Snow in the PNW 2019-20

[altasnob]

Environmentalist don't write laws. They just sue when they think laws are not being properly enforced. In the Methow/Sandy Butte case, that decision is one that occurrs in environmental law text books. Not because it is a celebration of environmentalist defeating a ski area, because the decision interpreted an important aspect of the National Environmental Police Act.

"The decision was mixed, in that "the Court is not stating that mitigation is unimportant" (Cohen and Miller, p. 184). In fact, the court said that if mitigation becomes the basis for an agency’s decision, the mitigation plan must be complete. Yet it ruled that this did not apply in this case.

The case was remanded to the lower courts, but in the long run, it didn’t matter. The Early Winters Ski Resort projected stalled for financial and logistical reasons and was abandoned in 1995."

https://www.historylink.org/File/9907

[Buster Highmen]

Environmentalist don't write laws]

Well golly gosh gee and wowsers. How incredibly insightful.

I'm glad that you agree that environmentalists impact the development of ski areas, despite your positioning with them.

[waveshello]

Well there's just a little bit left as of Sunday. Someone on the trail asked me if I was stashing my skis in the mountains for the upcoming winter season. I'm still trying to figure out how that would work, but I think he's on to something.

Sent from my BND-L24 using Tapatalk

[PNWbrit]

Crystal skiers pass into the park briefly

Not so briefly too.

I would have no problem if the park held firm and we were all forced to stay on the ridge line

I would have a huge problem with not being allowed to ski into the park from the ridgeline.

[altasnob]

Environmentalist don't write laws.

I say this because I think environmentalist have a PR problem in this country. I think of them more as a non-profit GAO. They audit the actions of the government and private business and step in when they think the laws are not being properly applied. Or when a certain provision of the law is not adequately defined by the statute and has not yet been interpreted by the court system. When environmentalist prevail in a law suit, I don't see that as a negative but am happy that businesses now have clear direction on what is and what is not allowed (so they can properly plan for the future). But many Americans like to blame environmentalist for all of societies' ills. So. . . .Trump. And speaking of Trump, why did we not have an explosion of ski area proposals when Trump took office and Republicans controlled the House and Senate? Trump controls the epic ski terrain of the US, not State governments. He's packed the federal courts with conservatives.

[altasnob]

Not so briefly too. I would have a huge problem with not being allowed to ski into the park from the ridgeline.

Ya, more and more Crystal skiers use lifts to access Crystal lakes and Morse creek. If the park tried to take a hard line and say no Crystal skiers can pass into the park, it would have been impossible to enforce. People would have just ducked rope and been impossible to find on their return. And where do you draw the line? Could a lift skier traverse from lifts at Crystal all the way to the East side of Three-Way, duck into the National Forest (not national park there), ski around the backside of Three-Way (still just National Forest), and then enter the National Park (Crystal Lakes?). It would have been absurd to try to prevent this. But I could see how the National Park Service, on the nation-wide level, did not like the idea that they have no control of ski areas adjacent to their boundaries.

[Buster Highmen]

I say this because I think environmentalist have a PR problem in this country. I think of them more as a non-profit GAO. They audit the actions of the government and private business and step in when they think the laws are not being properly applied. Or when a certain provision of the law is not adequately defined by the statute and has not yet been interpreted by the court system. When environmentalist prevail in a law suit, I don't see that as a negative but am happy that businesses now have clear direction on what is and what is not allowed (so they can properly plan for the future). But many Americans like to blame environmentalist for all of societies' ills. So. . . .Trump. And speaking of Trump, why did we not have an explosion of ski area proposals when Trump took office and Republicans controlled the House and Senate? Trump controls the epic ski terrain of the US, not State governments.

That's all fine,

I think environmentalists do and I think they have an important role to play.

But I also think they overstep their mandate when it comes to ski area development and have an overreaching impact on ski areas.

I'm just glad that you've provided so much data to back up that position and have so gracefully conceded.

[oftpiste]

Long before that, sadly.

How long ago was that? I've only been here for 8 years, so not long compared to most of you, but have only seen police a handful of times, and they were always just sitting in their car.

[Huskier]

Gotcha. I can certainly understand weeding out poorly prepared drivers before they head up the boulevard.
It's just that the Ikon Marketing Machine attracts a certain clientele anyway, and I worry about anything that would further increase the conga line.

Guaranteed tickets/covid reservations for vehicles carrying 4 or more?

[chaka]

someone on my work's ski alias asked Summit about honoring various club, group discounts this season. Here is their response:

"If we offer Military, Government or group discounts (including Prime/Passport & the King county group you mention) later in the season, it will not be lower than today’s price point. Considering we might have to limit visitors, it is possible that we will sell out of season passes this season. Bottom line is to buy now before the Sept 22 deadline to get the best deal and to make sure you get a 20/21 season pass. "

[XavierD]

Charge for weekend parking...
Or maybe every day now with all the tech bro’s and gals working remotely.

Start at $20 a car.

[AK47bp]

Charge for weekend parking...
Or maybe every day now with all the tech bro’s and gals working remotely.

Start at $20 a car.

Awww hell naw.

Add more processes and restrictions to an already shitty shit show. A 2 mile line to even enter the parking area while someone has process your payment.

Great.

Paying to park won’t deter most skiers on a good day if you are thinking people won’t ski due to a parking fee.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

Crystal does not own the land. They lease it from the Forest Service through a Special Use Permit. And Crystal's permit does not grant them exclusive use of the land. So I don't think it is legally possible for Crystal to charge a fee for parking for all of the parking spaces. It is completely legal for non-Crystal customers to drive up the resort in the winter and hike/snowshoe/skin into the public's National Forests. Crystal cannot stop them or charge them a fee for doing this.

[Buster Highmen]

And Crystal's permit does not grant them exclusive use of the land. So I don't think it is legally possible for Crystal to charge a fee for parking for all of the parking spaces

Does the permit explicitly allow them to charge for the upper lot? Enquiring minds would like to know.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Crystal does not own the land. They lease it from the Forest Service through a Special Use Permit. And Crystal's permit does not grant them exclusive use of the land. So I don't think it is legally possible for Crystal to charge a fee for parking for all of the parking spaces. It is completely legal for non-Crystal customers to drive up the resort in the winter and hike/snowshoe/skin into the public's National Forests. Crystal cannot stop them or charge them a fee for doing this.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

If the lot is within their sup boundary they can restrict access for non customers. If they plow and maintain the lot it’s basically like their property under the terms of the lease. This has been debated here and on TAY. They can restrict uphill skiers and snowshoers as well.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jackattack]

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

If the lot is within their sup boundary they can restrict access for non customers. If they plow and maintain the lot it’s basically like their property under the terms of the lease. This has been debated here and on TAY. They can restrict uphill skiers and snowshoers as well.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Yeah, Solitude did exactly this last year in an effort to encourage carpooling. Anyone is allowed to park there if they pay the fee. The same rules apply for access to xc/snowshoe trails, etc.

[altasnob]

I do not have a copy of Crystal's special use permit and can't find it on the internet. One could do a FOIA to the Forest Service and get if for free. But it would take a bit for the response to be processed. The current SUP expires in 2032.

Crystal is not dumb, so I assume the Special Use Permit does allow them to charge for parking. Otherwise, why would they do so in A lot. But I do know Crystal does not have exclusive right to use the land and that the permit "allows members of the public to access the area without using Crystal Mountain's lifts" (see court decision below where Crystal was using its non-exclusive use as an attempt to not pay taxes).

The parking fees for A lot are excessive and I am wondering how Crystal gets away with this. They are not providing any greater benefit to the user, yet keep on increasing the costs. If their practice expanded to the other lots, or they attempted to charge a fee to users who were not using Crystal's lifts, I think the issue would be ripe for a legal challenge.

Crystal's ability to limit and dictate uphill travel is a different issue. Crystal has no ability to control uphill travel outside of their Special Use Permit (so up East Peak, Bullion Basin, and skiers right of Three-Way Peak). But they can control uphill traffic in their special use permit area because of safety issues.

Most of the ski areas outside of the PNW are at least partially on private land. PNW is unique is that most of our ski areas are entirely on federal public land. That's why the resorts in the Rockies have shopping malls at the bottom.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/p...%20Opinion.pdf

[AK47bp]

Are all lawyers this annoying?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I do not have a copy of Crystal's special use permit and can't find it on the internet. One could do a FOIA to the Forest Service and get if for free. But it would take a bit for the response to be processed. The current SUP expires in 2032.

Crystal is not dumb, so I assume the Special Use Permit does allow them to charge for parking. Otherwise, why would they do so in A lot. But I do know Crystal does not have exclusive right to use the land and that the permit "allows members of the public to access the area without using Crystal Mountain's lifts" (see court decision below where Crystal was using its non-exclusive use as an attempt to not pay taxes).

The parking fees for A lot are excessive and I am wondering how Crystal gets away with this. They are not providing any greater benefit to the user, yet keep on increasing the costs. If their practice expanded to the other lots, or they attempted to charge a fee to users who were not using Crystal's lifts, I think the issue would be ripe for a legal challenge.

Crystal's ability to limit and dictate uphill travel is a different issue. Crystal has no ability to control uphill travel outside of their Special Use Permit (so up East Peak, Bullion Basin, and skiers right of Three-Way Peak). But they can control uphill traffic in their special use permit area because of safety issues.

Most of the ski areas outside of the PNW are at least partially on private land. PNW is unique is that most of our ski areas are entirely on federal public land. That's why the resorts in the Rockies have shopping malls at the bottom.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/p...%20Opinion.pdf

So, what I said.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

What I meant by that statement was why does Crystal get to charge for A lot? Why does Crystal get to charge more and more each year to park in A lot without any justification for the increase (other than it makes them more money). Can Crystal start charging for B and C lots like they do A lot? This pay for parking idea is the kind of bullshit skiers have to put up with in the Rockies. Off site free parking for the peons and heated underground spots for the 1%ers. Walking across massive free parking lots, with ice pellets hitting your face, slipping on blue ice, is all part of the PNW ski experience.

[gnarbro365]

Are all lawyers this annoying?

lol

[Buster Highmen]

I do not have a copy of Crystal's special use permit and can't find it on the internet. One could do a FOIA to the Forest Service and get if for free. But it would take a bit for the response to be processed. The current SUP expires in 2032.

Crystal is not dumb, so I assume the Special Use Permit does allow them to charge for parking. Otherwise, why would they do so in A lot. But I do know Crystal does not have exclusive right to use the land and that the permit "allows members of the public to access the area without using Crystal Mountain's lifts" (see court decision below where Crystal was using its non-exclusive use as an attempt to not pay taxes).

The parking fees for A lot are excessive and I am wondering how Crystal gets away with this. They are not providing any greater benefit to the user, yet keep on increasing the costs. If their practice expanded to the other lots, or they attempted to charge a fee to users who were not using Crystal's lifts, I think the issue would be ripe for a legal challenge.

So Crystal may or may not have the right to charge for parking. And none of us have copy of the SUP to really claim one way or the other. It's always nice to assume things that help your position though.

Crystal's ability to limit and dictate uphill travel is a different issue. Crystal has no ability to control uphill travel outside of their Special Use Permit (so up East Peak, Bullion Basin, and skiers right of Three-Way Peak). But they can control uphill traffic in their special use permit area because of safety issues.

I must not be able to read maps very well because when I look at the map of their SUP, it clearly includes East Peak and always has.

Most of the ski areas outside of the PNW are at least partially on private land. PNW is unique is that most of our ski areas are entirely on federal public land. That's why the resorts in the Rockies have shopping malls at the bottom.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/p...%20Opinion.pdf

The upshot is that for all practical purposes, Crystal can and does in fact charge for parking.

That their sale of access to their lift system or parking on public land far exceeds the Comfortable Carry Capacity (not to be confused with the Crystal Conservation Coalition ) isn't considered to be a violation of the Public Trust (surely this could be reviewed if law school and the bar exam was insufficient) is confusing to a lay person such as myself.

[Buster Highmen]

What I meant by that statement was why does Crystal get to charge for A lot? Why does Crystal get to charge more and more each year to park in A lot without any justification for the increase (other than it makes them more money). Can Crystal start charging for B and C lots like they do A lot? This pay for parking idea is the kind of bullshit skiers have to put up with in the Rockies. Off site free parking for the peons and heated underground spots for the 1%ers. Walking across massive free parking lots, with ice pellets hitting your face, slipping on blue ice, is all part of the PNW ski experience.

Funny, I thought that you claimed that Crystal charging for parking was not possible. What does this "think' mean?

And Crystal's permit does not grant them exclusive use of the land. So I don't think it is legally possible for Crystal to charge a fee for parking for all of the parking spaces

I'm so confused.

I don't like the fee, but I'm not sure we're on the same page.

[altasnob]

All I know for sure is what I quoted from the published court case. "Crystal does not have exclusive right to use the land and that the SUP permit allows members of the public to access the area without using Crystal Mountain's lifts." From that statement, I inferred Crystal cannot charge everyone for parking. For one, how would Crystal charge a non-lift user a parking fee? Are they going to have a guy on the boulevard asking everyone that drives by for payment? It seems to me if Crystal must allow non-lift users access they also are prevented from charging those non-lift users a fee to have that access. If this were not true, what would prevent Crystal from charging a fee that is so high that they effectively eliminate all non-lift users from accessing? But this inference could be wrong. And to be clear, this is not access within the ski area boundary, but access outside the ski area boundary. Crystal could charge a fee to travel uphill in the ski area (if they wanted to).

I really don't care about A lot. I don't have an A lot pass and never thought about getting one. But I do not like the pattern of charging more and more for A lot and expanding the size of A lot. And keeping A lot huge even on empty mid-week days. And I would be upset if they start charging for parking in B and C lots.

You are correct about the SUP being the area all the way to East Peak. But I have never seen Crystal try to dictate uphill use outside of their ski area boundary (and do not see any nexus for them to try this, unless it relates to a public safety issue). As you pointed out, the SUP area is much larger than their current ski area boundary.

[altasnob]

Absolutely there is a market. I am surprised the other PNW ski areas haven't already joined this game. I think you could charge $10,000 a year for A lot parking and people would still pay it. Seattle is as wealthy as any place on Earth. So Crystal should charge $10,000 for A lot. $5,000 for B,C,D, and E. And have F lot the free lot. That will really help their profits.

^this is what I hope is not possible. And while I would have no problem if Vail charged $10,000 for parking, that is because Vail owns their parking lot. Crystal does not.