Orda constitutional amendment

https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2019/08/van-ho-trees-were-cut-on-forest-preserve-too/

Orda has agreed to get article 14 amended.  This is the clause that prevents the state from selling or leasing WF and Gore to a corporation  
they are doing this for some Mt Vanho issues but while its being changed why not allow for the potential to lease to Epic or Ikon as this is literally a once in a lifetime window of opportunity
It would put the ski areas under world class management and make them into money generation for the state instead of burdens on the state budget

This is too good of a chance to pass up

This is mind blowing.

Holy shit!

TLDR, but what I read in that was that ORDA wants to amend the rules to allow them to manage Mt VanHo pretty much the same way they manage Gore and WF. It's got nothing to do with Epic or Ikon. They were in Max Pass, and if that had worked out for everyone they presumably could have been in Ikon. What's the big deal? Am I missing something?

mm

Milo Maltbie wrote

. What's the big deal? Am I missing something?

No.

There is no big deal. Z is speculating.

So basically they want it reclassified as an intensive use area, or whatever they call Gore.

Harvey wrote

So basically they want it reclassified as an intensive use area, or whatever they call Gore.

What I got from it is that they’ve already started treating it that way and want to amend the rules to conform with what they’re doing.

I'm wondering if that was what happened, hence my first comment.

Clearly you guys didn’t read the article before posting a reply
The short version is
Basically Orda has been ignoring the rules at Vanho and has been getting some backdoor wink wink type go ahead from the Dec to cut trees.  Then they chipped them and said trees? What trees? So now the Protect ambulance chasers had a hissy fit and got Orda to agree to amend article 14

My point is everyone has always said that there is no way the Orda issues on constitutional amendment ever see the light of the legislature or the required votes.  If it’s going to happen now is the time to change the lease potential as it’s in the same clause that need will get amended.

It would be awesome juju for the pain they put Tupper thru if those legal bozos at Protect we’re the ones to force the issue.  

You can’t tie the two issues together. The sale/lease of GORE/WF would be too controversial and could lead to the defeat of the Mt Vanho amendment. Those properties need more real estate development rights to make them attractive, and that would make it even more controversial.
Ikon/Epic is a separate issue. I’m guessing ORDA wasn’t happy with Max pass or the Vermont mountains don’t want ORDA competition, but we really don’t know.

mm

Z wrote

Clearly you guys didn’t read the article before posting a reply
The short version is
Basically Orda has been ignoring the rules at Vanho and has been getting some backdoor wink wink type go ahead from the Dec to cut trees.  Then they chipped them and said trees? What trees? So now the Protect ambulance chasers had a hissy fit and got Orda to agree to amend article 14

My point is everyone has always said that there is no way the Orda issues on constitutional amendment ever see the light of the legislature or the required votes.  If it’s going to happen now is the time to change the lease potential as it’s in the same clause that need will get amended.

It would be awesome juju for the pain they put Tupper thru if those legal bozos at Protect we’re the ones to force the issue.

Z  Tupper (ACR) project was doomed from the start, terrible business plan, big delays by the developers themselves, obviously never had any money, and they were a bunch of lying crooks from day one. The trail of debts they left in their wake is way to long to list, but screwing their own lawyers should cement everything you need to know about the "developers", aka Con Men.  

The big deal is the court ruling that any tree no matter it’s size or age is to be spared. If you step on a sapling on a hike you violate the constitution. Except for some pruning most trail maintenance must stop. It use to be that if you kept your trimming to trees 3” or less in diameter at breast height it was ok. Your glades will now grow back in. In speaking to an ORDA person - glade maintenance has been suspended. We need all those little trees to suck down that CO2.

Harvey wrote

So basically they want it reclassified as an intensive use area, or whatever they call Gore.

Van Ho has been classified as an intensive use area since the 1986 Unit Management Plan.  That UMP mentions environmental issues with relocating / building a new lodge, but doesn't explicitly say what those issues are.  Hopefully this  was resolved in building the new lodge.

I'm a tree-hugger and all, but I don't see why it's a big deal to cut 1500 trees there.  Approximately 40,000 trees were cut to develop the Glades at WF.

If Article XIV had been amended years ago to provide for development at van Ho the way WF and Gore have amendments, A lot of this could have been avoided.

Z, for better or worse the back door approach has precedent.  In 1900 the Smiley brothers wanted to build a carriage road for their resort hotel in the Shawangunks, but it would cross forever wild land.  A state forest superintendent told them how to go about a workaround, which they did.  The Huckleberry Pickers, p.21, by Marc Fried.

PeeTex wrote

The big deal is the court ruling that any tree no matter it’s size or age is to be spared. If you step on a sapling on a hike you violate the constitution. Except for some pruning most trail maintenance must stop. It use to be that if you kept your trimming to trees 3” or less in diameter at breast height it was ok. Your glades will now grow back in. In speaking to an ORDA person - glade maintenance has been suspended. We need all those little trees to suck down that CO2.

I’m not reading all that in it either.  An article 14 amendment doesn’t affect the trail maintenance issue. Nothing in that article refers to issues around Gore or WF glades.
Trail maintenance will be a an issue as soon as the trails grow in a little, but Van Ho will be mostly non-controversial, with st most a small concession to the greens.  

mm

Milo Maltbie wrote

You can’t tie the two issues together. The sale/lease of GORE/WF would be too controversial and could lead to the defeat of the Mt Vanho amendment. Those properties need more real estate development rights to make them attractive, and that would make it even more controversial.
Ikon/Epic is a separate issue. I’m guessing ORDA wasn’t happy with Max pass or the Vermont mountains don’t want ORDA competition, but we really don’t know.

mm

The real estate model was Ottens
Vail is not real estate driven.  They got Sunapee with a lease and have no plans for real estate.  That is the perfect model for WF and Gore

Does anyone think that gore and WF would greatly benefit by being run by Vail or Ikon?  The skier experience would be significantly better.  More blown snow.  Smart investment in infrastructure. Great economies of scale in buying everything.  Better technology.

Plus Employees not getting laid off right before they get health insurance as Orda does now.

Z wrote

Vail is not real estate driven.  

Vail is rich people driven. AFAIK Stowe was the only deal that didn’t include real estate, but the real estate was already developed enough to attract wealthy people.

I don’t think the ORDA properties have enough potential to attract the big money investments. I’m fine with that. My Stowe friends were optimistic about VR but now I think they are a little disappointed.  

mm

Milo Maltbie wrote

PeeTex wrote

The big deal is the court ruling that any tree no matter it’s size or age is to be spared. If you step on a sapling on a hike you violate the constitution. Except for some pruning most trail maintenance must stop. It use to be that if you kept your trimming to trees 3” or less in diameter at breast height it was ok. Your glades will now grow back in. In speaking to an ORDA person - glade maintenance has been suspended. We need all those little trees to suck down that CO2.

I’m not reading all that in it either.  An article 14 amendment doesn’t affect the trail maintenance issue. Nothing in that article refers to issues around Gore or WF glades.
Trail maintenance will be a an issue as soon as the trails grow in a little, but Van Ho will be mostly non-controversial, with st most a small concession to the greens.  

mm

You may not be reading that way but the DEC is and I think they are the authoritative body

https://m.timesunion.com/news/article/After-court-ruling-tree-clearing-on-trails-is-on-14281895.php

I read that but I’m still not seeing a connection between trail maintenance on forever wild land and maintenance in intensive use areas like Gore and WF.

mm

Milo Maltbie wrote

Z wrote

Vail is not real estate driven.  

Vail is rich people driven. AFAIK Stowe was the only deal that didn’t include real estate, but the real estate was already developed enough to attract wealthy people.

I don’t think the ORDA properties have enough potential to attract the big money investments. I’m fine with that. My Stowe friends were optimistic about VR but now I think they are a little disappointed.  

mm

LP has a crap load of old money.  Stowe and Okemo are new money and wannabes

My buddies in $towe aren't very happy with VR as well. That said most people, myself included, don't like change so it may take awhile for them to get used to it.