ACR Op-Ed Piece In The NYTimes

Snowballs wrote

# 3   We're overlooking the lake. This ACR developement will have some lakefront and marina etc so there's a plus for buyers...four season use.

In a sense, it could be a great location for skiers. Just 30? mins to WF, 40 mins to Gore, 50 mins to Hickory and Big Tupper out your back door. Not a bad set up.

Snowballs - Big Tupper is in the middle of nowhere.
North Creek to Big Tupper in the winter is 1:45 if you are lucky and most likely 2 hours. North Creek to Hickory is another 30 minutes. Big Tupper is too far from the Northway (I-87) and too small of a ski area to be anything more than an occasional diversion. In its current state it is not even that. Anybody want to drive an hour from WF or 2 hours from Gore for zero snowmaking this season? The idea of upgrading the ski area a "few" years after some undefined goals has problem written all over it.

There is 4 season use available now in Tupper Lake. If the 3 lakes around the Village of Tupper Lake were such a draw the Village would not be considering such a shaky development with even shakier financing. Without the possibility of the PILOT loans this development would not exist. There is no way a corporation or bank would risk $1 on this mess.

i think tuppers target market always was central / western NY syracuse and rochester along with Ottawa and Canada

ausable skier wrote

Snowballs wrote

So there, you asked, and Aussie gave you the bird.

+1

 
amen.

Ok X, I didn't realize the drive times were that long.

IMO, the lakes could help make the resort properties more attractive to buyers, maybe even the main incentive over skiing BT. Myself, I'ld take a lake house over a slopeside one anyday. Would love me a nice azz lakehouse !

I still think it is a loooooong shot project and it's backers somewhat shaky.

Don’t forget it borders the Raquette River and once the State purchases Follensby Pond it will border on the western side of the High Peaks Wilderness.  The property also includes a golf course and over 4600 acres of open space that will incorporate all kinds of outdoor recreational uses.  

I couldn't imagine trying to play golf in that place during black fly season. Don't wear shorts!

It occurred to me how this is the ultimate, perverted end of the ski hill / real estate merger mania that has taken over the sport since the 80s. Slowly, the ski hill owners saw RE as a new means of revenue, then the ski hill became just another amenity to spur RE sales, and now the RE is the main product in this silly scheme, and the ski hill and golf course may or may not come later as long as enough properties are sold. Bizarre.

Benny, you got that right. I predict we will never see any new lifts, snowmaking or base lodge at Big Tupper. Even though it looks like the APA will give the ACR its permit the area will never see any real rebirth. When the real estate sales don't pan out as the developer hopes/dreams he will try to sell of chunks of whats left to whoever he can sucker in. The locals will be left paying for whatever infrastructure was put in and not enough tax revenue coming in to pay for it because of the PILOT. The F-Man has played it perfectly so he has virtually no risk and stands to take in whatever potential reward there is. I think the real determining factor will be the economy which will result in a long painful death of the ACR. But with the APA caving in maybe we can get some real development going here in the middle of nowhere, nice ski area on the back side of Marcy with some major vert, yeah thats the ticket.

I'd sign up for a slope side condo on Ski Marcy!

CMR wrote

ausable skier wrote

...being liberal they deeply believe that they are better then everyone else and others need to be have all their decisions made for them by the govt lead by of course the all knowing liberals.  

In response Snowballs wrote "Yup. They're also very intolerant."

Really??  I don't think the Liberals have the intolerance market cornered.  I would have to say that I know a few intolerant conservatives as well.   I won't even get involved in the argument over who is responsible for the mortgage crisis. (Although I do know a few Wall Streeters from my area that seemed to emerge from it fairly unscathed.)  

There are plenty of intolerants on both sides and in between for that matter.

I'd have to agree with those that have issues with the financials. I don't see those types of units selling in this climate.

I also agree with whomever stated they should start developing around TL and go from there.

Put simply, recreational skiing is not more important than protecting the shrinking habitat of an entire species, Ausable Skier.  And in the end, after spending a whole $45,000.00 (wow!  In one lump sum?) you got your lift anyway.  By the way, you say there are other mountains for the birds?  Well, there's other mountains for you to ski on too.  Buy some skins and go wherever you want. Your comment that this was "just a bird!" demonstrates just how out of step you are with today's society.  In other words, maybe you're the "nut".  Most people have no problem with this kind of go slow, make-informed-development-decisions, type of approach.  We've tried the alternative and it ain't pretty.  If we've learned anything in the last few decades it's that the law of unintended consequences lurks around the corner in almost all of these decisions.  Fools rush in.  

So, when given the opportunity to demonstrate how the "eco-nuts" are ruining "legitimate development" you can only point to a ski lift that, in the end, got built anyway. Fail.

From Wikipedia:

Its numbers are declining in some parts of its already limited range as a result of habitat degradation. Scientists believe that industrial pollution is one of the main reasons for the decline of the red spruce, an important element in Bicknell’s Thrush habitat in the United States. Airborne heavy metals may also damage high-elevation forests in the northeastern United States. Furthermore, based on expected substantial carbon dioxide increases by the end of the century, scientists predict a radical reduction of balsam fir forest in the eastern United States. If average global temperatures increase and forests change as much as predicted, Bicknell’s Thrush habitat is very likely to be altered in ways that may seriously affect the species’ survival.

Other potential threats to Bicknell’s Thrush habitat are the development of recreational skiing and summer sports areas, increasing numbers of telecommunication towers on mountaintops, cyclical spruce budworm outbreaks, and commercial forestry operations. Industrial forestry practices, although possibly harmful, may be modified to aid in conservation efforts to protect Bicknell’s Thrush. While more study is needed, the bird’s apparent acceptance of certain commercial second-growth forest gives promise to possibilities of “growing” Bicknell’s Thrush habitats in the future.
(emphasis added)

is this bird an endangered species???

That's the thrush of it......

Snowballs gotta fly.....see yoonz in a few !

I don't believe it's on the endangered species list - yet.  Do we wait until it is before we study the impact of recreational development on its already threatened habitat?  

In the end, all is well in your world; there's a big device strung up on the side of a mountain to winch your ass to the top so you can slide around on snow.  I know it just sucks that we made sure we did it in a way that didn't further endanger the shrinking habitat of an entire species of bird.  (and at the outrageous cost of $45G!  Which in the end, of course, had a positive impact on the local economy as those involved in the study undoudtedly spent money in the area.  Was it enough such that the sales and bed taxes and increased revenue from income taxes offset the $45G?  Almost certainly not but it reduces by some amount a figure that wasn't that great to begin with.  A lot of moving parts here; if you want to put a price tag on something you have to consider all the inputs and outputs and not just the ones that support the narrative you're trying to create.)

Do you have any real examples?  That one fails miserably.

Being late to the scene but having read all the posts, I ask one basic question on all "enviromental studies" and then make 3 comments:  

Question:   Beside the action plan to not allow constuction until after August above 2500 feet, what was the "action plan" or findings of the study?   NOTE:  Which were different from any of the other studies conducted on this or similar species that could easily have been transferred to or specified in the pre-constuction permit.     Was the 2500 feet idea the first of its kind and learned in this study?  If so, seems the study was appropriate.   If not, what else was learned "new".    

Comment I :  This seems to be the only issue I have with studies.    They do them "because".    

Comment II :   Facts are facts and quoting sources is a great thing on web sites.   However when Wikipedia is cited as a souce, all, or most credibility is lost--unless it too is fully sourced.     I can go into Wiki and type my "feelings" about this bird and boom, its there, a Wiki fact.    According to Wiki----the bird will be dead soon enough due to global warming and cell towers--Wiki fact.   So in effect, there is no reason to worry about how one ski run on one mountain will affect its habitat anyway.

Comment III:   Just as I find ski industry statistics to be somewhat bogus with respect to their impact on local economies (where this thread actually started...and it seems most agree)   The "fact" that was presented of Wilmington businesses/tax reciepts picking up 45k in one year due to birders may be a stretch.   If that can be proven, this study and others like it may very well be justified.      Heck, they should announce some other study just for the fun of it and get the ensuing economic boost.            

Noah John wrote

Put simply, recreational skiing is not more important than protecting the shrinking habitat of an entire species, Ausable Skier.  And in the end, after spending a whole $45,000.00 (wow!  In one lump sum?) you got your lift anyway.  By the way, you say there are other mountains for the birds?  Well, there's other mountains for you to ski on too.  Buy some skins and go wherever you want.

There is less than 2000 acres of highly regulated lift served skiing in the 6,000,000 acre park or .00033% of the park. Telling people that there are other mountains you can ski on is a joke. There are not other mountains you can ski on. These other non-lift serve mountains are for ski mountaineering, which as we all know is an entirely different thing. By the way the real endangered species in the Park are the 130,000 people who try live and work in the Park.

The way the Wikapedia quote is written we are lead to believe that  the 2nd most dangerous item for the Thrush is recreational skiing. This type of propaganda equating skiing with industrial pollution, commercial forestry, budworm outbreaks is disengenuous. There are only a couple hundred acres of lift served skiing above 2500 feet in the park. This is hardly the equivalent of just 1 industrial polluter - the coal plants that affect the Park. I would guess putting some exhaust scrubbers on just 1 coal plant in Ohio would be way more beneficial to the Thrush than not cutting a trail on Lookout Mtn. The fight is in the Midwest, you are focused on the areas that do the least damage to the Thrush.

Noah John wrote

 Your comment that this was "just a bird!" demonstrates just how out of step you are with today's society.  In other words, maybe you're the "nut".  Most people have no problem with this kind of go slow, make-informed-development-decisions, type of approach.  We've tried the alternative and it ain't pretty.  If we've learned anything in the last few decades it's that the law of unintended consequences lurks around the corner in almost all of these decisions.  Fools rush in.  

So, when given the opportunity to demonstrate how the "eco-nuts" are ruining "legitimate development" you can only point to a ski lift that, in the end, got built anyway. Fail.

From Wikipedia:

Its numbers are declining in some parts of its already limited range as a result of habitat degradation. Scientists believe that industrial pollution is one of the main reasons for the decline of the red spruce, an important element in Bicknell’s Thrush habitat in the United States. Airborne heavy metals may also damage high-elevation forests in the northeastern United States. Furthermore, based on expected substantial carbon dioxide increases by the end of the century, scientists predict a radical reduction of balsam fir forest in the eastern United States. If average global temperatures increase and forests change as much as predicted, Bicknell’s Thrush habitat is very likely to be altered in ways that may seriously affect the species’ survival.

Other potential threats to Bicknell’s Thrush habitat are the development of recreational skiing and summer sports areas, increasing numbers of telecommunication towers on mountaintops, cyclical spruce budworm outbreaks, and commercial forestry operations. Industrial forestry practices, although possibly harmful, may be modified to aid in conservation efforts to protect Bicknell’s Thrush. While more study is needed, the bird’s apparent acceptance of certain commercial second-growth forest gives promise to possibilities of “growing” Bicknell’s Thrush habitats in the future.
(emphasis added)

If I get some time, I'll try to break this thread in two.

It looks like the APA approved ACR.

Noah

this wonderful non endangered bird who is evidently very picky about which of hundreds of mountains it choses to live on cost the tax payers of NYS at least $300k.  $45k for the study and much more in delays to the construction project which then led Orda to have to buy materials in a inflationary period compared to when the project was budgeted for

I'm getting the impression that you don't really care about the bird or this topic but are just looking to stir up the muck on an otherwise boring adk day.   Thus your comment about choosing another mountain to ski on - thanks x10003 for addressing that.

Snowballs - loved the bird humor

Now that ACR is approved its up to the folks of Tupper and the developer to make this work out - best of luck

x10003q wrote

North Creek to Big Tupper in the winter is 1:45 if you are lucky and most likely 2 hours.

According to Google, it's an hour and 10 minutes.  You might be able to add in 20 minutes for winter weather/traffic, but not 50 minutes (in fact, I usually cover North Creek to my parents' camp - halfway btwn saranac and tupper - in about 1:20).

I think the main market (besides the local towns) is from the Potsdam/Canton college area.  It's closer than Whiteface, and it's cheaper.  I always thought that they could market it as a MRG-type hardcore hill and pull a pretty good college kid crowd.

I've always said that I don't really care what happens with the development, as long as the hill is running.  So, I'm glad it seems like the hill will be running for a few more years.  The Golf Course is pretty good, too (and a lot cheaper than Saranac Inn).  And just browsing the Real Estate listings, there doesn't seem to be many options for waterfront places in the Tupper Lake area (mostly because a lot of the southern end of the lake is listed as "Wild Forest").  I gotta say, I'm aware of the concerns, and a lot of it does seem like a money grab, but what the hell else does Tupper Lake have going for it?  That Wild Center seems like a rip off (although I've never been there).  I guess they do the Tin Man.  Does that draw a crowd?  Do they even do Woodsman's days anymore?  

I just don't see the point in discouraging economic activity (especially in this economy).

Matt - If you can get to Big Tupper in 1:30 good luck to you. I have never made there in the winter in less than 1:45.

The problem with this development is that the NYS taxpayers plus local Tupper Lake tax holders are left holding the bag when the project fails - which it will. As I said - nobody in the private sector is foolish enough to loan money to the project. That is telling.

It is listed as a species of special concern.

A major threat to the Bicknell is the destruction of its winter range in the Caribbean.  So puts some coins in the money box in the base lodge to support conservation efforts to preserve some of its winter range