Results 1 to 13 of 13
-
10-08-2010, 10:22 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 30
Wrangling over the Breck Peak 6 expansion
So the wrangling over Peak 6 continues. The latest word is the Forest Service will issue a draft EIS in January, with a "Peak 6-lite" alternative: A shorter lift, less trail clear-cutting, more glading ... still lots of wildlife and forest health issues, and some local sidecountry skiers lamenting the loss of close-in terrain. You can see a little more detailed update here: http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/06...n-peak-6-lite/
In town, a task force formed to address the socio-economic impacts of the Peak 6 expansion, and resort expansion in general, presented its suggestions to the town council and the country commissioners, who played hot potato with the whole thing. If you're interested, here's an update: http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/10...for-consensus/Last edited by bberwyn; 10-09-2010 at 12:26 AM.
-
10-09-2010, 11:51 AM #2
At this rate it's going to take forever to get a lift all the way to Peak 1.
Originally Posted by wintermittentOriginally Posted by snowsprite
-
10-09-2010, 12:16 PM #3
Not counting any of the details of Snodgrass itself (about which I have no opinion), Makes sense to me, to expand Breck, Keystone, A-Basin, Vail. Breckenridge is very close to I-70, the largest road in the state going through the mountains and close to a million people in Denver. Imho, it makes sense with the existing infrastructure to build near I-70, closer to Denver, but keep a smaller footprint further south. CB is at the end of a two lane road? Why not keeps some of it's small town charm. Wouldn't it be nice if we kept the mega resorts along I-70 and tried to keep some of the cool small town character of southern colorado?
-
10-09-2010, 12:19 PM #4
-
10-09-2010, 04:33 PM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 30
Thanks for the feedback, everyone, it's always interesting to hear what real skiers think about this stuff instead of the political hacks, the resort honchos and the Forest Service rangers. The I-70 "sacrifice zone" idea isn't new, and the FS outlined it in the 2002 White River Forest plan, when they said pretty much the same thing PowTrees said, in slightly different language. Not sure how I feel about living in a sacrifice zone, but if it helps protect some other place from the over-development we have in Summit, then I can live with it. Keep the comments coming.
-
12-14-2010, 06:46 PM #6Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 30
Breckenridge town council is discussing and voting on this Peak 6 expansion MOU tonight. I'm at the meeting, may do some live blogging/tweeting over at http://www.summitvoice.org.
-
12-14-2010, 07:12 PM #7
CB doesn't have the money that those front range mountains have. I just finished reading In Search Of Powder, interesting look into Vail resorts.
-
12-14-2010, 07:14 PM #8
The Greed Machine keeps on eating it's way across the mountains. Has anyone learned from their time in the mountains what is really important? Obviously the corporate ski company execs don't ski very much.
-
12-14-2010, 08:34 PM #9Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7
-
12-14-2010, 09:02 PM #10
where does it end? Leave peak 6 alone and leave Snodgrass alone too for that matter. If you open a can of worms...it's already been opened.....you can't shut it.
ROLL TIDE ROLL
-
12-14-2010, 09:29 PM #11Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 30
The Breck town council passed the MOU unanimously. Remember, this isn't a green light for the actual expansion. that's up to the Forest Service, which recently said it might have a draft EIS done by January 2011.
What the MOU does is establish something of a formula for addressing the so-called social impacts of expansions - in other words, if Peak 6 adds "X" number of employees, Vail Resorts commits to adding "Y" number of new affordable housing units, and so on. I'll post a story at Summit Voice a bit later.
-
12-14-2010, 10:43 PM #12
-
12-15-2010, 09:15 AM #13Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 30
Yah, we're SOOOO tight!
Anyhow, it's kinda wonky, but here's what the council had to say about this MOU with the resort, posted in a story at Summit Voice:
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/12...s-peak-6-deal/
Basically, the ski area agreed to NOT do a bunch of stuff they couldn't do anyway, like develop real estate at the bottom of Peak 6 where there is no real estate to develop. And they agreed to keep doing a bunch of stuff they already do ...
Bookmarks