Tusayan development

South Rim Hikes

Moderator: HAZ - Moderators

Linked Guides none
Linked Areas none
User avatar
outdoor_lover
Posts: 1732
Joined: Aug 19 2011 7:49 pm
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ

Tusayan development

Post by outdoor_lover » Feb 13 2020 7:15 pm

The Developer of the Tusayan Project, that was rejected, is at it again. https://scgrandcanyon.wordpress.com/202 ... n-project/
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming, "Wow What a Ride!"

User avatar
big_load
Posts: 4404
Joined: Oct 28 2003 11:20 am
City, State: Andover, NJ

Re: Tusayan development

Post by big_load » Feb 13 2020 7:57 pm

Saying "no" a thousand times can be undone by saying "yes" just once.

User avatar
Jim_H
Posts: 4806
Joined: Sep 08 2006 8:14 pm
City, State: Regulus

Re: Tusayan development

Post by Jim_H » Feb 14 2020 6:38 am

Skimming that article at this early hour I thought at first that was in reference to the low income housing that is more or less east of the town, out on the road used to access the GranD View Tower. Looks like that isn't it, and instead this is a high end consume, consume, consume BS development.

Anyone know anything about that lower end, affordable housing project in Tusayan that has been stalled?
If you're having trail problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but hiking ain't one.

User avatar
LindaAnn
Posts: 237
Joined: Dec 24 2007 6:49 am
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by LindaAnn » Feb 14 2020 7:59 am

I dunno, assuming a developer complies with zoning regs, water, FS access, etc, they should be able to develop their private land however they see fit. Doesn’t matter if it’s high-end, low-end, mixed use, whatever—their development, their choice. If you don’t like it or agree with it, then don’t spend your money there. Tusayan is already a dump, the hotels are gross and the restaurants are pretty mediocre, so it would be nice to have some better options.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 7192
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Tusayan development

Post by chumley » Feb 14 2020 9:09 am

While I agree with @linDAann in principle, I think the dispute here stems from the local zoning and regulations not taking into account the greater effects on sensitive ecosystems outside of their municipal borders. The population of Tusayan is 600. The last public vote on the project in 2017 was 60 for and 71 against. So, 131 people were voting on something with far-reaching impacts on an area that serves millions of visitors a year. I think that having county, state, and federal reviews of the impacts of development is a prudent decision. Using a post from the Sierra Club to start an unbiased discussion on the topic is disingenuous at best, but that doesn't mean that further research isn't warranted before permitting a tiny number of people decide on something that could permanently affect such a significant resource.
Profound observer

User avatar
LindaAnn
Posts: 237
Joined: Dec 24 2007 6:49 am
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by LindaAnn » Feb 14 2020 9:31 am

@chumley But the gobs of hotel rooms and cabins and other development right on the edge of the South Rim in Grand Canyon Village is okay because it’s part of NPS? All that nonsense has a negative impact too. And a water pipeline in the Canyon is okay? I’d love to see all that disappear. I’d much rather see private development occur outside of park boundaries than the inept govt trying to maintain development within those boundaries. A private landowner should not have less rights to develop his land because it happens to be near a big hole in the ground. Do I personally think a development as large as currently planned is a good idea? No, not really, but if it complies with all requirements, then my opinion doesn’t matter.

User avatar
cactuscat
Posts: 701
Joined: Oct 15 2002 12:08 pm

Re: Tusayan development

Post by cactuscat » Feb 14 2020 9:40 am

Tear all of Tusayan down and start over - make it like Springdale.
Where is the "dislike" button?

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by Tough_Boots » Feb 14 2020 1:07 pm

LindaAnn wrote:I’d much rather see private development occur outside of park boundaries than the inept govt trying to maintain development within those boundaries.
Don't private concessionaires like Xanterra run everything in the park?
LindaAnn wrote:A private landowner should not have less rights to develop his land because it happens to be near a big hole in the ground.
I imagine that if the people of Tusayan wanted this kind of development from a foreign business, they would elect a town council that would push harder for it. I think it has just as much or more to do with the interests of the actual residents as it does with the unsightly gash that is the Grand Canyon. Possibly, the town doesn't find new disruptive development and profits immediately leaving the community as a fair exchange for some new low paying job opportunities.
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
Jim_H
Posts: 4806
Joined: Sep 08 2006 8:14 pm
City, State: Regulus

Re: Tusayan development

Post by Jim_H » Feb 14 2020 1:39 pm

There is no plan for water, so....
If you're having trail problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but hiking ain't one.

User avatar
LindaAnn
Posts: 237
Joined: Dec 24 2007 6:49 am
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by LindaAnn » Feb 14 2020 1:56 pm

@Tough_Boots If private concessionaires run everything in the parks, then why does the Park Service keep griping about not having enough $$$ in their budget for building maintenance? Bulldoze everything in the parks, return the parks to the more natural state they were intended to be, and then they can stop crying about not having enough money for X, Y, and Z.

The town of Tusayan can battle out for themselves what happens within their town boundaries, any entity outside of the town should have zero say in what happens. I simply think a private landowner or developer has the right to use their land as they see fit within whatever current regulations allow.

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by Tough_Boots » Feb 14 2020 2:14 pm

LindaAnn wrote:If private concessionaires run everything in the parks, then why does the Park Service keep griping about not having enough $$$ in their budget for building maintenance?
Concessionaires run the more commercial aspects such as lodging and retail. I assumed "everything" would be taken as that since the discussion is about commercial development and not essential park functioning.
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
LindaAnn
Posts: 237
Joined: Dec 24 2007 6:49 am
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by LindaAnn » Feb 14 2020 2:19 pm

@Tough_Boots Well, I think everything should go, but I’d be happy with just the lodging/food/gift shops disappearing. Those functions should all take place outside park boundaries by private enterprise. Return the parks to the more natural setting per the original intent. Less infrastructure = less taxpayer/admission money needed for maintenance.

Anyway, this thread is about Tusayan, not the Grand Canyon. The town should handle their development according to whatever guidelines they have in place in terms of zoning, water, etc. The FS should grant or not grant access based on their current guidelines and that should be applied fairly based on current regs and precedent. The landowner should be allowed to develop or not develop the private land based on that criteria alone. A “sky is falling” propaganda article linked in the original post serves no useful purpose.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 7192
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Tusayan development

Post by chumley » Feb 14 2020 2:31 pm

Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the tourist who sets out in the morning after an indigestible breakfast and a fitful night's sleep on an impossible bed.


That quote is by Stephen Mather (who was the first director of the NPS). As far back as 1872 in Yellowstone, private concessionaires have been contracted by the federal government to promote the park and provide services to visitors so that they could fully appreciate our natural and cultural treasures.

Now if that's not original intent, I don't know what is.
Profound observer

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by Tough_Boots » Feb 14 2020 2:37 pm

@LindaAnn
I'd rather see that revenue (or their contracted percentage) go to the park than to foreign developers. The parks will always have tons of infrastructure even without the commercial aspects. Relatively little taxpayer money reaches the parks and admission is actually very cheap compared to private recreation. The true expense incurred visiting the parks is the cost of getting there happening outside of the park.
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
LindaAnn
Posts: 237
Joined: Dec 24 2007 6:49 am
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by LindaAnn » Feb 14 2020 2:40 pm

@chumley Quote from the linked website regarding the creation of the National Park Service "the Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

https://www.nps.gov/articles/quick-nps-history.htm

I’ll go with that rather than simply the opinion of a director.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 7192
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Tusayan development

Post by chumley » Feb 14 2020 2:55 pm

@LindaAnn
Quote from the Act linked in the very first line of the page you linked to. From 1872.
That said public park shall be under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior, whose duty it shall be, as soon as practicable, to make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the care and management of the same. Such regulations shall provide for the preservation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park, and their retention in their natural condition. The Secretary may in his discretion, grant leases for building purposes for terms not exceeding ten years, of small parcels of ground, at such places in said park as shall require the erection of buildings for the accommodation of visitors; all of the proceeds of said leases, and all other revenues that may be derived from any source connected with said park, to be expended under his direction in the management of the same, and the construction of roads and bridle-paths therein.
Part I: Preservation
Part II: Services for visitors
Original intent.
Profound observer

User avatar
LindaAnn
Posts: 237
Joined: Dec 24 2007 6:49 am
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by LindaAnn » Feb 14 2020 3:01 pm

@chumley That’s fine, but my personal opinion is that it detracts from the enjoyment of the parks in a natural setting. These comfort accommodations are not a requirement, they may be granted at discretion.

Now, since I know you hate the oversharing of personal information, even just one sentence, I’m off to Vegas for a week, we can continue this discussion at a later date.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 7192
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Tusayan development

Post by chumley » Feb 14 2020 3:03 pm

@lindaann I fully respect your personal opinion. 👍
Profound observer

User avatar
wildwesthikes
Posts: 112
Joined: Nov 23 2010 9:41 am
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Tusayan development

Post by wildwesthikes » Feb 14 2020 5:49 pm

There isn't even a Subway or a Taco Bell + Pizza Hut in Tusayan (?)

User avatar
outdoor_lover
Posts: 1732
Joined: Aug 19 2011 7:49 pm
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ

Re: Tusayan development

Post by outdoor_lover » Feb 14 2020 9:18 pm

I think part of the problem as Jim mentioned is Water. If they drill enough wells to sustain such a development, they will inevitably affect the Water Table for miles around. And that could affect some important Springs in the area. I think Water is one of the biggest issues of the whole thing.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming, "Wow What a Ride!"

Post Reply

Return to “South Rim”