or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skiing & Environment - Page 2

post #31 of 39
..and I seemed to have initially forgotten this part of the puzzle, but any thoughts to the question of (visual vs physical?)degredation due to the "UP not Outward" architectural development vs the "Outward sprawl" of resort real-estate... :
post #32 of 39
I'm not sure what you mean by "up not outward". Perhaps you 're referring to highrises. An examination of numerous traditional villages gives ample evidence that more compact developments can both create pleasing communities and allow the protection of open space. We consume too much space, make too much pavement, too many miles of electrical, water, and sewage infrastructure to ill effect. Pretending we can carve the landscape into 1/4 acre, 2 acre, 5 acre, or 30 acre lots, ranchettes and still retain the qualities which caused us to seek out these lkocations is an illusion. Or perhaps we really are just oblivious to to the waste and ugliness we create.
post #33 of 39
"Not all areas will have rapid regeneration of tree growth because the more dry climates, such as those in Utah will take longer...."

Bingo Mr Hyak, now you have a grasp of what I am getting at. There is no malice intended in the comments I made, only the point that the ecosystems of the adirondaks vs the western mountains are completely different. In the west, a clear cut and a ski trail are basically one and the same, the only real difference is a good steward of the land will finish off either with native grass seeds, erosional mitigation and some re-grading.

Arcadie is also spot on to the impact of ski area development. Its not the lifts, not the trails and not the skiers. It is the desire for that 2nd-3rd or 4th home/ranchette that pushes property taxes, breaks up ecosystems, fills in wetlands and overtaxes local infrastructue.

[ August 24, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: BSR ]
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally posted by BSR:

Arcadie is also spot on to the impact of ski area development. Its not the lifts, not the trails and not the skiers. It is the desire for that 2nd-3rd or 4th home/ranchette that pushes property taxes, breaks up ecosystems, fills in wetlands and overtaxes local infrastructue.
There is nothing wrong with a second home on a ski resort. If someone wants to buy one, why not? Its on private property and can and should be developed as one sees fit, within the local building zone codes and such....

The only tax base that will go up is that in the direct vacinity of the ski area....
Here in the Seattle area we had the big California invasion 10-15 years ago that pushed up our property values by 200%+...much worse then most ski areas will do..... Maybe we should have developed some laws to keep them out before all the damage occured!!!! :
post #35 of 39
Lets try and remember that this is about Skiing and the Environment, not about our inalienable rights. Mr Hyak you are correct that every has the right to own a 2nd family home.
My gripe is when those absentee owners feel they have to have the comforts of their primary home. This pushes the price of living in the mountains out of the reach of those who made the area so appealing to begin with. Affordable housing for the workers who are required to run a resort is usually the first casualty of a poorly planned resort community. Couple that with the sudden appearence of No Tresspassing signs on trails and areas that already have built in easments. Throw in that these part-time residents don't always want to pay for things they don't use, like better schools, parks districts, trails etc. Electricity, sewer and water system have to be built to handle peak usage even though this only occurs 2-4 weeks per year. I have lived through this process once in Park City UT. and now am seeing it again in Montana.
Too many want a 20 acre mini ranch instead of a clustered development, they want urban interface fire protection from an already overloaded rural fire dept. The ranches break up wildlife habitat and degrade ecosystems. Development in itself is not evil, poorly planned development and a lack of good zoning laws is evil.

[ August 25, 2003, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: BSR ]
post #36 of 39
Thread Starter 
The NSAA recently claimed that over the past season, ski areas environmental performance improved dramatically. Ski Area Management carried the article on their website; http://www.saminfo.com/action.lasso?...ken=25&-search How do skiers rate the ski industry's credibility on the issue? If ski area managers are following the thread it would be good to get them to weigh in, too. Anybody know a particularly green area? or a really bad one? Has anybody ever skied (or not skied) at an area because of their environmental stewardship record? There are recycling places for running shoes, somebody should begin recycling skis, a material like titanium should have a high salvage value!

[ August 25, 2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: NewHampie ]
post #37 of 39
This is what Booth Creek does with old lift equipment at Snoqualmie..



Pretty impressive, eh? This picture was taken by Bill over at NW-Skilifts.com last weekend when he was hiking up to take pictures of lifts and such... This was part of the old Heron lift they took down last year...and tossed behind ski patrol shack up on the mtn...
post #38 of 39
I guess some would call it garden art.....
Also Mr H for some reason I was under the impression you were residing in the east, my apologies.
post #39 of 39
Nope, I'm about as far west as you can get. Hyak is on Snoqualmie Pass in WA and my website is http://www.hyak.net (the site is just a hobby)... AND I have a cabin at Hyak that me and the wife bought back in 1997 before the price explosion...(good timing!).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion