As our gentle readers will recall, we first published Don Wilson's Malan's Basin Feasibility Opinion Letter , embedded within within one of our main articles on September 20, 2006. The Standard-Examiner also published an abbreviated version on September 23, 2006. This letter, which had been originally prepared and submitted to the Emerald City council on July 15 2006, represents, in our view, the most significant document publicly released to date, regarding the feasibility of establishing a ski-industry type resort in Malan's Basin. This document has been cited repeatedly by various members of the community since its public dissemination, and our above-linked archived article remains one of the most frequently visited and emailed pages on Weber County Forum.
The unique combination of Mr. Wilson's professional engineering and ski area management backgrounds has made Mr. Wilson's letter impossible to ignore, and it certainly has not suffered that fate -- except by Mind-numbed Emerald City Gondolists, who have been deafeningly silent to date on the issues raised by Mr. Wilson, and who seem to wish the letter would just "go away."
The continuing silence is broken at least slightly by today's Kristen Moulton article however, which reprises the Wilson letter issues, and provides a few meager responses, from none other than the usually-elusive Chris Peterson himself.
We invite our gentle readers to read Kristen's article, and to compare Mr. Peterson's tangential responses with the robust and precise information provided in Mr. Wilson's letter.
As an added bonus, we also link here the full text of the responsive November 17, 2006 Chris Peterson email, to which Ms. Moulton refers in her article. We'll add that we have received this foregoing text from several different sources over the past week, under circumstances which lead us to believe this particular material is entirely accurate and authentic.
We'll resist the temptation to offer our own additional snarky editorial comments, except to suggest that Mr. Peterson's foregoing email text must stand on its own merit (or lack thereof,) and that Mr. Peterson may have inadvertantly provided us considerable insight into one wanna-be developer's intellectual capacity and professional competence.
We propose that our readers use today's thread to work out the cobwebs after a long weekend. What did Chris Peterson get right, we ask, (if anything?) And what did he get dead-wrong? And what objections did Mr. Peterson ignore entirely?
Who will be the first to comment?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
49 comments:
I'll take a shot. I'll critique Peterson's letter a couple of paragraphs at a time.
Hi Kristen,
Thanks for sending me a copy of Don Wilson's Resort Feasibility Study letter to the Ogden City Council. I appreciate your interest in the issues raised by Mr. Wilson.
Although I've never met him, Don Wilson sounds like a reasonable man who apparently headed up resort planning at Snowbasin from 1978 until 1981, a 3 year period, 25 years ago, during which time very little changed at Snowbasin.
Don has made a number of understandable but incorrect assumptions about my resort plans, and he's at a further disadvantage because he has been using maps with poor granularity (10 meter contours) and he's been out of the resort business for 25 years.
I, on the other hand, headed up resort planning at Snowbasin for 17 years, ending 2 years ago, a period during which Snowbasin was radically transformed and expanded, and during which dozens of millions of dollars were invested.
I'll just touch on a couple of incorrect assumptions in what Mr. Wilson calls his "informal analysis".
Mr. Wilson's feasibility study deals with the bare facts relating to terrain and exposure within the boundaries of Malan's Basin. The fact that Snowbasin was not under a major expansion during Mr Wilson's tenure has nothing to do with his ability to understand slope, exposure and snow quality issues. Mr Wilson also was a ski patrolman, giving him an understanding of all things related to skiing, snow, and the mountain environment. I would trust the judgement of a senior ski patroller over management on questions of terrain and skiability. Ski patrollers are out on the mountain daily dealing with hazards and avalanche control. I will suggest that Snowbasin was a much wilder and potentially more dangerous place for a ski patroller before the expansion. The issue of map granularity has no bearing. The average slope and side-slope aspect is quite readable on standard topo maps and cannot be magically resolved by higher resolution(granularity? as Peterson states) If Peterson has maps of such detail, why have they not been shared with the community and used to resolve these key issues. The acreage and side-slope aspects along with the funneling of all ski traffic to a narrow corridor down the middle of the valley is easier to determine from observing the basin than relying on maps. The terrain of Snowbasin and most naturally suitable ski areas have a fanning out trend as opposed to the funneling found in Malan's Basin.
First, resort size: "Skier capacity is a factor in resort profitability and is in direct relation to the physical size of a development" Mr. Wilson got this partly right, but skier capacity is rarely a relevant constraint in Utah. For example, Snowbasin Resort has a SAOT (skiers at one time) capacity of about 14,000 skiers. On the busiest holidays and weekends at Snowbasin, the crowd totals between 4,000 and 5,000 skiers and snowboarders.
I have no idea what point Mr. Peterson is making here. Is he making the case that he can afford to operate Malan's Basin at far below the carrying capacity of 200 acres? He has certainly made no case for a greater SAOT in Malan's. "skier capacity is rarely a relevant constraint in Utah." Constraint to what? All of Utah's resorts dwarf the proposed Malan's Basin Resort. No relevant comparison can be drawn from the operations of Utah's other resorts. The extreme costs of development and operation of a very small and roadless ski resort can add up to one thing, his bottom line is much higher than any resort and his carrying capacity is far lower. This simple equation translates into extremely limited or highly questionable profitability.
Snowbasin is operating at far below it's capacity. Snowbasin's unique layout allows more acreage to be served by fewer lifts than almost any other ski area. This allows it to control costs to a certain degree. Snowbasin is reportedly operating at a loss. This is a luxury afforded by Earl Holding and Sinclair Oil. Sinclair enjoys probably the highest profit margins in the oil industry due to it's ownership of oil and gas leases, pipelines, refining, delivery and the station where you pump, all within our Great Basin and Northern Rocky Mountain region. They can afford it.
If you are closer to your customers than your competitors, and you provide a good product, you can do lots of business in a modestly sized ski and snowboard area. An example: Mountain High Resort in Southern California. They just expanded by purchasing a nearby area, but for years and years Mountain High Resort has generated over 500,000 skier days annually on a 220 acre ski mountain with 1600 ft. of vertical drop. That is more skier days than all but a handful of resorts nationwide. I am familiar with the numbers because I ws part of an investor group bidding for Mountain High when it was recently put on the market. Our group was eventually outbid, by the way.
Mr. Peterson makes the case that a very small ski area can be profitable. Mt. High is the supreme example. They are also the most accesible ski area to more than 2 million people within a hours drive. 15 million within 3 hours. Mt High is located 15 miles off of I-15 in San Bernadino County and there is no typically treacherous mountain driving to get there like the other SoCal ski areas. They have no modern lodging and no expensive plazas, malls, condos, restaurants, etc. In short, they have the formula for big cash earnings. They have no gondolas and a far less challenging mountain environment than Malan's Basin. A perfectly Northern Exposure and tall tree cover helps them hold snow till May.
The sad truth is that Malan's Basin, with or without the town gondola, will be only more convenient than another resort choice to approximately 10,000 residents within a mile or so of the proposed foothill base. The short drive to Snowbasin and their vastly superior acreage makes that choice a no-brainer. The afore-mentioned high-bottom-line of building in Malan's basin prevents any ticket price reduction to compete. Local skier's and snowboarders are no fools. They are here for the proximity to Snowbasin. It's all about the Snowbasin experience.
Mr Peterson and the mayor have promoted this plan to appeal ski tourists yet in this paragraph he attempts to make the case for a locally focused ski area. I am sorry to report that it qualifies for neither.
Rudi:
You invite us to comment on what Mr. Peterson got right. I found something I think. No where in his missive does he state, suggest, imply or even hint that his Malan's Basin mini-ski venue will connect with, be linked to or in any way provide skiers with access to Snow Basin. Kudos to Mr. Peterson for that at least. He's attained in his letter a level of honesty not yet to be found on Ogden City's official website, where the Godfrey Administration is still suggesting that the gondola will connect skiers with and/or provide access to Snow Basin. [I just logged on and checked.]
Which leaves the Mayor claiming [falsely] that the gondola/gondola will provide access to Snow Basin when Mr. Peterson himself seems no longer to be doing so. Our Mayor, it seems, operates on the principle that one should never let the facts interfere with what it is useful to him to have the public believe.
Second, resort services: Mr. Wilson lectures the city council about the back-of-house and front-of-house facilities needed to successfully service a winter resort. It is entirely appropriate for Mr. Wilson to suggest to the city council some of the things they should look for, when the time comes, in resort service facilities design. To assume, however, that vital facilities have been overlooked or can't be provided within my proposed resort, is not appropriate. In addition to having a hand in planning the built environment at Snowbasin and Sun Valley, I also headed up Human Resources at Sinclair Oil for 7 years, and was responsible for the employee training programs that, in combination with fine facilities and great employees, led the readers of SKI Magazine this year to vote Snowbasin and Sun Valley the #2 and #3 resorts in North America for On Mountain Food and the #3 and #4 resorts in North America in skier services (pg. 184, Ski Magazine, October 2006)
Again, I have no idea what point is made here. He takes the long way around a key issue raised by Don Wilson. The 200 acres Malan's Basin severely limits it's user capacity as well as usable acreage for base facilities. Mr Peterson has planned 350 condos as well as a spacious plaza, clocktower, restaurants, shops and more in an area already challenged by slope, avalanche exposure and the need for critical infrastructure like water, sewage, trash, gondola terminal, roads, snowcat sheds, fueling area...He has offered no estimate of buildable acreage to support his position. Again we are taken for fools and bullied into trusting the judgement of the man who also wants to buy our parklands for home development. Dare I say he has a Conflict of Interest.
He also touts his position in human resources. That is a far stretch from mountain operations. These Ski Magazine ratings are such fluff. They imply some huge difference in the experience you will encounter at some higher rated resort. This is so ridiculously subjective that it has no bearing on anything in his resume or this discussion. I will regretably report that Snowbasin's food is only what I would call "creatively mediocre" The Pizzas typically have only 2 or 3 toppings and heavy on the cheese, Just trry to get something made your way. I have had surly pseudo-chefs refuse to put a few of the at-hand salad makings on my sandwich. "Those are for the salads" There is no mexican food and no salad bar. I don't go to Snowbasin for the food. Maybe having a great burrito would be the key to Malan's Basin success.
Third, lift and run layout. Mr. Wilson correctly ascertains that a large portion of the skiing in Malan's Basin will consist of a beginner ridge run, a beginner valley run, and numerous steeper intermediate and advanced runs connecting the two gentle runs. This is a matter of personal taste, but I simply disagree with Mr. Wilson that "the overall skiing experience would be greatly diminished" because an intermediate or advanced ski run starts and/or ends with some beginner terrain. The types of grading and skier traffic problems to which Mr. Wilson alludes in his City Council letter have been resolved many times before at Snowbasin and Sun Valley. I am surprised, in fact, that some of the more obvious and inexpensive-to-fix earth-moving and skier traffic problems at Snowbasin were not solved in the years before Mr. Holding purchased Snowbasin in 1984. I hope you're beginning to get at least the faint impression that Malan's Basin is not my first rodeo. On the topic of lifts, over the last 15 years, three of the most respected ski-area planning firms in the world created development and lift plans for Snowbasin. Only two people in the Snowbasin organization disagreed with the lift plans: Earl Holding (the final decision maker) and me. Earl and I thought that the John Paul quad lift would be much better if the bottom terminal was near the main plaza instead of across from the Porcupine bottom terminal a third of the way up the mountain. Also against the advice of the best ski area planners, Earl and I favored a single gondola from the bottom of Strawberry bowl to the top instead of an upper plus a lower chairlift. At Sinclair Oil, Earl Holding fosters an environment where important issues are vigorously examined and attacked from all angles before a final decision is made. Nothing is off-limits in those private meetings. The arguments over the John Paul lift and Strawberry Gondola filled more than one 12 hour meeting. It is the same process that was followed to decide on the configuration of 11 new high-speed lifts, 14 elegant new log buildings, and numerous other projects carried out at Sun Valley and Snowbasin over the last 18 years. In the end, Mr. Holding overruled the professional planners who didn't have as much operating experience and labor-cost sensitivity as us, and the John Paul and Strawberry cableways were built the way Earl Holding and I wanted them. Skiers clearly agree: this year they voted Snowbasin's lift system #1 in North America (SKI Magazine, page 182, October 2006)
Another bizarre collection of references. The issue of skier traffic was no doubt quite resolvable when you have nearly 3000 acres to work with at Snowbasin and Sun Valley. Also earth moving equipment could be driven up the mountain. Each piece of earth moving equipment would have to airlifted to Malan's Basin greatly increasing the cost of operation. Those case by case reconfigurations had more to do with widening trail mergers than dealing with the natural funneling of Malan's basin. His story about the choice of lift placement at Snowbasin is interesting. I cannot fathom why a consultant would be suggesting two lifts in the place of one...except for two obvious reasons..they want to sell you two lifts instead of one and the possibility that some rare poor skiers don't want to ride the whole mountain, a very old-school concern. This decision was a huge no-brainer and since Earl had the cash..go for it. This was simply a non-decision and I would love to see the points given to support the various choices. Mr Peterson reveals in this story more his subservience to Earl Holding than his maverick independence. He also takes a very subtle and unfair jab at Don Wilson when he wonders why some of the reconfigurations were not done on his watch. Maybe it's because they did not have the money, the lift system, or the need until Earl bought the resort. This quote, "At Sinclair Oil, Earl Holding fosters an environment where important issues are vigorously examined and attacked from all angles before a final decision is made. Nothing is off-limits in those private meetings." strikes me as an invitation to subject his Malan's Basin plan to the same rigorous process. Yes Chris, Let us engage in a hammering of all the issues related to your proposal with nothing off-limits and we will ply these waters until a satisfactory resolution of those issues have been reached regardless of outcome. Ski Magazine was several years late as usual. I voted Snowbasin's lift system the best in North America 6 Years ago when they first installed them. Evidence of their herd mentality and unscientific method.
In summary, Don Wilson seems like a reasonable man who, by drawing on some accurate and some inaccurate information, has made some understandable but incorrect assumptions about my proposed resort. I look forward to meeting him someday to compare notes about Snowbasin and Malan's Basin.
Best Regards,
Chris Peterson
PS Kristen, I hope you don't mind if I send a copy of this email to some of the people in Ogden who are following the Malan'sBasin issue. I hope my letter adds more light than heat to the community discussion, but I'm told that heat seems to have been winning that battle lately.
Mr Peterson closes with a quaint nod of respect to Don Wilson while implying his superior view. He wants to send his letter a those in Ogden who are following the issue. I've been following yet did not recieve a copy. Any other interested parties out there get overlooked?
Unfortunately, Chris, your letter will only be kindling. Little there to archive. Plenty to counter. Keep trying. Maybe you should have the debate team at WSU or Ogden High take a crack at this issue.
Peterson's letter is rambling and defensive. That fact alone warrants scrutiny of Mr. Peterson's fitness as a developer of such consequence to our city, He has been reclusive of late and pushing harder from the comfort of home with his hired gun, Attorney Elliot. He is now engaged in defining a process to his advantage designed to entangle the city in a step-by-step series of hoops that can be used against the city as breaking a good faith negotiation process if the city council decides at some point that this is not in the city's interest. We are treading in dangerous territory that is familiar and comfortable to Tom Elliot, the hired gun. It is his obvious strategy to force this issue in this step-by-step manner. A lawsuit over this thing is eminent. The City Council should once and for all oput this issue out to pasture until Mr. Peterson and the mayor drop the stupid town gondola and golf course sale from the mix. The perpetuation of the town gondola component and it's dependence on the golf course sale has muddied the whole proposal. It is time to focus on the transit corridor and forget the town gondola. Peterson should be welcomed to bring a proposal for acquiring some foothill base acreage from WSU and move in stages from there. He will be up against formidable obstacles with even that scaled-down plan. His rsort plan will be subjected to the same slope, wetlands and huge logistical hurdles. He has never addressed the extreme construction logistics necessary to the building of his base station and resort. Where do helicopters load? at the airport or right there at the foothill base. Where do the thousands of semi trucks unload and maneuver at the top of 36th. Constructio jobs like this require thousands of cubic yards of sand and gravel for bedding, adn concrete mix. Will they batch the concrete at the foothill or up in Malan's. How do you shuttle a thousand cubic yards of base material on a gondola. Will we have a Hoover Dam-like construction tram erected on the foothill for a couple of years. These are the questions I have. While the few supporters that are left continue to belch the same "we have to do something for Ogden" swill. They simply do not have the vision to understand the impacts or evaluate any benefit. When viewed in the proper context of the transit corridor there is little to be said for the Peterson Alternative with or without the town gondola. Chris Peterson's ridiculous claim to invest 500 million locally simply pales in the potential private investment along a 3-4 mile transit corridor. Peterson and the rest of the LO cheerleaders only hope to corner Ogden's best assets at a time of transition when Ogden shifts from a locally based to regional based economy. In that shift and with the coming of the Frontrunner, Ogden is today now being discovered by the Bold and Beautiful SLC downtowners who are looking to invest where is has not gotten so inflated. The short train ride to downtown SLC will do more for our community than a stupid plan to sell our most magnificent asset.
Peterson’s Letter states: “I, on the other hand, headed up resort planning at Snowbasin for 17 years, ending 2 years ago, a period during which Snowbasin was radically transformed and expanded, and during which dozens of millions of dollars were invested.”
Moulton’s article, by contrast, states: “While Peterson says in the e-mail that he headed resort planning at Snowbasin for 17 years, The Sinclair Companies said last spring that Peterson "had an informal limited role in the creation of the [Snowbasin]master plan."”
Short story – Peterson is lying. His whole letter is a condescending work of pure exaggeration, as he tries to imply his credentials are those of Earl Holding himself. One wonders if that’s why Holding fired him – got tired of Peterson pretending he was Holding.
He dismisses reasoned concerns by making a plea just to trust his experience, of which he has almost none of relevance! He is a classic “confidence man”. What a sick, slimy, similar bunch are Peterson, Godfrey and the Geigers! All talk. No relevant experience. No basis to trust them as they wish us to.
Thanks TT, WCF, Kristin Moulton, Don Wilson, and everyone else for shining some light on this very sleazy business.
"I hope you're beginning to get at least the faint impression that Malan's Basin is not my first rodeo. "
Not even the faintist impression, Chris. What's obvious is complete cluelessness.
The most substantive part of Peterson's email is his comparison of Malan's Basin to Mountain High. So I googled around a little to learn more about this small resort that remarkably attracts hundreds of thousands of visits per season.
Wikipedia is a good place to start, as usual. According to the article's second sentence, Mountain High is the most-visited resort in Southern California, and is often extremely crowded on weekends and holidays (especially at the mountain's West Resort), with long lines for lifts and services.
Here's a good article from an industry newsletter about Mountain High's new owner and the niche market the resort has found among young snowboarders. The owner refers to his resort as "a skateboard park with snow." His young customers, though perhaps affluent by Utah standards, are not the sorts of people who are ready to invest in luxury second homes or condos. Eighty percent of the visitors are snowboarders, and the big attraction is the "terrain park". By the way, the article states that visitor days averaged 500,000 per year over a four-year period, so Peterson is exaggerating slightly when he claims "for years and years . . . over 500,000."
As Peterson correctly points out, Mountain High proves that a small resort can still be economically successful. But the comparison begs a number of obvious questions:
* Will Utahns tolerate the kind of extreme crowding that has made Mountain High successful?
* Does Peterson really believe that Malan's Basin will be closer to his customers than its competitors? If so, then (as tt has already said), his customers would be limited to Weber State students and a few others who live or work within walking distance of the foothill gondola terminal. Even his proposed foothill gated development would be mostly beyond walking distance. From downtown Ogden the gondola ride to Malan's Basin would take 35 minutes, about the same as the drive to Snowbasin or Nordic Valley.
* Who is the target demographic of the Malan's Basin resort, anyway? Is it young snowboarders and WSU students or is it middle-aged empty nesters looking for second homes? These two groups aren't going to mix well, especially at a very small resort with little elbow room.
* Among small ski resorts near urban areas, is Mountain High the exception or the rule? What's the track record of the many other such resorts? How many are there that have gone out of business or barely stayed in business? What are the factors that have made some successful but not others, and how would those factors apply to Malan's Basin?
T.T. et al,
On the topic of CP's agreement with Earl to overide the experts plan for the John Paul & Strawberry lifts, their John Paul decision seems good, but I can't count the number of times we would have appreciated a lift that served the bottom 90% of Strawberry when the top 10% was socked in. I'd have to say "bad decision on that one."
Thanks for your excellent analysis, TT. Speaking as a lifelong skier, it's especially helpful when those of us who are involved in skiing/riding capably translate our own wintersports experience for the benefit of those (most government decision-makers included) who neither ski nor shred.
The "funneling" v. "fanning" concepts distinction is quite elegant, we think. It boils down one of Don Wilson's objections (funneling) nicely, and provides non-skiers with a little handy concept interpretation short-hand.
How I missed this I do not know. A dismal saga of the trials and tribulations of land development:
DRAPER - One developer threatens to sue the city over a $5 million sale "going down the drain." Another laments that his land has become the drain.
Terrabrook Vice President Ed Grampp told the City Council Tuesday that his company is preparing to sue the city over stalled lot approvals in the lofty 3,800-acre SunCrest development that straddles Traverse Ridge...
...Meanwhile, developer Dave Mast says that development on his lower-lying 110 acres in the Utah County portion of Draper - known as Hidden Valley Estates - has stalled because of SunCrest's faulty storm-drainage system.
"By way of their mass grading on Traverse Mountain, they concentrated and diverted the storm drainage to funnel right onto our property," Mast said...
(There's that word again. Obviously a very bad thing in terms of developments.)
... Conflicting geologic studies - which differ on the potential risk of ancient landslides underlying the massive Traverse Ridge - continue to be a bone of contention between SunCrest and the city...
..."The city has not accepted SunCrest Drive as a city road due to deficiencies in construction and failures in the road surface," Edwards said. "We've given them a punch list of items they need to correct - and they haven't."
Without that classification as a city-owned road, city crews won't maintain or plow SunCrest Drive. That condition has to be noted on the recorded plat to alert interested buyers of the road's status.
"They say they've lost sale of lots in the amount of $5 million because the city has placed that disclosure requirement on them," Edwards said...
This really is how these things can start. And how they can go. Not something we'd want.
Thank you to the anonymous individual who alerted me to this.
Developers upset over land, building troubles
Draper disputes: One filed lawsuit to fix drainage problems; the other threatens to sue over stalled lot approvals
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Some great powder at Snowbasin today. Hopefully more snow overnight and some more terrain opened.
Thanks once again to the magnanimous blogmeister behind Weber County Forum and its many Gentle Readers for this treasure chest of archived articles, documents, rants, raves, links, flame-mails, and literally, COMMON SENSE. Everytime I visit this site it's like a blast of fresh air!
Whoever the heck t.t. is has done a masterful job of deconstructing Chris Peterson's Snidely Whiplash-like letter to Kristen Moulten at the S.L Tribune. Dan S.'s background research on the Southern California Mountain High "niche ski resort" is likewise appreciated, and more about it below.
A few week ago, my wife and I and our dog Mokie (fake name to protect her identity) hiked up to Malan's Basin. It was a first ascent for me, and I saw for myself the jewel-like sheltered natural basin that Peterson owns. (And shouldn't it be called PETERSON'S BASIN now?) All you have to do is visit the site to see for yourself what all the shouting is about. Check it out yourself and you'll see what the geologists, the Forest Service, and the ski patrol experts are talking about.
It's NOT skier-friendly terrain, and there's very little of it. I'm an intermediate-level skier and I sure wouldn't want to ski there. It would be too freaking dangerous, tiny, and crowded. Instead of the wide open spaces, what you'd be experiencing is claustraphobia.
It was a warm sunny weekend and we encountered lots of people, families, and dogs along the trail. Ran into Dan Schroeder of the Sierra Club somewhere near Malan's Peak. (And shouldn't that be called PETERSON'S PEAK now??) Dan showed me around and you couldn't ask for a better guide to explain a developer's proposal. ;>
Peterson's Basin is a niche ski area, at best. Co-incidentally (or more likely, NOT) today's Substandard-Exagerator has an AP article from Idaho Springs, Colorado, titled "Niche Ski Resorts Push Freestyle Terrain" with this quote from the general manager, Doug Donovan: "All the analysis I did said if you want to be successful now in this industry, build a skate park on snow near a metropolitan area."
Hope somebody forwards this info to Chris Peterson so he can start changing his strategy toward a new demographic. Forget the condos and enclosed gondola. Peterson's Basin would serve much better as "a skate park on snow." All those snowboarders need is a rope tow, and, as t.t. suggested, " a great burrito" at the food service.
I too especially liked TT's 11:42 AM post. In fact, I think that this is one of the better threads at WCF informationally. I hope a lot of people are reading it.
TT pretty well tore Chris's crappy email apart -- piece by piece.
Here is a favorite point of mine re this discussion:
TT points out the importance of Mr. Wilson's SKI PATROLLER CREDENTIAL! Amyone who knows anything about skiing knows that experienced ski patrolmen like Mr. Wilson get assigned to patrol ALL THE SLOPES in any given ski area.
As such, these dedicated skier/patrollers are uniqiuely qualified to identify ski runs that are problemaic for on-the-hill skiers.
Experinced ski patrilmen like Don Wilson are the best possible resource for identifying problems in ski run design. Indeed, Mr. Wilson's ski patroller experience adds yet another important credential to his engineering/ski run design expertise.
Additionally, TT has adeptly identifed the problem of ski run "funneling," whereby ALL skiers who are eventuzlly "dumped off" in the hypothetical Malan's Basin Resort will be eventially be forced to choose between a beginner's "ridge run" at some point(as opposed to the better concept of "fanning -- which can't be physically accomodated with the steep and narrow funneled Malan's Basin terrain.)
Sooner or later, skiers will be forced in the hypothetical Malans's Basin Resort to descend from the upper beginner's "ridge run" to the beginners' "gully run," which is the same run everybody will be forced into which to descend, if they'd like to get back to the Malan's Basin Gondola terminal.
The dangerous funneled narrow canyon at the bottom of Chris Petrdson's "resort" ravine presents earth-moving problmss that cannot nesolved, in an engineering sense, absent a giant and expensive earth moviong effort, which is something neither Chis Petrson obviously cannot afford, nor can the citizens of Emereld City.
Keep in mind that drastic earthmoving in the narrow Malan's Basin canyon will drastically effect water/sediment runoff in the lower valley too.
Good Points Rudi,
One of the most overlooked impacts would be the erosional runoff resulting from extensive thinning, earthmoving to reconfigure slopes and excavation of the construction site. No doubt the dislodged topsoil could be measured in tonnage. An untimely rainstorm would send a torrent of mud over the waterfall and likely foul and fill the canyon downstream.
Haven't seen the Geigers at Snowbasin yet. One wonders if they are so eager to build a 35 minute gondola ride to Malan's for a little corporate skiing , why they wouldn't at least be utilizing Snowbasin in the decade interim and take advantage of the 25 minute drive up there.
Regarding Ski Patrol expertise...
I am sure when Earl Holding wanted the best information when exploring the tram up Taylor Canyon he dispatched the Snowbasin Ski Patrol to give him the run down. I do not think I would trust the evaluation by anyone with any less snow and mountain experience. They likely took into account the extreme avalanche control issues, the tight and rocky runout down to 27th St. Just like the ridge divide between Malan's and Snowbasin, the Taylor connection would have delivered visitors to an area of the mountain that cannot be opened timely on snow days and visibility can shut it down on many others. The unreliability of this connection would have toppled any thoughts of it's becoming reality.
More fantastic powder today. Nice start to the season.
I wonder if it was CP's idea to end the Strawberry gondola at the top. One of the windiest places I've been, winter or summer. If so, bad idea Chris.
Also, I'm not sold on "his" idea for the John Paul lift top to bottom. If enough more skiers frequent the basin, the traffic jamb below the Porky load area will be horrible. Alta found this out last year with their "improved" Collins/Germania lift.
I'll also take issue with "SKI" magazine fluff. If you read their subititle on the cover, it says "For the skiing lifestyle" They're more interested in food and what people wear in their ratings. The lifts at Snowbasin probably get high marks for keeping the folks that respond to their little polls out of the elements.
CP's e-mail doesn't make it on almost every practical level of thought.
If you're looking for some fun...and a nice evening of jazz...read the other thread about the 'Jingle Bell" Jazz at the Station....presented by WSU Dept of Performing Arts and the Union Station Foundation.
Coming up on the 6th of Dec...a gift to the community. Zoltan Vegvari and Friends...and the schedule thru April.
Not everything in Ogden revolves around that *&%^&%^gondola!!
With all due respect to those involved in the "credentials" discussion: i.e. who has better ones, Wilson or Peterson, etc. Permit me to suggest it does not matter much, if at all. What Mr. Wilson presented in his feasibility study were conclusions based on evidence [slopes, acreage, etc.] Mr. Peterson's reply offered little or no evidence to counter Mr. Wilson's conclusions. For example, if Mr. Peterson claims better maps will show some of Mr. Wilson's conclusions to have been wrong, all he has to do is produce those allegedly better maps. He as not.
ALL arguments from authority... i.e. believe me because of who I am... are flawed and major decisions should not be made solely upon them outside of religion. If Mr. Peterson has facts or evidence to suggest Mr. Wilson is wrong, let him produce that fact-based evidence. Either he can make his case on the evidence or he can't. It does not matter a hill of beans if Mr. Peterson was a key player in Snowbasin's development or an occasional extra along for the ride. Either Mr. Peterson has the fact-based-evidence to support his claims or he doesn't. That's what matters. All the rest is clutter, noise and distraction.
Come now Curmudgeon. Expert's credentials mean EVERYTHING in debate when the time comes for weighing the evidence in any rational discussion.
Case in point:
Mr. Wilson is a career engineer, with a background in ski area management and design. Addtionally he spent many years patrolling the slopes at SNOWBASIN, ferchrisakes, gaining hands-on experience in slopes that work locally... and those which don't. In short, MR. Wilson qualifies as an expert on the subject at hand.
Chris Peterson's expretise, judging from his own description, seems to relate to his experience as the son-inlaw of the billionaire. "Me and Earl," is how his dismal best foot forward email ought to be described. In short, he hasn't yet "qualified" himself as an expert on the subject.
We know you LOVE to argue. For that you should be commended.
Nevertheless, experience has its natural voice, and it's ridiculous, you'll have to admit, to place Chris Peterson's self-serving and lame retort, submitted to a journalist to get his side to the story, founded mainly upon his now-severed relationshp with Earl Holding, on the same level as the "expert" infornation provided by Mr. Wilson.
Expert opinion desrves great weight in any argument.
There's nothing in Mr. Peterson's inadequate reply to accord it any weight ay all.
If anything, in context, his statement strips it of any evidentiary weight.
Credentials mean everything when we weigh and consider expert opinon.
Mr. Wilson's are quite substantial.
Mr. Peterson has none that we can decipher.
Until and unless we receive conflicting information from at least eqaully reliable, credible and authoritative sources, the weight of Mr. Wilson's opinion far outweighs anything Chris Peterson has offered so far.
Authority DOES COUNT in an evidentiary battle between experts.
Mr. Wilson holds all the cards re expert opinion, so far, in our not so humble opinion.
Good point, rudi. As a retired Thiokol engineer, Mr. Wilson is the penultimate expert.
An actual Rocket Scientist!
Rudi:
Well, we disagree then. If Mr. Peterson was by common agreement the most experienced man in ski venue development in North America, his views would still not be compelling absent evidence to back them up. What makes expert testimony on matters of public policy compelling is the expert can back his views up with fact, illustration example, studies... with fact-based evidence. If he cannot do that, his reputation notwithstanding, his opinions shouldn't matter much.
What gives Mr. Wilson's "feasibility study" weight is not the fact that he was on the Snow Basin ski patrol. It is the fact that he based it on evidence he was willing, in his full version, to make public. That evidence would still be there [the maps, etc] if he had never donned a ski patrol jacket in his life.
I agree that someone's reputation can, on its own, get him or her a hearing. But whether what they say is compelling depends entirely on the extent to which it is supported by evidence, not merely on their reputations.
Granted, expert scientific testimony in court cases operates on a different standard since it is often all but impossible to explain very technical scientific evidence to lay juries. But that's not the situation we have here. Here, we are discussing the wisdom [or lack thereof] of matters of public policy which seem to me to be well within the realm of the "explainable" to interested citizens.
And I will grant you rep can matter when opinions are given about non-quantifiable matters, like how much "fun" a particular ski run might be, or how "enjoyable" some aspect of a mountain might be. But opinions on matters like that will always vary and cannot be settled definitively one way or the other.
Appeals to authority make me very nervous. Always. I've gotten to the point where, when someone appeals to authority to try to win a point, I become far more suspicious of the claim involved than I had been before.
And I did note that Mr. Peterson, by way of example, either has the maps to refute some of Mr. Wilson's map-based claims, or he does not. Absent making the maps he says he has public, his claims about their refuting Mr. Wilson are meaningless. And so far, he has not made them public. That speaks volumes. His "rep" is irrelevent.
Let's make it simple.
Let's suppose there's proposal afoot to build a bridge. Whether it's a public or private proposal matters not, at least for purposes of the example.
Suppose you have one witness with experience in bridge construction, engineering, and bridge operation who argues, with technical specifics, against construction of a bridge, in circumstances where no plans yet exist...
And another witmess who lacks any of this experience, who testifies, essentially on faith,that construction will be successful.
Which witnesses's testimony would you accord the greater weight?
Or would you weigh their testimony equally, because of some vague phiosophical aversion to "appeals to authority?"
Peterson's email has pushed me over the edge. What a scam, and to think that all of us are forced to waste our time and intelligence defending our city. But more importantly, let's focus again on the alternatives that exist to the "Peterson alternative," for they are out there, and let me remind you of at least one....
First, to clarify a couple of things... a city's primary responsibility is to provide for the needs of its citizens. To do this, it must always seek to expand its tax base so as to continue to meet those needs. But is should never be in the business of promoting one developer over all other interests.
Secondly, what drives a downtown? Commerce, folks, is what throughout the history of mankind has brought people together in the medina, the square, el centro, you name it. So, what should we in Ogden be pursuing in the heart of our city? Commerce. No, not the Wal-Mart version, that stomps all competitors and makes all things generic. But unique, attractive , site-specific type of commerce. That which fits with our image of a burgeoning ski-hub. That which would employ Ogdenites and draw residents and out-of -towners alike to our downtown. That which would compliment and enhance existing downtown retail, restaurants, and budding art galleries.
Last year, on the Smartgrowth Ogden web site, there was a link to an article about the transformation of downtown Freeport, Maine to a retail outlet mall. Complete with a streetcar to shuttle between stores and parking. Don't know what happened to that link (maybe someone smart out there can find it) but it made so much sense for our town. But add this twist.....why can't Ogden, Utah become known as the best place to buy outdoor/adventure equipment and clothing at our quaint downtown speciality retail outlet mall?
We've got some of those guys already here, correct? Curt, Bobby? Goode, Lowe, Browning? The list I would think that could be attracted here is long. It would be a perfect compliment to the High Rec Adventure Center, about which I have had my doubts but want nothing more than its success now. ( Let's compare it's birth to a rape, but then, once the baby is born, we will all do whatever we can to love and foster it.)
Wouldn't be great to ride the Frontrunner up to Ogden and ski and shop, climb and shop, hike the trails and shop, maybe even dine (hint, hint, sigh) and shop. This could be where skiers and outdoor adventurers would come, year-round, for the day, the weekend, or for the week. We could certainly attract regional tourism from Salt Lake, and Wyoming, Idaho, and Nevada if we had outdoor clothing and equipment bargains to offer with our trail system, rec center, Snowbasin, Powder Mountain, and yes, even Chris's hideaway might stand a chance. ( Well,maybe)
Someone please tell me why this idea was floated and yet ignored. Don't we have lots of downtown space that could easily be converted? (Gosh, maybe it wasn't worth torching the Shupe Williams building after all.) As always the devil is in the details, but it has continued to distress me that our city administration myopically pursues one option and passes up potential "alternatives." Makes one wonder whose best interests are important here.
My point....Smartgrowth and others have proposed some real alternatives to enhancing our tax base without giving away our "crown jewel" and greatest asset. City Council Members, please, move on from wasting time on the ridiculous urban gondola/land swap and get busy doing what's good for Ogden and its humble citizens. The mayor seems otherwise preoccupied.
Oops, I left out one thing, Curm.
It makes no differnce what resolution Mr. Wilson's maps are relative to Mr. Peterson's maps.
The basic physics don't change because of the map resolution. Steep valleys are the same regardless of the gap between contour lines.
Malan's basin is a steep V-shaped ravine, regrdless of the maps you look at. THere's no way to get around that.
Mr. Peterson's reference to different map resolution is a false argument, which gives this trained surveyor one more reason to discount his testimony, and accord it zero weight..
Thanks for your post, anonymous. There's a movement afoot in America to slap down the box stores who remove their profits from the local community and to support local businesses, who are, in truth, the real economic development engines in local communities:
Author offers cities planning tips to avoid big-box blues
We offer thanks to another of our gentle readers, who emailed us the above article, seemingly weeks ago.
Check out the Buy Local First website.
Curm,
You've brought up a valid point regarding people's supposed expertise. The mayor and Peterson continually cite their conversations with "the experts" when faced with probing questions. So I agree that expertise has been used to foreshadow the presentation of evidence that can be evaluated and understood by non-experts. For instance, I have little professional qualifications to evaluate a ski areas design but my experience as a ski area user and having subjected several individual ski areas to extensive use, I have some qualification to translate factual data related to a ski areas layout.
The slope and acreage data relating to Malan's Basin is, indeed, translatable by non-experts who can read topo maps. Still, Don Wilson, as a "legacy" mamber of our community, seasoned engineer and veteran ski patroller with experience on this mountain is one man, with the kind of expertise, to which the council and others, requiring credentials to validate legitimacy, will listen.
Rudi, You too, are exactly on point. The relatively non-technical aspect of the slope data and topo maps (Peterson's or those in the public domain) should be understandable to most but the translation carries more weight when presented by Don Wilson or someone else with a solid resume.
I agree that Peterson leaves us empty and assumes our ignorance when he again cites HIS data and maps, yet presents none of it for careful analysis. His relevance and legitamacy as a developer is withering with each passing day and communique.
Anonymous,
Yes, we need the outdoor retailers downtown to enhance the outdoor recreation image. REI, Sierra Trading Post, Cabela's, LL Bean, Wigwam, Columbia, Patagonia etc. A specialty grocer like Trader Joe's, Wild Oats, Whole Foods is necessary to round out the concept.
I forgot to include in the list of potential recreational outlet retailers our local companies. Let's start with Descente, Salomon, Scott, and Rossignol factory outlet stores. This would give our new corporate citizens some community visibility and allow the locals to sport some of their duds for local pride.
Patagonia had a factory outlet store in Ventura, CA, their home base in the 70's, long before Factory outlets were seen as tenants of which to base a whole mall. I am really surprised Descente has not already pursued this obvious community outreach as they have substantial office and showroom space downtown. With all the promotion of the ski hub companies a combined showroom of our local outfitters would be a natural part of the downtown today. Without actually going out to seek the particular brands it would be only by chance you might see those local brands at the ski shops.
Having an "upscale factory outlet mall" was floated here, and by Ms Jeske during her campaign, and the idea was discussed here and there.
Donna Burdett used to sneer that an "outlet mall has to be NEXT to a freeway" I disagree....with attractive signs (remember Burma Shave??) announcing the 'mall' and the coming exit....I'm sure many people in cars would eagerly anticipate that exit off 24th and two miles (whatever) to the mall. It would be especially appealing if 24th street was appealing also!
Ozboy flattened the idea by stating that outlet malls sell cheap, badly made goods.
I disagree. With upscale retailers, the consumer will be offered high quality merchandise. Many of you may have shopped at the attractive Rock Canyon Mall in St George?? Or at Kimball Junction? My own experience is that the merchandise offered is of a good quality. Everyone loves a bargain!
I'm willing to wager that if such a mall were here...and the outdoor clothing/gear concept is good, plus the wares usually found in such an outlet mall, that THIS will bring in the folks in larger numbers looking to BUY than will ever utilize the cliimbing wall at the rec center!!
BTW, I'm appalled that the 'plaza' will have a mountain climber statue! Egads, was the cost of that thing ever mentioned? And, IF the climbing wall, flow rider, etc FAIL...we'll be stuck with that monstrosity in the plaza! Like rusted ugly towers for a defunct gondola.
Reading the write-up of the Council doings last nite in the SE and Dian's excellent reporting this morning....I'm sickened at the way the finances are handled in this city. If a family handled their budget this way, they'd be eating down at the rescue mission.
Taking road repair funds to pour into that ugly parking mall, and other funds earmarked for necessary projects and dump them into the plaza (statue and fountain)....is sickening. WHY didn't the Council/RDA members stand up and say WHOA!???
I don't see how this city can be 'okay' and under the guidelines for debt as established by the Legislature, when monies are taken from road repair projects, and from other areas of need, and dump them into this damned mall. It's like breaking open a little kid's piggy bank to find enuf pennies for a loaf of bread.
It would appear that prudent financing would have demanded the monies for these projects be available BEFORE breaking ground. We may have a hard wet winter. How many streets will have sink holes this year??
I agree that AT LEAST a portion of the insurance kickback 'bonus' should have gone into city coffers. Wouldn't that have paid for that VERY NECESSARY 'grove of trees and sandstone benches' so we can watch sweaty bodies climb that wall thru the plate glass window?
I see the Mayor's been reading the blog. He complained last nite that he doesn't like Ogden characterized as a 'business unfriendly' town. Well, that's been discussed here a number of times. So, if he takes time out of his Peterson Pimping to read this site: Is there anything else you all would like to tell him? You only get 3 minutes at the CC meetings...but you can expound on your points in full here!
Sharon:
The mall redevelopment was passed by the previous Council. Ogden is committed to it. However much redevelopment opponents don't like that fact, it is a fact. Given that, Ogden's Council has to look at proposals to spend money on the mall not in light of whether the redevelopment was a good idea in the first place [the ship has sailed on that question] but whether the recommended spending will help, materially, the project to succeed. None of the decisions last night seem to me to have been, on their face, unreasonable.
As for the statue [which I presume will be of a climber on belay, not "a mountain climber and belay" as the SE had it, I don't much see a problem with it. I enjoy the skier statue outside Weber County building downtown whenever I'm down there. And I like the bronzes spotted around downtown as well. Public art, well chosen, enhances public spaces in many cities. The statue idea doesn't seem at all out of line to me.
I realize you dislike the whole idea of the climbing wall, but it's going up. And I don't see a problem with making it visible to the plaza. I've stood watching climbers and [not having climbed for nearly four decades now], I found it interesting. Not unreasonable to think others might as well.
Raising questions about how budget priorities are set in Ogden is certainly a prudent thing to do. But raising objections to every detail of the redevelopment design as it comes to light seems over the top to me. And counterproductive.
Great discussion, everyone.
On the question of deferring to experts vs. evaluating the raw evidence for ourselves, I'd like to point everyone to Michael Vaughan's excellent (as usual) column in yesterday's Standard-Examiner. Each of us faces this question dozens of times every day, and there's no sharp boundary between what is obviously understandable to lay people and what is obviously too technical for anyone but an expert. But Vaughan's column eloquently argues that all of us could make a little more effort to look at the raw data and think things through for ourselves.
If anyone out there would like to see more of the raw data that's relevant to the Peterson proposal, I'd be happy to provide copies of what I have: topographic and geologic maps, gondola feasibility studies, etc. Some of this data, but not all, is already available on the web.
Regarding outdoor retailers in downtown Ogden: Last spring I met the owner of a SLC retail shop who had been offered excellent incentives by the Ogden City administration if he would open a branch store in downtown Ogden. He declined the offer mostly because he just wasn't personally ready to take on all the extra work. But let's hope that others will accept such offers, and that within a few years, downtown Ogden will provide the customer base that these shops will require. We actually used to have a great outdoor shop somewhat south of downtown: Ogden Mountaineering, which later became Black Diamond. I suppose they never did enough business to make much of a profit, if any. Too many Ogdenites (myself included, I'm embarassed to say) tended to drive to SLC where the selection was better and the prices were sometimes a little lower. We should all make a point of supporting local businesses at every opportunity.
Curm,
I think you've painted me with the Geiger's 'you're so negative' brush.
I don't like the climbing wall...and that's because I've talked to people who have climbing wall experience as owner/operators. They don't make a lot of money...they are a novelty. However, I'm sure you can tell me all the figures and get the data to the contrary, but since they are a novelty and in the summer and spring people who really LIKE climbing take advantage of our REAL rock walls in the canyons....will the wall in the mall make money?
WHO will be repeat customers for the climbing wall and flow rider? We have some families who can well afford to let their kids use the facility often....but we have many MORE families in Ogden for which this great 'high adventure' playground will be a one -time or no- time experience.
Have you been to Mesa, AZ? It's a deliteful experience to drive around and see the whimsical statues there. "Groups of people waiting for a bus,...others sitting on a bench, some talking together"...one does a double take as they appear to be REAL persons at first glance. It's nice to see a little humor on display in a city. Ogden could use some.
Instead of a mountain climber...how about a bit of whimsey in the plaza to refresh a weary shopper?
I haven't "raised objections to every detail of the redevelopment design" as you accuse. Frankly, I haven't been apprised of 'every detail"....have you?
I ask AGAIN...WHO are the tenants for the shops? WHICH restaurants are going in? surely, if we've borrowed and shifted every dime from this account to that...the "A-Team" has shops, and restaurants already signed on at the Junction?
That would be prudent...don'tcha think? Why the secrecy? It would be exciting to eagerly anticipate browsing at Walden's or sipping a latte at Starbucks, enjoying a lovely luncheon at Mimi's. So, whatever and whomever is going to open for business at the Junction, why aren't we told?
No, Curm, I'n not against everything at the Junction. I was against the scamming and lying and BONDING that went into the rec center in the first place. It was bult on 'sand' financially from the get-go, and now the juggling is taking place. Like everything Godfrey does, it's "NOW-- NOW NOW"...we have to do this 'before Dec 31 or we lose all our money...use it or lose it"...remember? He has to 'be first in the country' with HIS ideas...hence a bowling alley and climbing wall, flow rider, etc. "No other city in the country has a high adventure rec center as ANCHORS".....Well criminy...duh...do you suppose all those other ciities use their funds, taxpayer monies and expertise to a better use?
I was in the Fat Cats bowling alley in SLC at 6:15 p.pm. The grill was closed. A few kids were in the video arcade, out of about 35 or 42 lanes, one was occupied by two young kids, and one was used by a mom, dad, and three small kids. All the rest were empty. The little pizza cafe had about 20 (maybe) diners. The 'music' was so LOUD that my companions could only converse by shouting! Lites flashing and the loud rock music were physically oppressive. The ceiling looks like a Costco warehouse. Not a class act. AND, we taxpayers are bonded for a couple decades for this? I LIKE bowling. But, no bowling lane owners in the area were approached for being part of the Junction. Their 'expertise' was not sought by the "A-Team".
Gary Neilson shouted in my face that he was 'opening a new gym in Layton on my nickel"...when I asked him why he was taking OUR millions to subsidize the rec center 'anchor', and why didn't he build his gym, etc, on his nickel in the Junction? His reply? "I can't afford the risk". But, we taxpayers CAN??
Miller's Theatre will be a big hit. What will happen to Tinseltowne? Many complain of 'big box' stores ruining smaller businesses. Miller's theatre isn't 'big box'?
So, the LAST Council did the dirty deed, eh? Well, FOUR of those former council members are still here. It seems to me that when we had a NEW Council just a week later, that this financing and 'redesign' should have been looked at very closely.
I agree with Dian. The RDA should NOT have one Council member on it. That goes for Godfrey too. What a crock. As if changing hats (and they don't even do that)_ will give us fair and balanced ordinances, codes and voting.
Does anyone else agree that the RDA/City Council members should NOT be one and the same??
I'm against the citizens being shut out. Godfrey can allege that he invited citizen input...but, just like his dog and pony shows now...only the WELL informed actually take part. HE makes the decisions for the masses, because 'this is a republic'...and I keep forgetting that he is our fearless leader.
Dan S.:
On buy local, absolutely... when we can. Sometimes, it's not possible. For example, Ogden has at the moment no general interest bookstore with a wide selection. We have Wise Bird Bookery, a very small shop with a strong selection of children's books but with a very limited selection outside that. We have the Book Exchange down on Washington. Good for used books and for some special topics [New Age, SciFi], but its selection of new non-fiction is very very limited. The closest general intererst bookstore with a wide selection is in the Layton Mall, or [my preference] the indy shops in SLC: Sam Wellers and The King's English. So in some areas, it's hard if not impossible to buy local even if you want to.
Then there is as well the internet, which has a tremendous advantage over brick and mortar local stores because [among other things] they do not have to invest in a local infrastructure [store construction, remodeling, property taxes thereon, etc] and their customers do not as a rule have to pay local sales taxes on their purchases. [I know, I know, there is an "honor" system in Utah and in some other states in which people are asked to voluntarily report their on-line purchases and to pay sales taxes on them every April 15th. I don't think it's working too well.]
One "reform" Congress is working on, or has been [no progress in the do-nothing Hastart/Frist Congress] is a national standardized tax sharing agreement for all on-line purchases. Congress would set one on-line purchase tax rate, say 5%, it would be charged on allon line purchases, and then distributed to the states in proportion to the number of on-line purchases shipped to addresses in that state. The states could then redirect the money [presumably based on population] to local communities. This has two advantages: (a) it would level the playing field some, and reduce the huge disadvantage brick and mortar local stores are under now, trying to compete with non-sales taxed sales by on-line competitors and (b) it would funnel back to communities money now lost because the sales tax they would have collected on a purchase at a brick and mortar store is not collected on an on-line purchase. Local towns and cities across the country are losing millions each year in lost sales taxes to on-line vendors.
Buy local where you can, absolutely. But also push for reforms that will increase the ability of local merchants to compete with on-line purveyors like Amazon.com and others. If the local environment for small business improves [and solving the sales tax matter would help], selection [and price] locally would I think improve too.
Sharon:
All the arguments you raise were perfectly appropriate to raise during the debate over how the mall property should be redeveloped. The point is, that particular ship has left the dock. The previous Council, for good or ill, made their decision, the contracts have been let, the city is committed. Arguing that the wind tunnel was a bad idea [which I suspect it was] or that the climbing wall won't draw flies, or that the bowling alley is doomed to failure serves little point now. All are being built. Wise or not, all are going to open in the Rec Center. And then we will know for sure, as it plays out, if it all was a good idea or not. Quibbling over a statue because it will show a climber and a window and benches because they will allow plaza strollers to watch, if they like, climbers on the wall seems at this point to be picking at nits. I don't see the point. Train your fire on decisions that are yet to be made, on matters on which you might have some impact.
If it all goes belly up [and it might, though for all our sakes I hope it doesn't], you get to say "I told you so!" [and I will say, "Yes, Sharon, you did. You were right about that and the Mayor and the old Council were wrong."] But all we can do now is await the outcome. The decisions to build the wall, the wind tunnel, the bowling alleys and the movie complex were taken some time ago, and continued carping about them seems pretty pointless to me.
Oh hell, Curm. Yes, the decisions have been made. But, can't plans be REdesigned? After all, Godfrey was pushing for SIX stories instead of two...remember?
Why NOT have a different statue?
C'mon, Curm. Plans can change.
I really hoe that every aspect of the Junction is a success...even that abominable parking structure.
I WILL shop there, IF there are tenants.
I hope we have a bookstore, and alittle lounge with comfy chairs where we can give a book or two a quick browse.
Michael Vaughan's article today is excellent! All the posts by tt, and Dan S and an ANON are also.
I'm not a skier, but I've larned a lot from you all. Even I can see the woeful inadequacies of Peterson's dream. His email to Mouton is embarrassing. Don Wilson should be invited to speak to the PC and the Council. Then this whole sorry ill-advised 'plan' be given a burial.
I meant to say that Godfrey pushed for SIX stories instead of FOUR!!!!
OK, Sharon. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. It's just that the people who seem to me to be most effective lobbying governments [national, state or municipal] have generally followed this advice: "Pick your fights." I've always thought that good advice. I still do.
yeah...but you don't fight. you negoiate and want everyone to play nice.
sharon:
You wrote "But you don't fight; you negotiate and want everyone to play nice." Wrong on sevaral counts. Politics, as Mr. Dooley said, "ain't bean bag." I've been on the winning side of enough campaigns over the years [though not always] to be fairly sure I know how to fight on a political field,. And in politics, very often, success means negotiating a settlement that both sides can live with. Most people in politics I know who adopt a scorched-earth take-no-prisoners "no compromises, no negotiations" approach end up achieving very very little.
As for "wanting everyone to play nice," well, sure I do. Don't you? But don't confuse that with expecting everyone to "play nice." Nobody over the age of eight who's studied American political history or even just looked around them much expects that.
What I do require of anyone in elected public office is that they behave honorably or, if you prefer, ethically. [You can mix it up a great deal and do a lot of bare-knuckled damage in politics without behaving dishonorably.] When your opponent behaves unethically, it can [and often does] weaken him and stregthen you. You can use his unethical conduct against him. Or her. [Have to keep my feminist credentials in order.]
What I want in a political dispute more than anything else is to be effective. And that means, in my experience, picking my fights; it means looking for negotiated settlements that don't require the complete capitulation of either side. Such settlemens generally will not leave a residue of bitterness and anger in the community for a long time to follow. [It is often wise policy in politics to leave a way for your opponent to retreat without seeming to, to withdraw without appearing to run.] And, finally, I've found over time that keeping things civil invariably helps my cause if the facts are on my side, and makes things more difficult for the other side. Hence my dislike for hurling charges like "nazi" and "liar" and such like back and forth. It makes it harder for my side to prevail with the undecided, and that is the group, really, in any political contest, both sides are after. If everyone is already fully committed, the game is over and there is no point to going on.
The idea that preferring civility and negotiation in politics constitutes "not fighting" is, as I said, flat wrong. They can be, and often are, the most effective maans by which to win.
Yet another matters, it seems, Sharon, on which we will have to agree to disagree.
my last words to you, curm, are....how about 'negotiating' that statue in the plaza? apparently the mayor, et al, want that mountain climber. I say, let's have some whimsey, and a nice piece that makes people smile and even want to pose with for a picture.
Now, how about that for both sides getting what they'd like?
Will that do?
I misspoke...the whimsical statues are in HENDERSON, NV...I said Mesa, Az in my post earlier. Perhaps many of you have seen them? A sense of fun. I think Ogden could use some of that.
I like a town that displays a sense of humor. Years ago one could read a billboard when approaching Winnemucca , Nv that said something like this: "Winnemucca....only 5,730 miles from Tokyo"....(whatever mileage). It always brot a smile and maybe even some folks got off the road to have a sandwich in Winnemucca. They also displayed a billboard that played off the Smucker's line..."With a name like Winnemucca, you know we're good".
It takes an administration with a sense of self-deprecating humor to do that, tho.
WE do not self-deprecate here in Emerald City.
We mentally masturbate.
terry cloth underwear in public is a must.
Descente could distribute those terry cloth shorts for year round pleasure.
New comments are not allowed.