Discount tutor only 2

Callie San Antonio

FNR4660

Assignment 2

October 24, 2019

Plum Creek v. Stand By Our Plan

1. Alachua County is in the midst of weighing economic trade-offs for deciding the fate of what Plum Creek can or cannot do with their private property. On the one hand, allowing Plum Creek to develop their land with create new homes, infrastructures, and jobs while bringing in people, allowing Alachua County the room to grow. Inversely, conservation groups are decrying the act, advocating the site location and resources will impact natural Florida, more of which I will go into later on. For examples of public goods, Plum Creek could provide open accessible spaces, new infrastructure, public parks, security, etc., while the negative externalities examples include infringement of country land, noise pollution, impact of sudden population arrival, noise pollution, and household waste, just to name a few.

2. Major trade-offs:

Environmental Goods and Services

Gain:

1. New nature areas (parks, trails, etc.)

2. Ecotourism businesses bring about nature awareness

3. Designation of conservation sites

4. Enhancement of community watersheds

5. Integration of green infrastructure

Lose:

1. Fragmentation of wetlands

2. Loss of water storage

3. Decrease in water quality, increase in impaired and polluted water

4. Loss of biomass source wood

5. Habitat loss

Other Factors

Gain:

1. Creation of new jobs

2. Timber industry would boom

3. Influx of new people to the area brings money in for local businesses

4. New ecotourism businesses

5. Added tax revenues

Loss:

1. Country people rally against development

2. Lower quality of life

3. Transportation is lacking in numbers and quality

4. Road impacts will cost taxpayer money

5. Little long-term planning

3. For the gains of environmental, nature areas are use (aesthetic, recreation), ecotourism awareness nonuse, conservation areas use and nonuse (depends on how it is conserved), community watersheds enhancement is efficiency use, and green infrastructure integration is efficiency use. For environmental losses, fragmentation of wetlands is negative aesthetic appeal, use, inefficient, loss of water storage is nonuse inefficient, decrease in water quality is inefficiency and cost, loss of biomass source wood is inefficiency, nonuse, and negative aesthetic appeal, and habitat loss is also nonuse and negative aesthetic appeal. For other factors gains, creation of new jobs is efficiency, timber industry boom is efficiency, influx of new people is positive status, new ecotourism is efficiency and aesthetic appeal, and added tax revenues are efficiency use. Other loss factors include: conflict over development is nonuse and negative aesthetic appeal, lower quality of life is also negative aesthetic appeal, transportation ability and quality are both inefficient, cost, negative appeal/reliability, road impacts are costs, and little long-term planning is negative appeal and inefficiency.

4. For the gains of environmental, for nature areas, conservation areas, watershed enhancements, green infrastructure integration, and nature awareness from ecotourism are all basically willingness to pay, as for much of nature conservation is funded by taxpayers and valued by environmental and governmental agencies. For environmental losses, loss of water, decrease in water quality, loss of biomass source wood, and habitat loss is more a willingness to accept, as there are tradeoffs that must be accepted for the conditions of development, which can be valued by private or governmental agencies. For other factors gains, creation of new jobs, timber industry boom, influx of new people, new ecotourism, and added tax revenues are mainly willingness to pay, because for new services citizens must be willing to pay, usually valued by government or local businesses set prices/values. Other loss factors include: conflict over development, lower quality of life, transportation ability and quality, road impacts, and little long-term planning is more reluctant willingness to accept, unfortunately, if we want to have the plus factors, which are also valued by governmental agencies or local businesses.

5. A major uncertainty that Stand By Our Plan pointed out is that the Alachua Plum Creek plan lacks long-term planning. Ideas were formed to volley their slogan of economic, environmental, and community engagement interactions, but little is actually said about specifics, which is what concerns many citizens about undecided development. An irreversibility that many are pointing out is the potential damage and impact to natural resources, particularly water supply and biomass. Increased water use and poor development plans could potentially cause fertilizers and waste water to flow into our aquifer, impacting our watershed system. The biomass issue is huge too, as not only is that a source of habitat for wildlife but also creates more green house gas emissions that plug up our atmosphere.

6. As an engaged Alachua County citizen, I am hesitant to make a decision regarding the issue. At a first glance, the Plum Creek plan looked great, it considered economic, ecological, and community inputs that would benefits many livings in Alachua county, bringing in jobs and original businesses to pop up, and also creating new places for families to live. With further inspection from the additional documents, I saw that several issues conflict with this message, mainly with inconsideration of current watershed locations, habitat corridors being interrupted, and changing the type of area around Gainesville into a more urban location. It could affect threatened populations, potentially bringing in bears to urban areas, would cost taxpayers a ton for infrastructure that is completely not there (especially the roads!), and socially disrupt Gainesville’s quiet environmental feel. At this time, I do not support the Envision Alachua plan, but am willing to reconsider my stance if they go back to the drawing board and deal with the problems many have brought up.