Advertisement

Tiny ‘Northern Exposure’ Town Divided Over Plans for Development : Environment: Roslyn, Wash., stands in for Cicely, Alaska, in the popular CBS-TV series. But this is a real town with real people and real concerns.

Share
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Faithful viewers of television’s “Northern Exposure” will recognize much in Roslyn--Dr. Joel Fleischman’s office, Ruth Ann’s store, the radio station where Chris works.

In fact, these streets are used for exterior shots on the popular CBS show, doubling as the fictional Alaska hamlet of Cicely.

But this is no Hollywood set. It’s a real town with 800 residents and a long history. And at the moment, it is a town divided over a proposal to build a resort of up to 5,000 housing units.

Advertisement

Some welcome the prospect of new jobs and booming business. Others say a resort would destroy the charm that drew them to Roslyn, 80 miles east of Seattle in a scenic corner of the tree-splashed Cascade Range.

“Roslyn is on the national historic register because of its intact boundaries. There is no plan of urban expansion,” said Susan Willis-Johnson, a resident and co-founder of the environmental group RIDGE.

But the old mining town’s rustic charm is under assault because of its Hollywood exposure.

The three-block main street is jammed with tourists seeking a glimpse of the actors. Businesses like a small grocery store are partly cordoned off because they serve as “Northern Exposure” sets. The part of the store that is open is crammed with souvenirs from the show.

The town barber cuts hair and also plays a barber on the show. Local politics have become heated with supporters and opponents of the show accusing each other of trying to ruin the town.

But although the television show will eventually leave, a huge resort would be permanent.

A recent hearing on the proposed resort at the middle school gym drew more than 200 people, who overflowed the bleachers. The county planning commission heard testimony, then delayed making a decision on the designation.

This is a topsy-turvy dispute.

On one side are environmentalists who make the uncharacteristic case that the land should be logged in perpetuity. They want the land designated a “forest of long-term commercial significance,” preventing or delaying its development for other uses.

Advertisement

“We have forest lands being paved over for subdivisions and shopping malls. It’s a terrible waste,” said David Bricklin, a Seattle lawyer who was hired by RIDGE.

The irony? RIDGE was formed several years ago to battle a plan to clear-cut all the trees on the same hillside.

On the other side, Plum Creek Timber Co. wants to remove 7,600 acres of its private forest land from logging, at a time when mills are closing for lack of timber and lumber prices are skyrocketing.

Company officials say the tract is rapidly becoming impossible to log profitably. Housing and recreational use have extended so far into the country that chemicals and controlled fires, normal tools of logging, cannot be used.

“The status quo is not an option here,” said Plum Creek forester Peter Heide. “In the very long run, Plum Creek will not continue to own this land. It is cheaper to grow and harvest trees in other places.”

Tom Bartholomew of Ferris Co. in Bellevue, Wash., an environmental planner hired by Plum Creek, said the company is interested in identifying the best uses for its lands. “At first blush a master planned resort makes sense,” he said.

Advertisement

A citizens panel convened by Plum Creek reported that urban pressures were reducing the ability to log the area. The panel found that a huge resort was desirable and offered social and economic benefits to Kittitas County.

The land offers hiking, climbing, hunting, skiing, fishing, mountain biking and other activities.

The report said a resort of between 855 and nearly 5,000 housing units would generate new jobs and substantially increase property tax revenues. Failure to build a resort, it said, would leave the land ripe for piecemeal and uncontrolled subdivision and logging.

Bob Monahan of Kent, who owns a vacation home in the area, said development of the land is reasonable.

But worries persist about increased government costs for services and roads, skyrocketing housing prices and huge demands on scarce water.

“If it is sold for a resort it will produce a large one-time flush of money for the owners but it will have questionable benefits to citizens in the future,” said Tim Foss, a forester with the U.S. Forest Service.

Advertisement

Others say that most jobs created by resorts at places like Sun Valley, Idaho, and Bend, Ore., pay little, and local residents are squeezed out as housing prices skyrocket.

To say nothing of the emotional cost to a town that features beat-up buildings from the turn-of-the-century mining boom, along with The Brick, the state’s oldest tavern--a town so rustic it attracted Hollywood.

“There is a suspension of time in this town,” said Roger Beardsley, chairman of the local planning commission. “I’d like that to be considered.”

Advertisement