Check Out Our Shop
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155

    $55 to park at a closed resort to access commonwealth basin


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Last Best City in the Last Best Place
    Posts
    7,830
    Couldn't you just buy the $50 uphill ski season pass?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    We are not talking about uphill inbounds. We are talking about parking on public land leased to the operators off of a major interstate with local roads plowed with state gas tax $.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,103
    The ski area has a lease from the FS. They get to charge for access to facilities within that lease.
    Live Free or Die

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,970
    Washington hasn’t had any meaningful increase in skiing facilities or infrastructure since the 1960s but the demand is much higher. This will only get worse unfortunately.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    And a sup permit that seems to forget the public aspect. For perspective when I started bc skiing at Snoqualmie it was ok to park off the second exit ( before there were so many cabins)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    14,489
    The problem isn't that the commercial ski area is charging for use of their parking lots. The problem is the state / forest service / department of transportation haven't provided additional parking for non-commercial users.

    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    But the fact remains and my question is, since the roads are plowed by my taxes and the land outside the developed areas, hence commonwealth basin in the title, are public, does the lease holder have the right to charge for parking?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,451
    yes
    I didn't believe in reincarnation when I was your age either.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greater Drictor Wydaho
    Posts
    5,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Markeyz View Post
    But the fact remains and my question is, since the roads are plowed by my taxes and the land outside the developed areas, hence commonwealth basin in the title, are public, does the lease holder have the right to charge for parking?
    The essential point here is you aren't being charged for access to the undeveloped public lands. You're being charged for access to developed parking. That's really no different from having to pay for a place to park your camper in a developed NF campground or having to pay an access fee to use boat ramp parking. Its always been this way.
    Last edited by neckdeep; 10-21-2024 at 08:56 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    9,508
    Organize a sit in w flowers and peace signs.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Last Best City in the Last Best Place
    Posts
    7,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Markeyz View Post
    We are not talking about uphill inbounds. We are talking about parking on public land leased to the operators off of a major interstate with local roads plowed with state gas tax $.
    Regardless of your intended activity, you could buy the uphill pass and it includes parking, correct? With some limitations on peak days but still parking. So rather than $55 a day, it's $50 for the season.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    33,935
    Being a lease holder means they have a property right; they're bound by the terms of the lease but otherwise are like the owner. So if the lease allows (or doesn't prohibit) them charging people for access to the leased land, they can charge.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    Being a lease holder means they have a property right; they're bound by the terms of the lease but otherwise are like the owner. So if the lease allows (or doesn't prohibit) them charging people for access to the leased land, they can charge.
    No idea if it really matters legally, but it isn't a lease. It's a special use permit that grants the holder authorization to operate (and charge for) specific activities. It's a non-exclusive permit to the area (so USFS could allow other uses on the permitted area).

    Every ski area SUP I've seen when I FOIA'd them a few years back required some form of public access, with restrictions as deemed necessary by the holder and USFS.

    As Neckdeep points out, it's not about access. It's about paying them for parking which is a limited resources that requires maintenance.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    And that’s where it gets local. I have this pass to piss pass but the fact of the matter is that I go when going isn’t that good but it’s safe and it fits my time. Do I now risk a ticket? By definition there is no parking problem.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,378

    $55 to park at a closed resort to access commonwealth basin

    Quote Originally Posted by Markeyz View Post
    We are not talking about uphill inbounds. We are talking about parking on public land leased to the operators off of a major interstate with local roads plowed with state gas tax $.
    They own the parking lot land, Ski Lifts Inc. that is.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,970
    You could put this energy towards fundraising for more high elevation sno-parks in Washington state. Whining about a ski area charging for parking to discourage non-paying customers from clogging their lot is the wrong approach in my opinion…

    Or move to a place where you’re not competing for a finite resource with millions of people who only have a handful of access points that are increasingly less available like I did.

    Seattle metro population in 1970: ~1.5 mil

    2024: ~4 mil

    Last I checked there aren’t any new ski areas since the 1970s, and of the existing areas, parking hasn’t meaningfully increased, nor has the footprints of existing ski areas increased, and non-human powered access at sno-parks or places like Mount Rainer or Washington Pass has decreased.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Last Best City in the Last Best Place
    Posts
    7,830
    I mean it sounds like there is a parking lot up there managed by the Forest Service that isn't even getting plowed. Why not start there with a movement to fund that plowing? I'm not sure exactly where it is in relation to where people want to go, but it is mentioned in the article.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    16,551
    OMG!!! Somebody call for a Waaambulance!

    Parking at the Summit will be $55 per day for general, $5 a day for people with ticket packs and free for season pass holders.
    <snip>
    Parking is also included with the purchase of a Flex Ticket Pack. However, the Summit said a permit is not required for Twilight or Night ticket purchasers and that Twilight guests arriving to ski at 2 p.m. are safe to park between 1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. without a permit.
    https://mynorthwest.com/3998011/summ...y-parking-fee/

    Flex Ticket packs come in 2, 3 or 4. You can buy a four-pack for $59 per day including parking.

    So the only people affected by this terrible horrible no-good egregious money grab are those
    (a)buying a one-day pass and skiing from open to 2pm, or
    (B) not buying a pass at all and just using their parking lot.

    Which are you OP? A One-day-per-year gomer, or have you been using their privately constructed parking lot as a base for something other than lift-served snow riding?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    Precisely. Like scatter creek.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    You’re talking peak #s. I’m talking about having a walk in icy/rainy non instagram times ie the normal shit

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    Yeah man the pct parking lot is a no go. It’s up a narrow road into a bowl so nowhere to put the the now for a max 20 spaces and the other lot has an outhouse in the middle so plowing it would just be a turnaround with the additional negative of potentially damaging the toilet.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,378

    $55 to park at a closed resort to access commonwealth basin

    The land that the parking lot(s) is on is owned by Ski Lifts Inc. not the Forest Service. Are you saying that Ski Lift Inc. shouldn’t be allowed to charge for parking on land that they own and plow so that their customers have a place to park?

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    I ain’t paying $55 to ski Kendall nob. Just sayin. I’ve been skiing Washington for a half century and counting.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    155
    Ski lift inc wouldn’t have the opportunity to charge for parking without the publicly funded roads that provide access to those private lands.

Posting Permissions

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