Glens Falls Post Star Editorial About Tax Funds for ORDA

http://poststar.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-state-s-ski-deal-is-going-downhill/article_f5b6a750-f21d-11e0-9117-001cc4c03286.html

the writer of this should have done his homework and discovered that taking the ski area private requires amending the NYS constitution

there is no way a private company is ever going to want to buy WF without real estate development rights which the APA is never going to allow.  The NYS govt created this catch 22 so they will have to continue to fund it.

Gore may be another matter and could be a viable privatization opportunity.

Thanks for posting this adkskier.

It is hard to fathom that the New York state constitution isn't mentioned in the article. I like the Post Star, but that's pretty thin newspaper work. The article says -  "it's time for state officials to rethink the financial and ownership model" - but I'm pretty sure it will take more than some "officials rethinking it."   It took a lot more than that to put the rail line into the Tahawas iron mine. And that was during World War II.

Also agree with ausable skier on another point - without real estate development potential, both mountains, under private ownership would have a tough time financing capital improvements.  I'm not talking about expansion. Some of the ORDA lifts are really old.

Another disconnect in the article in reference to the Olympic venues:

"These are vitally important tourist attractions, generating tens of millions of dollars each year in business revenue, sales tax and occupancy tax money. Their continued operation and maintenance is vital to the state and regional economies."

Many seem to agree that the bobsled run and other non-ski venues aren't profitable. Nobody is going to buy/lease and operate them without government subsidy.  If they are truly "vitally important" then what point is being made here?

Ausable skier - why is Gore different in your mind? Because it's closer to town?

This kind of pressure on the public ski model seems inevitable in the current environment. And I don't see the environment changing soon.

"For the sake of the Adirondack economy and for the towns and counties that thrive on the successful operation of these venues, a different approach is needed."

Wow, what a schizophrenic argument that writer spews. More Tea Party inspired thinking that the "private", or, non government element can always do it better and more efficient. Really? Imagine Gore and Whiteface on their own. I see, after all this time, one condo development near the base of Gore built with private money. Compare that to any mountain in Vermont or New Hampshire.

I mean, you know, he (I assume it's a he) is right, but, as I always say these days, be careful what you wish for, "free market" capitalists. Like North Creek is crawling with bars and B&Bs and hotels. Imagine if no state money was there.

Yikes.
What a useless article. The writer ignored the constitutional elephant in the room.

 

Harv

the difference in private viability between Gore and WF is that WF is surrounded by the highest APA rated protected land and Gore is not.  WF will never ever have any development.  Gore if the economics allowed it could have a village aka stratton built at the base if the NYS govt pushed for it as part of a privatization.

The bobsled, and Mt Vanho complex has no private commercial worth and would fetch next to nothing at auction unless you could develop the land somehow around it.  The ski jumps I think do modestly well as tourist attractions year round.  If Orda was to disappear North Elba would likely run them at least on weekends.  The hockey and skating venues in LP are the most valuable to the town of the non ski area assets of Orda.  Some in LP would say that they are more important commerically to LP than WF is.

Of course the constitutional aspect is where the editoral writer totally missed the boat.  It makes me wonder if the guy that wrote that editoral is the brother in law to the guy that owns West Mt and has a bone to pick or something about state run ski areas.

CONTENTS DELETED

Harv

I think you should write a rebuttal of the editoral from the view point of the #1 ski blog in the ADK's and send it the paper to be printed

That's state land at the base of Gore and town land at then base of the Ski Bowl. The rest of the mountain is surrounded by state land and Barton Mines. Neither is viable for private development. Just as protected as Whiteface. If cleared through the constitution, in theory a developer could lease out Gore and buy out Front Street to gain the entire potential development package.

 

ausable skier wrote

Harv

the difference in private viability between Gore and WF is that WF is surrounded by the highest APA rated protected land and Gore is not.  WF will never ever have any development.  Gore if the economics allowed it could have a village aka stratton built at the base if the NYS govt pushed for it as part of a privatization.

I think the most significant concept mentioned in the editorial was simply eliminating tax payer support for ORDA and forcing the authority to seek unsubsidized economic success. Given the economic climate and the reluctance to raise taxes and goal of eliminating the state deficit it's likely we'll see continued pressure to cut ORDA funding. What so many don't get is that support of the ORDA facilities is pure economic development.

the difference is the APA classification rating not just that its state land  -the land around WF has the highest possible APA restrictions attached to it and the land around Gore like most of the southern ADK's is much less restricted.

Shades of grey when one talks about APA "most protected" and less protected. What it really means is building density. Granted the building density of wild forest is "0" buildings. Bottom line is that the state can't sell state owned land without either a constitutional amendment or state-wide referendum depending on the exact situation. The ability to do the latter is rare.

The state does land swaps all the time - this is how they get around the sale issue.  Let's say Interwest wanted to buy Gore.  They would buy 10000 or 20000 acres of land for a timber company in the middle of the ADK park and give it to the state in exchange the ski area and 500 acres of developable land.  They would then build a village on the Gore main parking lot and build new parking lots farther down the road.  Since the parking lots are already semi developed in the APA's mind permitting may not be that difficult if the state and town were all pushing the deal.

ausable skier wrote

The state does land swaps all the time - this is how they get around the sale issue.  Let's say Interwest wanted to buy Gore.  They would buy 10000 or 20000 acres of land for a timber company in the middle of the ADK park and give it to the state in exchange the ski area and 500 acres of developable land.  They would then build a village on the Gore main parking lot and build new parking lots farther down the road.  Since the parking lots are already semi developed in the APA's mind permitting may not be that difficult if the state and town were all pushing the deal.

That's an interesting idea. I hadn't thought about the parking lots.   I do think you'd have a battle royal on your hands with that land swap.  

Personally I'd hate to see condos in the Gore lot. That would have me considering a new home mountain.  Wondering how others feel about condos at the base of Whiteface, Gore and Belleayre. If it meant more snowmaking and new lifts would you be for it?

Ausable skier - thanks for pushing me to write an opinion on privatization.  I never really totally think something through until I sit down to express my ideas in writing.  The Post Star piece was definitely half baked. If that.

Harvey44 wrote

Personally I'd hate to see condos in the Gore lot. That would have me considering a new home mountain.  Wondering how others feel about condos at the base of Whiteface, Gore and Belleayre. If it meant more snowmaking and new lifts would you be for it?

Ausable skier - thanks for pushing me to write an opinion on privatization.  I never really totally think something through until I sit down to express my ideas in writing.  The Post Star piece was definitely half baked. If that.

personally I'd be totally for it if it meant a better ski experience but at WF it will never happen

I really do think Gore is more ripe for it and permitting and the constitutional issue with the right Governor could happen.  It funny that in the same sentence you say you be against a village on the parking lot and then say you'd think about buying one.  Hopefully Snoballs doesn't read this and get started on the parking lots between WF and Gore and again - LOL.

Great rebuttal - did you get the GF paper to run it?

Haha!  I forgot about that Aussie. How is your paid parking @ Face campaign progressing? Have you now switched to Condos @ Gore's parking lot instead of PP @ Face ? lol.

By the way, you perpetually short change me  a " W ". In case you're running short and in the keeping with the Gore supporting Whiteface spirit, permit me to resupply you....

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

You're welcome.

Actually, I recall the first time I went to Gore upon moving up here in 01. It was in the fall. My first impression was "Huh? Is this all there is here? ". It looked really boring amenity/apres ski wise. Oh wait, it is.

ausable skier wrote

It funny that in the same sentence you say you be against a village on the parking lot and then say you'd think about buying one.

Gore is my home mountain now. What I was trying to say was that if Gore ended up with condos in the upper parking lot, I might consider relocating to another mountain.  I wasn't trying to say I'd buy one.

Harvey44 wrote

Personally I'd hate to see condos in the Gore lot. That would have me considering a new home mountain.  Wondering how others feel about condos at the base of Whiteface, Gore and Belleayre. If it meant more snowmaking and new lifts would you be for it?

Still would like to know what other Gore and Whiteface skiers would think about real estate in the upper lot at Gore or the River lot at Whiteface.  (What's the comparable lot at Bell?)

ausable skier wrote

Great rebuttal - did you get the GF paper to run it?

I didn't. I did think it was cool that the editor of the Post Star posted in the comments today.  While he didn't change my mind about their editorial, I appreciated the effort.

ausable skier wrote

The state does land swaps all the time - this is how they get around the sale issue.  Let's say Interwest wanted to buy Gore.  They would buy 10000 or 20000 acres of land for a timber company in the middle of the ADK park and give it to the state in exchange the ski area and 500 acres of developable land.  They would then build a village on the Gore main parking lot and build new parking lots farther down the road.  Since the parking lots are already semi developed in the APA's mind permitting may not be that difficult if the state and town were all pushing the deal.

Too bad they couldn't find a way to make it work in this situation

Yea, well they're gonna lose this one. Jerks.

http://poststar.com/news/local/hazardous-waste-case-against-apa-critic-takes-a-twist/article_95ef5ca0-f6ae-11e0-b98b-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story

Some people think the APA is all sugar and spice, protecting Bambi and the lil woodland critters. They also a bunch of despots set on personal gain and the repeated trampling of civil rights.

Above case started when the Campground owner did a little improvement of a "lane" across his property that had been there forever. The APA told him he had to stop cause it wasn't an old lane but a new lane, started legal proceedings and threatened all kinda huge penalties. Later on they said if he would sell his lake front land to the ADK Council ( I think that's who it was) the APA would drop it completely. HUH!

The land owner stuck to his rights. Turns it was an old lane, it was on town maps, like he originally told them and he had every right to maintain it. IF the APA had did a little homework before they went gestapo, they would have very quickly found this out and saved everybody alot of stress, trouble and expense.

But the truth wasn't their motive, lake front land grab was.

Then the barrel raid took place, the evidence later destroyed and now even the DA is telling outright obvious lies trying to BS their way thru it. Don't believe me? Read the article.

Likely the barrels had possible exculpatory value and the APA didn't wanna get nabbed having to pay countersuit money and costs like they did in the groundbreaking Sandy Lewis case. With the evidence gone the APA can say they suspected the barrels contained any old thing and thus they were justified in their actions.

I know there's some APA fans here. But consider this...why do outrageous cases like this keep occurring with the APA and not with the DEC ?

Why is it the DEC can do a great job of protecting the rest of New York State's great enviromental resouces and the APA be such a arrogant agency here? Why not have the DEC protect the ADKS like it does the rest of the State and remove the rogue APA?

Harvey44 wrote

Still would like to know what other Gore and Whiteface skiers would think about real estate in the upper lot at Gore or the River lot at Whiteface.  (What's the comparable lot at Bell?)

I HATE seeing condos and mega-malls at the base of a mountain, and even worse, houses built along the ski trails 2/3 of the way up a mountain. I just think they completely destroy the aesthetic beauty of the mountain.

At most of the places I've skied out West, it's almost always the same thing ... you're driving along, in the middle of the mountains with nothing around, and then you round a turn and there in front of you, is a small city at the base of some mountain. That's one of the things I like most about Whiteface ... the separation of the town from the mountain.