for each acre of woodland destroyed leads to a 50 percent reduction in woodland over time.
The size of Gold Rush and irrigation of the golf course require expansion and costly improvements to the city's wastewater treatment plant. And while Gold Rush will pay legally required fees, the developers are not providing a new school, any ball fields for the project's 450 kids, adequate parks or a new fire station. Gold Rush's fees are not enough to prevent the gridlock its traffic will cause on local roads, either. The public will have to pay the difference or live with the result.
All local residents want to see Sutter Creek have a thriving downtown, but there is no assurance that Gold Rush is the solution. Gold Rush's commuter residents are just as likely to spend their dollars at stores in Folsom, Elk Grove or Sacramento. More residents may mean more customers, but it also means more competition for their business. For example, Gold Rush's hotel will likely have its own good restaurant to cater to the development's visitors and residents. Sutter Creek will have to weigh the costs and benefits of Gold Rush in the coming months. The spin on the benefits has been underway for years and continues today. It is only recently that information has begun to emerge on the costs.
I urge the public and city decision-makers to carefully analyze all claims made about the project and to learn more about the facts. This is not a question of whether Sutter Creek should grow at all. It's a question of whether Gold Rush, as now proposed, is worth its environmental, social and fiscal costs.