One thread running through all of this is an unquestioned assumption that somehow the same rules that have dictated our economic progress since World War II are still in force. ~ We hear the news but none of it seems to be sinking in.

Our economic drive has been based on the greatest profit for the least investment – with a key component being pushing as many liability onto other entities as possible.

The new economy that is dawning, demands, yes demands, total focus on sustainability, taking responsibility for ones fallout. The new reality is that: ‘No Suzy you can’t have everything you can dream up.’

Alberta Park is a key component of an incredibly big watershed that gathers more snow than any other non-maritime area of our country. It is a major headwaters of the Rio Grande River. Large portions of it are “Fens” – amazing biologically active bogs, built up of centuries of organic material (no soil). Fens have awesome water holding & filtering abilities, to say nothing of biological productivity. Tear it up and it is impossible to replace.

I believe it is time we start considering people’s real needs, fresh water, productive farmland, a healthy biosphere. These interests would be harmed by plowing a doomed vacation town into the middle of that watershed resource area. LEAVE IT ALONE to continue accomplishing it’s biological duties!

As for McCombs and his Leavell-McCombs Joint Venure – it is quite typical of the Texan substance-less bravado (hell consider the texan breed foreign policy that has so radically damaged our economy, world and future.) .
Leavell-McCombs Joint Venure wants us to believe they can be trusted to build a town with all the infrastructure that requires and maintain >>> yet, they are a virtual company with no physical existence…. try finding an address for them anywhere. If you do please do share, because I can’t find them through the BBB or phone books. (They do have a website, but it’s years our of date.). Yes I know McCombs can be tracked down, but that is no excuse.

The fight for Alberta Park should be one of total opposition to any and all development on McCombs ill gotten property (another can of worms in itself ) .

>>> If the man has an ounce of patriotism in him, he would re-deed that land back to the National Forest Service who, I’m sure, would be happy to take it back and name it the Red McCombs Wildlife Preserve, a monument that will gain the man respect from generations to come.

Yes, the adjacent towns are close enough if we invest in better and quicker ways of getting to the top of the pass.

Its a high-mountain pass. Not a good place for this kind of development which is in fact regression…development implies somethings being built…I see it as something being destroyed.

The altitude is too high for out-of towners.

People that prey on local communities like Red has are criminals in my mind and I hope that a new era of respecting and protecting nature will unfold under a more youthful and conscious America.

Red is not a good man…He is the quint-essential slob-texan.
All one has to do is study this man for a few hours to totally realize his character is flawed and his decisions in the past have proven he is not the person to head this development.
My dark wish is that he finds the grave before he can make his personal dream of building this trash on our beautiful mountain a reality.

The fact is he will have to confront the same people (and more this time) as we saw in Vail with the blue-sky basin…How much money will he be willing to throw away on security and multiple efforts to build this thing…

I really feel its alright to fight for mother nature…
I believe that the short term minds of humans needs to be confronted with force in the end.

McCombs has made a fool of himself and Pagosa Springs is the first to know this.

I was aware of some of the environmental impact issues, but I would need to read the impact report to form my own honest opinion.

Still, I stand by the notion that some day someone is going to develop the area because the powder is so good.

I wish the locals could get together and form the healthiest plan and then start to execute on it as a co-op. That would put them in control of the future of Wolf Creek.

From a developer point of view, the adjacent towns are simply too far away to have significant value… folks want to be right next door to the runs.

One of my biggest concerns is having more people at the resort… Will that destroy the riding conditions? Is there anywhere for the existing operations to expand that will allow more people in an efficient manor?

He wants to build directly under the Alberta lift and this would destroy a huge part of the ride-able terrain…leaving us with less mountain…

It wouldnt matter because ski acres dont actually make money…shops, pro-stores, restaurants, and real estate make money…screw the hippy out-door folks…what they really want is a city in the mountains!
Them folks with money will pay to park closer and ski right out of their door steps…

Then those who once loved this mountain for its beautiful experience, deep untouched powder, (not desired by average rich vail-village at wolf creek heaven forbid people) great views, and overall true wealth will ultimately lose a place they regularly came to…

Lemme guess, Im gonna get censored just like ol Red wants to do to the opponents of this horrible, and dangerously short-term economic gain of a plan…A plan that has so many reasons to be entirely scratched all together or drastically downgraded and relocated to an entirely different location…preferably in one of the adjacent towns.

JD,505!

Diane – I follow you with the steam-rolling comment. It does seem that Red has already invested a lot and intends to keep at it. I wonder why he wants it so very badly.

Jihn Diaz – More tourism will increase the overall cash flow in the area, benefiting everyone economically. This is one point that I have to make often to local park rats who complain about tourists – typically those from Texas. It’s the tourism that makes it possible for the resorts to provide epic parks for the locals to master. As for the rest of your comment, I suspect you’re probably right. I don’t know the water details well enough to have an opinion. I wonder if it’s possible to build responsibly enough not to have a significant negative impact? Better water treatment and recycling? For example, all the urinals at Keystone are now eco friendly and don’t use any water.

Im forgetting the most important factor right now…The economy!
Its no longer a reasonable plan. It never really was.
If you think its going to be a minor impact think again!…This is planned to be built directly on top of a watershed/wetland…
High mountain wetlands provide everyone below with water…The natural filtration that takes place is vital to the entire surrounding eco-system…If you have been there then you have seen that large flat area directly behind the albera lift…Thats where he wants to build this thing!
He wants to also build directly underneath the Alberta lift where we currently ride…It will decrease our ridable terrain.
He has not been as open as this editor would like to believe.
If you want to delete this comment than it will show how un-open your side is to a debate…
My personal anger witth this comes from my understanding of water and how it is in such short supply right now and in particularly where this development is supposed to happen.
In the end we will learn that the environment is much more valuable thatn we have treated it as so…
I wonder how long we have if all we do is listen to the laziness that keeps this horrible cycle in motion.

Yep, I agree with that sentiment. If the locals were the ones that were actually behind the development (and I suspect if they were, the proposed facilities would be more in accordance with a “ski area” instead of a “resort”), then I’d be all for it. But it’s only people with huge capital that propose projects like these, and they do it to maximize their profits. Understandable. Just scary.

This is an old, but interesting article from 1982 you might be interested in:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9506E4D8123BF934A25751C0A964948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Basically, it says that ski areas are turning to real estate development to make profits. And it was prophetic. Intrawest, a canadian company that runs many of the CO resorts, reported in 2002 that their profits from real estate ($487.7 million) exceeded their profits from resort operations ($485.1 million). What’s more pertinent about those numbers is that the revenue from real estate was increasing while revenue from operations was decreasing from the prior year.

So, when I said “steam-rolling,” I was referring not to the speed of the project, but the sheer weight of money behind it looking to make more money on real estate. I would love for Wolf Creek to stay a place to ski and board, instead of a place to pay a lot of money for a hamburger in a ritzy bar in the “Village.” I’m pretty sure these guys are only going to worry about the environment as much as they have to.

Generalize much?

I don’t think Wolf Creek can really support a huge glump of people, even if the ski area is expanded. It just doesn’t seem like that kind of mountain – I could be wrong. That said, I wouldn’t expect that the Village at Wolf Creek *could* get significantly big… unless it was largely vacant.

From what you posted – and this stuff I did not know – it sounds like Colorado could benefit from passing a few stricter laws on how these resorts operate. I love to snowboard, but I don’t want my favorite pass time to damage our environment.