Important SkiLink Update: Crosspost to BRUTAH's Thread

[schindlerpiste]

SkiLink Discussion: Open to Public = Thursday night. St. Luke's Episcopal Church 7:00pm
http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_2267382...pearance-basin

Be there...if you care!!!


SkiLink sides, sharply divided, prepare for public appearance in Basin
Canyons wants to explain the process while opposition will raise questions
Jay Hamburger THE PARK RECORD
Posted: 02/26/2013 04:47:17 PM MST

Some of the key figures in the SkiLink dispute -- supporters and detractors -- are scheduled to appear at a forum in the Snyderville Basin on Thursday evening in what is anticipated to be an event that illustrates the sharp divide between the sides.
It will be one of the first major public discussions about SkiLink held in the Park City area in the year-plus since Canyons Resort owner Talisker Corp. made public its desire to build a gondola connecting Canyons Resort to Big Cottonwood Canyon's Solitude Mountain Resort.
The Project for a Deeper Understanding, a group that occasionally hosts forums about civic issues, is hosting the event. It is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. at St. Luke's Episcopal Church, 4595 N. Silver Springs Road, off S.R. 224. The panelists are scheduled to be Mike Goar, the managing director of Canyons Resort; Carl Fisher, the executive director of Save Our Canyons; Laura Briefer, who is with the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, and Dave DeSeelhorst from Solitude Mountain Resort.
The panelists will give remarks and a question-and-answer session is scheduled after they speak. Charles Robinson, the pastor at St. Luke's, said past forums have drawn between 60 and 70 people each.
The SkiLink proposal, made public in the fall of 2011, calls for a gondola between the two mountain resorts. The supporters claim that SkiLink would enable the state's ski industry to better compete with resorts located elsewhere. They also argue that SkiLink would be an environmentally friendly means of transportation that would reduce traffic between the Park City area and Big Cottonwood Canyon.
The opposition, though, refutes the claims and contends that SkiLink would encroach on the backcountry between the Park City area and Big Cottonwood Canyon, a popular spot for skiers, snowboarders and snowshoers in the winter and hikers and bicyclists at other times of the year. The opposition questions the success SkiLink would have in cutting traffic.
SkiLink depends on the sale of approximately 30 acres of federal land to Talisker Corp. Congressional legislation that would authorize the sale was introduced in late 2011. Congress has not passed the bill.
Goar said he is "willing and ready to hear both sides of the debate" at the event. He acknowledged, though, that the opposition normally is energized when a forum is organized like the one on Thursday.
Goar said the SkiLink bill, if passed, creates a process for the gondola connection to be considered rather than approving it outright. He said the approval process would be shifted away from the federal government if the legislation is approved and the acreage is sold.
"What it allows us to do is make an application with the local jurisdiction," Goar said, indicating that he will explain the process during the forum.
Fisher said he will broach topics like what he sees as the public not being involved in the SkiLink legislative process, concerns about the proposal's impact on Salt Lake City's drinking water and whether SkiLink will succeed in reducing traffic.
The panel discussion on Thursday will be one of the first major public forums in the Park City area about SkiLink. The gondola connection has been addressed locally only sporadically since the idea was introduced, but there has appeared to be great interest among people in the Park City area. Some have posted yard signs in opposition to SkiLink.
The SkiLink legislation, meanwhile, was one of the campaign issues in last year's 1st Congressional District contest between Republican Rob Bishop, the incumbent and one of the bill's sponsors, and Democrat Donna McAleer. The challenger, who was defeated by a wide margin, included opposition to SkiLink as one of her platform planks.

[Slaag Master]

i for one consider the sale of my public lands to a foreign corporation by eliminating my legislative safeguards an act of war. skilink is an enemy of the state!!!!!!

[My Pet Powder Goat]

I'll be there, C.


Just the facts:

Date: Thurs., Feb. 28th 7:00 - 9:00 PM.

Location:
St. Luke's Church, 4595 N. Silver Springs Dr., Snyderville Area of Park City - behind the Blue Roof 7-11 Store off Hwy 224 two miles south of I-80

For more info, please contact: Charles at 435-901-2131

[brutah]

good looking out schindelerpiste!

hope everyone makes it there! I'd be there if I could

[My Pet Powder Goat]

Great turn out. I'd say 200+ ppl in attendance. well into 30+questions from the public. Non of them pro-skilink....where were you Itsnowjoke AKA David Deboies???

Gore & Co. did their best to deflect some great questions with non-answers and kept to the script.

next time we have to organize better and get beers afterwards, had easily 50 friends in attendance. be a sick party!

[IVplay]

I'm assuming the general feeling from the locals in Utah is no ski link?

[My Pet Powder Goat]

I'm assuming the general feeling from the locals in Utah is no ski link?

Sometimes you're rather astute, for a pre-pubescent boy.

I have a couple friends that are pro ski link but they are marketing types and employees for the resort. Still not many.

[pvars]

This new local and everyone i know is anti- skilink.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using TGR Forums

[itsnowjoke]

I thought the discussion went well. It was very civil. Many points I've been stressing all along we're emphasized. I'm glad everyone could make it. Cheers, D

[My Pet Powder Goat]

Many points I've been stressing all along we're emphasized.

what points exactly? please be specific....I was really hoping to hear from you considering how vocal you are in the other mediums (SL tribune, tgr etc...)

[Slaag Master]

tribe up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[schindlerpiste]

Saying be specific to a Pro SkiLink guy is like asking for the winning lottery numbers in advance. Oh wait, "it is to improve skier experience"... Sheesh.
Last night, I heard nothing to advance the pro SkiLink argument. Sure, we heard that the 13 page enviro report that that will go to Congress is merely a perfunctory sketch at best, and should probably contain a couple hundred more pages. We heard that only 1 acre of land will be used to construct the SkiLink...until a High Schooler mentioned the destruction of trees along the cables' path. We heard about the creation of 10-50 $8.00/hr jobs. We heard that while there is a very elaborate and complicated safty plan for would-be trapped tram riders, when pressed for details, Mike Goar fell silent....However, he did assure us that no roads would be created to "build or maintain" the lift.
IMHO, of the four experts sitting on the dais, the Watershed chic was by far the winner. Intelligent, and cute. We kept hearing that the SkiLink is just an initial phase in a much larger plan. It will vastly increase the # of skier days. Maybe, in an isolated world, the SkiLink will not have that much of a detrimental effect on the watershed; however, it is a slippery road that I am not willing to go down. The overall effect may be devastating. ..But, we do need to listen to the advise of the Sillytude guy..."In 20 years, we'll have electric cars, or a {Jetson} transportation system in place, so that there will be no cars on the road, or emissions to worry about.

Definitely scored so nice SCHWAG!

[cbgarrett]

I agree with schindlerpiste: I heard nothing to advance their argument. I was expecting some form of argument from Mike Goar why this project is needed. None was given. The only arguments put forth were 1. This could be part of a transportation solution for Utah skiing and 2. Many Canyons guests would like to ski BCC without driving. The tone of the defense of skilink was very subdued, almost like they know odds are against getting it done.
It is very clear this is something Canyons wants to do that is not part of a comprehensive congestion solution or interconnect plan. It really would only benefit Canyons and to a lesser extent, Solitude.
As far as the congressional bill issue, they are trying to sell the fact that getting a bill passed to sell public land to talisker is not an end around of the normal process, but that it would actually increase local input and control of the project. I don't buy that. They are using this approach because they admitted they had 'informal' talks with the forest service and the FS made it clear they would not support the project.

[itsnowjoke]

Saying be specific to a Pro SkiLink guy is like asking for the winning lottery numbers in advance. Oh wait, "it is to improve skier experience"... Sheesh.
Last night, I heard nothing to advance the pro SkiLink argument. Sure, we heard that the 13 page enviro report that that will go to Congress is merely a perfunctory sketch at best, and should probably contain a couple hundred more pages. We heard that only 1 acre of land will be used to construct the SkiLink...until a High Schooler mentioned the destruction of trees along the cables' path. We heard about the creation of 10-50 $8.00/hr jobs. We heard that while there is a very elaborate and complicated safty plan for would-be trapped tram riders, when pressed for details, Mike Goar fell silent....However, he did assure us that no roads would be created to "build or maintain" the lift.
IMHO, of the four experts sitting on the dais, the Watershed chic was by far the winner. Intelligent, and cute. We kept hearing that the SkiLink is just an initial phase in a much larger plan. It will vastly increase the # of skier days. Maybe, in an isolated world, the SkiLink will not have that much of a detrimental effect on the watershed; however, it is a slippery road that I am not willing to go down. The overall effect may be devastating. ..But, we do need to listen to the advise of the Sillytude guy..."In 20 years, we'll have electric cars, or a {Jetson} transportation system in place, so that there will be no cars on the road, or emissions to worry about.

Definitely scored so nice SCHWAG!

Well, as you know, we can go 'round and 'round on this. However I'll try to keep it short. I don't think anything needs to be done to "advance" the pro-skilink argument. I'd originally thought the myths that the opponents concocted should be vigorously dispelled, but I was in error in thinking that a majority of people can't wade though that stuff. And that's all I've been doing, is trying to dispel myths. I'm an average guy who's done his homework and reached certain conclusions. Shame on me.

So about the meeting, some of my takes:

I was there to listen. Not to ram ideas down anyone's throat.

Water Quality: Even the Salt Lake Water Rep conceded that the lift itself will not harm the watershed in any meaningful way. Sound familiar? Skilink opponents dispute the increased skier-days associated with this one lift. She absolutely believes the figures, and is wondering how the existing infrastucture can handle an additional 75,000 skiers per year. Solitude stated that they added a sewer system that not only got a bunch of houses off of septic, but will be able to handle any future demands. I did not know that.

Development: As I've been stating, there is simply no room for development on the sides of the Skilink Corridor. NO ROOM! As Solitude stated, there are really no development rights left in Big Cottonwood, either. BCC is zoned to the max. No new ski villages or condo's in BCC. It will not become the new Mirabel. If you don't want to believe this, fine. I believe it. Do your homework. Canyons stated that they have plans for their base area. Gee, I'll miss that parking lot.

Enhanced Skiing Experience: You mock that? You can link all of the Wasatch Back resorts as McClean suggested, and guess what? You still aren't going to have any steep terrain. There is simply nothing on the Wasatch Back that compares to Honeycomb Canyon, Summit Lift, Fantasy Ridge, etc., at Solitude. Nothing. And there is nothing at Solitude that compares to the miles-long cruisers at Canyons. These resorts would compliment each other in a huge way. If you don't see that and want to mock it, fine. I don't know if Andrew was playing dumb or knows that something is afoot, but the Wasatch Back resorts WILL be linked within 18 months. I've been consistent in saying this, and there, I said it again.

Economy: So what, I don't care! It was asked how Skilink would provide 500 additional jobs, because all you need are several lift operators and mechanics, right? Wrong! Canyons responded that with the 75,000 additional skiers you will need additional hotel workers, rental car people, etc. All you need to do is look at what's happened to Park City over the last 30 years in order to get a grasp of this concept. More skiers = more jobs. You doubt there will be 500 jobs. Then you state they'll be crappy jobs. OK, don't apply. I know I won't. But if this result in more flights into SLC, my company will need more highly paid employees such as myself. The ripple-effect is wide and far-reaching.

Lift Evac: Are you kidding? Canyons did a good job of simply stating that mechanisms are in place for evacuating lifts and they take the prospect seriously. Have you ridden the Helbronner lift from Chamonix? The Klein Matterhorn lift at Zermatt? The Auguille du Midi? Jesus Tapdancing H. Crist! If those lifts can be evacuated, any lift can be evacuated. And they don't have roads. Neither does Shortcut at Canyons, nor Peak Five. No Roads. If you cant grasp that, I'm sorry.

Future: You think Jetson's cars, I think Disneyland Monorail. Park at the bottom of the Cottonwood Canyons, and ride an elevated railway up, one that takes pylons to support rather than widespread grading. The cog railway system in the Alps is well over 100 years old, so I don't think that given our current technology we should base something entirely on that model. It's pretty cool, however, that every three trains coming down hill from the Junfraujoch to the Klein Schiedegg generates enough electricity to power another train back up to the Junfraujoch. Cogs. Gotta love 'em.

Save Our Canyons: The predictable spiel. I've been stating that you could get from Canyons base to Skilink in roughly 45 minutes for over a year now. He claimed 1.5 hours. He was corrected by the moderator, who stated that her friend did it in 45 minutes the other day. SOC is against building ANYTHING, and it shows. Oh well, that's his job. But in the world of reality, it's best to stick to facts, rather than claiming 1.5 hours, etc. If SOC stuck to the facts, they might actually see some advantages to Skilink. Such as the elimination of idling cars stuck at the mouth of the canyons adding to the inversion. As a speaker so poignantly brought up.

Metcalf: I've said it before, and it was said last night: Black Diamond stuff is the SHIZZLE. And I have nothing against Metcalf, never met him. However, last night he mentioned a bunch of corporations that had signed-on to protest Skilink. I don't know what he told them in order to sign on, I really don't. And I don't care. However, due to an article in Outside Magazine, his online response, and my online response to his online response, etc., there has been a tidal-wave of reversal from many of those original signers. I don't know how or when Skilink is going to play that card, but prepare for a blindside. The corporate world is a bitch, ain't it?

Lastly: You've all heard me talk about how I've spent my life in the mountains skiing, hiking, climbing, biking, blah blah blah. I heard someone refer to Willow Heights as "pristine wilderness" again last night. When I was a kid, my dad would drive us for hours so that we could enjoy the isolation of The Wilderness, federally designated Wilderness Areas. In these areas, you would be far-removed from roads, lights, power lines, EVERYTHING! These areas were and are WILD. As an adult, I've spent a vast amount of time in these areas as well. If there is a dangerous precedent being set, it's that everything that doesn't have a house on it is being called wilderness, and in the Wasatch such areas are being proposed as wilderness. So my main point? If a wilderness area can be next to a city -such as Salt Lake- what will prevent future cities from being built next to wilderness areas? Nothing, because it is being established that "wilderness" is the area that can exist between two major ski resorts. Or in the case of the proposed Wasatch Wilderness legislation, it goes right up to the city limit. If this is the standard that you want to apply, the value of "real" wilderness will be diminished. Hell, let's just get it over with and call the open-space beside my house wilderness. There are moose, fox, and elk there after all. And my dog. He's very wild.

Ski resorts take up roughly 1% of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. There is plenty of room to play. And if you don't like it here, there are millions upon millions of acres close by in which to further play. The Uintas, Ruby's, Wind River Range, etc. Skilink will not be the end of the earth.

Thanks for attending last night.

DD

[IVplay]

Sometimes you're rather astute, for a pre-pubescent boy.

I have a couple friends that are pro ski link but they are marketing types and employees for the resort. Still not many.

But does it matter how many locals don't want it? They only care about their bottom line and $.