Interview with Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park Developer

With Harv's permission, I'm linking to an interview I conducted with Dean Gitter, the sometimes controversial figure who is spearheading the development of the large Belleayre Resort adjoining state-owned Belleayre Mountain Ski Center. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the project, but it was an insightful interview, at least for me. For what it's worth, I found Dean to be quite pleasant. He was clearly excited about the project and it seems like it actually is moving forward, a lot faster than I had thought.

http://www.skiesq.com/2012/10/an-interview-with-belleayre-resort-at.html

"The state has committed $55M to improving Belleayre and integrating Belleayre with Highmount."

What is this guy smoking?  There is no way in heck that NYS / Orda is going to invest $55M so that he can build two hotels at a ski area that can not make money.

The same thing those guys up at Tupper were smoking. I want some of that stuff.

For years and years, there has been talk about bringing casino gambling to the Catskills, but it's always been talked about along the Route 17 corridor in the area around Monticello.

If you want to make this project work, AND make the Catskill ski areas a much more attractive tourism destination, include a casino in this project. I'm sure the opposition would be enormous, but this would definitely make the region "pop" economically, including all of the ski areas.

That was an excellent and very candid interview.

Please stop comparing Belleayre to Big Tupper. Belleayre is a fully functioning ski area that is located 130 miles from the center of the largest metro area in the US.

Big Tupper is closed.

I agree you can not compare Bell to Tupper except in one way - they both lose money and if Bell was not owned by the state it too would be out of business.  Both are flanked by bigger and better ski areas making either one totally non competitive.

BT developers were going to have to pay for everything themselves while at Bell they want the state to fund their development.  $55M? it is insane to think the state would fund that.

With BT the local town decided to give the developer a tax break.  I've said repeatedly that is how Bell needs to be developed not thru NYS money.

Interesting interview.  I still don't really trust Gitter. I guess that doesn't matter. But, it clearly isn't a humanitarian mission up there, he expects to get paid. And it's a lot of public money on the line. And I'm not convinced that the Belleayre full build out plan is best for NYS, despite what he claims will be so awesome for the 6k people that live within 15 miles.

As a goodwill gesture they should mow all the crap out of Highmount so we could see if it's sufficiently expert enough to warrant expansion. I remember being pretty blue square but a little bit more of a consistent fall line then Bell.

Definitely a good read CU, thanks for posting.

ml242 wrote

As a goodwill gesture they should mow all the crap out of Highmount so we could see if it's sufficiently expert enough to warrant expansion. I remember being pretty blue square but a little bit more of a consistent fall line then Bell.

LOL. A nordic area as per Aussie. I'll skin it with you.  James loves Highmount, I think he said the terrain was pretty decent.

Accuweather says the Cats are in the wheelhouse this season. Maybe we can git sum without a lawn mower.

55 million dollars does seem like a lot of money from the state in one year.

"NYC wanted to be lead agency, but the DEC said it had no standing here, but it also said no to (the Town of) Shandaken because it wrongly thought the level of complexity was too great for the town to handle. Consequently, the DEC became the lead agency. That was the single worst moment of the project. "

TRANSLATION:

We had the town in our pocket because local government is driven by property taxes and since local planning boards are volunteers w/ very little professional training our consultants would of had a free for all getting approvals.


A very revealing statement....

ScottyJack wrote

"NYC wanted to be lead agency, but the DEC said it had no standing here, but it also said no to (the Town of) Shandaken because it wrongly thought the level of complexity was too great for the town to handle. Consequently, the DEC became the lead agency. That was the single worst moment of the project. "

TRANSLATION:

We had the town in our pocket because local government is driven by property taxes and since local planning boards are volunteers w/ very little professional training our consultants would of had a free for all getting approvals.


A very revealing statement....

Scott,

I look at it very differently. One of the basic tenets underlying land use law in general is that local decisions are best left to local citizens. After all, they're the ones best situated to understand local issues and the ones who will have to live with the consequences. To remove from the township the right to make decisions which affect its citizens is an anathema in the zoning and planning context. It's one of the reasons why Vermont's Act 250 is the single worst land use scheme in the country. It removes power from the municipalities and centralizes it in a state board which makes land use decisions for the entire state. The local populous has no say. I could cite many examples of projects that a municipality (citizens and government) overwhelmingly supported, but which died before an Act 250 panel. This type of top-down planning is both inefficient and, well while-intentioned, misguided. I may not agree with everything Mr. Gitter said, but I certainly agree with him 100% on that point.

Um, yeah, right. How about this. Local politicians have access to jack for bribery money in the Catskills. Now, move on up to state coffers, and, well, it's party time........

New York is a home rule state and that does mean a chief function of local government is zoning.  Local gov't should and does for the most part prepare comprehensive land use and zoning plans.  Local gov'ts should determine where to allow commercial, residential, industrial etc...  Local gov't should prepare subdivision regs, establish lot setbacks, height restrictions, noise ordinances, sign standards etc..

However, the majority of local planning boards/offices are volunteers who are required to complete only like 20 hours of training before being entrusted w/ the power to approve all kinds of land use and development. A lot of projects before a local planning board are small scale in nature and will not result in regional impacts.  When large scale, complicated development projects are proposed, especially in rural communities which do not have professional planning staff at the local or county level then the responsibility for review and approval should absolutely be undertaken by a regional and/or state entity.

This proposed project would be undertaken within the watershed area for one of the largest cities in the world, so it sure as hell better receive close scrutiny.  

If this project builds out then its impact on infrastructure will go well beyond the local municipality wherein it lies.

And local gov't is fundamentally in favor of development by the sheer nature of how its budgets are replenished.

AND Vermont's Act 250 is the only thing keeping that state from completely losing it "rural appeal and small town charm."  Over the decades I've witnessed one community blend into the next over there.  No hard edges anymore.  Sprawl and big box retail gobbling up once quaint little towns.  Farmland turned into mega malls and ticky tacky subdivisions.  I stopped going to Bennington/Manchester decades ago.  That may represent progress for some, but for me its the demise of authenticity, rural landscapes and the quality of life these factors represented....

Well said Scotty…Dude has the virtues I like and the vices I admire.

pennsylvaniafication

Scott,

I agree with much of what you said, but disagree that the township would have been unable to competently adjudicate the application. Developers pay huge escrow fees to have their applications reviewed by municipalities, which retain experts for such reviews. Again, I disagree with some of what Dean said in our interview on a personal level, but I thought he was spot on to intone that it was pure paternalistic arrogance on the part of those downstate to say poor little Shandaken couldn't figure out what was in its best interests so it better let the adults decide.

The economy up there is absolutely zilch. Kids move away and never come back because there are no jobs. It's beyond sad. NYC has a role in protecting its watershed, but even the DEC said it lacked standing in the matter. If anything it is NYC who imposed on the Catskills who were not consulted when NYC decided to put its reservoirs in their backyards.

ScottyJack wrote

AND Vermont's Act 250 is the only thing keeping that state from completely losing it "rural appeal and small town charm."  Over the decades I've witnessed one community blend into the next over there.  No hard edges anymore.  Sprawl and big box retail gobbling up once quaint little towns.  Farmland turned into mega malls and ticky tacky subdivisions.  I stopped going to Bennington/Manchester decades ago.  That may represent progress for some, but for me its the demise of authenticity, rural landscapes and the quality of life these factors represented....

While we all can agree that the what you describe is accurate and disappointing, it does not help the farmer who owns the land and is trying to make a living (and in many cases failing to make a living) while knowing that he can sell his land for more money today than the next 6 generations of his family will ever earn working the farm.

It is a difficult balance.