ARTICLE 78 LAWSUIT FORCES BIG TUPPER TO CLOSE

couldn't have said it better.

+1

Arthur, Couldn't agree more. Problem is that none of the ACR supporters have any real in depth understanding of the acutual proposed development and how it would negatively impact the local taxpayers. And they certainly don't havethe slightest understanding of the lawsuit(and they don't want to either). I don't agree w Protect on all issues but on this one I think they have a valid concern. As they  said, can you imagine the outcry from ACR supporters if the project had been denied and it was shown that the process was skewed in favor of the environmentalists? Why is it so hard for a state agency to follow the establised rules objectively?

how could a process that took 8 years possibly be skewed in favor of the developer?  If that was the case it would have taken a year or so not 8 years.  This thing was reviewed and then costly studies were done and reviewed and debated for years.  Protect did not pay for any of that the Tax payers of NYS did and the developer had huge costs while not being able to make any money.  Protect is an Obstructionist.  There is no way to say this was a decision that was too hasty or not done properly - It took 8 FRICKING YEARS!

So I would like to share this youtube video about Tupper Lake and the effects of the article 78.  Please watch it with an open mind then do your homework... look into things and educate yourself on this subject and feel free to share the link!  This is topic is not about the environment any longer.

http://youtu.be/e1OyqydCTiQ

Did Springsteen give permission to use that song?

Benny Profane wrote

Did Springsteen give permission to use that song?

Best. Line. Ever.

That video is a load of Malarkey (new term I learned recently, I guess you can learn something from watching TV) Many of the run down buildings it shows are owned by the ACR (Big Tupper and the Marina), why don't they at least clean those up? I drive through Tupper regularly, another shot is from a recent fire (with the asbestos sign). The old factory shown has been shut down for years and is now at least being used for boat and car storage (or so the sign indicates). Many of these same shots could be from any small town anywhere in the country (maybe not the ski area), drive through almost any rural area in NY and you'll see much of the same. At least in the Adirondacks you have the natural beauty of the mountains and lakes to attract visitors.

As much as the ACR supporters want to believe, it is never going to be the Aspen of the east or Lake Tahoe. It's unfortunate that Big Tupper is tied up in the middle of this project and the so called developers have pretty much ruined its chances of ever operating again as a nice little ski hill, which it was. As far as the lawsuit goes , I don't think the ACR would be any further along if it hadn't been filed. They have no $$$s, they haven't even been able to come up with the cash to buy the land around the ski area they want to develop. The supporters of the ACR say the lawsuit is frivolous but I haven't seen one single article where they argue the merits of the case, they just go after the parties who filed it, name calling is not a valid argument to support their position. I doubt Bruce gave them permission to use the song too.

endoftheline wrote

 At least in the Adirondacks you have the natural beauty of the mountains and lakes to attract visitors.

I thought the same thing. Why not shoot a beautiful color video of the surrounding area, and views of and from the spots where the mega mansions were going to be built, and then maybe cut to the plans for the mini Aspen planned, maybe even some 3D simulation of empty 10,000 sq. ft. homes surrounding an underfunded ski area. Wouldn't work too well as propaganda, I guess.

Endo

I'm still waiting to hear how a process that took 8 years could be skewed to the developer

Benny Profane wrote

endoftheline wrote

 At least in the Adirondacks you have the natural beauty of the mountains and lakes to attract visitors.

I thought the same thing. Why not shoot a beautiful color video of the surrounding area, and views of and from the spots where the mega mansions were going to be built, and then maybe cut to the plans for the mini Aspen planned, maybe even some 3D simulation of empty 10,000 sq. ft. homes surrounding an underfunded ski area. Wouldn't work too well as propaganda, I guess.

WOW! So on the mark!  

All across the Park this happens so often.  Instead of embracing and promoting the very thing that is unique and special to this region, those in positions of influence repeat old fashion rhetoric which is fundamentally untrue.      

If I was a prospective investor and watched this video, well it would be the last time I ever considered Tupper Lake....

AU, I never said the process was skewed in favor of the developer, re read my post, what i did say was: "Can you imagine the outcry from the ACR supporters if the project had been denied and it was shown that the process was skewed in favor of the environmentalists?" As far as the actual review process taking 8 yrs, about half of that was caused by delays brought about by the developer. The APA ordered the project to an Adjudicatory Hearing in March 2007. The developer requested delays to complete their DEC permits(which they didn't do until 10/2010, and then it was deemed incomplete, and remains so as of today). Then in the fall of 07 the developer requested "Mediation", which was not binding on anyone, lasted from roughly 1/08 until Spring 2009. It then took the developer over a year to submit their revised application back to the APA, that was June 2010.  The actual Hearing started in March 2011. Keep in mind the original application was deemed incomplete for lack of info, the second attempt was also deemed incomplete for lack of info, so the APA ordered the Hearing hoping to get the info. Part of that info was the Wildlife study, which the developer never completed. So even though the APA approved the project, part of the conditions before they can develop anything is that they must complete the Wildlife Survey. This has not even been started yet. As much as people want to see the ski area open I don't see it happening with this group. Maybe someone(mattchcuck) will win the lottery and pony up to buy the ski hill and rebuild it.

Kate wrote

So I would like to share this youtube video about Tupper Lake and the effects of the article 78.  

Wow those sure are stark images of economic decline.  But claiming that they are "the effect of article 78" is just ridiculous.  

Latest from the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, an article stating there is still a slim chance Big Tupper may open for the upcoming season. Maybe the developers are going to discreetly pry open their piggy bank.

This would be an awesome display of positive energy. I would be thrilled.

You should get your facts all inline before you put your fingers to the keys. There is already to much miss information out there. Here are the correct answers to your post.
The managers (that includes myself) didn't get paid last year.
And, ARISE purchased the groomer through Community Bank. Interest paid monthy and the principle payment once a year. We wanted a groomer that was reliable to give our guests the best skiing we could. The cost of keeping the old groomers running wasn't cost efficient.

The snowmaking WAS state of the art in 1995. It would be 17yrs. old at this time. Why would anyone rebuild a ski area and use outdated and LESS cost efficient.

Cliff wrote

The snowmaking WAS state of the art in 1995. It would be 17yrs. old at this time. Why would anyone rebuild a ski area and use outdated and LESS cost efficient.

Unfortunately, when the developer sold off the snowmaking, it left you guys who operate the place with very little to work with. Usually when something is bought and paid for it costs less to operate than having to spend  a big chunk of money to buy new stuff and replace an entire system. If you guys had the snowmaking there would be a better chance to open when there is no snow versus no chance now. As a consumer I cannot commit to a weekend at BT right now because there is no snowmaking.

While that stuff was 17 years old somebody bought it and is using it.

Cliff, Seems like if you guys could get 35 plus year old chairlifts to operate after sitting for many years with little maintenance the same could have been done on a much newer snowmaking system. If the developers had any understanding of the cost of putting in a new snowmaking system they would have made a concerted effort to maintain the one that existed when they purchased the ski area. After all, they purchased the area in 2003 so the system had been fully operational only 4 yrs prior to that. It certainly would have been more cost effective to service and maintain the existing system than to cannibalize the whole thing and have to basically start over. If the developers had done that (and had any money) ARISE could be getting ready for REAL skiing at Big Tupper this season. I'm not buying your story about the system being obsolete, if that were the case why would all the other ski areas have  bought all the components and put them to good use? If the system was old and unusable why would anyone else have purchased all the parts?

You're right in what you said. Yes, it was, "bought and paid for." However, being as old has it was, the maintenance to keep it operating would be high. So, they sold the old stuff off for what they could get. Remember, they spent millions to get their permit from the APA. All the pipe is still there and in very good condition. When the new base area is built, the snowmaking building will not be in the same place. If the snowmaking was still there, we wouldn't have any place to work on the groomers. We turned the building into our shop, which we needed.