Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sin City
    Posts
    276

    is this actually going to happen!?! (Wolf Creek Development)

    Ski village an uphill climb

    Years of disputes, acrimony dog McCombs' Wolf Creek project

    By Jason Blevins
    Denver Post Staff Writer


    Wolf Creek Ski Area president Davey Pitcher, shown on one of his slopes, is unhappy with how federal agencies are handling a ski village planned next door. “We have worked with the Forest Service for years, and … we’re getting screwed.”

    B.J. "Red" McCombs, a self- made billionaire from Texas, has never been closer to his Colorado dream.
    All that stands between success and his plan for the state's largest resort village near the Wolf Creek Ski Area in southwestern Colorado is 250 feet of roadway and a federal decision on that roadway due Jan. 10. Of course, there are lawsuits pending, and there could be others, depending on the roadway decision.

    As the often fiery car dealer turned radio company founder turned Minnesota Vikings owner girds for his final push to sculpt a project he has pursued for close to two decades, opposition has reached a crescendo.

    The battle for what could come of McCombs' 287.5 acres of spruce and aspen atop Wolf Creek Pass promises to be spectacular. The venerable owners of the Wolf Creek Ski Area who recently abandoned the McCombs village team are suing him. Environmentalists of all ilk are mobilizing lawyers for land-protecting appeals. Locals on the Pagosa Springs side of the southern Colorado mountain pass fear a loss of business and jobs to the village. Leaders on the other side of the pass in Mineral County see a bounty of jobs and tax revenue if the plan goes through.

    The speedy time frame for completion of the Forest Service's environmental impact statement on the access road and the date of the final decision for the project - 10 days before the presidential Inauguration Day - are also raising eyebrows among opponents of McCombs, a well-connected Republican from Texas.

    Judging the impact

    The federal environmental impact statement on the plan began last December. The statement does not look at the density of what could be the state's largest ski resort village, with 2,172 units, 222,100 square feet of commercial space and 4,206 covered parking spots. It looks only at the road.

    Even so, the speed of the review is unsettling to some Forest Service officials and environmental advocates, who say thorough impact statements can take years.

    In Silverton, for example, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is five years into an impact statement analyzing a plan that allows skiers to access 1,300 acres of public land surrounding the Silverton Mountain ski area.

    "I have never seen an (impact statement) move this fast, and this is the most complex issue I've ever seen," said Jeff Berman, executive director of Colorado Wild, an environmental group that closely scrutinizes ski area expansions and is preparing a host of legal weapons to take on McCombs.

    One Forest Service official says McCombs has Republican friends in Washington pushing for a conclusion to the environmental review before the possible inauguration of a new president Jan. 20.

    "There's been a lot of arm- twisting, and we've had to push back," said a Forest Service official involved in the impact statement. "They have been able to influence the urgency of this thing. But you know politics only gets you so far, especially when you are talking about NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act)."

    Bob Honts, a partner of McCombs in the Village at Wolf Creek project, denies that his group has applied any undue pressure, saying the parcel endured extensive federal scrutiny years ago when it was part of a federal land exchange. He said his group will get a road because federal law requires the Forest Service to provide "reasonable access" to owners of private land within public land boundaries.

    "We are trying to get the road approved through national policy only," he said, adamantly denying rumors that his group planned to attach a last-minute amendment to a major spending bill making its way through the U.S. Senate. His group tried such a maneuver in 2001.

    Further complicating the issue are a host of state and federal agencies also involved in the impact statement.

    "Something this complex, usually you want to take your time and hash things out," said Forest Service ranger Steve Brigham, who not long ago was in charge of the environmental review for the village but was recently reassigned. "We are not in a very easy situation right now. Let's just say this is a no-win.

    "This thing will go to court in so many different ways that we can't even expect right now," Brigham said.

    Supporters change sides

    McCombs is already in court with the owners of the Wolf Creek Ski Area. The Pitcher clan, headed by patriarch Kingsbury and son Davey, supported the village plan up until April, when Kingsbury Pitcher angrily sold his 10 percent share of the village partnership.

    The Pitchers, who bought the bankrupt ski area from a Texas investment group in 1976, have a litany of complaints with the McCombs group, which includes Honts, a Texas developer, and the family of Colorado ranch owner Charles Leavell.

    The Pitchers question the validity of the 1987 land exchange where McCombs and the late Leavell traded the Forest Service 1,631 acres in Saguache County for the property within the ski area's permit boundary. They say the project ballooned from 208 units in the land trade to almost 2,200 now. They wonder why the land trade was initially rejected by Forest Service officials but then approved three weeks later in 1987.

    They question the mapping of the parcel, saying the village boundary has crept up their ski slopes with different maps over the years. They say McCombs' crew hoodwinked them into signing documents and contracts by telling them that he planned to sell once the village was approved. They fear the impact that the village will have on their tried-and-true yet modest business plan, which relies solely on skiers, not real estate.

    But most of all, they fear a billionaire with high-powered friends pulling strings to get the village built.

    "We have worked with the Forest Service for years and years, and now, I'll say it, big business is running this (impact statement), and we're getting screwed," said Davey Pitcher.

    Years of review

    McCombs, who has invested in more than 200 companies on his path to the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest people, has his growing list of complaints with the Pitchers. His group went through an environmental analysis for the 1987 land trade and promised the Forest Service final architectural approval of its development plans.

    They went through years of public review by Mineral County leaders, who crafted a 35-page preliminary approval resolution for the plan. The first mention of more than 2,100 units at the village came in early plans submitted to Mineral County weeks after the land exchange was completed in 1987.

    McCombs' group worked with the Pitchers from the day of the land trade and forged four crucial contracts with Kingsbury Pitcher. Those contracts include giving the ski area land for its 1999 lift expansion in exchange for the Pitchers' promise to get the needed permits and develop the access road now under scrutiny.

    And every step of the way, on every Mineral County and Forest Service document and every contract, there's Kingsbury Pitcher's signature, a signal of his steady support for McCombs' plan.

    "The Pitchers have basically screwed themselves by swimming with the sharks," said Ed Ryberg, winter sports coordinator for the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain region. "There is a long history of agreements and easements there."

    Particularly grating to McCombs and Honts is Davey Pitcher's 1999 agreement with Berman from Colorado Wild not to build 250 feet of road, the final leg that would connect the ski area's parking lots with the village property.

    Colorado Wild dropped its appeal of the Forest Service's approval for the lift expansion at the ski area when Pitcher and Berman forged a Forest Service-approved deal not to build the last portion of road.

    Only a few weeks before that agreement, Kingsbury Pitcher and the McCombs group had signed contracts promising land for the expansion in exchange for building the road.

    "That was not their road to give away. Davey Pitcher sold us out on getting that road," Honts said.

    "This latest (impact statement) is simply to pick up the ball that Davey gave away. We are in no way incompatible with the ski area. All of a sudden Davey changes his mind and we aren't compatible? No, that simply means that Davey changed his mind. The sad thing is that the Pitcher family will suffer because Davey has not honored his contracts," he said.

    Judge to weigh in

    The nature of those contracts is now an issue for a federal judge in Denver's U.S. District Court, where the Pitchers are suing the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture, arguing they never violated the contract. McCombs has countersued seeking damages. Honts said the Pitchers' change of heart and the subsequent federal environmental review has cost them $7 million to $10 million.

    The Forest Service will soon release the draft version of its impact statement, which will likely recommend two roads accessing the village, one through the ski parking lot. Public meetings will be held to gather input.

    The Pitchers have asked McCombs to move his village back from the ski area, but Honts said the move would require a new environmental review that could ask the question this review cannot: Should this village even be there?

    "We'd have to go through another (impact statement) that would make this one look like a cap gun next to a .44 Magnum," Honts said.
    When you gonna get dem' Duke Boys!?!?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Powpow New Guinea
    Posts
    2,981
    I've been following this pretty intently. I'll share a few comments that I'm sure nobody wants to hear:

    - The Post ran the same photo of pitcher hiking with skis last year. Weak.

    - You'd think a dude who skis wolf creek exclusively would have fatter boards.

    Seriously,

    - Sounds like Pitcher dealt with McCombs and actually wanted the development initially. My understanding is that they wanted 200-ish units, and now they're talking about building 2,000.

    - It's a great example of political favoritism and republican greed. Brill at Silverton recieved no cooperation on his EIS and all he wants is to let skiers use the BLM land. But a wealthy Texas republican can have his project fast tracked through the approval process.

    - Concerns voiced by Pagosa Springs businesses, while valid, will fall largely on deaf ears since the resort lies within piss poor Mineral County, who apparently supports this.

    - What I don't understand is this: The EIS currently under review is for the remaining 250 feet of road. Assuming this passes, and I believe that it may since landholders are required to have reasonable access to their land if located within federal land, does this automatically approve them to start building the obnoxiously proposed base area? No way that approval to build 250 feet of road can coincide with approval for a massive infrastructure project like the village. The challenges of building up there, installation of water/sewer, etc, increased traffic on 160, etc. should all come into play before a shovel touches the ground.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •