Burke Announces Plans for Development

[riverc0il]

a lot of GOOD questions raised. towns people should definitely NOT have to worry about service for water, especially in relation to second home resort buyers. these are important questions ginn needs to take VERY seriously. especially long term consequences. ginn has the right to build and develop but not at the expense of the town's people.

 

[thetrailboss]

ginn has the right to build and develop but not at the expense of the town's people.

Which has been the point all along...and the point of VT's Act 250 and its prodigy.

 

[thetrailboss]

Another view on Ginn:

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/letters_to_editor/story/b2ea72842

 

[riverc0il]

May we all join together and speak up for people, for average citizens who say no to corporate wealth, exploitation of natural resources and no to the greed and delusion that is consuming our nation.

as much as i hate the resort stuff and feel for the general sentiment, this strikes me as someone with an agenda beyond protecting the local landscape. exploitation is a tricky word. i guess you can say all ski areas expoit the natural resources. but i think recreation is a good thing. second resort home buying? tougher to call. is that really exploiting natural resources and if so, how? corporate wealth lines a lot of people's pockets. i choose a profession and location in which i can't exactly break the bank, but i respect those people that choose to do what it takes to climb the ole' ladder and make a buck. sustainability and bringing up the people from the bottom to an actual livability level are my two issues, but is ginn not doing that by providing work for area residents? this op ed piece doesn't present any evidence, it is just a passioned plea to fight ginn with no compromise in mind. i used to have this type of mentality. i quickly realized a more compromising position is required or you simply get dismissed out of hand as an unrealistic left wing nut liberal protester type. just my two cents. interesting that this person felt SO strongly about the issue, she found out about other developments over a half dozen states away from her.

 

[Phildozer]

I suspect the fun, charming, Burke will be gone in a few years. There's no way the community-feeling can survive what's being proposed up there.

 

[thetrailboss]

I suspect the fun, charming, Burke will be gone in a few years. There's no way the community-feeling can survive what's being proposed up there.

This is a big concern of mine as well....the feeling and atmosphere is what makes it special.

 

[riverc0il]

i am more concerned about the terrain. i like the atmosphere and charm, but i think a lot of that comes from the mountain itself. i don't spend much time at the base area, i spend all my time on the hill. so long as the character of the trails doesn't change, i am okay. i prefer the small base area feel to the resort feel, but i can live with a resort if the trails remain similar. if the trails get changed, glades get bulldozed, and all the runs get groomed, i will definitely miss burke at that point cause there wouldn't be anything left for me.

 

[kingdom-tele]

as a long time burke pass holder and ambassador of all the beauty she holds , as well as a guy who appreciates the unique atmosphere which the resort maintains I feel compelled to join this conversation.

Since hearing about the ginn co., and honestly not knowing more than what i have read and heard from people inside of the burke community, I can't help but think it is naive to beleive that this is going to have a positive impact. I know, all the jobs, and construction, and potential and blah blah blah, from what i have seen so far, and seeing whats happening at other McSki resorts it is really a matter of time before the big guy gets his way, Now I certainly hope, and I really truly do hope, that all of this works out, and burke is left to remain how she was intended, the simple mountain that makes you slow down and appreciate your surroundings. But, and not to sound like a backwoods luddite, I really can't see how building a whole town up the access road, and whereever else they now own land is going to be a good thing. Having grown up in coastal maine I watched as flatlanders slowly trickled in, and slowly took over the community politics, and slowly leached the land away from generations of fisherman and towns people, and eventually made it as screwed as the city they came from. seriously, who is this resort for, certainly not the family of four living in the NEK. who is buying all these homes, nothing against folks from down south, but come on, your second home at a fair price of what 250,000. as a professional in the NEK not even I could be swinging the luxury in the proposed future for burke. how long before the folks with the money want the gate put up to keep the riff raf with the beater subaru from upsetting the dogs as they chug up the road to the mid lodge (pending there still is a midlodge). before the passes outprice the sugarloafs and stowes of the world

I realize this probably sounds ridiculous, and i hope it is, but time will tell. at least they can't buy back darling state forest and keep us from enjoying the flanks of burke, or can they?

 

[the original trailboss]

Buying back the Darling State Forest

While it is very unlikely, it would not be the first time that the State of Vermont has done a land swap in the name of "preserving" wetlands,etc. (Spruce Peak at Stowe) so don't rule anything out at this point,although it is way too early for that.
Now as to the Mid-Burke Lodge, I believe it will remain intact for another season as they (as in Ginn) have not yet decided what should replace it: another lodge, condo's, or possibly a hotel. They delayed the decision to put a new chairlift to the top because they want to make sure its location fits with what they decide to put at that site.
Scary to think that East Burke could become home to a major rich man's resort and/or high-end tourist housing (many Ginn followers purchase property/homes and put them into the Ginn rental pool). Imagine a "sub-culture" of wealthier-than-wealthy Lexus owners on one end of the equation and another "sub-culture" of migrant employees doing menial service-related jobs at the other end of the stick. Certainly food for thought-I wish more locals would realize the potential impact other than the short-term financial gain (is there any, really, if they bring in their own contractors,sub-contractors and crews to build these "high-end" homes and golf course,etc?).
If you own a home or property in or near Burke Mountain and are planning on retiring or bailing out to some other place the short term gain is great, but if you have plans to remain,live,work and play here, you better hope Grandma leaves you a fat stash to cover the increase in taxes,etc. Hell, the town of Burke is basically devoid of infrastructure but it won't be if East Burke more than doubles the number of homes that now occupy the entire town.
Sad that four windtowers seven miles north in East Haven raised more havoc and controversy in town than this gigoundous project has!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[riverc0il]

kingdom-tele, i appreciate your comments, thank you for sharing with them. the only item i take issue to is burke would have failed completely if a resort company did not come in and take over. the local folks that put together the most recent ownership knew that when they bought the place out and have been pushing for a resort developer to take over to keep the mountain open. unfortunately, it was all or nothing, a full resort or a full closure. locals alone can not pay the bills to keep burke operational, unfortunately real estate has become a nessicary evil for nearly every ski area out there. i hate the resort feel, as i mentioned before, but it seems there was no other way.

good points regarding increasing taxes and town infrastructure. hopefully the tax system can be alligned somehow to ensure ginn takes up most of if not all the increase? but property taxes are sure to increase on all land that close to a major resort. that is the biggest concern i have and i doubt anything can be done about it for the people that are routed and wouldn't want to move. those that are okay with moving have been offered a lot of money compared to what they bought for, but that also breaks up the town and decreases community. these are the areas of impact that are most concerning.

but it all comes back to something burke 2000 has said for a while: burke needs a developer and real estate to make the mountain financially stable. the mountain also needs more visits and more people spending money. i don't disagree folks in burke and east burke should be keeping a close eye on things and asking questions and demanding answers and things be done to smooth things over and help the town... but i always come back to the fact that i would rather ski burke than see its trails grow in and sit dormant.

 

[thetrailboss]

kingdom-tele, i appreciate your comments, thank you for sharing with them. the only item i take issue to is burke would have failed completely if a resort company did not come in and take over. the local folks that put together the most recent ownership knew that when they bought the place out and have been pushing for a resort developer to take over to keep the mountain open. unfortunately, it was all or nothing, a full resort or a full closure. locals alone can not pay the bills to keep burke operational, unfortunately real estate has become a nessicary evil for nearly every ski area out there. i hate the resort feel, as i mentioned before, but it seems there was no other way.

Then how can you explain Shawnee Peak? Black Mountain? Pats Peak? Mt Abram, ME? Bromley? And even Mad River Glen? None of these are "resorts" with lots of real estate and they all cater to locals. Hell, Black Mountain has some of the cheapest tickets on the east and they manage to make it.

I think you are discounting the locals a bit too fast. In my mind, the ideal resort is one that can balance the demands of locals and those who want to live on a resort. It can be done. Plus, as The Original Trailboss will tell you, Burke has always been a resort which people come to in order to get away from it all and "shed their trappings" to be a local.

Some fail to recognize that Burke literally WAS on NELSAP in the Fall of 2000 and was removed because of the locals with the help of BMA and "one" of its benefactors working together. They made some money their first season as well, thanks to interest and snow. A sustainable Burke, and Northeast Kingdom is one that will meet the needs of those who currently and those who want to live there.

 

[riverc0il]

TB, ask burke 2000 that question. also, if you reference my post:

unfortunately real estate has become a nessicary evil for nearly every ski area out there.

you did manage to hit on some notable exceptions, which i suggested a few did exist. sunapee barely escaped resortification recently and triple peaks is still trying. my hunch is they wouldn't have gotten involved with sunapee if the prospect wasn't there from the get go. i have no idea how black stays in business to be honest, i love skiing there and the place is emptier than burke even on weekends. MRG is in a class of it's own, you know that. MRG doesn't need real estate because they have people buying shares for nearly 2k each, not much snow making or grooming expenses either. if MRG was privately owned and wasn't the mecca that it is, i wouldn't doubt real estate would have been creeping up lower antelope by now.

if it was working for burke 2000, then why did they sell it? why would locals invest the time and money into burke to keep it going then sell it to a company like ginn? doesn't make sense that they would do it if the resort was sustainable under its previous business plan. you can't have it both ways saying that it is sustainable without resort development AND say that the locals made it work. the fact that the locals sold to ginn supports the idea that burke couldn't succeed on its current path. this much has been said by folks involved with the previous ownership. burke has been bought and sold quite a bit, it is a ski area that no one has been able to make financially work in the long run. we'll see what happens now.

i 100% agree with your assessment that the ideal resort should "balance the demands of locals and those who want to live on a resort," as you wrote. this is a hard balance to maintain and i hope it can be done. look at a resort like the balsams where the resort IS the locals. that keeps in the theme of bringing locals in on the projects as much as possible.

 

[loafer89]

Plattekill is also an example of a resort that was on the NELSAP list that has no real estate to speak of and is skied by a mostly hard core dedicated base of skiers. I suppose that you could also add Saddleback as well, they do have some real esate, but not what I would consider alot by any stretch.

 

[riverc0il]

i think saddleback has plans to develop. i was not suggesting there are no successful areas without real estate. plattekill certainly qualifies. but they are pretty few and far between. for example, last i heard wildcat is still on the market and has been for about a year now. would have been snapped right up if the restrictions were not there. it can be done successfully, but it sure isn't easy and as financially stable.

 

[kingdom-tele]

river- not to be inflammatory, but I think you are underestimating the locals a bit, there is always more than one way to a skin a cat, real estate development at burke is NOT a bad thing, I would be the first to agree that a properly done hotel or condo set up would be beneficial, but we are talking about plans for a new town basically, and one that will be well out of the price range for a majority of NEK habitants, one that will no doubt create a visible social riff.

The NEK already has its destination resort in jay, and i think anyone who has skied there in the past ten years,or even five years for that matter, can attest to the good and bad that comes with it (e.g. the difference betweeen tuesday powder and saturday powder day skier numbers). I think a little creative planning could have gone a long way to preserve the "feel" of burke, overhead costs could have been reduced in other ways, decrease grooming,snowmaking, etc, more community volunteer opprotunites in the off season, more comunication with the local folks to be a part of the future there, creative ticketing and marketing to attract more local families who feel overwhelmed at jay and to far from the balsams. The list can go on and on.

While I am not a vermontah, I am a mainah and both groups feel strongly about their communities and seeing their community thirve and be a source of pride (kingdom trails comes to mind) , not sell it off to the highest bidder who's interests sounds good but are driven by finacial reasoning vs. preservation and love of the land, in my experience the former always ends up doing exactly what they want, they may start with good intentions but when the bottom line issues rise up the latter ideal gets tossed. I hate to sound so jaded, and I hope i am wrong, but time will tell

And not everyone that lives in the shadow of burke is looking for the get rich quick way out, I doubt a majority of residents there even thought of that, it is great that they can name their price and sell it off, but is that really so great?, so far in my mind the cons are outweighing the pros, I am still a supporter, and will continue to be as long as I can afford it, and feel lucky to live in an area with the two best mountains to ski and trails to hike and ride, I am just worried that my kids won't see of feel the same way about it some day

ps. don't take this as an attack, it is with good intentions I joined this debate, not to mention I am bored as hell at work today

 

[thetrailboss]

river- not to be inflammatory, but I think you are underestimating the locals a bit, there is always more than one way to a skin a cat, real estate development at burke is NOT a bad thing, I would be the first to agree that a properly done hotel or condo set up would be beneficial, but we are talking about plans for a new town basically, and one that will be well out of the price range for a majority of NEK habitants, one that will no doubt create a visible social riff.

KT--You, The Original Trailboss, and I share the same view. I'm glad that you have articulated it this way. My concern is that there be a balance between the original Kingdomites and those who may come with the resort.

I think a little creative planning could have gone a long way to preserve the "feel" of burke, overhead costs could have been reduced in other ways, decrease grooming,snowmaking, etc, more community volunteer opprotunites in the off season, more comunication with the local folks to be a part of the future there, creative ticketing and marketing to attract more local families who feel overwhelmed at jay and to far from the balsams. The list can go on and on.

I agree with this as well. Burke 2000 was owned by a wealthy beneficiary of BMA who had come to the area, but was not from here. However, he and BMA worked with the locals to get things going and to get a grassroots campaign off the ground in literally days. This is a true testiment to the feelings and devotion of the Burke Mountain Community that no other ski area, except maybe MRG, has. I, too, think that this pool of support can't be overlooked.

While I am not a vermontah, I am a mainah and both groups feel strongly about their communities and seeing their community thirve and be a source of pride (kingdom trails comes to mind) , not sell it off to the highest bidder who's interests sounds good but are driven by finacial reasoning vs. preservation and love of the land, in my experience the former always ends up doing exactly what they want, they may start with good intentions but when the bottom line issues rise up the latter ideal gets tossed. I hate to sound so jaded, and I hope i am wrong, but time will tell

My concern as well. Preserving the character of the region and developing a sustainable local economy and culture.

And not everyone that lives in the shadow of burke is looking for the get rich quick way out, I doubt a majority of residents there even thought of that, it is great that they can name their price and sell it off, but is that really so great?, so far in my mind the cons are outweighing the pros, I am still a supporter, and will continue to be as long as I can afford it, and feel lucky to live in an area with the two best mountains to ski and trails to hike and ride, I am just worried that my kids won't see of feel the same way about it some day

Riv I believe did point out that Ginn has paid a lot for land, but at the end of the day, this is fueling a real estate speculation binge that is hurting everyone. Last year ALONE the median cost of a family house in the Kingdom climbed $22,000!!!!!!!! That is about what the average person can expect to get paid in ONE year. This increase does not include the increase in property taxes either. Both increases are forcing those who live here out while allowing those who want a "cheap" second or third home in. This is a serious concern because the people that are forced out are the young people like me and families.

The short term is good because there is a lot of business and sales. But the long term ?

A state full of second-home owners is not a state at all.

 

[riverc0il]

kingdom-tele, no worries, i don't see disagreements as attacks, especially on hot button issues. glad you registered and shared your thoughts.

 

[riverc0il]

boss, just to address the point about the home cost, someone reading this thread might misinterpert your statement to mean that home prices jumped because of the sale of burke, but from what i understand, prices have been going up across the kingdom before ginn bought burke. though land and homes in the area of burke mountain and the town of burke/east burke are definitely going to go up substantially more because of the resort, and likely some other towns as well. but even property in places like concord is increasing substantially. just wanted to put a clarifier on that one as some increases are directly linked to the resort, but a lot of increases have been on going.

i completley agree with you, the pricing of homes and tax increases because of ginn is a HUGE downside for local residents. no one wants to pick up and move from their HOME just because someone is waving cash in front of their eyes and telling them that their taxes will jump if they don't move. that is a rotten situation.

i would love to hear from local residents from other areas in VT that had resorts develop from regular ski areas. how did the mad river valley deal with ASC (though it was mascara mountain before ASC moved in...) or perhaps stratton? okemo?

 

[thetrailboss]

boss, just to address the point about the home cost, someone reading this thread might misinterpert your statement to mean that home prices jumped because of the sale of burke, but from what i understand, prices have been going up across the kingdom before ginn bought burke. though land and homes in the area of burke mountain and the town of burke/east burke are definitely going to go up substantially more because of the resort, and likely some other towns as well. but even property in places like concord is increasing substantially. just wanted to put a clarifier on that one as some increases are directly linked to the resort, but a lot of increases have been on going.

Riv--the increase has been connected to the development at Burke and Jay as well as more recreational opportunities. So to say Burke is not the reason is incorrect.

 

[riverc0il]

did i say that? no. acutally i suggested that it IS the reason in burke:

though land and homes in the area of burke mountain and the town of burke/east burke are definitely going to go up substantially more because of the resort,

my point was merely that prices throughout the entire NEK have been going up before the deal even was done. i cited concord (no where near burke) as an example.