Gore Mountain Adirondack Express Replacement.

With North Creek, it may be a case of " it is what it is ". Gore clients for the most part seem to ski and go home. I do. In twelve years, I've been downtown after skiing very few times. The ski bowl was built,,, little to zero change to the economy of NC. Nothing substantial. All the hoopla of it will bring people to downtown, on here and from NC people,,,,,,,,,,

The Ski Bowl Village was promised to bring massive economical miracles to NC,,,,,,,,

It is what it is. It may never change.

snoloco wrote

  However, do you want to get to the saddle in 7 minutes or 15 minutes?

Just tuck every run to compensate and get your roundtrip time to an acceptable level

They should just give the Lake Placid brewery a tax free loan to start bottling in NC. Problem solved, cheaper than lifts, almost as much fun as skiing.

+1

Love me some LPBP

Probably not a bottling plant since all the bottled and keg product not sold at the pub comes from FX Matt in Utica but what about small brew pub

The chairs are still up, but with the safety bars removed.  They are eliminating the current pole 24 and placing it further uphill and off the ski trail.  This confirms that ADK Express 2 will follow the same line.  All information is from their Facebook post.

PeeTex wrote

Dollar store

I didn't know about this.  Spoke to a bunch of people in town today who all basically said the same thing. There are a lot of people in the area who could use it. (I would).

And... you can't stop it, but you can say that the building can be built to fit in better than the one in Wburg.

I'm assuming it's going here...

I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate here. Does North Creek really need more development?

I feel like certain people live there and go there due to the lack of development (well and Gore).  If you want developed go to Lake George or Lake Placid.

I, for one, don't want every town in the park to end up like them.

And also, when development happens, who really makes the money?  Is the locals there now or is it one or two developers that come in and transform the towns into high end spas and hotels?

Tupper is and has been in the dumper for a while, but not every town can survive the blue line.  It's a tough balance and at   the end of the day some people need to move somewhere more practical where they can work in industry and not rely on tourism.  I don't know the whole story on Tupper but I blame the popularity of Saranac Lake and Lake Placid on their demise.  Most people just drive right by on their way to bigger mountains and prettier lakes.

I'd love to live year round in the park but I know I couldn't provide a worthwhile service to a community so I'm more viable in industry outside the blue line.  I really don't get these sob stories about people losing jobs in the park.  This NYCO amendment was a fiasco in my mind.  NYS voters got suckered by the job line but in the end we gave up 100 years of protected wilderness to benefit a corporation.  I just don't buy it.  If I lose my job on Monday no one amends the constitution and cries for me having to move and find new work.

And FWIW there are a ton of small towns across NY (or the US) that have relatively little benefit from something like a ski resort or the tourism industry.  They get a long one way or another.  The economy largely supports the locals, who by and large either work in service locally or in some industry outside of their village.

It's only when you have the big, bad APA to point a finger at does it become an issue.  If left rampant and unchecked the Adirondacks would be logged, mined, skied, motorboated, and toured to death.  We only need to look at the past to see that was the case and even then it was still less accessible to the middle class than it is today.

So IMO, if you don't like small town life and small town economy, then you can move to NYC and make your millions.  With all the ratholes to develop in this world it's only the one's we try to protect that get any attention.

Snowballs wrote

With North Creek, it may be a case of " it is what it is ". Gore clients for the most part seem to ski and go home. I do. In twelve years, I've been downtown after skiing very few times. The ski bowl was built,,, little to zero change to the economy of NC. Nothing substantial. All the hoopla of it will bring people to downtown, on here and from NC people,,,,,,,,,,

The Ski Bowl Village was promised to bring massive economical miracles to NC,,,,,,,,

It is what it is. It may never change.

Sadly, you're correct. The biggest problem with North Creek is the lack of foot traffic. Sometimes there seems to be none at all. Of the small percentage of skiers/paddlers/hikers who are aware that there actually is a nice town right near Gore, most simply don't bother to go there. The signs that say "Business District" do NOTHING to attract visitors who either zoom by one Route 28 or don't even head that way. Gore's attempts to promote North Creek have been lame and ineffective.

The dearly departed Laura's has been closed for 3 years. While that place could be packed in high season, it too often had to deal with dead times. Andie's had to shut down, and now Izzy's is up for sale. The railroad's sale of an 80% interest is a sign of trouble as well.

Even in Lake Placid this year, I heard the same story from every business owner. They did not have a good season because the winter was too cold and the good snow came too late.

The question is, if you build it, will they come? I don't know the answer to that question, but I wish I did.

MikeK wrote

  I really don't get these sob stories about people losing jobs in the park.  This NYCO amendment was a fiasco in my mind.  NYS voters got suckered by the job line but in the end we gave up 100 years of protected wilderness to benefit a corporation.  I just don't buy it.  If I lose my job on Monday no one amends the constitution and cries for me having to move and find new work.

I don't know. The state got 1500 acres for the 200 they gave up. Doesn't seem so bad

skimore wrote

I don't know. The state got 1500 acres for the 200 they gave up. Doesn't seem so bad

I'm afraid the math of conservation doesn't work that way.  100 years is 100 years of preservation we can't get back.  Doesn't matter if it's an acre.  Fact is a forest heading towards old growth that hasn't been logged in that time will be cut and tore up to create roads and mines.

The land we got (and we haven't got anything yet, just a proposal) has nothing like this.  It is all relatively new growth.  It will never be the same in my lifetime as what was given up.

Everyone has their justification... but no way did I vote to give up 100 years of natures work.

And the real point of the matter is why should any corporation bother the voters of NYS.  The only time this has happened before is with swaps with companies to get rid of patchwork.  The state wanted that land to create contiguous tracts.  This company lobbied to amend the constitution of NY so they could make money.  That's a scary thing in my mind.  And it passed, even scarier.  How many more companies want to get their mitts on our forest preserve?

MikeK wrote

I'm afraid the math of conservation doesn't work that way.  

Actually it does. Conservation is not about your or my lifetime, it's about the long haul.

PeeTex wrote

MikeK wrote

I'm afraid the math of conservation doesn't work that way.  

Actually it does. Conservation is not about your or my lifetime, it's about the long haul.

My lifetime was only used as an example.  I'm not sure what you are arguing here, but if you want to point out it's about the long haul then you'd have to say 100 years toward old growth is better than 30.  We're losing 70 years no matter how you slice it.  And as far as the idea of conservation goes, that is HUGE.

It is insignificant in the big scheme of things, but in terms of humans actually doing something like this it is a step in the wrong direction.  We've only had this idea of 'conservation' in modern terms since the turn of the century and we are already going back on it.

Conservation doesn't mean give up wilderness when it benefits a corporation or any other cause for that matter.  If it did, we'd never have any.  It means leave it the f*** alone and only visit it with minimal impacting activities.

MikeK wrote

 I feel like certain people live there and go there due to the lack of development (well and Gore).  If you want developed go to Lake George or Lake Placid.

That is true. I suspect they're sort of a silent majority. Equally true is your statement that any people who live there and are unhappy with the economy are free to move to anywhere else. Millions around the country do just that for various reasons. I'm originally from western Pennsylvania where in the 70's thousands lost their great paying jobs when the steel industry collapsed. We suffered and moved forward. It happens.

I also suspect that in the future, the blue line will slowly erode the population base even more. A balance will likely need to be found. Some services will be needed as the ADK Park is simply too large for most people to visit via just day trips. Otherwise it may be empty and people will not get to use the park and enjoy the wilderness. Supply and demand will determine it's outcome. I love the idea of the wilderness but I also think people should be able to enjoy it.

Snowballs wrote

MikeK wrote

 I feel like certain people live there and go there due to the lack of development (well and Gore).  If you want developed go to Lake George or Lake Placid.

That is true. I suspect they're sort of a silent majority. Equally true is your statement that any people who live there and are unhappy with the economy are free to move to anywhere else. Millions around the country do just that for various reasons. I'm originally from western Pennsylvania where in the 70's thousands lost their great paying jobs when the steel industry collapsed. We suffered and moved forward. It happens.

I also suspect that in the future, the blue line will slowly erode the population base even more. A balance will likely need to be found. Some services will be needed as the ADK Park is simply too large for most people to visit via just day trips. Otherwise it may be empty and people will not get to use the park and enjoy the wilderness. Supply and demand will determine it's outcome. I love the idea of the wilderness but I also think people should be able to enjoy it.

I agree.  I'm also from a small town in western NY.  Our economy was no better or worse than any small town in the Adirondacks.

There has to be some balance.  But I think the areas that are designated wilderness now have an equal share of wild forest (motor accessible lands) and total public lands have nearly and equal share of state land.  The state is going to keep pecking away at picking up lands from the paper companies but I don't see that killing the towns in the park - just opening up more recreational activities for tourists.

Development can and will happen - people will move or want to start new businesses in towns but the APA needs to keep it in check, as I think they do.  Some residents in the park think they are choking the life out of it.  Maybe in some ways they are but they are trying to keep the balance.

Really I think what needs to happen is we need to reinstate areas that have already been developed into modern times i.e. Big Tupper.  I heard there was some plans to create a resort there.  I don't know if it went through or if the investors backed out.

Anyway, seen as how there is already a ski area and a large, relatively privately owned lake there, why not let the town take advantage of those things?  I'm not opposed to that.  There are plenty of wilderness and wild forest opportunities around there as well for people who want to venture off but then stop and grab a burger and beer when they come out of the wild... that is what I like.  I stop at as many local restaurants as I can in the park.  That is a somewhat sustainable industry in my mind.  Hotels are as well if they can keep people coming in the winter.  Ski areas are about the only hope.

Personally when I prefer staying in Lake George during the winter.  It is nice an quiet and it is close to Gore.  It isn't good for North Creek's economy but the don't have a base of hotels that need to keep busy during the off season.  Same with Placid.  Most people would rather stay there in the winter than stay in Tupper.

In my mind the park is going to have it's 'resort' areas like Lake George and Lake Placid.  They may have swings here and there but they aren't going to tank in my limited view.  And certain people will always love those areas for their amenities.  People like me, which are by far the minority, will keep them going in the off season and avoid them like the plague during the summer months.  Those months I'll be seen having a meal at places like North Creek, Tupper, Long Lake, etc...  I'll also hit them up in the winter but I won't stay at them.  They just can't compete with the bigger areas and it isn't that much of an inconvenience to drive an hour from Lake George to Gore.  If I'm at the other end I'll be staying in Rome or Watertown and day tripping in to Old Forge or Cranberry Lake.  Those areas have such heavy tourism in the summer and snowmobilers in the winter they can make it  without the ski resorts.

To me, Saranac Lake is like the only 'real' town in the park.  It has a good bit of tourism but it also has the two colleges (NCCC and PSC) to help it along.  I wish more of the towns could be like SL.  To me it strikes the right balance and doesn't feel too touristy (unlike Old Forge, which feels over the top touristy).

But I guess these towns are doing what they can to work.  My thought is the people that own land (i.e. summer homes) in these towns need to be more proactive in keeping them alive throughout the year.

It's a shame that more people don't frequent the park in the winter to partake in more sustainable activities like BC skiing, snowshoeing, ice fishing, etc...  really these economies need the ski resorts and the snowmobiles.

MikeK wrote

PeeTex wrote

MikeK wrote

I'm afraid the math of conservation doesn't work that way.  

Actually it does. Conservation is not about your or my lifetime, it's about the long haul.

  We're losing 70 years no matter how you slice it.  And as far as the idea of conservation goes, that is HUGE.

Time moves forward. It waits for no man. Old growth will return automatically. Where as more land under conservation will not happen automatically.

The State gained a 6 fold increase of land in this example moving land conservation forward. Slowly more and more land is being conserved for the future which will now include more old growth forest before long.

MikeK wrote

PeeTex wrote

MikeK wrote

I'm afraid the math of conservation doesn't work that way.  

Actually it does. Conservation is not about your or my lifetime, it's about the long haul.

My lifetime was only used as an example.  I'm not sure what you are arguing here, but if you want to point out it's about the long haul then you'd have to say 100 years toward old growth is better than 30.  We're losing 70 years no matter how you slice it.  And as far as the idea of conservation goes, that is HUGE.

200 acres of forest land that we will get back along with 1500 acres now, seems like a pretty good deal. The taxes from the mine operation and it's employment help the state and localities maintain the budget and political base necessary to keep the park around. The ADK which supported this is not some ecologically inept bunch of buffoons. They have been at this game a lot longer than the eco-terrorist of whom I have little respect. Eventually the only economy that will remain in the blue line is tourism and vacation homes - and possibly the bottom dwelling drug trade that will eat away at what remains at the impoverished families that are left.

It's easy to say, you can't find a job so move elsewhere. Move to what? Try trading a tar paper shack in Tupper for a cardboard box in Westchester. Those people living in their McMansions down state haven't a fucking clue what life in the park is like - the good or the bad parts.

Oh and just one other rant that I'm sure others would agree with me about...

NYS really needs to develop mountain biking in the park, and in a sustainable way.  There are, in theory, miles of trails that are designated snowmobile trails that could be used for bike but the impact that a bike and a snowmobile have are much different, so it's unlikely you will have a good match.  Just because it fits in the DEC land management designation, doesn't mean it's a good fit for sustainable recreation.

I feel like bikes have really gotten the shaft over the years... I quit riding a Mtn Bike about 10 years ago and it's gotten much worse to my eyes.

It's really something that can help areas during the summer months.  It is a relatively clean form of recreation.  It just needs trails built that can withstand erosion.  It's been proven than these trails can be built if designed properly, and I will say most in the park are NOT.

Anyway I feel like they shouldn't have to be contained to ski areas.  Hopefully the DEC gets their heads out of their butts and starts planning ways to open up bike recreation in the future.

Taxes are important. Some one needs to maintain the roads. If there were no local taxes, would the State pay to maintain the roads in the ADK ? That includes plowing what maybe thousands of miles of road in the winter. If there were no road maintenance nobody could go there.

An on going debate and struggle. Both sides will push and pull and so a balance will be found.

Snowballs wrote

Time moves forward. It waits for no man. Old growth will return automatically. Where as more land under conservation will not happen automatically.

The State gained a 6 fold increase of land in this example moving land conservation forward. Slowly more and more land is being conserved for the future which will now include more old growth forest before long.

Your assumption is that other 'trades' won't happen in the future.  I hope for the sake of our land it will be a one time thing, but the fact that it made it to a public vote worries me immensely.  These things have come up before but never made it very far.  In my mind it was really a few politicians making a bold career move and playing the NYS job card that got it where it was.

And I agree.  The state generally does the right thing and I generally agree with the DEC and respect their opinions and judgement (unlike some other 'eco-terrorists').

We aren't ever going to agree on this.  It is what it is.  Some people were in favor, some weren't.  It passed.  So now we have to hope we get some good land out of the deal.  I just hope it never comes up again!

PeeTex wrote

200 acres of forest land that we will get back along with 1500 acres now, seems like a pretty good deal. The taxes from the mine operation and it's employment help the state and localities maintain the budget and political base necessary to keep the park around. The ADK which supported this is not some ecologically inept bunch of buffoons. They have been at this game a lot longer than the eco-terrorist of whom I have little respect. Eventually the only economy that will remain in the blue line is tourism and vacation homes - and possibly the bottom dwelling drug trade that will eat away at what remains at the impoverished families that are left.

It's easy to say, you can't find a job so move elsewhere. Move to what? Try trading a tar paper shack in Tupper for a cardboard box in Westchester. Those people living in their McMansions down state haven't a fucking clue what life in the park is like - the good or the bad parts.

'Seems like' is the operative word.

I'm sorry but I don't buy it.  Taxes from McMansions on the lake fronts also support a good part town operations.  Jay doesn't have much of that, but then maybe if it's a boom town relying on a mine it is surviving on borrowed time anyway.  And FWIW the mine had another operation to keep going for another 100 years.  They just speculated they could make more money with our 200 acres than what they already owned.  Really read the facts.  No one was going to lose any jobs, and they weren't ever going to shut down.  It was just going to be easier for them to extract the wollastonite.  The DEC was on board as well as ADK from political pressure.  Again a few politicians playing a career card.  You bought it hook, line and sinker.  Why would they offer us 1500 acres for 200 if it wasn't something that was going to make them a ton of money?  No plans to hire anyone else either.  NYCO was very up front with these issues but they seemed to get distorted with 'what if's'.

And I guess you don't get the economy of cities in NY either, because I'd be in the same boat.  Who wants to buy my crappy house in Rochester if there are no jobs?  We all have the same consequences.  No one cares about my crack-rotted city with ridiculously high taxes and few jobs.  Every economy is the same boat, big or small.  Small towns need to be more self-reliant and that is harder in the park.  And it IS A PARK.  Tourism and service should be the #1 industries.