Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Saving Chile's Natural Beauty
When I was living in Chile, there were frequently stories in the paper about a "deranged" and "dangerous" American who lived down South of the country. This American, suggested various op-eds in the paper, was determined to buy up the natural bounty of Chile - its forests, rivers, mountains - and to prevent Chileans from enjoying or using them. He was also considered a threat to national security since his land-holdings supposedly bisected this narrow country. Of course, these were the types of opinions caterwauled in conservative papers, and they came mostly from developers who were jealous or angry that the American was actually setting aside his property from them so they could not cut down its trees or build factories there. The American, who still lives down in the South of Chile, is named Douglas Tompkins, and he is as controversial as ever. It's interesting, though. I've seen enough pieces over the years even in US press, that I didn't think Mr. Tompkins held much interest in American minds. That he was an OLD story. I guess I was wrong. This piece in the LA Times examines the Tompkins mythos.
Tompkins is a counterculture veteran who left his job running the clothing company Esprit with a reported $150 million in 1990. He bailed on his then-wife and longtime business partner and remade himself in South America as a "patron of preservation". Regardless of your politics, you do have to admire Tomkins' spunk and dedication. Apparently he has lots of friends who are eager to help him in his quest, including Harrison Ford and other Hollywood types. I say good for him. The part of Chile he seeks to preserve is one of the loveliest spots on earth, and even if he is seen by some as a demagogue, I think we need the occasional rich demagogue to take on these issues. Or not?
Filed under: Arts and Culture, History, Learning, Business, Blogs, Stories, North America, South America, United States, Chile








Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jmchez Jun 13th 2006 11:29AM
So, this foreign guy buys huge swaths of land then tells the hunters, loggers, ranchers and others that had been using or accessing the land that they are now unwelcomed? I thought that if the Chileans wanted additional national parks they would legislate and vote on it, not have it imposed on them by a wealthy American.
Chile has the best economy and is one of the most capitalistic countries in South America so they may be retiscent to use their eminent domain laws and kick this guy out of there, but he shouldn't push his luck.
bobthebuilder Jun 13th 2006 12:13PM
Absolutely agree with the jmchez' comments. Spot on, old chap. It is American attitudes like this that annoy the hell out of me (a Chilean).
Erik Olsen Jun 13th 2006 3:17PM
Come on guys, it's not as bad as all that. There was a period there when Chile was being nastily overdeveloped and we should be happy he stepped in to preserve some of these areas. He paid for the land, fair and square. This shouldn't be an anti-American thing.
Maria I Jun 18th 2006 2:35AM
Hello. I'm from Chile and i've had the chance to read and know about this issue. When i first thought about the idea of someone (the nationality is not an issue here) who wanted to buy a huge amount of land to preserve it from devastation, i thought it was a good idea. At least someone was doing something noble for our country. But now i know that his fundamentalism is affecting the life of little communities who live in his property and work for him. For me it's very odd that a man that built an empire and grew a fortune based on capitalism, now refuses any type of modern facilities that could disturb the buble he is creating. But it's easy to live without any facilities when you own an airplane and you can get to a good hospital to Puerto Montt when you're sick. But people who live there in extreme poverty conditions do not have the means to do that and, since they don't have a road (because building the unfinished road would be impossible due Tompkins's negative)that connects their villages to bigger towns and cities. These villages are thus, isolated. I wonder now if Tompkins wants to protect the enviroment or if he wants to clean an image (or a conscience, i don't know) of a previous capitalistic life.