Draped in a sharp black coat and quickly thumbing through BlackBerry texts, Sheldon Isaman looks too young to be caught in the middle of a multi-thousand-acre land controversy.

One look at his eyes tells another story.

“There’s no way there should be this much controversy,” he says wearingly.

The ‘this’ is Cranbrook’s increasingly curious debate over the incorporation of 9,000 acres into the city limits. Isaman is one of six investors in Summit West, which owns 2,400 of those acres. A separate private investor owns the remaining 6,600.

With a referendum vote looming on the matter Nov. 14, Isaman said his group is ready to go ahead with plans one way or the other—as a part of Cranbrook or the regional district. Both jurisdictions have their merits, but he feels the former far outweighs the latter, and proponents—including the vast majority of city council—strongly agree.

“If it comes into the city the property is worth more money,” he unabashedly admits, “but it means a longer process and a bigger risk.”

While the property could be subdivided now, owners are waiting on the referendum results; a ‘yes’ vote could see applications put forward to subdivide into parcels between 148-600 acres. From there, some parcels could be sold to other investors or developers—standard procedure in the land business.

“We’ve been approached by several people but we’re not entertaining any offers until (the boundary expansion) is resolved.”

As Isaman points out, any development would have to be in accordance with the city’s value and principle standards—and even then be subject to a public consultation process.

“That’s what the consultation process is. If people want an amusement park in the city, then that’s what’ll go ahead.”

The benefit to Cranbrook, proponents say, is a suddenly increased tax base and expansive room to grow. Then again, it’s all that room (about double the city’s current size) that has opponents throwing ‘whoa, vote no’ signs on cars around the city.

“We just don’t know what the plans are for up there,” explains Sharon Cross, president of the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society.

“There’s a lot of conjecture.”

Without a plan outlining proposed growth presented to the public, people are making up their own assumptions Cross said, which feeds the fires of concern.

“We’ve been hearing different things from different people…golf courses, ski hill, even low-income housing,” she said.

“This is all pie in the sky.”

Isaman said all options are being considered by his group and potential buyers. However, a ski hill probably won’t happen—precipitation and environmental studies could be too arduous and even nullify the possibility, never mind a market saturated by RCR hills in Kimberley and Fernie. Any other possibilities would again have to pass through the city and its public consultation.

If the ‘no’ vote wins the referendum, Isaman says the development process could begin in as little as six months. With a ‘yes’ vote and under city jurisdiction, that wait could be 18 months. Taking chances on the delay is a gamble his partners are willing to take. Either way, this is the first step in a long road of potential development.

“This isn’t the end. This is just the start of (the planning process),” he says.

“If the citizens of Cranbrook decide they do not want that property within its city lands then we have to move forward, and we will.”