Thread: the Wasatch's new worst enemy=TALISKER

Originally Posted by Wasatch_Expat

Go get 'em, puppets.

I especially love the condescending "anyone who has skied in Europe would understand" part. As if we unwashed masses could never possibly have been to Europe. Actually, anyone who has toured in the Wasatch or ridden the crest would understand why SkiLink is a phenomenally bad idea.

all day during ski season and see how many cars driving from park city to solitude it takes to offset that chair?

Sorry to disappoint all of you viewing this thread with such rancor, but I have it on good authority that the SkiLink has NO SHOT of existence for at least 10-15 years. Can't name names (or post naked pics. {Yuck}). Hopefully, this thread will just go away.

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

Sorry to disappoint all of you viewing this thread with such rancor, but I have it on good authority that the SkiLink has NO SHOT of existence for at least 10-15 years. Can't name names (or post naked pics. {Yuck}). Hopefully, this thread will just go away.

There is a gawd!

Originally Posted by Wasatch_Expat

Actually, anyone who has toured in the Wasatch or ridden the crest would understand why SkiLink is a phenomenally bad idea.

I've done both. Whats dumb is them claiming it an environmental solution. Sort of the same that the environmentards saying it would affect water quality. That's all just BS. Its environment neutral. Just put a lift in and call it a lift, then open guardsman year round. Then BCC is good to go for the next 20 years. Save Our Canyons will get over it. I'm totally fine with it.

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

Sorry to disappoint all of you viewing this thread with such rancor, but I have it on good authority that the SkiLink has NO SHOT of existence for at least 10-15 years. Can't name names (or post naked pics. {Yuck}). Hopefully, this thread will just go away.

great news! thanks for some inside scoop, C.... I always thought I looked pretty good naked.

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

Sorry to disappoint all of you viewing this thread with such rancor, but I have it on good authority that the SkiLink has NO SHOT of existence for at least 10-15 years. Can't name names (or post naked pics. {Yuck}). Hopefully, this thread will just go away.

This thread isn't over until they declare bankruptcy and slink quietly out of town. We call it the Griswald effect. That said, I would happily settle for them selling out to an established resort operator.

Originally Posted by Canada1

This thread isn't over until they declare bankruptcy and slink quietly out of town. We call it the Griswald effect. That said, I would happily settle for them selling out to an established resort operator.

Canyons ne, park west et al: That part of the Wasatch back has always had the curse. The economics of the area is weak at best, they are a Zombie resort. A couple of more years of a economy and bad snow will drive a stake through the heart of the beast.

Wishful thinking

Originally Posted by yabyum

Canyons ne, park west et al: That part of the Wasatch back has always had the curse. The economics of the area is weak at best, they are a Zombie resort. A couple of more years of a economy and bad snow will drive a stake through the heart of the beast.

They have to be over-leveraged to the hilt. All the expanding and building on empire pass and canyons during a down turn, a weak real estate market world wide, just don't see how they could be operating in the black. they have managed to piss everyone in town off, but when it comes to new mtn ownership I live by the saying "be careful what you ask for"

Sent from my DROIDX using TGR Forums

I can only conclude that you, Dave, are a fucking moron of the highest degree. Not only are you dumb as a fucking rock, but you are dishonest (as shown by the scheme you were concocting with your "circle of trust" email) and you are fucking arrogant. Lots and lots of people have presented cogent, reasonsed arguments against skilink, but you just ignore them, or are unable to comprehend them or something.is is the second time I've posted on this forum to tell you this, so please, listen up this time you dumb fucking sack of rocks - You are not very smart, and you need to realize this. There's nothing wrong with being unintelligent. It happens to lots of people, but when you are unintelligent and you go around thinking you are smarter than everyone, it makes you an asshole. I am guessing that a few people in your "circle of trust" know this about you, but I bet that, when you don't have the mask of the internet, you are more pleasant, possibly somewhat affable. So, your friends, who think you are dumb, don't point it out to you.

Well thank goodness, skiski. Because I never ever, not once claimed to be the smartest guy in this room. On my last post, I asked two questions which still have not been answered on this forum, and quite frankly, I give up. I stated that rather than stick to known facts of the project, opponents resort to personal attacks because quite simply they have nothing left. A friend of mine wisely stated that half of you on this forum are probably living in your mother's basement, eating a bowl of cereal, and typing on the internet. That's exactly how I picture you.

Andrew Mclean and Save Our Canyons and other groups have the ability to reach thousands of people in an instant by way of their blogs, Facebook page, etc. I'm just one guy who is evidently a major threat, as they published my letter on the internet and it went viral. As a result, I've had media and personal requests for more information, I must say that more positive has come from this than negative.

My "Circle of Trust" letter was sent to ten extremely close friends, and the director of Ski Our Canyons Responsibly, a pro-skilink organization. However the letter was obtained, there will be a most likely be a serious investigation. However, my tactics were no different than those of Mclean or Save Our Canyons or this board. For instance, is everyone on this board a Utah local? Have you lived here longer than 9 years? How about everyone who's commented on the letter on other sites? Highly doubtful. Me calling in my homies is no different than you, Mclean, or SOC calling in theirs.

My bud in Florida spends huge bank on ski trips. When Skilink is installed, there will be nowhere else on the planet where a family can stay in an awesome ski town and not only have the variety of terrain offered, but also experience the best snow on the planet. The wife and kids can stay in PC, and get a late start while dad shreds at Solitude. Nowhere else. And the snow quality is what really seals the deal. So when I made the statement about the guy in Florida commenting, I was not putting words in his mouth, and it was not dishonest. My point to him was that he could make a valid contribution. I also stated in the letter that one would not lie in order to make a point. The difference between you and me is quite simple. While I will not make a false statement to support Skilink, opponents WILL make false statements to oppose it.

As the result of the viral letter, the requests for additional info, interviews, etc., is overwhelming. Skilink is not my life, nor do I want it to be. This room smells like cat piss and old socks. So I won't be around as much. My original idiotic idea of having my friends engage has propelled me to the next level. It was pretty lame of me to think that as a group we could convince your sorry ass, and I'm glad I've reached the decision to not pull them into the blogoshpere cesspool. For you, I should have kept my position to a minimum: Skilink. You'll love it!

Enjoy Your Cereal!

David DuBois

Park Shitty and Slumit Park
Great places to live
Shitty skiing
Burn the same fossil fuels the not so straight chuter burns
to ski good terrain
then blogz about it

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

Well thank goodness, skiski. Because I never ever, not once claimed to be the smartest guy in this room. On my last post, I asked two questions which still have not been answered on this forum, and quite frankly, I give up. I stated that rather than stick to known facts of the project, opponents resort to personal attacks because quite simply they have nothing left. A friend of mine wisely stated that half of you on this forum are probably living in your mother's basement, eating a bowl of cereal, and typing on the internet. That's exactly how I picture you.

Andrew Mclean and Save Our Canyons and other groups have the ability to reach thousands of people in an instant by way of their blogs, Facebook page, etc. I'm just one guy who is evidently a major threat, as they published my letter on the internet and it went viral. As a result, I've had media and personal requests for more information, I must say that more positive has come from this than negative.

My "Circle of Trust" letter was sent to ten extremely close friends, and the director of Ski Our Canyons Responsibly, a pro-skilink organization. However the letter was obtained, there will be a most likely be a serious investigation. However, my tactics were no different than those of Mclean or Save Our Canyons or this board. For instance, is everyone on this board a Utah local? Have you lived here longer than 9 years? How about everyone who's commented on the letter on other sites? Highly doubtful. Me calling in my homies is no different than you, Mclean, or SOC calling in theirs.

My bud in Florida spends huge bank on ski trips. When Skilink is installed, there will be nowhere else on the planet where a family can stay in an awesome ski town and not only have the variety of terrain offered, but also experience the best snow on the planet. The wife and kids can stay in PC, and get a late start while dad shreds at Solitude. Nowhere else. And the snow quality is what really seals the deal. So when I made the statement about the guy in Florida commenting, I was not putting words in his mouth, and it was not dishonest. My point to him was that he could make a valid contribution. I also stated in the letter that one would not lie in order to make a point. The difference between you and me is quite simple. While I will not make a false statement to support Skilink, opponents WILL make false statements to oppose it.

As the result of the viral letter, the requests for additional info, interviews, etc., is overwhelming. Skilink is not my life, nor do I want it to be. This room smells like cat piss and old socks. So I won't be around as much. My original idiotic idea of having my friends engage has propelled me to the next level. It was pretty lame of me to think that as a group we could convince your sorry ass, and I'm glad I've reached the decision to not pull them into the blogoshpere cesspool. For you, I should have kept my position to a minimum: Skilink. You'll love it!

Enjoy Your Cereal!

David DuBois

You know, snowjoke, I revisited my comment yesterday and almost took it down. It's the meanest thing I've ever said to anyone. I'm actually a pretty polite guy in real life. But your arrogance and underhandedness put me over the edge. I wrote my honest assessment of you, and that's why I kind of felt bad about it (granted, it comes only from what I've seen of you over the internet. I know you probably have some redeeming qualities in real life.)

You say you never claimed to be the smartest guy in the room, but you stated this about the people who oppose skilink: "As a group and as individuals they have seemingly no logical or reasoning abilities, nor the ability to compromise. They are passionate and shrill. . .whacko’s! . . . I may sound slightly obsessive / crazy to engage with these lunatics. . .. " So, you clearly think you are smarter than us. Thus, you have claimed to be the smartest guy in this "room."

I am not currently in anyone's basement. I have a long roster of friends/ski partners, biking partners, climbing partners, etc.. They are business owners, executives is established businesses, lawyers, doctors, nurses and a few who are "keeping it real." The vast majority of my skiing partners have degrees well beyond 4 years of college. Most moved here because of the career/recreation combo. Everyone I ski with is against this. I don't know a single person who has even said "well, maybe it has an upside." To us, it looks like someone coming in and trying to fuck up an area in which we love to recreate.

I fit this description as well, though I won't tell you what I do, because I like a little anonymity. I work on average 60+ hours a week, have a family, and love to ski. I ski the resorts some, but prefer backcountry because I often have to start skiing around 5am and be done by 9am. When the danger is up, I often ski the areas in the path of skilink (because I have a family). So, I am against skilink because it will fuck up the areas I like to ski and bike (I love the crest). I also worry about the precedent it sets. A few dirty deals like this and the easy to access skiing that is important to my lifestyle will be gone.

You are for it because you live in suncrest and can access some skiing better than the canyons without having to get in your car. I understand where you're coming from. If I had my choice between the canyons and solitude, it would be a no brainer.

But, a benefit to a few people who are lucky enough to live at the base of the canyons does not justify giving valuable federal land to Talisker, and fucking over the thousands of us who live in the valley and like to backcountry ski at odd hours, mountain bike, hunt, etc. Moreover, Talisker's stated purpose (transportation solution) is bogus. As I've mentioned before, a lift running over guardsman, running year round from 6am to 10pm would actually have transportation benefits. A lift off the back of the canyons to solitude does not. The price, the lift ride time, the fact that you have to ski between lifts on the canyons side, etc. mean that this thing will only remove from the road those people who live near the canyons and want to ski solitude that day (and who are not in a hurry to get over there). That's not a lot of cars.

You criticized straightchuter for claiming it's 1.5 hours from the canyons lot to the proposed skilink base, saying that that's only the case on a bad day. But you would admit, I assume, that it is a 45 minute ride on a good day. Thus, it takes 45-90 minutes to get to skilink, and another 11 minutes for the ride. In other words, it's a 56 to 101 minute ride. But talisker says it's only 11 minutes, and comparing a 45-60 minute drive to an 11 minute ride makes that ride sound really efficient. But, compare a 45-60 minute drive to a 56-101 minute gondola ride (which doesn't start until after the lifts open) and all of a sudden that lift ride does not suond so good. How much does it cost again? $100? But a pass at solitude is only $70 and I've got 3 people in the car, and want to get there for first chair. I think you see my point. It is not what it is being billed as.

Why is it being billed as a transportation solution? Because public opinion in SLCo is pretty strongly against ski area expansion. We've got to find a balance, and most people think that balance does not need to be shifted more towards resorts.

The list of good arguments against it goes on, but I am sure by now you have your hands over your eyes and are going "lalalalalalalalala....", since that seems to be your strategy when dealing with cogent argument against your righteous cause.

The point I think you need to take home is that the people who are against skilink are not part of some vast liberal conspiracy. For the most part we have jobs, families and a burning desire to ski. That's why your letter pissed me off so much. It was dismissive of us as a group, based on a completely inaccurate assessment of who we are. It's why your latest post continues to piss me off.

Yes, SOC is an organized group that is opposed to almost all development in the canyons. Sometimes I think they are a bit extreme. But, the truth is that the people who want to push these things through have money and influence. Thousands of disorganized people who have real jobs to attend to do not have the clout or resources to oppose Talisker dangling campaign contributions in front of Rob Bishop. So I appreciate what SOC does. They present an organized voice against these boondoggles so that the assymetrics of political pushing do not result in a green light for every half brained ponzi schemed pushed by moneyed interests. If SOC hadn't stepped up in the past, the wasatch would be a worse place today. On this particular issue, I appreciate them continuing the good fight.

Pack up your toys and go home, or don't. I don't give a fuck. But I do hope that when you continue to rally your troops, you are a little more informed and honest about who it is that is against skilink, and I hope you realize that when you write an entire email asking people to pretend they're something they're not, the admonition not to lie is a little transparent. You didn't even need to put one of these after it for people to see what you were doing.

By the way, this

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

The wife and kids can stay in PC, and get a late start while dad shreds at Solitude.

is sexist you douche. Lots of wives, mine included, "shred."

fucking yes, this is so fucking spot on. you rock.

Originally Posted by skiski

You know, snowjoke, I revisited my comment yesterday and almost took it down. It's the meanest thing I've ever said to anyone. I'm actually a pretty polite guy in real life. But your arrogance and underhandedness put me over the edge. I wrote my honest assessment of you, and that's why I kind of felt bad about it (granted, it comes only from what I've seen of you over the internet. I know you probably have some redeeming qualities in real life.)

You say you never claimed to be the smartest guy in the room, but you stated this about the people who oppose skilink: "As a group and as individuals they have seemingly no logical or reasoning abilities, nor the ability to compromise. They are passionate and shrill. . .whacko’s! . . . I may sound slightly obsessive / crazy to engage with these lunatics. . .. " So, you clearly think you are smarter than us. Thus, you have claimed to be the smartest guy in this "room."

I am not currently in anyone's basement. I have a long roster of friends/ski partners, biking partners, climbing partners, etc.. They are business owners, executives is established businesses, lawyers, doctors, nurses and a few who are "keeping it real." The vast majority of my skiing partners have degrees well beyond 4 years of college. Most moved here because of the career/recreation combo. Everyone I ski with is against this. I don't know a single person who has even said "well, maybe it has an upside." To us, it looks like someone coming in and trying to fuck up an area in which we love to recreate.

I fit this description as well, though I won't tell you what I do, because I like a little anonymity. I work on average 60+ hours a week, have a family, and love to ski. I ski the resorts some, but prefer backcountry because I often have to start skiing around 5am and be done by 9am. When the danger is up, I often ski the areas in the path of skilink (because I have a family). So, I am against skilink because it will fuck up the areas I like to ski and bike (I love the crest). I also worry about the precedent it sets. A few dirty deals like this and the easy to access skiing that is important to my lifestyle will be gone.

You are for it because you live in suncrest and can access some skiing better than the canyons without having to get in your car. I understand where you're coming from. If I had my choice between the canyons and solitude, it would be a no brainer.

But, a benefit to a few people who are lucky enough to live at the base of the canyons does not justify giving valuable federal land to Talisker, and fucking over the thousands of us who live in the valley and like to backcountry ski at odd hours, mountain bike, hunt, etc. Moreover, Talisker's stated purpose (transportation solution) is bogus. As I've mentioned before, a lift running over guardsman, running year round from 6am to 10pm would actually have transportation benefits. A lift off the back of the canyons to solitude does not. The price, the lift ride time, the fact that you have to ski between lifts on the canyons side, etc. mean that this thing will only remove from the road those people who live near the canyons and want to ski solitude that day (and who are not in a hurry to get over there). That's not a lot of cars.

You criticized straightchuter for claiming it's 1.5 hours from the canyons lot to the proposed skilink base, saying that that's only the case on a bad day. But you would admit, I assume, that it is a 45 minute ride on a good day. Thus, it takes 45-90 minutes to get to skilink, and another 11 minutes for the ride. In other words, it's a 56 to 101 minute ride. But talisker says it's only 11 minutes, and comparing a 45-60 minute drive to an 11 minute ride makes that ride sound really efficient. But, compare a 45-60 minute drive to a 56-101 minute gondola ride (which doesn't start until after the lifts open) and all of a sudden that lift ride does not suond so good. How much does it cost again? $100? But a pass at solitude is only $70 and I've got 3 people in the car, and want to get there for first chair. I think you see my point. It is not what it is being billed as.

Why is it being billed as a transportation solution? Because public opinion in SLCo is pretty strongly against ski area expansion. We've got to find a balance, and most people think that balance does not need to be shifted more towards resorts.

The list of good arguments against it goes on, but I am sure by now you have your hands over your eyes and are going "lalalalalalalalala....", since that seems to be your strategy when dealing with cogent argument against your righteous cause.

The point I think you need to take home is that the people who are against skilink are not part of some vast liberal conspiracy. For the most part we have jobs, families and a burning desire to ski. That's why your letter pissed me off so much. It was dismissive of us as a group, based on a completely inaccurate assessment of who we are. It's why your latest post continues to piss me off.

Yes, SOC is an organized group that is opposed to almost all development in the canyons. Sometimes I think they are a bit extreme. But, the truth is that the people who want to push these things through have money and influence. Thousands of disorganized people who have real jobs to attend to do not have the clout or resources to oppose Talisker dangling campaign contributions in front of Rob Bishop. So I appreciate what SOC does. They present an organized voice against these boondoggles so that the assymetrics of political pushing do not result in a green light for every half brained ponzi schemed pushed by moneyed interests. If SOC hadn't stepped up in the past, the wasatch would be a worse place today. On this particular issue, I appreciate them continuing the good fight.

Pack up your toys and go home, or don't. I don't give a fuck. But I do hope that when you continue to rally your troops, you are a little more informed and honest about who it is that is against skilink, and I hope you realize that when you write an entire email asking people to pretend they're something they're not, the admonition not to lie is a little transparent. You didn't even need to put one of these after it for people to see what you were doing.

Originally Posted by skiski

I fit this description as well, though I won't tell you what I do, because I like a little anonymity. I work on average 60+ hours a week, have a family, and love to ski. I ski the resorts some, but prefer backcountry because I often have to start skiing around 5am and be done by 9am. When the danger is up, I often ski the areas in the path of skilink (because I have a family). So, I am against skilink because it will fuck up the areas I like to ski and bike (I love the crest). I also worry about the precedent it sets. A few dirty deals like this and the easy to access skiing that is important to my lifestyle will be gone.

very well stated. would assume many agree.

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

Well thank goodness, skiski. Because I never ever, not once claimed to be the smartest guy in this room. On my last post, I asked two questions which still have not been answered on this forum, and quite frankly, I give up. I stated that rather than stick to known facts of the project, opponents resort to personal attacks because quite simply they have nothing left. A friend of mine wisely stated that half of you on this forum are probably living in your mother's basement, eating a bowl of cereal, and typing on the internet. That's exactly how I picture you.

Andrew Mclean and Save Our Canyons and other groups have the ability to reach thousands of people in an instant by way of their blogs, Facebook page, etc. I'm just one guy who is evidently a major threat, as they published my letter on the internet and it went viral. As a result, I've had media and personal requests for more information, I must say that more positive has come from this than negative.

My "Circle of Trust" letter was sent to ten extremely close friends, and the director of Ski Our Canyons Responsibly, a pro-skilink organization. However the letter was obtained, there will be a most likely be a serious investigation. However, my tactics were no different than those of Mclean or Save Our Canyons or this board. For instance, is everyone on this board a Utah local? Have you lived here longer than 9 years? How about everyone who's commented on the letter on other sites? Highly doubtful. Me calling in my homies is no different than you, Mclean, or SOC calling in theirs.

My bud in Florida spends huge bank on ski trips. When Skilink is installed, there will be nowhere else on the planet where a family can stay in an awesome ski town and not only have the variety of terrain offered, but also experience the best snow on the planet. The wife and kids can stay in PC, and get a late start while dad shreds at Solitude. Nowhere else. And the snow quality is what really seals the deal. So when I made the statement about the guy in Florida commenting, I was not putting words in his mouth, and it was not dishonest. My point to him was that he could make a valid contribution. I also stated in the letter that one would not lie in order to make a point. The difference between you and me is quite simple. While I will not make a false statement to support Skilink, opponents WILL make false statements to oppose it.

As the result of the viral letter, the requests for additional info, interviews, etc., is overwhelming. Skilink is not my life, nor do I want it to be. This room smells like cat piss and old socks. So I won't be around as much. My original idiotic idea of having my friends engage has propelled me to the next level. It was pretty lame of me to think that as a group we could convince your sorry ass, and I'm glad I've reached the decision to not pull them into the blogoshpere cesspool. For you, I should have kept my position to a minimum: Skilink. You'll love it!

Enjoy Your Cereal!

David DuBois

SNOWJOKE, I've been here 59 years sking here for 53 years, protecting the Wasatch from thugs for 39 years....hope that counts for something.

what the fuck corny ass shit is fucking 'save our canyons responsibly'? thats the most retarded shit ive ever heard. if chick fil-a can sue the guy in vermont cuz he made shirts that say 'eat more kale' then no doubt save our canyons should be suing these dillholes at 'save our canyons responsibly'

itsnojoke is a serious idiot.

Great post Skiski!

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

I stated that rather than stick to known facts of the project, opponents resort to personal attacks because quite simply they have nothing left.

Quoted for irony


Sincerely,

"Whacko liberal eco-nazis"

Originally Posted by skiski

To us, it looks like someone coming in and trying to fuck up an area in which we love to recreate.


(...) So, I am against skilink because it will fuck up the areas I like to ski and bike (I love the crest). I also worry about the precedent it sets. A few dirty deals like this and the easy to access skiing that is important to my lifestyle will be gone.

You are for it because you live in suncrest and can access some skiing better than the canyons without having to get in your car. I understand where you're coming from. If I had my choice between the canyons and solitude, it would be a no brainer.

But, a benefit to a few people who are lucky enough to live at the base of the canyons does not justify giving valuable federal land to Talisker, and fucking over the thousands of us who live in the valley and like to backcountry ski at odd hours, mountain bike, hunt, etc. Moreover, Talisker's stated purpose (transportation solution) is bogus. (...)

Why is it being billed as a transportation solution? Because public opinion in SLCo is pretty strongly against ski area expansion. We've got to find a balance, and most people think that balance does not need to be shifted more towards resorts.

Yes, SOC is an organized group that is opposed to almost all development in the canyons. Sometimes I think they are a bit extreme. But, the truth is that the people who want to push these things through have money and influence. Thousands of disorganized people who have real jobs to attend to do not have the clout or resources to oppose Talisker dangling campaign contributions in front of Rob Bishop. So I appreciate what SOC does. They present an organized voice against these boondoggles so that the assymetrics of political pushing do not result in a green light for every half brained ponzi schemed pushed by moneyed interests. If SOC hadn't stepped up in the past, the wasatch would be a worse place today. On this particular issue, I appreciate them continuing the good fight.

v.nice, +1

Amen and amen! Excellent post, and it's exactly how I feel as well.

Originally Posted by skiski

You know, snowjoke, I revisited my comment yesterday and almost took it down. It's the meanest thing I've ever said to anyone. I'm actually a pretty polite guy in real life. But your arrogance and underhandedness put me over the edge. I wrote my honest assessment of you, and that's why I kind of felt bad about it (granted, it comes only from what I've seen of you over the internet. I know you probably have some redeeming qualities in real life.)

You say you never claimed to be the smartest guy in the room, but you stated this about the people who oppose skilink: "As a group and as individuals they have seemingly no logical or reasoning abilities, nor the ability to compromise. They are passionate and shrill. . .whacko’s! . . . I may sound slightly obsessive / crazy to engage with these lunatics. . .. " So, you clearly think you are smarter than us. Thus, you have claimed to be the smartest guy in this "room."

I am not currently in anyone's basement. I have a long roster of friends/ski partners, biking partners, climbing partners, etc.. They are business owners, executives is established businesses, lawyers, doctors, nurses and a few who are "keeping it real." The vast majority of my skiing partners have degrees well beyond 4 years of college. Most moved here because of the career/recreation combo. Everyone I ski with is against this. I don't know a single person who has even said "well, maybe it has an upside." To us, it looks like someone coming in and trying to fuck up an area in which we love to recreate.

I fit this description as well, though I won't tell you what I do, because I like a little anonymity. I work on average 60+ hours a week, have a family, and love to ski. I ski the resorts some, but prefer backcountry because I often have to start skiing around 5am and be done by 9am. When the danger is up, I often ski the areas in the path of skilink (because I have a family). So, I am against skilink because it will fuck up the areas I like to ski and bike (I love the crest). I also worry about the precedent it sets. A few dirty deals like this and the easy to access skiing that is important to my lifestyle will be gone.

You are for it because you live in suncrest and can access some skiing better than the canyons without having to get in your car. I understand where you're coming from. If I had my choice between the canyons and solitude, it would be a no brainer.

But, a benefit to a few people who are lucky enough to live at the base of the canyons does not justify giving valuable federal land to Talisker, and fucking over the thousands of us who live in the valley and like to backcountry ski at odd hours, mountain bike, hunt, etc. Moreover, Talisker's stated purpose (transportation solution) is bogus. As I've mentioned before, a lift running over guardsman, running year round from 6am to 10pm would actually have transportation benefits. A lift off the back of the canyons to solitude does not. The price, the lift ride time, the fact that you have to ski between lifts on the canyons side, etc. mean that this thing will only remove from the road those people who live near the canyons and want to ski solitude that day (and who are not in a hurry to get over there). That's not a lot of cars.

You criticized straightchuter for claiming it's 1.5 hours from the canyons lot to the proposed skilink base, saying that that's only the case on a bad day. But you would admit, I assume, that it is a 45 minute ride on a good day. Thus, it takes 45-90 minutes to get to skilink, and another 11 minutes for the ride. In other words, it's a 56 to 101 minute ride. But talisker says it's only 11 minutes, and comparing a 45-60 minute drive to an 11 minute ride makes that ride sound really efficient. But, compare a 45-60 minute drive to a 56-101 minute gondola ride (which doesn't start until after the lifts open) and all of a sudden that lift ride does not suond so good. How much does it cost again? $100? But a pass at solitude is only $70 and I've got 3 people in the car, and want to get there for first chair. I think you see my point. It is not what it is being billed as.

Why is it being billed as a transportation solution? Because public opinion in SLCo is pretty strongly against ski area expansion. We've got to find a balance, and most people think that balance does not need to be shifted more towards resorts.

The list of good arguments against it goes on, but I am sure by now you have your hands over your eyes and are going "lalalalalalalalala....", since that seems to be your strategy when dealing with cogent argument against your righteous cause.

The point I think you need to take home is that the people who are against skilink are not part of some vast liberal conspiracy. For the most part we have jobs, families and a burning desire to ski. That's why your letter pissed me off so much. It was dismissive of us as a group, based on a completely inaccurate assessment of who we are. It's why your latest post continues to piss me off.

Yes, SOC is an organized group that is opposed to almost all development in the canyons. Sometimes I think they are a bit extreme. But, the truth is that the people who want to push these things through have money and influence. Thousands of disorganized people who have real jobs to attend to do not have the clout or resources to oppose Talisker dangling campaign contributions in front of Rob Bishop. So I appreciate what SOC does. They present an organized voice against these boondoggles so that the assymetrics of political pushing do not result in a green light for every half brained ponzi schemed pushed by moneyed interests. If SOC hadn't stepped up in the past, the wasatch would be a worse place today. On this particular issue, I appreciate them continuing the good fight.

Pack up your toys and go home, or don't. I don't give a fuck. But I do hope that when you continue to rally your troops, you are a little more informed and honest about who it is that is against skilink, and I hope you realize that when you write an entire email asking people to pretend they're something they're not, the admonition not to lie is a little transparent. You didn't even need to put one of these after it for people to see what you were doing.

From today's Park Record:

SkiLink support grows
Lift Utah Coalition adds 30 new members to spread word on interconnect
Gina Barker, The Park Record
Posted: 07/20/2012 04:14:44 PM MDT

Support for SkiLink, the controversial idea for a gondola that would connect Canyons Resort to Solitude Mountain Resort, got a little bit stronger this week.
The Lift Utah Coalition, a group of business leaders and legislators from across the state, added 30 new members with the goal of promoting and sharing information about SkiLink, which is currently in the committee process in the United States Senate and House.
"What we've tried to do is work with the groups or individuals that have expressed interest in being more active in supporting SkiLink," said Mike Goar, the general manager of Canyons Resort. "On one hand, we've wanted to recognize that support and effort in promoting the concept of connecting the resorts, but we're also hoping to engage them in communicating the benefits of SkiLink to other groups, citizens, community leaders."
Lift Utah Coalition added the 30 new members to the original 20 who formed the group, adding legislators, industry leaders ranging from technology companies to hospitality and community leaders. State Sen. Kevin VanTasell, the Summit County representative, was added to the list of new members, what he called a continuation of his support in the past legislative session, when he voted in favor of a Senate resolution that supported the concept of a resort interconnect.
"I wanted to add my name to the list of supporters," VanTasell said. " I think our major ski industries are in a unique system where the resorts are very close together. If we can provide an interlink system, that's our next step to expanding the industry."
"I really believe this is one of the things we can use to further increase skier days and get tourists staying longer," he added. "There is some controversy but I believe we can do this right, do it smart."
Controversy about SkiLink is partially tied to how the project was first promoted: a transportation system that would reduce traffic from Parley's Canyon as well as in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. SkiLink opposition believe the gondola proposed to connect the ski resorts does not qualify as a significant transportation system to move people through the canyons and would also encourage development that could negatively impact the Salt Lake County watershed.
"This falls exactly in line with what I would expect," said Carl Fisher, the executive director of Save Our Canyons, about the added members to Lift Utah Coalition. "And it is exactly the type of companies and industries I expected to join this coalition.
"We're primarily seeing developers and people who benefit from construction and real estate development. That has always been our number one concern with the project, the potential development that would ensue from SkiLink."
Despite the controversy, Goar said he was optimistic about the support for SkiLink, that the project has a long way to go but is moving in the right direction. Lift Utah is an educational opportunity to talk about the issues, Goar said.
"We've done a fair amount in terms of trying to determine public sentiment for SkiLink," he added. "I would say we have equal amount of support in Summit County and Salt Lake County. The majority of citizens in both have been supportive."

New Lift Utah Coalition Supporters: Senator Daniel Thatcher Senator Margaret Dayton Senator Peter Knudson Senator Stuart Reid Senator Scott Jenkins Senator Stuart Adams Senator Ralph Okerlund Senator David Hinkins Senator Kevin VanTasell Senator Jerry Stevenson Senator Wayne Niederhauser Representative Neal Hendrickson Representative Susan Duckworth Representative Curt Webb Representative Ronda Menlove Representative Evan Vickers Representative Ryan Wilcox Representative Gage Froerer Representative Brad Wilson Representative Jim Nielson Representative Mike Noel Representative Stephen Handy Representative Todd Kiser Representative Melvin Brown Representative Jim Bird Representative Keith Grover Representative Lee Perry Representative Daniel McCay Representative Francis Gibson Representative Mike Morley Jamie Catley Owner, Kent Construction Steve Urry President & CEO, Synergy Development Mark Bee President, Doppelmayr CTEC, Inc. Mark Waltrip CEO, Westgate Resorts Monte Ray President, Spectra Contract Flooring Roy Ostendorf President & CEO, Ski N' See Geir Vik CEO, TechnoAlpin Richard Hunt CEO, Hunt Electric Mark Barton President, Commercial Lighting Supply Brett Toliver Co-Owner, Model Linen Larry Williams President, Axess/North America Wayne Turner Partner and Managing Director, SDI Realty Group David Howerton Chairman, Hart and Howerton Law Firm

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

From today's Park Record:

SkiLink support grows
Lift Utah Coalition adds 30 new members to spread word on interconnect
Gina Barker, The Park Record
Posted: 07/20/2012 04:14:44 PM MDT

Support for SkiLink, the controversial idea for a gondola that would connect Canyons Resort to Solitude Mountain Resort, got a little bit stronger this week.
The Lift Utah Coalition, a group of business leaders and legislators from across the state, added 30 new members with the goal of promoting and sharing information about SkiLink, which is currently in the committee process in the United States Senate and House.
"What we've tried to do is work with the groups or individuals that have expressed interest in being more active in supporting SkiLink," said Mike Goar, the general manager of Canyons Resort. "On one hand, we've wanted to recognize that support and effort in promoting the concept of connecting the resorts, but we're also hoping to engage them in communicating the benefits of SkiLink to other groups, citizens, community leaders."
Lift Utah Coalition added the 30 new members to the original 20 who formed the group, adding legislators, industry leaders ranging from technology companies to hospitality and community leaders. State Sen. Kevin VanTasell, the Summit County representative, was added to the list of new members, what he called a continuation of his support in the past legislative session, when he voted in favor of a Senate resolution that supported the concept of a resort interconnect.
"I wanted to add my name to the list of supporters," VanTasell said. " I think our major ski industries are in a unique system where the resorts are very close together. If we can provide an interlink system, that's our next step to expanding the industry."
"I really believe this is one of the things we can use to further increase skier days and get tourists staying longer," he added. "There is some controversy but I believe we can do this right, do it smart."
Controversy about SkiLink is partially tied to how the project was first promoted: a transportation system that would reduce traffic from Parley's Canyon as well as in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. SkiLink opposition believe the gondola proposed to connect the ski resorts does not qualify as a significant transportation system to move people through the canyons and would also encourage development that could negatively impact the Salt Lake County watershed.
"This falls exactly in line with what I would expect," said Carl Fisher, the executive director of Save Our Canyons, about the added members to Lift Utah Coalition. "And it is exactly the type of companies and industries I expected to join this coalition.
"We're primarily seeing developers and people who benefit from construction and real estate development. That has always been our number one concern with the project, the potential development that would ensue from SkiLink."
Despite the controversy, Goar said he was optimistic about the support for SkiLink, that the project has a long way to go but is moving in the right direction. Lift Utah is an educational opportunity to talk about the issues, Goar said.
"We've done a fair amount in terms of trying to determine public sentiment for SkiLink," he added. "I would say we have equal amount of support in Summit County and Salt Lake County. The majority of citizens in both have been supportive."

New Lift Utah Coalition Supporters: Senator Daniel Thatcher Senator Margaret Dayton Senator Peter Knudson Senator Stuart Reid Senator Scott Jenkins Senator Stuart Adams Senator Ralph Okerlund Senator David Hinkins Senator Kevin VanTasell Senator Jerry Stevenson Senator Wayne Niederhauser Representative Neal Hendrickson Representative Susan Duckworth Representative Curt Webb Representative Ronda Menlove Representative Evan Vickers Representative Ryan Wilcox Representative Gage Froerer Representative Brad Wilson Representative Jim Nielson Representative Mike Noel Representative Stephen Handy Representative Todd Kiser Representative Melvin Brown Representative Jim Bird Representative Keith Grover Representative Lee Perry Representative Daniel McCay Representative Francis Gibson Representative Mike Morley Jamie Catley Owner, Kent Construction Steve Urry President & CEO, Synergy Development Mark Bee President, Doppelmayr CTEC, Inc. Mark Waltrip CEO, Westgate Resorts Monte Ray President, Spectra Contract Flooring Roy Ostendorf President & CEO, Ski N' See Geir Vik CEO, TechnoAlpin Richard Hunt CEO, Hunt Electric Mark Barton President, Commercial Lighting Supply Brett Toliver Co-Owner, Model Linen Larry Williams President, Axess/North America Wayne Turner Partner and Managing Director, SDI Realty Group David Howerton Chairman, Hart and Howerton Law Firm

The above names are the who's who of bribe taking douche bags and realestate scumbags> These are the ones who will turn YOUR public lands in to THEIR persoanal gain.

Originally Posted by yabyum

The above names are the who's who of bribe taking douche bags and realestate scumbags> These are the ones who will turn YOUR public lands in to THEIR persoanal gain.

They are now framing this as a let's wrestle control from the tree huggers issue. Thing is, I'm about as far from a tree hugger as you can get, and I'm against this.

An cynical and obvious who's who list of businesses that stand to prosper from the ski link, while boycotting some of these businesses would be difficult, there are a couple companies (ski & see) on there that I will never refer any of my customers to again.

Sent from my DROIDX using TGR Forums

It is also rather interesting to note that Canyons lot sales are up 166% (01/01/12-05/31/12) with and average sale price (16 lots) of $596,313=$9.5million or roughly about the cost of a Dopplmayr 8-passenger gondola* installed.

*1000 people per hour with an 8 passenger gondola=TWO cabins a minute. 500 people in line=half-hour wait.

http://www.bestskiproperty.com/real-...june-2012.html

And from the Mission Statement from Lift Utah
"An integral part of making SkiLink a reality will be a rigorous local process, including reviews by both Summit and Salt Lake Counties. The local decision-making process will include permitting processes of land, air quality, wildlife, and all other environmental considerations. As a result, community involvement will be extensive, entailing a series of public hearings with the ultimate decision-making power resting with our County officials. In short, SkiLink will only be built once it has met the review standards set forth by our locally-elected representatives."

So basically they want to spin this as a "State's Rights" issue after they BUYpass the Forest Service with a Congressional vote.