or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts - Page 2

post #31 of 207

Normally I'm biased in favor of development for these types of things.  The reality is that ski areas have been a huge boon for SLC, PC, etc., and more of them, if it makes economic sense, will be an added benefit for the area, with minimal environmental or visual impact.  The same environmental groups who are opposed to this would be opposed to Snowbird, Alta, PC, etc. if they weren't already there.

 

That said, in this case I can't imagine what in practical terms they hope to do to get a return on investment.  Using PC as an example, there are inbounds places there with minimal liftlines even just after storms, because tourists don't like to go too far out of their way.  The main people that these projects would seem to benefit would be existing highly motivated users of the terrain, who could use the interconnect(s) to speed up their day.

 

I'm inclined to trust Talisker et. al. here to have thought this out more thoroughly than I have, and/or to have seen a way to get public funding that lays the cost off on the public as a whole.  But, I thought the casinos in Vegas, with their excellent overall planning, would do a good job making sure their monorail would get heavily used, and they failed there. 

 

FWIW, there are lots of locals that do support the project.  It is highly fashionable online to oppose it, but the same people who are loudest in opposing it seem to oppose any type of development, including mines in Alaska that have nothing to do, directly, with skiing in UT.  Get together, drink some beer, oppose X, Y or Z -- it doesn't really matter which, because they will always find something to be in opposition to. 

 

 

post #32 of 207

I'm sure nobody gives a rat's ass about my opinion, but if this means bringing Vail-esque crowds to Alta that's hardly an improvement in my book.

 

I understand that the management of SLC resorts will beg to differ.

post #33 of 207

 

Quote:
It is highly fashionable online to oppose it, but the same people who are loudest in opposing it seem to oppose any type of development, including mines in Alaska that have nothing to do, directly, with skiing in UT.  Get together, drink some beer, oppose X, Y or Z -- it doesn't really matter which, because they will always find something to be in opposition to.

 

Why do people feel the need to belittle sound arguments with mischaracterizations like this? Does it make you feel all warm and superior about your pro-development stance?

 

Sure, all the vehement opponents of this are just a bunch of beer-swilling neo-hippies that want to see the Wasatch, state of Utah and entire world overgrown into a single contiguous wilderness where they can live comfortably as the slightly evolved tribes people they really are. OR maybe, just maybe, the loudest opponents actually have a logical reason for not wanting their public land taken over by a sleazy, foreign corporation and aren't just trying to be all e-hip.

post #34 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

 

 

Also I think it should be added that I really don't know whether or not this is a good idea. That's all I'm highlighting. I just get tired of the "corporations are all evil don't let them do anything" group spawning as much propaganda as the corporations marketing department does. All I am saying is that until there is actual research done--not educated guesses by land managers, not informal polls by environmentalists, not marketing BS from Talisker, and not tax revenue generation support from the Governors office--then I will see whether or not it is a good idea.

 

 


If you don't have an opinion about whether it's a good or bad thing, why are you arguing about it? The reason Talisker is shady isn't just because it's a big corporation, it's because it's using political cronyism to circumvent proper public channels. It's also making up whatever lie and exaggeration it thinks will stick in order to drum up support for this thing. So it's not that "corporations are all evil," it's that Talisker is acting the part. You don't need any kind of advanced research to tell you that a string of lifts on what's now non-impacted (though high use) public land will have some negative impacts for a variety of user groups.

post #35 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

 

 

Why do people feel the need to belittle sound arguments with mischaracterizations like this? Does it make you feel all warm and superior about your pro-development stance?

 

Sure, all the vehement opponents of this are just a bunch of beer-swilling neo-hippies that want to see the Wasatch, state of Utah and entire world overgrown into a single contiguous wilderness where they can live comfortably as the slightly evolved tribes people they really are. OR maybe, just maybe, the loudest opponents actually have a logical reason for not wanting their public land taken over by a sleazy, foreign corporation and aren't just trying to be all e-hip.

 

Resorting to accusations of sleeze and to economic jingoism don't exactly help your case.  Toyota and Mercedes are for sure "foreign corporations -- " do you think the US would be better off without their huge investments in US-based manufacturing? 

 

If a "foreign" corporation -- which, given our federal system could include, in Utah's case, a Delaware corporation -- wants to invest millions of dollars in infrastructure in an area, the normal answer should be "God bless."  Those are millions that no one else seems to be lining up to spend.  It is in fact e-hip to bash "foreign corporations" among other things, but economically literate it is not.

 

Being reflexively anti can be fun, but is different from responsible policy.  Take SOC -- there was never a need to read anything to see where they'd come out on this. 

post #36 of 207
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post

I'm sure nobody gives a rat's ass about my opinion, but if this means bringing Vail-esque crowds to Alta that's hardly an improvement in my book.

 

I understand that the management of SLC resorts will beg to differ.

 


Walt,

 

I care about your opinion. 

 

The idea isn't to bring "Vail-esque crowds to Alta".  The seven ski resorts are behind this and not just Talisker.  All seven resorts are behind the idea for a simple reason: They all benefit. The state is behind it because the state benefits.   Alta (your example) isn't exactly rolling in the dough in the summertime or even in a winter like this if skier days are low.  Alta will always be Alta, and it will never have the on-site lodging and restaurants that will make it lose its "soul."  It will get more skier days and corresponding revenue with an Interconnect.  Alta can also say it is part of the "World's Biggest Ski Area" without adding meaningful infrastructure.

 

So far none of the seven resorts have killed the environment as far as I can see.  What they have done is given access to those who want to enjoy a vast region filled with amazing natural resources.  The question now is if the benefit coming from an expansion of a few more lifts--and it is only a few more lifts--is worth more than the cost.  So far there have been no polls or state sponsored studies regardless of what anyone puts on their own website ("everyone likes the idea", "everyone hates the idea", "It will harm the watershed", "It will do nothing to the watershed" etc.). 

 

Some people posting here should use common sense.  Anyone possibly losing revenue will be dead set against this idea (e.g., backcountry tour operators, most ski areas in Colorado, etc.) while those who can profit will be for it (the seven resorts, most of the tourism industry, those wanting jobs, the State of Utah, etc.).  The real question from the environmental perspective is if the backcountry, particularly the watershed needed by a half a million people, can handle a few more ski lifts. 

 

It is proposed to have the lift towers brought in by helicopter and assembled on site.  There will be concrete bases for the lift towers for sure, with a lot of the materials also airlifted in.  There will be ample space under the lifts (as with all lifts) that won't stop any moose, rodent or insect from roaming (I have never seen a moose bump into a lift tower).  So, will any of this kill the watershed?  Individually none of the projects should but cumulatively they certainly might.  That is why there will be neutral studies for sure.  Will any of this harm nature in a meaningful way?  I don't see how a few more lifts will do so, but others will certainly disagree.  Regardless, neutral studies will be conducted.  Will these lifts impair the visual beauty of the Wasatch?  Again, the Wasatch is big.  The answer depends upon where individual people hike, ski, etc.

 

No person on this board (including me) is examining Europe, where a similar system or linking resorts exists. The proponents of the Interconnect have likely already studied the European experience in detail.  I have never heard of environmental problems coming from Europe's resort connecting lift systems, but I haven't studied the subject either. 

 

 


Edited by quant2325 - 4/27/12 at 1:57pm
post #37 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 

 

Resorting to accusations of sleeze and to economic jingoism don't exactly help your case.  Toyota and Mercedes are for sure "foreign corporations -- " do you think the US would be better off without their huge investments in US-based manufacturing? 

 


So would you say that skirting proper public vetting on a public land issue by way of backroom political dealing is not sleazy?

 

Near as I can tell, Toyota and Mercedes aren't trying to buy up forest land for some pipe dream project.

 

The "foreign" designation is quite relevant in that the situation entails selling off viable US public land smack in the middle of popular, useable forest to a foreign entity. We're not talking about an abandoned industrial park or even a strip of land on the outskirts of vacant open space - it's prime real estate in the middle of what's certainly one of the most popularly recreated pieces of national forest in the country.

 

Quote:

 

If a "foreign" corporation -- which, given our federal system could include, in Utah's case, a Delaware corporation -- wants to invest millions of dollars in infrastructure in an area, the normal answer should be "God bless."  Those are millions that no one else seems to be lining up to spend. 

 

That is absolutely laughable. Sure, let's just sell out and give the ol' "God Bless!" to every item on every paying corporation's agenda. Why not just sell all of Alaska's national parks and forests to the mining and oil industries - I'm sure it's in there somewhere, let 'em have at it!! I'd hate to see the country if that type off philosophy ran unchecked by organizations like SOC.

post #38 of 207

 

 

 

Quote:
Again, the Wasatch is big.

 

Are you just making things up as you go along? The Wasatch is big by no standard. It's 160 miles long, and quite narrow. You've made the 40-minute drive from Salt Lake to Park City - that's about how wide it is. Now that's a pretty small range on its own; throw in the fact that it sits beside a metro area of 2 million people, and it gets a whole lot smaller.

Quote:
No person on this board (including me) is examining Europe, where a similar system or linking resorts exists. The proponents of the Interconnect have likely already studied the European experience in detail.  I have never heard of environmental problems coming from Europe's resort connecting lift systems, but I haven't studied the subject either.

I love the whole Eurp diversion. Sure, the Alps (which stretch on forever in every mountaintop picture and map I've ever seen) are exactly the same as the tiny Wasatch.

post #39 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

 

 

Also I think it should be added that I really don't know whether or not this is a good idea. That's all I'm highlighting. I just get tired of the "corporations are all evil don't let them do anything" group spawning as much propaganda as the corporations marketing department does. All I am saying is that until there is actual research done--not educated guesses by land managers, not informal polls by environmentalists, not marketing BS from Talisker, and not tax revenue generation support from the Governors office--then I will see whether or not it is a good idea.

 

 


If you don't have an opinion about whether it's a good or bad thing, why are you arguing about it? The reason Talisker is shady isn't just because it's a big corporation, it's because it's using political cronyism to circumvent proper public channels. It's also making up whatever lie and exaggeration it thinks will stick in order to drum up support for this thing. So it's not that "corporations are all evil," it's that Talisker is acting the part. You don't need any kind of advanced research to tell you that a string of lifts on what's now non-impacted (though high use) public land will have some negative impacts for a variety of user groups.

 

Because I choose to look at the issue in a forum like this and form an opinion based on facts rather than making up my mind right off the bat based on preconceived notions and conjecture. If we don't discuss issues and look at all sides we fail to comprehend the entire issue. I'm merely trying to play devils advocate and look at all aspects of the issue. 

post #40 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

Why do people feel the need to belittle sound arguments with mischaracterizations like this? Does it make you feel all warm and superior about your pro-development stance?

 

Sure, all the vehement opponents of this are just a bunch of beer-swilling neo-hippies that want to see the Wasatch, state of Utah and entire world overgrown into a single contiguous wilderness where they can live comfortably as the slightly evolved tribes people they really are. OR maybe, just maybe, the loudest opponents actually have a logical reason for not wanting their public land taken over by a sleazy, foreign corporation and aren't just trying to be all e-hip.

 

The technical term for that approach is ad hominem.  Generally considered to be poor form.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

Because I choose to look at the issue in a forum like this and form an opinion based on facts rather than making up my mind right off the bat based on preconceived notions and conjecture. If we don't discuss issues and look at all sides we fail to comprehend the entire issue. I'm merely trying to play devils advocate and look at all aspects of the issue. 

 

I'd like to point out that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's okay not to say anything.  Uninformed opinions do not further the discussion.

 

post #41 of 207
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

 

 

Because I choose to look at the issue in a forum like this and form an opinion based on facts rather than making up my mind right off the bat based on preconceived notions and conjecture. If we don't discuss issues and look at all sides we fail to comprehend the entire issue. I'm merely trying to play devils advocate and look at all aspects of the issue. 

 

As a moderator and resorts editor, you should already know JoeUT will never miss a chance to throw a dig at Talisker even when he has the facts wrong. For example,  when someone asked for information about skiing the resort he jumped in with his usual unfounded and uninvited criticisms suggesting the skier go elsewhere.   Ex-employees terminated for cause have done this kind of thing before.  He claims he never worked for the old ASC, but I'll bet he either did or is mad for another reason.  I think most people here already realize this, and some that I helped as a resort "ambassador" have emailed me about this (as a moderator you can probably read my messages). This is an open forum and I imagine it is difficult to censor the guy, who is basically acting as a Talisker stalker.  Like your average bigot, he will blame his enemy (Talisker) for everything even though in this case his "enemy" is senators, congressmen, seven ski resorts, business groups, civic groups, etc. all hoping to link the resorts.

 

I am not employed by Talisker and do not benefit in any way by being a resort ambassador other than what I get from EPICSKI (thanks for the hat).  I still think the main issue is the watershed since the approximately 160 mile long Wasatch can easily absorb a few more ski lifts.  The watershed has to absorb any additional infrastructure which includes everything from mountain top restaurants to additional bathrooms, etc.  I will read the upcoming studies with interest.  I now believe it is all doable provided everything is done with the proper planning and with all state agencies act in concert with each other.  This is not easy, but it is seems much easier than putting together the 2002 Winter Olympics.  Every time I visit the Olympic Park and Engen Museum, I spend a few moments watching kids freestyle, jump, luge, etc. Then I am reminded where the money came from and the pundits who were convinced the Olympics would bankrupt Utah.  For Park City and the rest of Utah, they were off by at least $100,000,000. 


Edited by quant2325 - 4/27/12 at 6:40pm
post #42 of 207

Talk about ad hominem (thanks, Bob!) I've attacked Talisker on the basis of its actions, and you repeatedly respond by trying (and still failing since you're making things up completely) to attack me personally. Congratulations for losing the debate.

 

Talk about making random attacks with wrong facts. You don't even recount the forum incident correctly (I criticized you for your blind Canyons lust, FWIW). I won't even get into the hilariously random fabrication about supposed employment at the Canyons - okay bro, you have fun crafting that harrowing tale of spite and revenge.

 

Or, you could just refocus all that energy you expend on hallucinations about a forum poster you don't know toward actually addressing some of the counterpoints to your beloved Interconnect. At least one or two people besides me has challenged your assertions and blind regurgitation, so why not focus on the actual issues, rather than personal attacks? You might actually advance the conversation rather than dragging it down.

 

And did you seriously just intimate that the forum should intercede on Talisker's behalf and "censor" its critics? Ouch, that wasn't very logical.

post #43 of 207

Hi guys.  I'm here to remind you to discuss the issues, not each other.  Please do not speculate on the motives for another member's opinion, just defend your own.  The debate on land use changes can be passionate, and you're all welcome to be as passionate about your position as you want...just don't drag the other guy through the mud. His ideas are another story.

post #44 of 207

Back to the program..... smile.gif

 

I don't really know the facts, just find the overall idea of interconnected resorts somewhat limited (tx time, no added lodging, etc) verses improving transportation into and out of the canyons to SLC.  However, this is only current opinion.

 

The question of affecting a watershed is interesting, if folks already heavily use the back country, do lifts that occupy land but not provide off loading really affect the watershed significantly? Certainly strips will be cut out for the lift lines, but grading, water retention ponds, etc may offset their effect.   While visitation goes up (which I really am not positive would result) and monies increased, wouldn't this offer some offset through lease fees?  Perhaps travelers would simply do the arial tour verses hiking wear and tear?

 

On another front, SLC has grown incredibly in the last 10 yrs.  Isn't the growth of SLC more adverse to the Wasatch?  I won't pretend to know, I must be a Hominem, but find significant interest though I'm generally not affected.   I won't make any more or less trips to SLC resorts if lifts go in, I like Snowbasin and prefer to hand all day at a single resort, so I'm really indifferent other than having interest if this is back door dealing, blatant capitalism an overall good business growth plan.  I'm certain it's a mix, today it seems in politics, nothing is accomplished without some backdoor dealing even if ideally, it's a great idea.

 

environmental stuff I find entertaining in a very sad sarcastic way.  In the midwest, economic interest results in tiled farmland, which effectively removes historical water retention, absorption in lieu of moving water quickly to rivers.   Flooding has occurred more regularly, is this resultant of tiling or just a long term cyclical weather cycle? 

 

How the Wasatch is affected will be interesting.  I suspect "economics" will win out, less a clear impact can be identified.   If the additional lifts are money makers, they're coming unless an environmental study that is in all essence, written or agreed to by the EPA.   Otherwise, one may as well expect it.  It may be too that some subset of lifts will occur, if some areas are not affected, they may readily see lifts go in, or maybe lifts are simply rerouted to avoid sensitive lands. 

 

Whether they go in will really be return on the dollar for the resorts interested.

 

 

post #45 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 

 

The technical term for that approach is ad hominem.  Generally considered to be poor form.  

 

 

I'd like to point out that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's okay not to say anything.  Uninformed opinions do not further the discussion.

 

 

It is not ad hominem at all to note that economic jingoism is a pretty weak, and self-defeating, way to look at a corporation wanting to invest somewhere.  It is also not ad hominem to note that, say, SOC OPPOSING development related to lift-served skiing is not news, and not particularly meaningful.  Dogs bark.  SOC supporting the project would be very meaningful, because it would show that even some people with reflexively oppositionist views were won over -- that would be the dog not barking.  But, you do have people with very deep enviro and outdoor sports cred supporting the project.

 

You also have an environment, created online in part, where those people suporting something get attacked, have their names put up, etc.  An environment like that makes it easy to have an internet discussion where it seems that, say, most local BC skiing heads are dead against something, when in fact there may be a wide range of views.  Whether it is bolting for climbing areas, or lifts, very low-impact issues in terms of the ultimate footprint can draw extreme reactions.  It can be very effective to try to use intimidation in this way -- I can point to a couple trad climbing areas where the bulk of the locals realize that limited, judicious bolting would help in all sorts of ways, but where it ain't gonna happen in this generation. 

 

Corporations, ski areas included, do all sorts of things that don't seem to make sense to me.  I thought Toyota was gimmicky with the FJ, then looked at them, and ended up buying one.  You have some ski areas wanting to make what will be minor additions, after a very extensive period of review, including environmental review.  It may be stupid, or they may be right.

 

Calling them sleezy as JoeUT did for wanting to improve business with some minor infrastructure improvements could in fact be ad hominem. 

post #46 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

It is not ad hominem at all to note that economic jingoism is a pretty weak, and self-defeating, way to look at a corporation wanting to invest somewhere.  It is also not ad hominem to note that, say, SOC OPPOSING development related to lift-served skiing is not news, and not particularly meaningful.  Dogs bark.  

 

Um, it is ad hominem not to address the elements of their argument and just say that there is a problem with their argument because they are against other things.  And just to throw a little more cold water on your position, dogs bark when there is a problem.  Address the issues, not the people arguing them.  

 

Quote:

SOC supporting the project would be very meaningful, because it would show that even some people with reflexively oppositionist views were won over -- that would be the dog not barking.  

 

So they would only be meaningful if they supported it?  nonono2.gif  Only that position would give them credibility?  Classic.  Look, just try addressing their actual argument points - seriously, it wold get this discussion back on track.

 

Quote:

 But, you do have people with very deep enviro and outdoor sports cred supporting the project.

 

Could you name some?  I haven't seen any.  

 

Quote:

You also have an environment, created online in part, where those people suporting something get attacked, have their names put up, etc.  An environment like that makes it easy to have an internet discussion where it seems that, say, most local BC skiing heads are dead against something, when in fact there may be a wide range of views. 

 

There may be a wide range of views among the bc crowd, but as I said, I haven't seen it.  I'd be interested in seeing some cited.  

 

Quote:

Corporations, ski areas included, do all sorts of things that don't seem to make sense to me.  I thought Toyota was gimmicky with the FJ, then looked at them, and ended up buying one.  You have some ski areas wanting to make what will be minor additions, after a very extensive period of review, including environmental review.  It may be stupid, or they may be right.

 

I believe this is pretty close to what they call a straw man argument.  

 

Quote:

Calling them sleezy as JoeUT did for wanting to improve business with some minor infrastructure improvements could in fact be ad hominem. 

 

I believe JoeUT called them sleazy for reasons other than what you say there.  But in any event, I don't think you really understand ad hominem - re-read the definition.

 

I'd like to get this back to discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the proposed project.  

 

 

post #47 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 

 

...

 

Could you name some?  I haven't seen any.  

...

 

Opponents of the interconnect have already posted names on the internet.  This is a predictable tactic, to try to make anyone else know that there will be a likely personal cost to also saying they think that something is a good idea.  Given that climate of subtle intimidation, it would be extremely uncool of me to post up more names.  Not something a friend would do.

 

I do find it curious that people against the project are so interested in names, for exactly this reason.  I haven't felt the need to name SOC members, say, and I know some of them too. 

post #48 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Opponents of the interconnect have already posted names on the internet.  This is a predictable tactic, to try to make anyone else know that there will be a likely personal cost to also saying they think that something is a good idea.  Given that climate of subtle intimidation, it would be extremely uncool of me to post up more names.  Not something a friend would do.

 

I do find it curious that people against the project are so interested in names, for exactly this reason.  I haven't felt the need to name SOC members, say, and I know some of them too. 

 

Well, the people opposed to it don't seem to be afraid to be identified.  But you brought it up.  So, I'm going to have to take your word for it that "you do have people with very deep enviro and outdoor sports cred supporting the project"?  Okay.  Now, back to the issues.  

post #49 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 

 

Opponents of the interconnect have already posted names on the internet.  This is a predictable tactic, to try to make anyone else know that there will be a likely personal cost to also saying they think that something is a good idea.  Given that climate of subtle intimidation, it would be extremely uncool of me to post up more names.  Not something a friend would do.

 

I do find it curious that people against the project are so interested in names, for exactly this reason.  I haven't felt the need to name SOC members, say, and I know some of them too. 

 


If having your name associated with a project or idea is that negative, wouldn't that mean that the project or idea is kind of negative in and of itself? I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of naming names (no names here), and I don't see why people would try to hide their position to the point that being named would be "intimidation."

post #50 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

 

 


If having your name associated with a project or idea is that negative, wouldn't that mean that the project or idea is kind of negative in and of itself? I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of naming names (no names here), and I don't see why people would try to hide their position to the point that being named would be "intimidation."

 

No, it doesn't mean the project is a bad idea, at all.  There are lots of people in Afghanistan who may, say, think that the US isn't so bad, but who don't want to be associated with the US, for obvious reasons.  Things like educating women and providing medical care are generally viewed as progressive, good things, certainly as investments in the future, but people associating with them there have a tendency to get killed.  That's of course an extreme example;   in this case, while I don't think anyone is going to try a repeat of the enviro arson at Vail some years back, because of the extreme rhetoric and vitriol that has been used by the "anti" crowd, towards both the proposed development and towards people who, say, work for Talisker, other people understandably don't want that ire directed towards them. 

 

Anyone can Google the current issue and see how "antis" have named names.  It's odd that you seem to have no idea what's happened in this case.  Maybe you are not quite so well-informed as you believe.

post #51 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

No, it doesn't mean the project is a bad idea, at all.  There are lots of people in Afghanistan who may, say, think that the US isn't so bad, but who don't want to be associated with the US, for obvious reasons.  Things like educating women and providing medical care are generally viewed as progressive, good things, certainly as investments in the future, but people associating with them there have a tendency to get killed.  That's of course an extreme example;   in this case, while I don't think anyone is going to try a repeat of the enviro arson at Vail some years back, because of the extreme rhetoric and vitriol that has been used by the "anti" crowd, towards both the proposed development and towards people who, say, work for Talisker, other people understandably don't want that ire directed towards them. 

 

Anyone can Google the current issue and see how "antis" have named names.  It's odd that you seem to have no idea what's happened in this case.  Maybe you are not quite so well-informed as you believe.

 

Just so you know, your argument that there are a lot of people with enviro cred supporting the project but you can't name them isn't helping to sway me to the pro side.  Can you at least tell us why they support it on environmental grounds?  

post #52 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 

 

Just so you know, your argument that there are a lot of people with enviro cred supporting the project but you can't name them isn't helping to sway me to the pro side.  Can you at least tell us why they support it on environmental grounds?  

 

Basically, the infrastructure in question isn't supposed to be more disruptive than a big slide.  Viewshed issues are obviously more permanent, but for many people the minimal visual impact just isn't gonna ruin their day.  Wildlife wise, it could even have some benefits.   On the positive side, jobs.  Also on the positive side, there could be meaningful recreational benefits for locals.

 

It's not a question of viewing the work as environmental remediation, it's a question of viewing it as minimally impactful relative to potential benefits.  Remember, even self-powered BC skiing arguably has some environmental impacts, but even SOC isn't trying to stop that activity in the Wasatch (because they do it).   

post #53 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 

 

No, it doesn't mean the project is a bad idea, at all.  There are lots of people in Afghanistan who may, say, think that the US isn't so bad, but who don't want to be associated with the US, for obvious reasons.  Things like educating women and providing medical care are generally viewed as progressive, good things, certainly as investments in the future, but people associating with them there have a tendency to get killed.  That's of course an extreme example;   in this case, while I don't think anyone is going to try a repeat of the enviro arson at Vail some years back, because of the extreme rhetoric and vitriol that has been used by the "anti" crowd, towards both the proposed development and towards people who, say, work for Talisker, other people understandably don't want that ire directed towards them. 

 

Anyone can Google the current issue and see how "antis" have named names.  It's odd that you seem to have no idea what's happened in this case.  Maybe you are not quite so well-informed as you believe.

 

Sorry, I don't do exhaustive Google sources to find every possible tangential conversation about a given topic. Because that's all your "naming names" really is. It has nothing of value to do with the actual merit of the Interconnect, just a somewhat transparent ploy to paint the opposition as extremist and try to win sympathy for that big group of supposed supporters. Or maybe just a good way to make up a big group of supporters and not actually have to provide any evidence of their existence. So maybe you're the one that's not all that informed on the actual issues and need to compensate with illogical diversions.

 

And yeah, a bunch of ski bros in the Wasatch is a little different than an extreme, power-hungry regime hell-bent on exercising its will. Tomato, Tomahto.  I'm confident no one's getting killed over liking the idea of the Interconnect. They might have to endure a cold shoulder or snide comment at the next closing-day tailgate session, though. Might even have to bring their own beer. Rough world we live in, and all that.

post #54 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

... I'm confident no one's getting killed over liking the idea of the Interconnect. They might have to endure a cold shoulder or snide comment at the next closing-day tailgate session, though. Might even have to bring their own beer. Rough world we live in, and all that.

 

This illustrates what I'm talking about pretty clearly.  You state clearly that people who say they like the idea of the project might at very least be socially excluded, maybe suffer a snide comment or two, but pat yourself on the back that no one's gonna get killed.  Lots of people reading this get the real clear idea that saying one likes the idea of the interconnect, openly, will have real repercussions. 

 

It is a nasty tactic to employ, but can be effective in chilling open support for the other side.  It is what it is.

post #55 of 207

If one is weak-willed enough to let a sarcastic comment or debate from a friend affect how he effectuates his stance on things that are important to him, I reckon he doesn't factor that strongly into any side of the equation. Sorry, no one else makes you do (or not do) anything, that's all up to you. No real 'nasty tactics' to blame there.

 

And that's exponentially true on the Internetz, where no one really has to connect any identities.

post #56 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

If one is weak-willed enough to let a sarcastic comment or debate from a friend affect how he effectuates his stance on things that are important to him, I reckon he doesn't factor that strongly into any side of the equation. Sorry, no one else makes you do (or not do) anything, that's all up to you. No real 'nasty tactics' to blame there.

 

And that's exponentially true on the Internetz, where no one really has to connect any identities.

 

What if its more than social impact? For instance what if someone who supports it owns a ski and bike shop in the SLC or PC area and then there is a bunch of negativity directed at them because of their support and people naming names. That impacts their business and the people they employ and thus they would want to shy away from voicing support if what CTKook said is actually happening (I haven't done exhaustive Google searches either).

post #57 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Basically, the infrastructure in question isn't supposed to be more disruptive than a big slide.  Viewshed issues are obviously more permanent, but for many people the minimal visual impact just isn't gonna ruin their day. 

 

Again with the "many people"?  Got a citation or a reference this time? 

 

Quote:

 Wildlife wise, it could even have some benefits.  

 

Oh?  Name a couple.  

 

Quote:

 Also on the positive side, there could be meaningful recreational benefits for locals.

 

Name a couple.  

 

Quote:

Remember, even self-powered BC skiing arguably has some environmental impacts, but even SOC isn't trying to stop that activity in the Wasatch (because they do it).   

 

Or possibly because, as you say the environmental impact is insignificant compared to the benefits.  

 

But you didn't name any identifiable benefits other than jobs.  

 

post #58 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

What if its more than social impact? For instance what if someone who supports it owns a ski and bike shop in the SLC or PC area and then there is a bunch of negativity directed at them because of their support and people naming names. That impacts their business and the people they employ and thus they would want to shy away from voicing support if what CTKook said is actually happening.

 

rolleyes.gif  And what if it works the other way?  What if people that oppose the project are denied jobs if it goes through?  What if the people that support the project refuse to patronize the businesses of those that oppose it (ie: Black Diamond and Backcountry.com)?  

 

Give me a break.  At least people would have the satisfaction of having the balls conviction to stand up for their beliefs.  

 

Quote:
(I haven't done exhaustive Google searches either)

 

I know, most of your contributions to this thread have been conjecture.  

post #59 of 207

What is preventing three PC resorts to connect to each other? No political battles, that is mostly private land between The Canyons, PCMR and The Deer Valley. Yet, those resorts do not seem to be eager to do that. Wouldn't that create "largest ski area in North America" and provide customers with "European-style experience"? Very simple solution - couple of lifts crossing above overdeveloped land and - voila !!! 10000 acres of "fine skiing", hundreds of new jobs, added recreational benefit for tourists, and all of that already lauded as a potential benefit of linking all 7 resorts. But wait, there is no more land available to build overpriced "trophy homes"! Look over the top of the hill and you will see nothing but potential real estate development opportunities.

 

Let's call it what it is: Talisker (AKA "big real estate developer around known ski areas") wants to acquire USFS land and thus expand it's operations to CC. If anyone thinks that this would all end on few lifts connecting PC and CC areas is naive at least. My problem with whole proposed interconnect is above mentioned acquisition of USFS lands for commercial use (for profit) by corporate entity. And it is not that "innocent" that it is foreign corporate entity. Once precedent is established, any foreign corporation can ask for USFS land for their commercial use. Sure, just deposit some money into political pockets and - no problem.

 

As for the "European-style experience" comment ... It is like McDonalds advertising their restaurant in Paris as "a best example of fine american dining." Inappropriate.

I can see hordes of Europeans and Japanese and people from all over the world coming to Utah to have "European style skiing experience". And Midwesterners and East and West coast people would flock to Utah where everybody speaks familiar language (instead "european") and uses real money (instead "european" money) while experiencing European-style ski vacations.

And Park City main street would convert to more appropriate look of Rue de Rivoli. And a quick trip to SLC would provide them with a real "European-style experience" !!!

 

Keep Utah resorts just the way they are, nothing is wrong with them, variety for all kinds of skiers and all kinds of skiing experience. Just find the clever way to market them properly instead of giving in to real estate developers whose interest is in selling houses, not providing great recreational opportunities to people at a reasonable price.  Utah and its ski areas in particular are very unique and it should be marketed as such. Sell what you have, not what others have.

 

I have nothing against corporations making money in honest and responsible way. But usurping public land areas for their business and trying to sell it as an improvement ... very bad.

 

By posting on this forum it is not my intention to offend anybody and I am solely expressing my opinion that could hopefully provoke some meaningful discussion on given subject. I respect opposing opinions and find it very helpful in crafting my opinion, very interesting discussion with broader appeal than just Utah ski resorts. Post#41 - shameful.

post #60 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

What if its more than social impact? For instance what if someone who supports it owns a ski and bike shop in the SLC or PC area and then there is a bunch of negativity directed at them because of their support and people naming names. That impacts their business and the people they employ and thus they would want to shy away from voicing support if what CTKook said is actually happening.

 

rolleyes.gif  And what if it works the other way?  What if people that oppose the project are denied jobs if it goes through?  What if the people that support the project refuse to patronize the businesses of those that oppose it (ie: Black Diamond and Backcountry.com)?  

 

Give me a break.  At least people would have the satisfaction of having the balls conviction to stand up for their beliefs.  

 

Quote:
(I haven't done exhaustive Google searches either)

 

I know, most of your contributions to this thread have been conjecture.  

 

It all depends on the prevailing rhetoric. If you have a situation like right now where the rhetoric is charged in one direction due to statements made by select interest groups, then going against the grain risks what I said. If you are in a situation where the debate could be based on facts and issues rather than hearsay--which is all the proof either side has put forward so far--then this risk does not exist on the scale I stated.

 

However, SOC and others have created an environment where being associated with being for this issue is considered not a matter of merely opinion on the parties involved, but one where it is considered highly offensive to be associated with the other side. Then again it basically just parallels the political situation its a part of so it really isn't that surprising. 

 

 

And yes my contributions have been almost all conjecture. So have yours, JoeUT's,  quant2325's, and others. The fact of the matter is there are relatively few facts available. No final plan as to what lifts would be run, price structure, terms of a purchase, all these other variables has been released. No environmental impact studies have been done. Until actual facts about this are released almost everything in this thread is conjecture other than the initial post about how the state legislature passed a motion of support for linking the resorts and the seven areas did not dissent against the plan. That is pretty much the only fact we have right now. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts