BetterDonkey.org

Skip to content




Conservation at Snoqualmie Falls

Submitted by annemariem on June 21, 2005 - 6:50am.

Yesterday I read an interesting article in the Seattle Times about efforts to set aside land near Snoqualmie Falls, to protect the land from development. It was interesting to me because it seems like I don't often hear about these sorts of things going on right in our backyard. First, the article talked about past efforts at conservation, which have succeeded in preserving the 100 acres of wilderness behind Snoqualmie Falls - the land was purchased by Cascade Land Conservancy. If not for this group, all that wilderness would probably now be subdivisions of the town of Snoqualmie. So, yay for conservation!

Next the author talks about current efforts for conservation in the same area: "The plan, looking ahead to a century of growth expected to double the population in a four-county region, aims to make almost 1.3 million acres of forests, farms and stream beds in the Cascades foothills — an area 24 times the size of Seattle — permanently off-limits to developers." That's a lot of wilderness! I love it.

But the best part is that these conservation folks recognize the connection betweeen conservation of wilderness, and effective city planning, especially given that they are using a market-based approach to conservation, rather than regulation. "'We can only succeed at this conservation vision if our cities and towns really become magnets for our region's future population growth,' [Gene] Duvernoy [president of the Conservancy] wrote in a recent newspaper op-ed. 'If cities and towns truly become family-friendly, with good roads and schools and nearby jobs so that we want to live within them and not outside them, the pressure on our critical landscapes will be at a level our market-based strategies can manage.'"

So folks, it's up to us. Well, us and everyone else in this city. We have to make our cities and towns livable and family-friendly. Yay for Smart Growth!

on anything Smart Growth.

However... there are people who (for reasons unbeknownst to me, 'cause I like living in populated areas around other humans and so on and soforth) really really want to move to the outskirts of the tiniest town they can find. They want to build their dream house and "get away from all the traffic and mess" of the city or even the outer-ring suburbs. And I think that a lot of people see this as one of their rights as independent Americans.

How do we address this? How do we create a balance between what a lot of people want and what is sustainable?

Submitted by amy on June 21, 2005 - 10:04am.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.