# pillaging...



## Peev (Oct 24, 2003)

Pillaging is the correct term.

As someone working in the ski industry in Pagosa this winter, it's a sad thought that this development could happen. The tax money wouldn't go to Pagosa or Archuleta County, where a majority of the infrastructure and employment resides. The development and jobs "Red" and his cronies speak so highly of would be short lived for the area. Yes, it would provide more jobs at the village but ultimately take jobs, taxes, interest, and much more away from Pagosa and South Fork. Think Summit County, Vail valley, etc. 

Another rich Texan, and yes Red and his lawyers reside in Texas, gettin' rich off Colorado land. Haven't we seen this shit before?


----------



## Peev (Oct 24, 2003)

Colorado Wild - Friends of Wolf Creek


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

I must say that I'm a bit surprised at people being against this move. Personally, I'm against building a huge base area in a wetland, and a land swap seems like a great way to rectify the situation. To each his own I guess....


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

Casey, it boils down to he can do a trade because he has money. You and I can't. 

From the article: The proposed trade would exchange 178 acres of private land for 204 acres of Forest Service land a bit farther away from Wolf Creek Ski Area. A Forest Service land appraisal suggested the federal land is worth less than the private land.

If the 204 is truly less then why trade? Obviously it's not worth less. And if you or I try to get 10 acres here and trade for 5 there we'll get the flat out NO and they wouldn't look twice at us. Classic example of tax payer funded land being whored out to the rich.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

hojo said:


> Casey, it boils down to he can do a trade because he has money. You and I can't. Actually, I can't because I don't own land on Wolf Creeek Pass to trade.
> 
> From the article: The proposed trade would exchange 178 acres of private land for 204 acres of Forest Service land a bit farther away from Wolf Creek Ski Area. A Forest Service land appraisal suggested the federal land is worth less than the private land. My read is that the land is worth less per acre (thus thus the swap of 178 acres for 204 acres).
> 
> If the 204 is truly less then why trade? Obviously it's not worth less. And if you or I try to get 10 acres here and trade for 5 there we'll get the flat out NO and they wouldn't look twice at us. Classic example of tax payer funded land being whored out to the rich. I think the above explanation will help you here.


 -Casey


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

Firstly, I would agree that if they are going to develop, don't do it in the wet land.

In the letter of the law: Yes, you could trade if you owned land. In the politics of the law you have to have a lot of money or a significant contribution. That'swhat they are hoping for for in this deal (save the wetland). It looks innocuous on paper: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...y/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdf but in practice, it's not simple and it's often used in a manner that can be deemed very much against the public good.

As far as valuation goes, who is appraising it? Can you think of any circumstances where the sale of public land was done so without proper oversight and for values far below what they should have been?

There are so many facets into this when you look at the way a transaction can be done. Give or take one acre per side and all of the sudden it doesn't meet the criteria. Is this land swap, given that he probably can't develop the wet land anyhow, will the public interests be truly served or will it be commercial interests?

Take a look at that and this document for the process: http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Hojo-
I get your point. Unfortunately, on issues where people feel passionately that someone is doing wrong, they can often get blinded and expect a conspiracy. Then, when they point out these "conspiracy" issues, they undercut their argument and come off as wackos.
-The valuation of said properties is an example. The idea that the total value is unbalanced (when to me it seemed pretty obvious in the article that the value of an acre is unbalanced...and thus the acreage difference in the swap). When pointed out, all of a sudden the "giveaway" has no thrust in the argument and the person on that side of the issue looks like wacko.
-Another example is saying things like "who exactly is doing this appraisal?" In the article it clearly says a "Forest Service land appraisal". My assumption is that it is either the Forest Service doing the appraisal, or they have a set of guidelines that the 3rd party appraiser must follow. Either way, if it is a concern, research it! Don't imply that there is wrong doing, just because you don't know.

Ultimately, I don't think I'd get along with Ol Red, but at least his motivations are transparent (to make as much money off his land as possible). In this issue, everyone needs to ask themself what their motivations are and whether or not they are applying them equitably. Am I against this because he's from Texas? Am I against every Texan? Jack Johnson? Lee Harvey Oswald (bad example)?

Me personally, I just like the process and the debate.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

caseybailey said:


> Hojo-
> 
> -Another example is saying things like "who exactly is doing this appraisal?" In the article it clearly says a "Forest Service land appraisal". My assumption is that it is either the Forest Service doing the appraisal, or they have a set of guidelines that the 3rd party appraiser must follow. Either way, if it is a concern, research it! Don't imply that there is wrong doing, just because you don't know.
> 
> ...


Conspiracy is usually always based in some sort of truth or fact: Federal audit blasts Denver Stapleton airport land deals - The Denver Post Surely this was appraised according to policies and procedures. Surely someone checked to see if Tom Cruise's land was actually ag. land. $400 in taxes? I guarantee if I put a sheep on my land and try to get an ag break the assessor would laugh me out of his office.

If a developer want's to develop then he can do like he's supposed to and buy the land. Land trades can be grossly abused.

Protecting public land is important to me. I fear we will have no public land. When I see a land deal that slowly sucks away land I get concerned. Red may be transparent but that doesn't mean what he is attempting to do is right. Red may not grease the wheels (or he may) but too many have done so before him and that is cause enough to be very leery.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

Just to drive my point home about land values... http://www.westlx.org/landtradesfraught.pdf The top two abuses of land trade deals: poor assessment and deals of questionable public benefit. I would say my caution on the side of "this deal stinks" is justified based on precedent. Not to say that you're not being fair and open for discussion.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Irony- questioning a federal land appraisal by using a city/state land appraisal that was found to be shady by a federal audit.

Irony- Going after a developer who hopes to build a village next to a ski area in hopes that you can protect public land. His land is private and the ski area land is public. (Granted he was asking for an easement across public land.)

Ultimately, wouldn't it be easier to go after the ski area? If you get the Forest Service to revoke the permit, then the ski area closes and then you lack the incentive to build a village on top of a mountain pass. Just sayin.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

I think the term you're looking for his hypocrisy. And "a" shady land deal? I think they said something like, "The GAO report was the 11th government audit in the past four years to criticize land exchanges -- the 12th was
issued just days ago by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

From where I sit, his ownership of that land is protection enough since he can't build on it. And the major difference is that the ski area is occupying land that's still public and still under the rules of land management. Sorry, but land developers have a history of pillaging. If it goes though with legitimacy then I'll be less concerned. If the locals don't want it and it goes through I'll be sad that money won out over public interest.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

hojo said:


> I think the term you're looking for his hypocrisy. And "a" shady land deal? I think they said something like, "The GAO report was the 11th government audit in the past four years to criticize land exchanges -- the 12th was
> issued just days ago by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
> Ok, I get it...but I still want to know what is shady about this Forest Service land appraisal? I'm ok with being upset if there is something to be upset about. I'm just not sure that there is something to be upset about in this instance. What is it? Share it with others so that they too can point out the injustices during the public comment time.
> 
> From where I sit, his ownership of that land is protection enough since he can't build on it. And the major difference is that the ski area is occupying land that's still public and still under the rules of land management. Sorry, but land developers have a history of pillaging. If it goes though with legitimacy then I'll be less concerned. If the locals don't want it and it goes through I'll be sad that money won out over public interest.


Two things- 
-Land developers may have a history of pillaging, but they also built my house. I'd have to be a hypocrite to point fingers while at the same time sitting back and reaping benefits from them. 
-Unfortunately, locals aren't the only ones who own the land. It is federal land and belongs to all the citizens. Local voice should be considered, but not to the exclusion of all the other voices.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

caseybailey said:


> Two things-
> -Land developers may have a history of pillaging, but they also built my house. I'd have to be a hypocrite to point fingers while at the same time sitting back and reaping benefits from them.
> -Unfortunately, locals aren't the only ones who own the land. It is federal land and belongs to all the citizens. Local voice should be considered, but not to the exclusion of all the other voices.


When I see 204 for 178 I get concerned. Not the biggest of disproportionate values but it means a gross loss of our public land. That is an injustice, no matter how slight. Sadly, we will see more and more go if we stay on this idea of deficit=bad. How did Regan get away with it anyhow?

As far as the necessary evils of living in built structures, there are more and less responsible ways to do it. But this deal is not about shelter for the masses, it's about profit at the expense of losing public lands.


----------



## kevdog (Jun 7, 2007)

The REAL Issue here is that so many people love Wolf Creek (myself included), this tiny, awesome old-school ski hill that gets wicked snow. And the lovers of Wolf Creek just don't like the idea of some out of state land developer wanker wrecking the place. I also think Wolf Creek Pass is a pretty extreme place (snow, wind, avalanche, cold) and have a hard time seeing how you could build a successful housing resort in such an environment without doing some harm to the area.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*My objection to this deal.*

Guy buys a beaver pond wetland that can't be developed. Then, when it is determined it can't be developed, is rewarded with a land swap for developable acerage. Not a NIMBY in general, but if a guy plays the system like this, it makes me a bit angry. There was a reason he got that land cheap. 

I don't see wolf creek as being a big resort ever. Just too far from any airport. The poulation centers in the vacinity are already serviced by Purgatory, Santa Fe and Toas. If they want to throw up a few condo's, I just dont see a major difference in skier numbers. A few hotel owners down valley on either side would have some impact for sure.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm playing devil's advocate (it helps people examine their position for flaws)
-You can build in wetlands. It is done all the time. You do have to replace those wetlands.

-I can think of no reasoning why one would be against the village and for the ski area or vice versa (why it is ok for one group to clear-cut and replace with concrete and steel, but not another). 

-The environmental impact of the ski area is astronomical to anything Red has done up to this point and will probably still be much larger if ol Red gets his way.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

caseybailey said:


> I'm playing devil's advocate (it helps people examine their position for flaws)
> -You can build in wetlands. It is done all the time. You do have to replace those wetlands.


That is irrelevant. In this particular case they are not allowed to build on these wetlands.



> -I can think of no reasoning why one would be against the village and for the ski area or vice versa (why it is ok for one group to clear-cut and replace with concrete and steel, but not another).


A ski area services many, while a development services far fewer, in this particular case at the cost of another recreational area.




> -The environmental impact of the ski area is astronomical to anything Red has done up to this point and will probably still be much larger if ol Red gets his way.


I don't know enough about the area or details to provide a strong case against this. I think a cumulative impact argument looking at all development established and likely in the future will tear down this objection.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

What it has tuned me into is that at some point, when the politicians decide to ignore deficits again, I'll write a letter that states the following:

I would like to see the land swap agreement amended to read that the land offered must both be of a higher value but also equal to or greater than the land desired. The general accessibility and terrain of the offered land must also be of similar or more accessible (accessible in terms of right-of-way). The land desired may not enclose or hinder access to surrounding public lands.

This would be in direct response to those buying up desert acres and swapping for pristine alpine land which subsequently cuts off a general right of way to more public land. That shit pisses me off. There are spots on the BLM maps that has public land completely surrounded by private land.


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

Big changes to the ski area proposed:

Wolf Creek Ski Area looking to expand - The Pueblo Chieftain: Local


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

It will be interesting to see how strong the resistence is for this. When you call yourself "Friends of Wolf Creek" do you mean the ski area, the pass or just the creek? This will give them the opportunity to clarify (and maybe look into a name change).


----------



## kevdog (Jun 7, 2007)

I thought Pitcher didn't want a housing development at the base of Wolf Creek, correct?

It does seems a bit hypocritical for Davey Pitcher to be all up in arms about B.J. “Red” McCombs desire to build a resort at Wolf Creek, now that he has shown an interest in expanding Wolf Creek himself.


----------



## Ykbrown (Apr 15, 2008)

Here's the deal as I see it. There simply aren't enough resources/ infrastructure to support such a village at wolf creek. How much water do you need for this village, where does the sewage go, where the electricity come from, and at what cost? How about increased traffic? It's not just the proposed land itself that should be considered, but all the impact on the surrounding land. It is true that ski resorts have a large ecological footprint, but is that an excuse to make it worse by building a village? 

Many, including myself frequent wolf creek ski area because it is small, with out the amenities and unnecessary luxuries available at other resorts. Keeps the gapers away, while providing a great experience for those of us who actually like to ski, instead of those who want show off our affluence by spending as much money as possible on lavish ski vacations. The tax issue is of course important, keep the money where it needs to be, support the locals who make the skiing happen, who run the resort.

Bottom line, Wolf creek is one of the last ski areas that holds true to the true meaning of skiing (at least as close as it comes while skiing at a resort), and to destroy that would be a tragedy, all for a couple extra million for a texan billionaire, who hopefully will do us all a favor and depart from the world of the living.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

YKBrown-
In light of these recent steps to make Wolf Creek a big area, do you see yourself finding a new gem to ski or will you continue to support them even though some of thier actions go against your principles?


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

Ykbrown said:


> Bottom line, Wolf creek is one of the last ski areas that holds true to the true meaning of skiing (at least as close as it comes while skiing at a resort), and to destroy that would be a tragedy, all for a couple extra million for a texan billionaire, who hopefully will do us all a favor and depart from the world of the living.


Other than not wanting to see development of a base area at Wolf Creek, I don't really know what you guys are arguing about, or what the merits of your respective arguments may be. And I don't really care. I'm chimming in because I think its fucked up for you to wish someone dead over this issue. I realize you probably didn't mean it. And I can understand that you may be emotionally involved in keeping what you believe is the "true meaning of skiing" intact at Wolf Creek, but that doesn't give you an excuse to wish for someone to be dead, and the bottom line is that you said it. That's just fucked up - and someone needs to call your ass out for making such a silly, emotional and juvenille statement. 
And furthermore, I resent your inference that just because he's a billionare, that he's from TX, and that because it goes against what YOUR idea of skiing is, you are justified in saying that. Who the hell made you the keeper of skiing's soul, anyway.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*if he builds it, I see another bankruptcy on the horizon.*

Step in line behing Targhee, Brian Head developments, Powder Mountain, etc...When these remote areas try to build these real estate investment schemes, it always goes south fast. 

Exceptional skiing can overcome. Examples would be Crested Butte or Toas. 

While I am a fan of Wolf Creek, I don't see this being a viable venture. As one of my co-workers said of mountain development, "I'll wait for the first round to go under and then try to pick something up for ten cents on the dollar". I thought he was cynical when he said it, but have come to see the truth in his statement.


----------



## Ykbrown (Apr 15, 2008)

CGM said:


> And furthermore, I resent your inference that just because he's a billionare, that he's from TX, .


It's not an inference, its the truth, born in spur, Tx, just outside of lubbock. sorry the stereotype holds true. And for my sentiment for 'ol red McCombs, it is not based solely on his wolf creek plans. He is big into the oil and gas industry, owning mccombs energy in Houston. He is a cofounder of clear channel communications, which did more than anything to fuck up the music industry. He tried to build a 50,000 acre(200 square kilometers) casino resort in navajo canyon at lake powell. He is the incarnation of everything wrong with business in this country. Try doing your homework... And I don't want him dead, I just would rather that he stop trying to fuck my world up.

And you're right I'm not the keeper of what it means to ski, its just my interpretation, take it or leave it. My post was meant to illicit a response, and I succeeded evidently, and to raise some questions.

Before you pass judgement you might want to educate yourself, cgm. Thanks for your input


----------



## cmike1 (Sep 10, 2006)

It's always been my understanding that the Pritchers aren't against any and all development, just development on the scale of McCombs proposal. As others have already said, I think the economics of any large scale development in that neck of the woods would be a fairly dubious proposition but in the real estate speculation/development world old habits die hard.

PS: Just because some folks are of the high end of the economic scale doesn't mean they are not passionate and/or skilled skiers. I consider myself to be lower middle class at best, but I've done some great trips to Canadian ski touring huts, various haute route variations and Colorado hut to hut trips with folks who can afford high end luxury and they are just as strong, fit, BC savy, good skiers as anyone who might consider themselves "pure" dirtbag skiers. (they're just like me only they drive nicer cars and have bigger house's :lol. To label anyone you don't know based on your prejudices shows a real narrow mind.


----------



## Ykbrown (Apr 15, 2008)

Cmike1, 

you're right, many people on the upper end of the economic scale do truly have a passion for the sport. I'm not passing judgement on these people at all... perhaps my point wasn't well made. regardless its there, so extrapolate whatever meaning you want from what I had to say.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

Ykbrown said:


> Before you pass judgement you might want to educate yourself, cgm. Thanks for your input


I like how you conveniently side stepped my stance on your statement about wishing the guy to be dead. I did plenty of homework just reading your post to feel justified in calling you an asshole. 
And I know the guy is from TX...I don't hold that, or any of his other dealings as sufficient grounds for making such silly, childish statements. 

I find it interesting to read the banter on this forum, particularly over hot button issues....and as annoying as it is when things degenerate to name calling, it is just silly when assholes like you start take it to the next level making asinine and violent statements while hiding behind the anonymity that the internet gives them. And today I felt compelled to call you out. 

If you're so attached to your wish, why don't you put all your homework together and send the local paper an op-ed about why TX bilionaires who have ties to energy, conservative media, development, etc, should do us all a favor and die. At least then your name will be attached to it, and Mr. McCombs might have a chance to hear your sentiments. 
That's the point that I was making. 

And for what its worth, I like Texans...all those that I've had the pleasure of meeting are polite and genuine.


----------



## cmike1 (Sep 10, 2006)

Ykbrown said:


> Cmike1,
> 
> you're right, many people on the upper end of the economic scale do truly have a passion for the sport. I'm not passing judgement on these people at all... perhaps my point wasn't well made. regardless its there, so extrapolate whatever meaning you want from what I had to say.


No worries. It's never easy to get the full gist of where someone is coming from on the interwebz.

Your post brought it out but I was referring more to the general bashing that folks who for whatever reason, be they rich, poor, hippies, yuppies, or even from Boulder, are convenient whipping boys for people to bag on. I find it best to reserve judgement till I know someone and even then, IMO judging people is a fools hang up. (not that I can't be a fool :lol: ) Usually it comes from just trying to drag someone down so a person can feel they're above another.
Now if you want to discuss the impacts of some _activity_, be it plush resorts for the wealthy or campgrounds for the dirt bags, by all means, fair game, but when you don't know someone, leave the personal shit out of it.


----------



## mountainjah (Jun 21, 2010)

The Durango Herald 04/18/2011 | Wolf Creek input sought

Rise up and be heard buzzards!


----------

