# Crested Butte Mountain Resort Expansion Denied



## CBrown (Oct 28, 2004)

Shock and awe

Shock was admittedly the first reaction of just about everyone as they heard the news that the Forest Service rejected Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s plan to expand lifts onto Snodgrass Mountain. Reaction in Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte and the County was one of universal surprise.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

yeah, and then shortly followed by a bitter feeling of disgust, as the future of our valley and towns just got a whole lot dimmer. it was then followed by a sense of confusion, on how this process suddenly took a 180 degree turn in five months, after it was supposedly "good to go"? and then the last feeling was one of dread, knowing that the hippies and trustfunders are going to rise up and claim "victory" and how "they stopped the evil empire". yeah, great. you guys won. and obviously dont give two shits about the economic sustainability of the county. first no mine, and now no ski area. what else is going to fuel out area? what else is going to account for more than half of the total revenue of the county? western can only do so much, and i think youll find that college attendance and the ski area are very closely intertwined. how do you think most of these folks who are against the lifts got here in the first place?

terrible, terrible decision. john norton was dead on his article today. every homeowner and business owner in the valley just got fucked in the ass, and its a total joke of politics and scheming that brought it on. so lets get this inevitable circle jerk of congratulations and kudos over with, celebrate your "victory" and then shut up already. thanks for moving here from elsewhere and shitting all over our valley, because yes, youre right, you moved here from (fill in the blank) and suddenly after five years you think you know whats best for this valley and it's economy. fuckin joke. it PAINS me to think how stupid and ignorant some people in this valley are. just my two cents, yeti out.....................

oh yeah, and it aint over


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

Long time no see Yeti! Tell us how you really feel? I have to admit I knew nothing about this other then ready about the denial a day or two ago. So what killed It? Was it massive CB south homeowners against the mountain? Rare species of Gothic Moth? Or just the end of business as usual in the Forest Service? Any links to the rejection statement from the F.S.?

On a side note, are you going to be at the Butterfly's opening Yeti? We should hook up if I can shake my injury and my wife to go ski opening day.


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

yetigonecrazy said:


> yeah, and then shortly followed by a bitter feeling of disgust, as the future of our valley and towns just got a whole lot dimmer. it was then followed by a sense of confusion, on how this process suddenly took a 180 degree turn in five months, after it was supposedly "good to go"? and then the last feeling was one of dread, knowing that the hippies and trustfunders are going to rise up and claim "victory" and how "they stopped the evil empire". yeah, great. you guys won. and obviously dont give two shits about the economic sustainability of the county. first no mine, and now no ski area. what else is going to fuel out area? what else is going to account for more than half of the total revenue of the county? western can only do so much, and i think youll find that college attendance and the ski area are very closely intertwined. how do you think most of these folks who are against the lifts got here in the first place?
> 
> terrible, terrible decision. john norton was dead on his article today. every homeowner and business owner in the valley just got fucked in the ass, and its a total joke of politics and scheming that brought it on. so lets get this inevitable circle jerk of congratulations and kudos over with, celebrate your "victory" and then shut up already. thanks for moving here from elsewhere and shitting all over our valley, because yes, youre right, you moved here from (fill in the blank) and suddenly after five years you think you know whats best for this valley and it's economy. fuckin joke. it PAINS me to think how stupid and ignorant some people in this valley are. just my two cents, yeti out.....................
> 
> oh yeah, and it aint over


Oh yeah and you could move to a more prosperous area that isn't so remote and have all the development and amenities that you want.


----------



## CBrown (Oct 28, 2004)

This decision by the Forest Service seemed to be out of nowhere. Since the expansion talks started in the early 90's, it seems that public opinion has swayed to support expansion onto Snodgrass. The growth of CB's economic base seems to be in jeapordy as stated above. It is only natural that the ski area grows with the rest of the valley supporting business and residents who live and raise families there.


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

USFS Letter to CBMR Denying Expansion Proposal's moving into NEPA: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/ski/snodgrass/SnodgrassLtr.pdf

Two articles in the local paper:
The Crested Butte News - Snodgrass: Reactions in the Valley…,
The Crested Butte News - Forest Service rejects Snodgrass


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Yeti-
I must say I am surprised that someone born and raised in CB would be such a fan of change and wouldn't instead prefer to stick to the ranching roots.

On a side note...I would be interested to know how many people who live in CB were actually born there. Just curious.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

i was born and raised in Gunnison, but im a firm believer of one valley - two towns. and while i love the valley that ive spent my whole life in, i am also a realist, and know that the economic success of this community is directly tied to the ski area. it fuels a huge portion of our economy, from the employees of the ski area and the direct beneficiaries in the base village, down all the way to the people in gunnison who work the liquor stores who keep the skiers happy on their way in or out. everything in this valley, including the college, is tied in some way or another to that ski area and its ability to pull in the tourists and their dollars. change isnt always a good thing, but it is a necessary evil in todays society. so in a time when every other major ski area in CO has expanded, (copper, breck, t-ride, etc) the axiom in the ski insdustry, while cliche, is also true: expand or die. and thats the position were in now.

the humorous part to me, is the anti-lift crowd simply bemoans the loss of one hill's worth of backcountry skiing. theres no talk of economics or anything related to the business side of things, just bitching about some skinning terrain. but ask any of the pro-lifters, and the argument isnt about the terrain one bit, but about the economic side of the expansion, and how much it means to this community.

everyone is dreading an aspen or telluride style sprawl following this expansion, but im afraid thats really not the case. what a lot of people dont know is crested butte is near build out, which means every piece of land has been developed or is in stages of development. weve pushed right to the edge of the federal lands, and the only development will come in places where it exists already. there wont be a string of huge homes up the east river valley, nor will there be access to the area at meridian lakes. theres a hundred reasons why this wouldnt, or COULDNT, become another one of those, but the anti-lift crowd just takes a ultimate fatalistic viewpoint, the same they do about the mine, and its really undue at all. a little bit of education about the subject is all it takes.

like i said, im not one to see stuff get overdeveloped, but ultimately without the mine, the ski area is THE long term financial future of this county, and without it, this county dies. so, i would like to see it done right, to ensure a better future for everyone that calls this valley home!


----------



## thefreshpimpofbigair (Feb 12, 2008)

Yes Yeti this valley is filled with lots of ignorant,sheltered and insulated individuals.....You are one of them.
You _should_ spend the remainder of your life here in the valley, with a life term as village idiot.
I make my living in the ski industry and am against the mine and snodgrass. 
Snodgrass is simply a real estate deal meant to generate income through the sale of lots to the beau monde (read rich and typically absent). These folks, IF they bought lots would have little long term benefit to OUR valley. CBMR still has lots of vacant, unsold lots available in the Prospect development.
These are the people who come to our valley, with their deep pockets and a different opinion on what are valley ought to be, and leverage their Aspen/Vail/Telluride rich fuck attitude into public policy. 
CBMR still has lots of vacant, unsold lots available in the Prospect development.
You are right, most of the anti expansion types are reviling the loss of in (imo) some mediocre (imo) BC terrain. The reason they dont discuss the economic side is that there is not one. This expansion benefits very few except the ultra rich, their lakeys, and the overpopulated real esnakes. Trickle down economics?? really?
Of course CBMR dosent want to put lifts into the Meridian Lake neighborhood. Most of these people have already bought or built their houses there. Why would CBMR allow all the houses , lots, in Meridian lake enjoy the benefits (ie:increased property values, ski/in/out, and further deveplopment. They have the sole interest of containing the monetary gains in their coffers. 
Snobgrass would ultimately have been a garish collection of vacant mcmansions, unfinished projects and and a despoiled mountain.

I would like commened the forest service for their desicion not to bend over and kow tow to the whims of the rich and their large corporate backers.
humbly, tfpoba



ps-if i ever figure out who you are Im gonna knock the teeth out from under the dumbass ned flanders mustache


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*The power of the pen*

It is amazing how much power a bureaucrat with the strike of a pen.

I don't know anything about this project. From the outside it sounds like something I would want a popular vote on, and then an EPA assessment on impact. Not an administrative official deciding on for my town.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

thefreshpimpofbigair said:


> Yes Yeti this valley is filled with lots of ignorant,sheltered and insulated individuals.....You are one of them.
> You _should_ spend the remainder of your life here in the valley, with a life term as village idiot.
> 
> 
> ps-if i ever figure out who you are Im gonna knock the teeth out from under the dumbass ned flanders mustache


 
Total unnecessary comments that remove any credibility the rest of you thoughts may have. 

Always amazes me the personal attacks made when cowards are hiding on the internet.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Rich said:


> Total unnecessary comments that remove any credibility the rest of you thoughts may have.
> 
> Always amazes me the personal attacks made when cowards are hiding on the internet.


I second Rich's POV.


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

yetigonecrazy said:


> like i said, im not one to see stuff get overdeveloped, but ultimately without the mine, the ski area is THE long term financial future of this county, and without it, this county dies. so, i would like to see it done right, to ensure a better future for everyone that calls this valley home!


so gunnison county did not exist before the area or the prospect of the mine being developed? what about all of those farm families that have lived in the valley for several generations? maybe yours was one of those families since you were born and raised there.

do you honestly think that by developing snodgrass the town and county would suddenly have become economically sustainable? please enlighten me. last time i checked, govt and other stuff runs off of sales of retail goods, not houses and land. those sales fund schools for the most part through property taxes. folks that would have bought those houses would visit once, maybe twice a season. huge shot in the arm to the valley allowing the town to double in size in the next 10 years? doesn't sound like it to me.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Jensjustduckie said:


> I second Rich's POV.


Agreed. Besides, who would want to smack Ned Flanders? He's a charming guy.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

don't get it??? I thought the same thing a few years ago when Aspen Ski Company wanted to go ahead with the new Snowmass base village. I was against it at first, then was pusueded that it as in the best interest of the community (I did not get to vote, as I lived at the bottom of Brush Creek Road and not in Snowmass). Then I realized how big of a boondogle it was going to be. Now we have a GIANT base village that is under occupied, to pricey for local shops. Not to mention the developer is bankrupt and some buildings that were started are now on hold as big piles of concrete and re bar. ASC also wantsto annex burnt mountain into the Snowmass ski area as quasi back county. Not to mention the crap they have going on the backside of Aspen in regard to their snowcat opeation.

The problem is resorts have a short term solution to a long term problem. That being skier days. They fiance operations by selling season passes and then lift tickets. This is great, but it does not earn enough money to invest in physical maintenace and upgrades. So they sell real estate to finance upgrades and maintenance. He in lies the problem. 30 years from now, when all these lifts are very old, the Ski Co's will have already sold all their land.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

brendodendo said:


> don't get it??? I thought the same thing a few years ago when Aspen Ski Company wanted to go ahead with the new Snowmass base village. I was against it at first, then was pusueded that it as in the best interest of the community (I did not get to vote, as I lived at the bottom of Brush Creek Road and not in Snowmass). Then I realized how big of a boondogle it was going to be. Now we have a GIANT base village that is under occupied, to pricey for local shops. Not to mention the developer is bankrupt and some buildings that were started are now on hold as big piles of concrete and re bar. ASC also wantsto annex burnt mountain into the Snowmass ski area as quasi back county. Not to mention the crap they have going on the backside of Aspen in regard to their snowcat opeation.
> 
> The problem is resorts have a short term solution to a long term problem. That being skier days. They fiance operations by selling season passes and then lift tickets. This is great, but it does not earn enough money to invest in physical maintenace and upgrades. So they sell real estate to finance upgrades and maintenance. He in lies the problem. 30 years from now, when all these lifts are very old, the Ski Co's will have already sold all their land.


What land are they going to sell? The majority of ski areas are set up on public lands that they lease from the gov. What the heck land are they selling in 30yrs?


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

"freshpimpofbigair"- 

fyi, the miners were the first folks here. the cattle industry popped up as a means of supporting the mining industry, it just happened to take off huge and become and industry all its own. i have five generations of mining in my blood, my ancestors founded the town of decatur, up past montezuma in summit county. my other ancestors owned the stanley and red elephant mines on clear creek. my dad worked for the homestake mine on marshall pass, and both of my parents were active members of the uranium boom of the early 80's in western CO and eastern CO. i am here for reasons other than the ski area, but you said yourself you work for the ski area. so you wouldnt even be here if it wasnt for the ski area in the first place! its people like you, who bemoan projects like this, but yet expect to live with the same comfortable standard of living you have, without ever realizing that standard is a result of the "trickle down economics" that you scoff at. 

im not saying the proposal is perfect in any way, because it isnt. and brendo is right, it is a short term solution to a temporary problem. but ultimately thats what the industry is always about, and ultimately "expand or die" has never been more true than it is today. so if saving ourselves from a major decline in revenue, is it worth "despoiling" a hill that is already ugly and over-run as is, and a few more mcmansions? you may have moved here from elsewhere to discover your mountain paradise and think otherwise, but im sorry, i believe in the future of the valley, not just the now, and im all for it. and like Canada said, for the entire future of one valley to depend on ONE man's decision is ludacris. but it is what it is, so now the ball is in the muellers court.

and if you are really willing to physically assault me over this issue then that should give everyone an idea of how far people are willing to go to defend this ugly pile of rock that has been designated by the forest service "FOR DOWNHILL SKIING" since CB opened in the 60's......


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

and at this point im done arguing. im sick of arguing. its a total sham what happened, but its done at this point and to keep arguing is to keep kicking a dead horse. i didnt even want to come back but a friend saw the post and told me i needed to add my opinion, so there ya go. im out.


----------



## dgosn (Sep 8, 2006)

thefreshpimpofbigair said:


> ps-if i ever figure out who you are Im gonna knock the teeth out from under the dumbass ned flanders mustache



You sir are an ass. Actually I retract the 'sir' part.

Where are you from? East Coast? Cali.

I agree with Yeti, the citizens of the Buttes needed to vote on it or something. I grew up near Gunnison, skied all my early life at CB. I would be all for Snodgrass expansion just to keep the less skilled out of my way screaming down International at GS speeds.

Unfortunately the people that are so against change are often the same ones that pushed out mines, and eventually the ranchers out of the land they homesteaded. The Spann family last I know, was one of the few original remaining ranch families in the valley. nice folks, but I am sure the bro/bra trusties didnt like a cow on their bike trail (parts of which were mining grades) so they decided that after 3 years of living in the Butte they were local and wanted to change everything.

I didn't follow the snodgrass expansion much as it is mediocre skiing as far as I can tell, but I think people should try to respect the REAL locals that have generations of family roots in an area.

You going to knock my teeth out next?


----------



## sbratt (May 10, 2006)

If a Buzzard can't make physical threats on the buzz, then what's it good for?

Brendo makes an interesting point. But when thinking of the other resorts I see different situations. Vail did the big push for Blue Sky years ago for the land development. Hell, that town was created by developers under the intention to create a ski resort and sell land. Vail & Associates has made a lot of money along the way. But look at the Basin. Here's a resort that's not allowed to expand due to the geography. Do they make money, I have no idea. Though I don't think they would be under the Vail umbrella if they only lost money. No need to expand, but it's not an investors 20% year on year growth either. Winter Park is similar to CB. When Denver owned it they pretty much did jack with it. I think it was back in 02 when we had a horrible snow year and the resort lost money. The resort used a contractual bye (they were alloted 2 years they could avoid paying the City of Denver) to not pay the city that year. Denver City council made a fuss and then dumped it over to Intrawest. What does Intrawest do, they come in and revamp the base and add lots of condos to sell. In the end the goal of each ski business is to maximize the wealth of it's shareholders. Now I do wonder if the towns WP/Frasier have seen much economic benefit from the development? The resort will try any way to pitch something as benefical to make it happen, but what are the results from other towns that have gone through similar events?


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Jen,
Most of the resorts in CO operate on a lease from the NFS. BUT, most, also own some land in the base area or other "development" envelopes surrounding their base areas. Do not get me wrong here, as I said most. I can not name one resort that operates on soley public land (possibly Silverton...overrated). Therefore, Most of these base area's are subject to infill. For a good example of this, check out Purgatory, er, I mean Durango mountain Resort. When they went ahead to build the Six Pack lift, They sold 6 units on the hill, directly adjacent to the lift. The new "unit" helped to finance the building of the lift. Same goes for ASC. Snowmass got a new gondola, a new six pack and a new quad by selling their development rights to Interwest (who sold them to related westpak). 

Try as they might, but lift ticket prices have to remain relatively static (inflation adjusted) in order to lure people to our state for ski vacations. The reality is, lift tickets are a loss leader, with food and beverage, ski school and lodging being the real $$$ makers. 

I know nothing about the Snodgrass area. I am willing to bet that it is low angle and semi BC. I would bet that the ski areas interest is 1 of 2 reasons. Bragging rights or development potential. In this case, bragging rights. But, I'm only right 50% of the time.


----------



## dgosn (Sep 8, 2006)

sbratt said:


> Now I do wonder if the towns WP/Frasier have seen much economic benefit from the development? The resort will try any way to pitch something as benefical to make it happen, but what are the results from other towns that have gone through similar events?



I think housing development help a town ECONOMICALLY, building permits, property taxes, etc..... One benefit of vacant (45 weeks/year) houses is that these people pay taxes all year, but it is the locals that benefit some. These people pay taxes on their huge house some of which go to schools, but they have no kids in schools. I remember as a kid I went to a poor rural school, we were always envious of the buses, gyms, etc... that the kids from Telluride, CB, Summit, all had.

In Durango where I live most new devlopments have to pay a hefty price to CDOT if they need to widen or change highways for turn lanes or lights. 

I would still like to see hard data over my mostly anecdotal evidence. As far as adding terrain with no new development around it: that's a hard one. I know crested butte has struggled to maintain it's extreme image, but still cater to tourist who largely are intermediate skiers at best. CBMR may have been able to get more visitors by having a hill dedicated to blue skiing. The extreme sells to people with money, but it is mostly enjoyed by cheap bastards such as myself who live in snowcaves and bar-be-que in the parking lot, etc.... Besides once a visiting texan finds himself way back in the bowls and steep at CB they will snowplow/sidestep to East River, and go find something a little more safe

Telluride and Crested Butte are similar resorts, they are at the end of the road, not many people drive to either. Summit county enjoys an interstate to a large metro area. Durango, Taos, Wolf Creek, all are with in a days drive from Texas/Arizona with out going over any passes (except Wolf Creek) A trip to Telluride, Crested Butte for Texans in a car entails an often harrowing experience over lizard head, monarch, or cochetopa passes.

Telluride has added a lot of new terrain, mostly advanced. Revalation bowl was a large investment, but palmyra peak, and the gold hill chutes werent as bad as these areas had to be avi controlled anyway. The big difference was controlling natural avalanches to controlling for skiers and artifical triggers. Snodgrass Mountain (CBMR) would have little need for avi control, just lifts.

Crested Butte has to retain its customer base and expand it, it has not been all that profitable for many years. Unfortunately the business model for most resorts is to make money off of development, but lure people to the development with lifts. Similar to golf communities. Lift tickets dont make much money, $12 burgers, t shirts, lessons, rentals, hotel rooms, and $5 beers do.

With the amount of terrain around CBMR I think Snodgrass is that much of a back country jewel either. As I no longer live in the area I can't know the local sentiment, but it seems like the democratic process got axed in that one. The Village at Wolf Creek hasnt died this easy, by comparison the Snodgrass incident was way less intrusive then the Village at Wolf Creek. CB has houses and a town, Wolf Creek has a lodge and a CDOT garage.


I personally miss the days of the bubbleSilver Queen lift, the terrifying 2 seat Paradise life, and hiking to the goods. Those days made me a tough young lad. Nothing like pinballing down the Headwall with 217cm elans and no helmet.


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

Jensjustduckie said:


> What land are they going to sell? The majority of ski areas are set up on public lands that they lease from the gov. What the heck land are they selling in 30yrs?


Crested Butte Mountain Resort owns the land at the base of Snodgrass Mtn. which is already approved as a development with 100's of units (condos, houses, hotels). Without this real estate development the ski area expansion wouldn't have much of an economic benefit for the ski area.


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

yeti comes in here, starts an argument, gets called on it, and throws his hands up and says "i'm done arguing." bravo sir. you are the great debater.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Yeti has actually got me looking at it in a different light. I don't totally agree with him, but I understand where he is coming from. 

dsosn-"the citizens of the Buttes needed to vote on it or something" This doesn't sit well with me because I'm pretty sure that it is federal lands. It belongs to all of us, so to let a few people who live next to it vote on how it should be used seems a bit oligarchical. I understand the frustration with one person deciding (especially if you don't like their decision), but that is the system we have set-up. It is called representative government. If you don't like it, you have to fix it from the top down (and you are probably a bit late for this issue.)

dude-to bow out of a discussion when you have stated your point and it is clear that you are not going to change other people's opinions seems more noble to me than just "throwing your hands up". Maybe you should change your screen name to Dick Cheney if you feel it is better to keep yelling in someone's face until they relent and agree with your opinion.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Thanks for the info Buzzards, so the resorts own the base but not the mountain. I know I can skin up pretty much any resort as it's public land, never occurred to me they would ever try to sell land at the base.

If the base is already developed but the resort closes won't it be tough to sell property on an abandoned ski slope?


----------



## dgosn (Sep 8, 2006)

caseybailey said:


> dsosn-"the citizens of the Buttes needed to vote on it or something" This doesn't sit well with me because I'm pretty sure that it is federal lands. It belongs to all of us, so to let a few people who live next to it vote on how it should be used seems a bit oligarchical. I understand the frustration with one person deciding (especially if you don't like their decision), but that is the system we have set-up. It is called representative government. If you don't like it, you have to fix it from the top down (and you are probably a bit late for this issue.)


I stand corrected you are absolutely correct. I do however think that maybe the residents could have a little extra weight though. I found this very irritating as the Village as Wolf Creek is not entirely dead, but the Snodgrass expansion is. At the same time these 2 expansions are quite different in terms of legalities and politics, but still seemed a little odd.

I guess I shouldn't be to fired up, I rarely buy lift tickets anyway. My only contribution to skiing is steep skin tracks


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

dgosn said:


> I stand corrected you are absolutely correct. I do however think that maybe the residents could have a little extra weight though. I found this very irritating as the Village as Wolf Creek is not entirely dead, but the Snodgrass expansion is. At the same time these 2 expansions are quite different in terms of legalities and politics, but still seemed a little odd.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't be to fired up, I rarely buy lift tickets anyway. My only contribution to skiing is steep skin tracks


I dig it. I feel some balance of local input needs to be in place (and may be...I must admit my ignorance here). 

p.s. I feel we are a bit of kindrid spirits as you are from my old stomping grounds (the juans) and you are a catarafter. Cheers and may we someday share a skin track.


----------



## jeffsssmith (Mar 31, 2007)

Jensjustduckie said:


> If the base is already developed but the resort closes won't it be tough to sell property on an abandoned ski slope?


The base of Snodgrass is totally vacant right now. If the mountain gets developed for skiing the real estate at the base becomes ski-in ski-out. The base is approved for development and would still be viable without lifts on the mountain since it is adjacent to Mt. Crested Butte and Crested Butte but have a much lower return in real estate value.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

I have to agree with Yeti, to a point. The relatively recent arrival of monied people to a small town like CB is a double edged sword.. It is nice when people come there, rent a house/condo/hotel at full price, go to dinner, spend money and eventually leave. When the same people buy into the town, build ridiculous houses, drive up property taxes, and think that their opinions suddenly have clout since they have come there for three Christmas and Fourth of July holidays, a negative feeling is hard to avoid. It is doubly bad when the locals are displaced, to be replaced by vacant homes with snowmelt driveways that run all winter and air conditioning that runs on all sunny days, summer or winter. Rich neighbors will leave your neighborhood poorer in some regards, when all the houses are dark at night. A vital neighborhood needs people living there. I know about the heating systems since the rich people in Aspen pay me to wire them as an electrician. 

I was born and raised in Aspen, just over the hill from CB. The two towns share a very similar history going back to the mining days, but Aspen was reborn after WW2 due to skiing whereas CB was a quiet ranching town for some time until skiing took off. I have seen a lot of changes in my 43 years here. Where I differ from Yeti is the term of "sprawl" when applied to Aspen and especially Telluride. These two towns are in pretty steep walled valleys. CB is in relatively rolling hills in comparison. That is why the biking is so good there. The area has a lot of ranching land that could be developed, and unless there are conservation easements, they will be developed. In addition, the lots in town are relatively undeveloped. There is unfortunately a lot of potent for denser development. Aspen tried Growth controls, which made the town more exclusive, and only the rich could afford to live there. The best one can hope for is a vision of what the town should look in the future, to be enforced by building codes. The property values and costs of living will be dictated by the area's appeal to people wanting to live there.

I am unfamiliar with the recently shot down expansion in CB. If it is some bogus skiing terrain to make "slopeside" developments then I would back the decision.


----------



## bobw (Mar 13, 2007)

Why not? I might as well enter the discussion. Great perspective ZG, Yeti, Your post were your best ever, someday I'll meet you. I see Yetis' point...kinda. Funny thing is the folks leading the charge and most vocal for developing Snodgrass are the one's who have three years under their belt, a couple get their paycheck from the man. Me, I wasn't raised here, I have been here 23 years, don't have a trust fund, work every day, raised a family here, been very active in the community, and I skin up Snodgrass after work. 
For years I have listened to the debate over Snodgrass, at first very indifferant. But after years of the same arguement-Crested Butte's gonna die without the expansion, I grew tired of the same old. It is about raising the property values of the North Village, very little if any opportunity for locals to buy in (see ZGJethro above). Since I do know the terrain, skiing will be margainal at best, require a lot of snowmaking and grooming. Where's the water coming from? Present snowmaking drains the East River to the point where they have to stop making snow for lack of water.
The Forest Service did not make a decision based solely on negative public input (although they did ask for and accept public comments in the pre-NEPA stage). In the four page letter (and I'm going from memory) they listed public input, geological instability, impacts on the infrastructure of the Upper East River Valley, impacts on wildlife, and a couple more items I cannot recall. 
We were all suprised at the ruling. I am heartbroken at the division in the community because of the recent efforts of the pro development people. We need as a community to work with CBMR (and they need to work with us) to come with a new plan to find our marketing niche, advertise what we have, and create a new progressive business model for the ski industry. A big task, and we have a great number of intelligent people from both sides to create such a model.
As with Yeti, these are my thoughts. Buzzards do with them as you will. Signing out of the discussion.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

For me, Telluride qualifies as a steep-walled valley. CB and Aspen are rolling hills.


----------



## ec (Jun 7, 2004)

sbratt said:


> ...But look at the Basin. Here's a resort that's not allowed to expand due to the geography. Do they make money, I have no idea. Though I don't think they would be under the Vail umbrella if they only lost money. No need to expand, but it's not an investors 20% year on year growth either....


I think you need to recheck your facts about Abasin....

1) ABasin is no longer owned by Vail Resorts. Vail had to sell it back in 1997 due to a judges ruling that their ownership in Summit County was a monopoly. It is now owned by Dundee Realty Corporation of 
Canada.

2) "Not allowed to expand?" Have you been to ABasin recently? They just had a major expansion into Montezuma Bowl.

Just trying to keep the facts straight here.


Regarding the Snodgrass expansion, I couldn't be happier with the ruling. Colorado already has too many monster resorts. Oh, and I am against the Wolf Creek plan too.


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

Saying Dundee is independent of VA is a bit of a stretch. Dundee has always been in VA back pocket as they are in-twinned buisness wise. Back when VA sold A-basin to Dundee, they sold it for a meager $2mil. There were bids, including local players that had offered much more and was less then what the Dercums sold A-basin to Ralston for back in 1978! Everyone local knew it was a inside deal to side step the Justice Departments missive that they sell something off. So to this day, their pass is combined with Breck and Keystone. This was an attempt to squeeze Copper. 

Gone were the days when all of Summit County's resorts worked together with Ski The Summit to offer a combined pass. The monies of the combined pass helped fund marketing for the whole county. Instead we got the buddy pass wars and now you have to fight for your powder lines, pay to park and walk far or ride a lift just to get to the base, ala Vail village. Some improvement!


----------



## ec (Jun 7, 2004)

True true, valid points...


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

Riparian said:


> Agreed. Besides, who would want to smack Ned Flanders? He's a charming guy.


I agree, if anyone is in need of a dentist there is one on Elk Ave. 9703495880.


----------



## MCSkid (Feb 27, 2008)

bobw said:


> Why not? I might as well enter the discussion. Great perspective ZG, Yeti, Your post were your best ever, someday I'll meet you. I see Yetis' point...kinda. Funny thing is the folks leading the charge and most vocal for developing Snodgrass are the one's who have three years under their belt, a couple get their paycheck from the man. Me, I wasn't raised here, I have been here 23 years, don't have a trust fund, work every day, raised a family here, been very active in the community, and I skin up Snodgrass after work.
> For years I have listened to the debate over Snodgrass, at first very indifferant. But after years of the same arguement-Crested Butte's gonna die without the expansion, I grew tired of the same old. It is about raising the property values of the North Village, very little if any opportunity for locals to buy in (see ZGJethro above). Since I do know the terrain, skiing will be margainal at best, require a lot of snowmaking and grooming. Where's the water coming from? Present snowmaking drains the East River to the point where they have to stop making snow for lack of water.
> The Forest Service did not make a decision based solely on negative public input (although they did ask for and accept public comments in the pre-NEPA stage). In the four page letter (and I'm going from memory) they listed public input, geological instability, impacts on the infrastructure of the Upper East River Valley, impacts on wildlife, and a couple more items I cannot recall.
> We were all suprised at the ruling. I am heartbroken at the division in the community because of the recent efforts of the pro development people. We need as a community to work with CBMR (and they need to work with us) to come with a new plan to find our marketing niche, advertise what we have, and create a new progressive business model for the ski industry. A big task, and we have a great number of intelligent people from both sides to create such a model.
> As with Yeti, these are my thoughts. Buzzards do with them as you will. Signing out of the discussion.


bob hit the nail on the head(or should i say the torch to the metal?) just moved out of cb after a bunch of years. seemed like it was a 50/50 split over snodgrass. those against it were more of less the folks that moved there between the late '60's to the early '90's, got in when it was cheap and don't really want to see it change. those for it seem to be alot of the big money folks that showed up in the last ten years(exceptions to both of my sterotypes) that want to see cb become the next aspen/t-ride. cb definitely needs alot more intermediate terrian to compete but when bob said the "skiing is marginal at best" he was being very generous. i think anyone that has ever looked over at snodgrass can figure that out. after moving to golden and skiing the front range areas you would have to smoke all of the "diesel" in the entire gunny valley to think that 250 acres of crappy intermediate terrain was going to bring in another 250,000 skiers a year, which is what cbmr was claiming. what would have happened when cbmr would've marketed it as being on par with breck/vail/cooper/keystone type of intermediate terrain? alot of people would have showed up thinking that they were going to have thousands of acres of that type of skiing only to find a hand full of those type of runs. then their really pissed and never come back. however, putting in lifts does increase the value of the real estate by 30 to 40%, since it becomes ski in, ski out. it will be interesting to see where cbmr goes from here, hopefully they can get creative and find their niche. i hope they don't decide to cut off their nose to spite the town. -mike catura


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

jeffsssmith said:


> Crested Butte Mountain Resort owns the land at the base of Snodgrass Mtn. which is already approved as a development with 100's of units (condos, houses, hotels). Without this real estate development the ski area expansion wouldn't have much of an economic benefit for the ski area.


Just a thought, what about a diffrent agenda. The college could go into the direction of the medical field. ( now liberal arts?). With medical, this would bring teachers/professors ect, to teach students and the hosipital would also grow (be expanded.) Grants could be provided for technical application, added housing, adding growth to the community. Funding could also be provided, simulair to Baylor university here in Texass.

I would belive education would be the key and the ski resort would get the fall-off effect in return.

Just a thought for discussion.

Just sayin,,


----------



## CBrown (Oct 28, 2004)

I just saw protesters outside the USFS office on 9News pissed about the denial.


----------

