Resort Expansion

[chrsdipietro94@]

I tried to read it when it first came out but I found it way too biased against the ski companies and never finished it. Trying to limit ski area expansion is a bit draconian since every ski area is so different. Government intervention is not always the answer. There has to be a balance. Skiing is one way to generate jobs in areas where there are few jobs and it is usually environmentally cleaner than raw material extraction like mining or lumber.

An example of this would be VT Act 250, passed in 1970. Act 250 probably closed more ski areas in VT than any other reason. When it became obvious that ski areas could not operate without snowmaking in VT in the 1960s, Act 250 added even more expensive permitting to the process to get snowmaking approval. For most small mom and pop ski areas, this was the beginning of the end.

I agree. The writer is extremely biased. There is not a word in favor of the ski industry throughout the entire book. That said, I think it would be hard to find an unbiased piece. Most of what I found that is pro-development sounds more like marketing material produced by the NSAA. It would be hard to find someone who writes from both angles. From an environmental perspective, I think the evidence is there. Ski areas are environmentally destructive. The book also gives some good information on the economic effects on small communities too. In a nutshell, part-time residents don't add much to the community, and the jobs that are created are not very secure. An example was given of people who commute over an hour to Vail in order to clean toilets.

I'm familiar with Act 250, but don't know the ins and outs. My buddy manages the state parks up in the North East Kingdom. He says it can be a pain in the ass for most development anywhere in the state.

If there was no Act 250, do think those community areas would have stayed in business?

 

[chrsdipietro94@]

Here is access to a free copy if anyone want to read it: Internet Archive: Downhill Slide

 

[chrsdipietro94@]

Kids, learn to earn your turns, because there's going to be a ton of unused ski hills by 2030 just sitting there waiting to be skinned up. And that's going to be a limited window, before they all grow over. Enjoy, they'll be a present from the Boomers, who paid for it all.

 

[Harvey]

Ski areas are environmentally destructive.

I've alway felt that my biggest impact personally was the driving I do to ski. Or maybe it is the home I will build someday. But that is conjecture.

What is the biggest impact? Snowmaking?

The use itself if pretty intensive in a relatively small area. In Johnsburg NY, where Gore is, is the garnet mine more destructive than the ski area? No idea.

 

[MarzNC]

I've alway felt that my biggest impact personally was the driving I do to ski. Or maybe it is the home I will build someday. But that is conjecture.

What is the biggest impact? Snowmaking?

The use itself if pretty intensive in a relatively small area. In Johnsburg NY, where Gore is, is the garnet mine more destructive than the ski area? No idea.

Based on reading Environmental Impact Statements done for requests for major improvements to resorts out west on U.S. Forest Service land, I would guess that installing a new lift makes the most difference to the immediate environment. For the relatively new Supreme detachable lift at Alta, the original plan included a mid-station for off-loading beginners and cautious intermediates. But that had to be scrapped because putting in the mid-station would've required a lot of digging in a sensitive wetlands area. Alta is a popular hiking area in the "green season." To install a brand new lift, have to cut down a lot of trees and re-grade where they were.

Massanutten put in the original ski trails in time for the 1971 season. The resort has a huge impact on the local economy. That part of northern VA has been settled since the 1700s but not much industry besides farming in the Shenandoah Valley. Mountain land isn't good for much. I would say the two golf courses have similar environmental impact as the ski trails, one is up the mountain and the other is in the valley.

Snowmaking infrastructure requires pipelines, water, and electricity. Jiminy Peak is completely off the grid in terms of electricity by using wind and solar power. Berkshire East has wind power too. When water is available without a huge pond, then that's not a big deal compared to the land needed for lifts. Wildcat comes to mind.

 

[Campgottagopee]

My Grandfather worked at that garnet mine ^^^^^ his entire life. My cuz is a big cheese there. No clue which one is worse, I'd guess the mine.

 

[Benny Profane]

I've alway felt that my biggest impact personally was the driving I do to ski. Or maybe it is the home I will build someday. But that is conjecture.

What is the biggest impact? Snowmaking?

The use itself if pretty intensive in a relatively small area. In Johnsburg NY, where Gore is, is the garnet mine more destructive than the ski area? No idea.

I've always thought that, to start, you have to just look at the visual impact of a ski area to a non skier as they drive through the mountains. Not as bad a NW clearcutting or WV surface mines, but almost in the same league.

 

[Brownski]

There’s really no end or resolution to this discussion. Is a ski resort ugly compared to an unblemished mountain covered in trees? Of course it is. They burn a lot of fuel and use a lot of electricity and water for sure. But what are we going to compare them to? A mall? An amusement park? I don’t know whether they’re more or less destructive then all the other stuff we do.

 

[chrsdipietro94@]

What is the biggest impact? Snowmaking?

It's a big picture thing.... everything is connected. The effects are more than just what happens in and around the ski area. Think about the amount waste produced by any resort. When resorts grow, the pile of waste has grown with it. The industry has created the "Sustainable Slopes" program to address the problem. This in my opinion is another Green Wash, kind of like compostable plastic bags.

There is some contention over here related to expanding Mission Ridge, and the effects on our Elk population. The ski area is expanding on 800 acres of prime elk habitat. I don't know the details, but when I look at the positives vs the negatives of having 4 new lifts, a village, and a bunch of second homes, I choose to side with the Elk.

 

[Benny Profane]

My Grandfather worked at that garnet mine ^^^^^ his entire life. My cuz is a big cheese there. No clue which one is worse, I'd guess the mine.

Well, again, you can't even see the mine, to start. And you really have to consider all the pollution (air and water) that a Saturday crowd at Gore creates. That's a lot of toilets flushed.