BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Really? You dont think they'd snag something like 30% out of this? Seems to me the lawyers always win.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Jury orders NBC to pay Mount Snow $2.1M
- Thread starter mlctvt
- Start date
Really? You dont think they'd snag something like 30% out of this? Seems to me the lawyers always win.
abc
Well-known member
What's so irrational? They believe it's ultra clean air and water and unchanged environment that makes the state a tourist destination.
It's a balancing act. Even if in this case they lose, we won't know if they will win out in the long run or not?
Edd
Well-known member
Because Comcast owns them I have to agree.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
So does everyone.
It's the extremism of a case like this (assuming Dr. Jeff is correct, which I assume he is given it regards Mt. Snow) that's the differentiator.
abc
Well-known member
But a lot of the time, "extremism case" are just the legal excuse used when other factors are in play against it.
(I don't know if this being the case. But I did observe a court case when such excuse got discovered when the real reason didn't stand up in court)
If the development had support of all parties, there wouldn't have been a court case in the first place.
drjeff
Well-known member
The bottom line is that Alli Sports/ NBC/The Dew Tour went into a guaranteed 2 year agreement (an option for a 3yr year per agreement of both parties was included) with Mount Snow knowing that it would be an 18 foot superpipe.
After the 1st year, Alli Sports wanted a 22ft superpipe. Permitting regulations prevented Mount Snow from being able to make the relatively minor amount of tree clearing and land reshaping to accommodate the space needed for a 22 ft pipe (it wasn't just building the walls 4 feet higher as you need a wider transition between the walls of a 22 foot pipe vs. a 18 foot pipe and a bit more of a run in area). Alli then chose to move year 2 of the winter Dew Tour East Coast stop from Mount Snow to Killington where they could build a 22 foot pipe space wise. This was not in the contract as an acceptable clause for Alli to break the contract with Mount Snow in its second year. Alli felt it was a just case to break the contract. Mount Snow and the judge felt it wasn't.
mister moose
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,088
- Points
- 48
Last I checked the majority of folks come to Vermont for the skiing, the fall colors, hiking, biking, the quaint covered bridges, churches and town greens. None of these folks are going to care about two tablespoons of silt getting into the runoff from widening the superpipe at Mt Snow. Pretty sure it wouldn't affect bear habitat or salamander mating habits either. This is the kind of stupidity that gives reasonable environmental practices a bad name.
steamboat1
New member
Yeah just look at the K's 22' pipe (actually was a nice trail all groomed out flat this year). Fit's right in with the deforestation that's been done on both sides of Skye Peak.
drjeff
Well-known member
Darn it Mr Moose!! I was hoping that some of the extra run off in that area of Mount Snow and it's *cough*obvious deleterious effects on the environment *cough* might help explain why so many of the folks that seem to congregate at Carinthia all season while it's open speak in a funky language that I often can't begin to fathom and also dress the way that they do!
:lol:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Then, yes, this is an excellent example of eco-extremism.
And frankly, these eco-extremists are harming, not helping the environment, because it just pisses people off and turns people against them and the other, legitimate and meaningful work they attempt to do with certain other projects. They've almost become "obstructionist clubs" rather than groups that seek to protect wildlife, ecology, etc..., using any excuse to stop any development, no matter how minor (like in this case).
I don't even trust 99% of these groups independent research anymore, because I can tell you what the results of the findings will be 100% of the time before the studies are released = XYZ is harmful and shouldnt happen.
That Bicknell's Thrush junk research is a PERFECT example. Lots of statistical chicanery.
Last edited:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
None of these folks care about the rural, southern Vermont innkeepers, restauranteurs, barkeeps, and dozens of other shopkeepers, artisans, and small business folk who lost millions of dollars (literally) in revenue each year when the X-games told Vermont to piss-off.
dlague
Active member
Well, another example, eco extremist blocked the widening of the 93 in Southern NH successfully for years while traffic jams put exhaust into the air. So - now they have been widening it a small section at a time and in the end the highway gets widened! This cost the state way more than it should have in the very first place.
When I lived in California, a retiring farmer went to go sell his land to developers and eco extremist blocked the sale rendering the property worthless and subsequently wiping out the retirement for the farmer. He later sold it for a lot less to March Airforce Base who then developed as part of the military base. Funny thing is - the developers still built the Mall in a different part of town.
So you are right if it was done in a way that was not so confrontational then they might have greater success! Sucks that they loss the games to Killington.
A lot of these regulations do more harm than good. Just look at the time and costs savings of repairing damage from Irene; when the rules and regs were suspended. Sad that it takes a devastating event for many to see the light.
abc
Well-known member
Well, it's a democracy. It's up to the innkeepers and restaurant/bar/shop owners to fight back.
Besides environmentalists, there're others who simply didn't want any business there because that's how THEY like it. (or some of the so-called "environmentalists" are just people who are anti-business/anti-development). It's too easy to just blame each other for nothing getting done (like what's been happening in the congress!)
doublediamond
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 454
- Points
- 28
Widening of highways doesn't decrease pollution. Studies after studies have proven that adding lanes only intices more people to drive rather than seek out alternatives such as car pooling, public transit (which NH refuses to partake in), etc.
Similar threads
