A Gondola to the top of Alpental?

So are you suggesting that we shouldn't have public review of these sorts of projects because there are some folks who will make comments that seem frivolous to you? I'm trying to glean your point from between the words you want to put in the mouths of others.<br><br>FWIW, I'm fine with changing Alpental a bit, but I understand why some people like slow lifts and quaint old areas, or in this case the so-called "Backcountry." Look at the single slow chair to the top of Mad River Glen in VT (I assume it is still there, but haven't been there for over a decade but even then it was a fiercely defended anachronism).

You've got it. No public review. The public, with "frivolous" arguments should not be able to stop a project costing companies millions of dollars, that could, frankly, go into the developement itself. <br><br>

Ahh, but who is to say what is frivolous, or what is an unacceptable impact of development? And how slippery is that slope?<br><br>W/o these sorts of checks and balances, would some ski areas act more like the logging companies of a century ago, or like the folks who are mining gold in Africa today and leaving hundred-mile waste plumes that are destroying lives (or even a touch more in that direction)? Or would they make more nuanced decisions that still create impacts that are unacceptable to a majority of the public? Unfortunately, I don't see that I can just implicitly trust all businesspeople to use my land as they see fit, even if most will make great decisions. Seems to me the process worked at Crystal, and the ski area decided it was possible to go through it and still make a profit. Sure, they could have afforded to add another bathroom if not for the review process, but that's a reasonable cost in my eye for the benefit of ensuring that all viewpoints were at least heard, even those you consider to be wacked out.<br><br>I suppose it would be more ideal to provide an up-front set of clearcut, comprehensive, and fully predictable rules to be followed, and just check development plans against the rules, but with such unique developments in unique areas, I suspect the reality is that drafting the rules would cost more than doing these reviews, and the result would be far more restrictive on development.

I'm a realist and think pragmatically. I personally know the owner of Crystal Mountain. These people are savy, smart business people. Do you think they will develope their /our ski area to piss people off? No! Obviously. They want to improve the ski area , to increase their customer base, to increase business, to make a profit. Bottom line. <br><br>People who constantly bitch and complain about progress and the implications of change are the same people who have their frivolous lawsuits thrown out of court. <br><br>They waste their time and every one elses. <br><br>The ski areas, when making improvements have to follow all applicable law when it comes to permitting and building. If not they will be shut down. Or a portiion of the business that is not right will be shut down. <br><br>I think some of the nay sayers are afraid of their own shadow. The sky is falling syndrome. <br><br>Get a life and move forward and welcome the new improvements.

Without getting into a pissing match with Bandit, I'm in favor of the expansion for another reason - its within Alpental's Management Boundaries. Alpental already has to perform avalanche maintenance within the area in question, and it makes sense that they should wish to expand access to it. Its not really "backcountry", as I define BC, but rather something like "non-lift accessed in-bounds terrain". There's still plenty of real backountry around the area, and if you know where to go you won't see a soul...

mtn freak, it sounds like we are on the same page. <br><br>Crystal Mt. made the same case you are making. But, you should have seen the wackos coming out of the wood work on that one.