Hot Topic

[Gloria]

I don't know if any of you have been following this saga, but here is the latest on the Bitterrot Resort. It's a tough one to take a side on for me, of course I like to ski , but there are also some environmental impacts here. I am staying out of this one locally, but curious to see what other people thought.

https://missoulian.com/articles/2007/11/09/news/local/news04.txt

 

[dloveski]

A Park City in the Bitterroots? Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!

P.C. was cool about 30 years ago, now it's suburban sprawl. I guess it's time to move on to other pristine areas and develop the heck out of them, and so on and so on.

 

[abc]

Sorry I'm up on this. But where (I assume in UT) is the resort suppose to be?

Having been to both Vail and Whistler, (and Austria and Switzerland) I have to say it's not a matter of whether. It's more a matter of HOW.

Vail is not a suburban sprawl, nor is Whistler. Take away the high dollar pretenciousness, one must acknowledge both are done quite tastefully.

And if you look at many Austian and Swiss resorts, they're beautiful. Unlike the ugly ducklings in France...

I've only been to Park City once, and it was a long time ago so I don't have a strong recollection of what it's like (probably not outstanding, or I would have remembered ). So are they proposing a new PC or a new Vail?

 

[Gloria]

Sorry I'm up on this. But where (I assume in UT) is the resort suppose to be?

Having been to both Vail and Whistler, (and Austria and Switzerland) I have to say it's not a matter of whether. It's more a matter of HOW.

Vail is not a suburban sprawl, nor is Whistler. Take away the high dollar pretenciousness, one must acknowledge both are done quite tastefully.

And if you look at many Austian and Swiss resorts, they're beautiful. Unlike the ugly ducklings in France...

I've only been to Park City once, and it was a long time ago so I don't have a strong recollection of what it's like (probably not outstanding, or I would have remembered ). So are they proposing a new PC or a new Vail?

Actually, Southwestern Montana, if developed to it's "full plan" it would supposedly wind up being the biggest resort in North America. The truth is it is hard to "be Up" on it, as a lot of the information out there is innaccurate. There are some issues with wildlife and sediment and wilderness area etc..so it is touchy. The resort would be located at the Eastern edge of the Selway Bitterroot wilderness which is the second largest contugious wilderness area left in the US. For whatever that's worth.

 

[abc]

second largest contugious wilderness area left in the US

Which is the largest?

 

[dloveski]

Which is the largest?

Alaska, is my guess?

The Bitterroot is a part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

I have been lucky to enjoy the wide open spaces in my life, it's just sad to see them developed, even if it is inevitable. My grandkids may not know what it's like to be truly alone in the outdoors, with only the howl of the coyotes in the distance to break the silence.

Once a place is developed, it cannot be reversed. And private lands lock out public use. Our public lands are a treasure and we need to fight to keep them that way.

 

[Gloria]

Which is the largest?

Noatak-Gates of the Arctic Alaska I am pretty sure is the largest.

 

[Gloria]

Alaska, is my guess?

The Bitterroot is a part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

I have been lucky to enjoy the wide open spaces in my life, it's just sad to see them developed, even if it is inevitable. My grandkids may not know what it's like to be truly alone in the outdoors, with only the howl of the coyotes in the distance to break the silence.

Once a place is developed, it cannot be reversed. And private lands lock out public use. Our public lands are a treasure and we need to fight to keep them that way.

The unique thing about the Bitterroot is when you take all the Forest Service Land, BLM Land, FWP land, and that which has been put into Conservation easements out, there is less than 20% of the total land in Ravalli County left that can be developed. The negative thing is how we are choosing to develop it currently. ( Not necessarily in reference to the resort )

 

[abc]

The unique thing about the Bitterroot is when you take all the Forest Service Land, BLM Land, FWP land, and that which has been put into Conservation easements out, there is less than 20% of the total land in Ravalli County left that can be developed. The negative thing is how we are choosing to develop it currently. ( Not necessarily in reference to the resort )

If most of the surrounding area is federal wildnerness area, then they can't be developed. Keep it that way, and it won't become another sprawling Park City. Could be another, bigger Vail then. Isn't that the best way?

(National Forest and BLM land "can" be developed, I believe. So it'll need to be made a "permanent wilderness" of some kind as part of the condition of the resort plan)

Granted, that would also severely limit the potential boost to local economy without the huge (but ugly) real estate developement that goes with a mega resort.

Does it have good snow record though?

 

[Gloria]

If most of the surrounding area is federal wildnerness area, then they can't be developed. Keep it that way, and it won't become another sprawling Park City. Could be another, bigger Vail then. Isn't that the best way?

(National Forest and BLM land "can" be developed, I believe. So it'll need to be made a "permanent wilderness" of some kind as part of the condition of the resort plan)

Granted, that would also severely limit the potential boost to local economy without the huge (but ugly) real estate developement that goes with a mega resort.

Does it have good snow record though?

Essentially, the Bitterroots are a designated wilderness area, which means foot only, no motorized anything, not even a Mountain Bike, So no chance of the resort doing anything beyond skiing if they can do that. The gentleman proposing the project owns the land up to the Forest boundary as well as the water rights. So as far as snow, you can pretty much ski Lolo Peak from Septmber through Julyish most years...so the upper portion, there would be no problems with snowpack, the eastern edge also gets windloaded, so it could be a benefit with proper avy control, the lower section, ummmm well he has alot of water rights for snowmaking. There is also a mid-scetion which you can't see from the road, that gets/holds snow and is on his land, so it could work. I'm all for economic development so I am not necessarily against it, I'm just not going to take sides, if it goes up to Lolo Peak, it does, if not it doesn't. I am sure that the golf course private ski area and homesites will be developed. I would say you can pretty much count on that.

 

[abc]

I can see why it's environmentally sensitive, with the proximity to a wilderness area. Things like potential watershed polutions and such, needs to be dealt with.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of using environment issue as an excuse to stop developement. I think it hurts the environmental movement in general.

 

[Gloria]

I can see why it's environmentally sensitive, with the proximity to a wilderness area. Things like potential watershed polutions and such, needs to be dealt with.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of using environment issue as an excuse to stop developement. I think it hurts the environmental movement in general.

Wow, I haven't heard such logic in years. Unfortunately I have found that when groups take the environmental stance, they ussually go straight to stop the development instead of working with the developer or seeing the benefit of developing a piece of ground in such manner that it protects at least some aspects of the environment. The project ussually, by law, goes through and ussually the changes made to appease the environmentalists often times are actually more degrading to the environment than the original plan was to begin with. Or, like we are dealing with on a daily basis here, the project gets stopped and the developer sues the county at the supreme court level, all at the expense of the taxpayers. We have had no fewer than 25 developers sue our county in the past 12 months. It's not only costly, but it has caused so much fighting between the residents, it's terrible.

 

[abc]

it has caused so much fighting between the residents, it's terrible

In any town, there'll always be people who're against ANY developement AT ALL. Period. For them, environmental issue is simply a convinient excuse to delay and derail ALL developement! Expose them from behind the environment facade!!! (I also think getting rid of such people goes a long way for any environmental group to gain any REAL ground)

And there're always people who's ready to make a few quick bucks. Long term effects be damned. Many developement enterprise are full of such people. They'll do the minimum they can get away to get their project approved. But at least, they ususally are up front about it.

Those two will never see eye to eye. Might as well stop trying.

But really, are they the majority? I doubt it. So the key is really NOT to get confused by the issues.

Do the town/county majority WANT developement? ANY developement? If they do, then sit down and discuss what price they're willing to pay, in terms of noise, crowds, traffic jams, long term population increase (it WILL happen), lost of tranquality (it will happen too), etc. How much of those are people willing to put up with??? And what potential benefit will come of such sacrefies?

You want the tourist money but not the tourist (crowd, traffic..)? Aren't going to happen! For some, that's perfectly fine. They prefer the way things have been. For most others, they're willing to pay SOME price to get SOME developement. The hard part is to get a sense of what those levels are.

Not that different than trying to buying ski on eBay.
- First, decide if you NEED another pair of ski
- Then, decide what else you can do without (jacket? keep your old car for another year?), in order to come up with the money for the ski you want.
- Finally, search for the best deal!

I feel a lot of the reaction of town/county fall into the situation they started looking for deals before they ever consider whether they need one, or how much they're willing to sacrefies to get one.

(I know, in this case, the deal came first. But the same principle applies. The county need to get through the need/price issue before it can decide on the individual deals.)

The worst part of this war is, in the end, the town and county got so tired of the infighting, they capitulate at some point. And whatever next project got approved, with little oversight or input from the locals.

(It's time I step off the soap box. But this thread IS a political one after all)

 

[Gloria]

-
(It's time I step off the soap box. But this thread IS a political one after all)

Initially I was curious to see how people felt about resort development in such areas. But I think the turn we took is interesting, as it seems you have been through alot of what we are going through and have similiar views to mine. Essentially, we became a mecca for people in large cities to escape in the 80-90's and now those whom have moved are wanting the gate shut and those of us who've lived here all our lives are saying why? Sure growth has had some negative consequences, but it has also had some very positive ones as well. Like jobs, art and culture, technology, etc. So the battle ensues and my taxes go up....I wonder often if half the people making the noise would still live here if we were as unsophisticated and unadvanced as we were before they came and gave us the little jumpstart. Alright, now I'll get off my soapbox too. Back to topic. Preserve the wilderness, or develop potentially the largest ski resort in North America in the wilderness.

 

[Pequenita]

Is it wrong that the first thing I thought of after reading the thread (btw, the link goes to a story about Taco del Sol getting a caberet license) was: "I am so glad I switched jobs and no longer need to deal with political crap like this at work. Woohooo, go me!"?

Other than permits and maybe water rights issues if there will be snowmaking, if this is federal land the "major" environmental statute that will govern the analyses the government (or its delegate) will need to do prior to a "major federal action" is pretty wimpy. A lawsuit could stall things for a bit, though, and depending on the how quickly the economic climate shifts, that could be enough to put the kibash on a development plan. Not that I'm advocating frivolous lawsuits. Just sayin'.