|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
June 20, 2004Clous deal left enviros hoping for much moreThe negotiated deal worked out between developer Bill Clous, Grand Traverse County and state environmental officials concerning Clous' widespread wetland violations could be seen as a glass half full or half empty.On the half-full side are those who say this is one of the largest fines ever levied in an environmental case and there will be remediation at the site. On the half-empty side are those who note that, in the larger scheme of things, the fine could be seen as simply the cost of doing business. They could also point out that the entire Clous matter was, finally, a failure - a failure of speedy and effective public oversight, a failure of will in the county prosecutor's office and a failure of policy by state officials who had promised the public a chance to comment but ended up striking a deal behind closed doors. Clous will pay some $215,000 in fees and penalties in all (including fees paid to the county from an earlier settlement), set aside 68 acres of the 360-acre East Bay property for conservation easements and complete a number of environmental protection measures at the site. Those will include rehabilitating two trout streams, improving fish habitat and planting about 900 trees. Critics, however, can also note that his total cash payout will about equal the cost of a single condominium, that he still has about five-sixths of his property on which to build and that the trout streams might actually be a good selling point. For his part, Clous - who is Eastwood Custom Homes - has maintained all along that he intended only to farm the site, not build. Others think otherwise. Those who had hoped for a watershed event that would deter even the most hardheaded developer and make wetlands violations simply too big a price to pay are likely disappointed. Because both the earlier settlement and the one announced last week were the product of closed-door negotiations, the public never heard the county and the state make their case. They never heard them lay out the extent of the damage he inflicted on the site, including burying springs and streams and eliminating trees. They never heard county officials testify that Clous ignored stop-work orders or that he turned to a state senator for political cover. Bill Clous never had to take the stand and defend his actions or claim in open court - as he has since the case began - that he's just a simple farmer. Clous' attorney, Matthew Vermetten, said his client was pleased with the settlement. Well, he's not supposed to be. He's supposed to be distinctly uncomfortable. A local environmentalist said the settlement was "the best we could have gotten," but a lot of people likely don't think so. State officials had described the case as one of the "most egregious" they had ever seen. If $140,000 is one of the largest fines ever levied in the state for wetland violations and that's the price for "egregious" violations, big-time developers must laugh themselves sick when the Department of Environmental Quality shows up. Even in 1974, that was chump change for the big players. In 2004, it's chump change for guys who look at a 360-acre site and see a nice crop of condominiums. As time goes by and development gobbles up more and more land, even marginal building sites like this one become more and more valuable - and vulnerable. If a developer can push some dirt around on an unbuildable site and make it buildable, and pay a paltry fine to do it, the rush will be on. The Clous case was one of the most high-profile wetlands battles this region has seen. One can only guess at how much this cost the tax-paying public for the hundreds of hours spent by local and state officials. Right now, a lot of those taxpayers likely don't feel they got their money's worth.
|
|
