Unusual opponents, contributions create battle over Grand Canyon development

Joel Eskovitz

Wednesday, Oct. 4, 2000 | 10:52 a.m.

PHOENIX - It's not just breaking county records or outspending opponents for the developers of a proposed $330 million project south of the Grand Canyon. They have contributed almost $500,000 more to support a ballot measure backing their development than even statewide initiatives have received.

The Nov. 7 ballot initiative is a critical moment for the Canyon Forest Village, which would become the gateway community to the South Rim, the entry point for 90 percent of the nearly 5 million people who visit Grand Canyon National Park each year.

The proposition is the people's opportunity to weigh in on a county supervisors' decision that rezoned land for a project made up of up to 900 hotel rooms, nearly 2,400 housing units and 240,000 square feet of commercial space directly south of the park.

To date, the campaign organization supporting Proposition 400 has received upward of $680,000 - all of it in cash and in-kind contributions from Grand Canyon Exchange Limited Partnership, the company that wants to build Canyon Forest Village.

The company's managing partner, Tom De Paolo, could not be reached by The Associated Press for comment on the contributions.

County records show opponents taking in about $60,000 in campaign contributions to fight the initiative.

The development could cause a significant impact on neighboring communities of Flagstaff, Williams and Tusayan. But what has made this debate so odd, said Northern Arizona University Professor Fred Solop, is the makeup of the two sides.

"It's confusing because the traditional groups are not lining up the way we expect them to," he said.

Nine environmental groups have backed the project after an eight-year negotiation period that resulted in a severe reduction in the amount of ground water the village will use. The Sierra Club is the only national group that hasn't endorsed it.

"People are really questioning and seeking out information and that's where the campaigns come into play," Solop said. "It's about information and it costs money to deliver that information to people."

The public opinion on the matter is soft, he said, meaning that many in the public will believe the arguments a side presents until they receive contradictory evidence. Just three years ago in an NAU poll, less than a quarter of the people even knew what the development was.

Still, the amount of money being collected and spent is mindboggling.

Contributions in favor of the initiative currently dwarf a similar Maricopa County measure seeking tax support for a football stadium and a statewide English-only in schools referendum by almost a half a million dollars.

Arizona Wins, the committee seeking a football stadium for the Arizona Cardinals, has only received $176,796.39 as of the last filing date. English Only For The Children reported $168,957.51 over the same period.

"In Phoenix, you can buy a TV ad on a station and hit a lot of people but in Coconino County not everyone watches the same TV," said Athia Hardt, spokesperson for CFV: People Putting the Canyon First. "You have to try to find unique ways to approach voters to inform them about the issues.

"(Our opponents) are experts at using innuendo and falsehoods and it's very important for people to have the real information about the kind of planned community we're talking about."

In this battle that tackles a national treasure, growth and the environment, emotions and allegations have run high, and opponents of the proposition are equally quick to point the finger.

"The reason I believe they're spending that much money is they believe they have a very, very, very hard road to travel," said Clarinda Vail, the volunteer campaign manager of It's Just Too Much: No on Prop. 400. "You can see that they are trying to spend money to try to get their huge development completed."

Opponents call the anti-development argument an economic one, hoping to keep money in the coffers of Tusayan, Flagstaff and Williams. But Vail said her main concern is to reduce the sheer magnitude of growth, crime, and pollution that would come with this project.

Cathie Schmidlin of the Kaibab National Forest Service said the crux of this debate is not whether growth will occur, but how and where.

"Some of those challenges up in the Tusayan area were how to manage the growth and park visitation. We've seen a steady increase over the last 10 years," she said. "It's a matter of how does a person want to address the growth issue."