A Gondola to the top of Alpental?

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>

<br><br>Crystal didn't really have the "No Review" option -- since they don't own the land that the ski area is built on -- the land belongs to the US Forest Service -- which leases them a permit to operate a ski area.<br><br>Even if Crystal owned the land outright -- they would need building permits from Pierce county -- that would certainly require a "public comment" period. <br><br>In fact the "Public Review" process was developed to give developers more certainty that projects will be successfully completed. Prior to this process being developed -- projects (ski area or otherwise) would be halted in mid-development -- by lawsuits. Having a "Public Review" process makes the adopted plan defensible in court and helps ensure that the project will not be stopped or delayed after "ground has been broken" -- which is vastly more costly.<br><br>The days of "open land" and no restrictions on development are relics of a bygone era -- at least in Washington. <br><br>I suppose in AK , ID or MT a developer would have a lot more freedom to do as they pleased -- but then the resort wouldn't next door to millions of people.<br>

After skiing all day at quaint little alpental, I come home and find all this vitreol in my inbox. Bandit, it seems to me that you have something of a chip on your shoulder. I'm not sure what you read into my post, but it certainly isn't what I said. The reason I linked the EIS to this site is so that rational people could discuss the various merits and drawbacks of Booth Creek's plan and, if they wanted, to participate in the process. <br><br>I never said that development, in the abstract, was unequivocally bad, as you, for some reason, seem to have read into my post. What I said was that to me, putting a chair out to knoll 1 would not improve Alpental, but I was looking for further discussion on the matter. <br><br>To me, progress is always both positive and negative. The point of discussing future plans is to make sure the positive outweighs the negative. "Progress," as you put it, is not always, unambiguously, for ever and ever, a good thing. And, quite frankly, your diatribe about how we should all accept progress as unquestionably a good thing is, at best, irresponsible, verging on dangerously ignorant. I'm sure you would resent it if your neighbor added a view-blocking story to his home without discussing it with you, so it's astounding that you think that Booth Creek should be able to do just that without imput from the people who ski there.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You're argument with the neighbor vs. the ski resort doesn't hold weight. <br><br>That very scene happened a couple years ago in NE Tacoma. A doctor built on to his house blocking his neighbors views of Puget Sound. Didn't have a permit, but most importantly violated an existing code. A judge ordered him to tear it down. He did more than that and tore down the whole house and moved it. <br><br>The ski resort is not going to block any ones views. You can't even see the infrastructure until you get on the mountain. It will increase ones views when they use the new facilities. <br><br>Dangerously ignorant?<br><br>I call myself pragmatic. <br><br>What makes you think Booth Creek is going to damage the enviornment? Make a mess of the backcountry? <br><br>I would have to call you a wacko and quite frankly paranoid. <br><br>This is a new year, 2006. Get some fat , short skis. Throw away those 220's and upgrade your ancient ski resort. Think big, think into the future.

Bandit,<br><br>Jason has said absolutely nothing about the environment. His key comments seem very valid, that a lift in a certain location would seem to add no value to the area.<br><br>In addition to his posts, most of the others on this thread are decidedly not heavily opposed to the development, just sincere comments, trying to decide what the point of the development will be and how it will improve it.<br><br>You clearly seem to be anything but pragmatic. Paranoid seems more appropriate. You got a problem. What's clear is that you are making statements without even understanding the posts. Bottom line, public land will require public comment, yours and others. Whether you like it or not your comments will not amount to any more than anyone elses. Deal with it.<br><br>

My suggestion for all you nay sayers, is go to all the meetings, bitch and moan, while I enjoy skiing at Crystal and you whiners can toil at your Alpensqauk.<br><br>You guys don't even see the potential for that area. I won't even go into the details. But it's going to pass you by. Maybe the boys down at Mt. Adams can get the ball rolling on a "destination" ski resort, similar to Whistler. <br><br>Oh, by the way, did you guys forget that Whistler has the Winter Olympics for 2010?

I think I see someone hiding under the Fremont bridge.