Talk:The Villages of Loreto Bay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please contribute to this article.

Contents 1 This is a sales pitch, not encyclopedic information 1.1 =========== 1.2 ============== 1.3 ===================================== 2 Loreto Bay is Notable for What It Is Doing Right

[edit] This is a sales pitch, not encyclopedic information

The Loreto region has a population of approx. 15,000. This population is insufficient to support a development the size of Loreto Bay. Estimates are that for each unit in the Loreto Bay development, from 10 to 20 Mexican citizens from other states will move to Loreto. When one factors in these additional 60,000 to 120,000 people, all of the "sustainability" numbers fail to add up: these new residents will not be driving electric cars and using solar heated water. They will create huge demands for infrastructure and resources, especially water, sewer and power, that will dwarf the alleged or planned sustainability features of the Loreto Bay development.

Water: There are NO current plans or permit applications for water development by Loreto Bay. Currently Loreto Bay is receiving its water from the San Juan aquifer north of Loreto-the same aquifer that supplies Loreto's water needs. Estimates are that that source could by gone in just a few years. The Mexican government has rejected that study and commissioned its own study, which has been finished. However, that study has not been made public. Yet in recent weeks the city has imposed restrictions on water use: no watering between 6am and7 pm, no watering streets for dust abatement, and car washing from buckets only. Major streets have been torn up to replace pipes. But Loreto Bay is not subject to these restrictions, and they have stated that they have the rights to use whatever water they want, for as long as they want it, from the San Juan aquifer.

Automobiles: The development has eliminated most of the expenses of streets, and is selling units without parking, in the guise of "sustainability." The reality is dense housing development south of the city, bringing Loreto urban sprawl and highway rush hour traffic over a very narrow highway with poor lines of sight. This has become one of the peninsula's most dangerous stretches of highway.

Social changes: More traffic. Longer lines at the clinics. Higher prices for almost everything. Crime, especially burglary and theft, has exploded.

Here is a link to information on the possible impacts of developments planned for the Loreto area, information generated by several participating US and Mexican universities:

http://www.futurosalternativosloreto.org/

Loretoguy 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Some good points here LoretoGuy. There is no denying that a project of the magnitude of Loreto Bay will have some significant impact on the region, but I contest that development was bound to happen and there are some positives in having a comapany like LBC doing this project because at least they are trying to address issues of sustainability whereas before no attention was paid to that aspect of development. My question is whether the other initiatives in the region will be held to any standards or will they simply do business as usual. Loreto BAy will not acheive all of it's intentions but it seems bizarre to complain about a company or project that takes a step in the right direction while ignoring smaller, less visible projects the region. This place could be another Cabo/Cancun. That was the original plan. The present plan for the region looks a lot better and will bring more holistically minded people to the region. This could be beneficial to the region. Humans have an impact. LC is exploring how to mitigate that impact and the lessons of this project will be valuable for future projects. It ain't perfect, but it ain't bad either. Please add factual material to the article as the article ain't perfect either.

[edit] ===========

Agreed Loretoguy

I was commisioned to work on properties at LoretoBay under the original premise that the community would be a sustainable model for future developments. Instead we have a poster child for what can be termed "greenwashing". Original plans to mandate that all homes capture ALL stormwater and most greywater - SCRAPPED. Instead it will follow typical western development guidelines. Don't even get me started on the fact that the only way to reach the place is by plane and they have a golf course.

But they developers sold lots of units and made lots of money, which was the original intention anyway.

[edit] ==============

Indeed. So what do we do with the article page? Right now anyone innocently reading it might actually believe it. I'm the one who added the not-neutral tag, but well, that is putting it pretty mildly.

And what is it with "restoring watersheds"? Are mangroves even native?

128.32.176.131 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)StudiedWaterThere

[edit] =====================================

A few things to note:

1) The developers have made no money.

2) It is impossible currently to build something 100% sustainable in all aspects. Thus the criteria for judgement should be: is there a better example or large scale development. Anywhere in Mexico? Anywhere int he US? Anywhere in the world?

The fact that certain ideas are scrapped does not mean that it's bad, it means that it's less than ideal, and at least they have great intentions that business and construction realities interfered with.

For those who think this is bad I ask: Do you think Cabo or Cancun is better? Do you think there will be no more development in the baja? Should all development be stopped and is that realistic?

while the semantics of "sustainabilty" may be rightfully disputed, the fact that this is probably in the top 5% of largescale developments worldwide and maybe the top 0.5% I think is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.217.186 (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loreto Bay is Notable for What It Is Doing Right

Arguments against any tourist development have a sympathetic ring - we've all seen beautiful places paved and ruined by the very tourism they attracted. Cabo is a nearby, and compelling example. But - since Mexico derives more income from tourism than from any other sector of the domestic economy, and Loreto is beautiful, we can be sure that tourist development will continue in Loreto. Several other projects by large development groups are in the works or already under construction nearby, and more will come.

The real question here is whether Loreto Bay is attempting to mitigate the damage, or even improve the outcome, of inevitable development. Put it this way: Given what they talk about, and what they have already done, is this characterization of Loreto Bay for real? I have been watching the project closely, and I conclude that Loreto Bay really intends what they say, on all counts.

This is based on real-world, first-person observation of what Loreto Bay has already actually done, and it is a surprisingly positive list: mangrove estuary restoration; saline-tolerant xeriscape vegetation (including the golf course grass); tight, smart new-urbanist designs for both villages and individual houses; very low carbon-footprint construction; and aggressive promotion of locally-sited, skilled subcontractor jobs; and significant contributions from each sale to local foundation projects - one of which is Loreto's new children's medical facility. These aren't just PR talk, they are accomplished deeds.

There is big talk about power and water issues. Land-rights for the promised wind-farm have been secured, and the wind-farm might actually happen. Aquifer restoration is not begun, and will be a slow, low-return project, so only time will tell if it actually happens. But the golf course is already watered with recovered, treated water; and the land plan as built promotes capture and absorption instead of runoff. That is good. Not perfect, but good.

Of course these are all things we need to learn to do if we are going to continue as a species. For the sake of argument, try to name three large commercial projects in any developing country that mentions all these goals. That this project may fall short of such goals says volumes about how ambitious the goals are, and may exceed their grasp.

It would be great if Loreto Bay were perfect. It is instead merely a serious attempt (by a bunch of long-hairs who learned to wear suits) to do well by doing good. As a demonstration for large-scale sustainable projects, it is the best I've seen, and much, much greener than anything else planned for Loreto. Don't be too quick to shoot them down, they just might be for real. [User:70.137.160.242] 21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)