I'm not sure how to feel about this story.

It seems to me that the worst complaints being lodged in the article are simply sui generis assumptions regarding the wasteful, resource-intensive overdrive associated with the lifestyles of the wealthy- activities that are obviously subject to occurring independently of whether a property-owning developer makes a decision to design environmentally friendly and sustainable features into a planned residential community, or not.

And I'm not sure what positive alternative course is being proposed, either. Much of the USA consists of private property. People often build dwellings on such territory. It seems to me that the negotiations between private property owners and the wider community comprised of their neighbors should logically center around issues like blight and pollution in the surrounding region.

What would the neighbors prefer, in this case? What if Mr. Dokken decided to equip each residence with a hugely wasteful wood-burning fireplace, helipads, a captive game preserve, etc.- and said "how you like me now? Let's litigate."

It seems to me that pioneering green technology is a good thing- even if it's rich people doing it. The historical record shows that the rich were the first to get bathtubs and indoor plumbing, too.

I mean, get real- is the state of Montana planning to unveil a means, wealth, and asset test, in order to discourage or ban the wealthy from settling there? Because that's what sounds like the real heart of the issue- not anything that Mr. Dokken has done, but local resentment that massively rich immigrants continue to put up homesteads in Montana.

If that's the issue, then- have it out. Because otherwise, the uber-rich immigrant cohort will almost certinly keep settling there- whether the developments partake of a decided measure of eco-friendliness and sustainability, or if they're designed wantonly and heedlessly, as in-your-face footprints in the midst of the surrounding communities and countryside.

Parenthetically, I think it's a mistake to pass judgements on any individual without allowing them due process. Even a rich person. Undeniably, the success of certain political agendas and views in the USA has resulted in stacking the odds in favor of the wealthiest Americans in ways that are gratuitous and unfair to the rest of us- especially in terms of political power and civic influence. But it doesn't follow that 100% of everyone who can afford to buy a home in Paradise Valley is a phony capitalist pig, fit only for tossing flies at pre-planted, pellet-fattened stockies and similarly pathetic pseudo-recreations in the great outdoors. Isn't it also possible that at least some of them could be seeking to love and contribute to the place, with values not too much different from the rest of the good folks of Montana?

Am I being naive here? It seems to me that having wealthy neighbors doesn't have to inevitably mean catastrophe- especially if they're willing to kick down the expenses to keep from burdening the ecosystem with increased energy demand, erosion, and pollution. Unless you consider their mere presence to be pollution...(as opposed to, say, yours.)

How much of the problem with Paradise Valley is Mr. Dokken's doing- and how much of it is simply pique, a coalescence of long-simmering resentment for which he's merely a target of opportunity? It seems that one complaint of the neighboring public has to do with the locking away of large tracts of land from recreational access and travel by pre-existing local residents. Has there been an attempt to perhaps negotiate a compromise position on that issue, perhaps with the mediation of the state government?

I also have to note the irony inherent in the phenomenon of upper-middle class people, mostly relative newcomers themselves, feeling out-gentrified, and getting upset about it...there are worse problems, believe me. The "big sky" and "wide open spaces" for quite a few countries on this planet would fit handily on the leeward side of one Montana mountain peak.

Whatever the heroes and villains in this particular snafu- is this the hill you all really want to fight on? What about the impending earth-sickness of oil tar sands development, the privatization of aquifers, and the coal industry's newfound implementation of the beyond-strip-mining practice of bulldozing mountaintops into acid-waste rubble piles and dumping them into stream ravines? Will you have any energy left for those fights? You wouldn't be writing off any potential allies, would you?