I will say up front that I am not a permanent Homer resident -- yet. But I have been coming to Homer with my wife and daughter seasonally since 1995, and now own a small cabin in the vicinity.

The commentaries I have read around the issue of oil lease sales 191 and 199 pit two ideas against one another: environmental welfare and economic opportunity. Among the comments I have seen, many have realized that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Homer's natural environment is a precious gift that will endure as long as it is allowed to. But it is something that, in practical terms, is irreplaceable once it has been compromised.

In this case, I have seen no evidence of projected economic benefits to the community (as opposed to the oil corporations), and certainly nothing that would justify the cost that would be incurred if a spill were to occur. But even if there was this evidence, the question that must be answered to do justice to the gifts Homer residents are given is: Is this the best (as opposed to easiest, quickest or most common) solution?

Similarly, the question of a Fred Meyer or other large chain store raises important questions about Homer's future. I appreciated Carey James' article in the Homer News about Fort Collins' cautious approach to large-scale development (Jan. 30, "Planning could affect store aesthetics").

In this age of Internet commerce, and with large retailers not too far away by car or bus from Homer, is it doing justice, once again, to the gifts that the community of Homer possesses -- not to mention its hard-working, community-minded small businesses and their employees -- to rush shortsightedly toward the dream of blenders that are 10 percent cheaper and within walking distance?

I don't mean to undervalue the importance of affordable goods, but I do mean to value the importance -- and, once again, the irreplaceable nature once compromised -- of the character and integrity of a community. Is this the best solution?

It is frustrating to identify a problem, to identify one solution to that particular problem, to feel entitled to have a say, and to meet resistance. But it is also easy to let that frustration build into resentment and antagonism.

What Homer and its residents deserve is open-minded, long-term and cooperative vision. The decisions to allow oil drilling and to allow large corporate retailers into the community will likely have irreversible effects on precious and fragile gifts.

There is historical precedent in this country for the concerns expressed by those in the community who oppose oil lease sales, as well as those who oppose large chain stores. We who have lived and traveled in the Lower 48 have experienced first-hand the irreversible shift from individual to corporate dominance in the character and prosperity of many of our finest communities.

Alaskans eschew comparisons with the Lower 48 for very good reason: yours is a unique and precious inheritance, and living in Alaska requires fortitude, commitment and individual responsibility in the face of challenging and powerful forces. Corporate exploitation is one such force, albeit a social rather than natural one.

Will Homer, Alaska, allow itself to become Homer, U.S.A.? I hope not.

Jim Grossman is a Homer property owner and part-time resident.