$55 to park at a closed resort to access commonwealth basin

[Markeyz]

https://www.seattletimes.com/life/outdoors/summit-at-snoqualmie-enacts-new-daily-parking-fee-among-ski-industrys-highest/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_f&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawGC6mhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUGbUpKK4DtSuARYywMqby7DgMMvqdRbviJbNUZ-ECpYTv5zfRybXFw-gg_aem_EGxxU7sOLZxGmshReD-gsg#Echobox=1728999411

[yeahman]

Couldn't you just buy the $50 uphill ski season pass?

[Markeyz]

We are not talking about uphill inbounds. We are talking about parking on public land leased to the operators off of a major interstate with local roads plowed with state gas tax $.

[AdironRider]

The ski area has a lease from the FS. They get to charge for access to facilities within that lease.

[TAFKALVS]

Washington hasn’t had any meaningful increase in skiing facilities or infrastructure since the 1960s but the demand is much higher. This will only get worse unfortunately.

[Markeyz]

And a sup permit that seems to forget the public aspect. For perspective when I started bc skiing at Snoqualmie it was ok to park off the second exit ( before there were so many cabins)

[toast2266]

The problem isn't that the commercial ski area is charging for use of their parking lots. The problem is the state / forest service / department of transportation haven't provided additional parking for non-commercial users.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Markeyz]

But the fact remains and my question is, since the roads are plowed by my taxes and the land outside the developed areas, hence commonwealth basin in the title, are public, does the lease holder have the right to charge for parking?

[~mikey b]

yes

[neckdeep]

But the fact remains and my question is, since the roads are plowed by my taxes and the land outside the developed areas, hence commonwealth basin in the title, are public, does the lease holder have the right to charge for parking?

The essential point here is you aren't being charged for access to the undeveloped public lands. You're being charged for access to developed parking. That's really no different from having to pay for a place to park your camper in a developed NF campground or having to pay an access fee to use boat ramp parking. Its always been this way.

[byates1]

Organize a sit in w flowers and peace signs.

[yeahman]

We are not talking about uphill inbounds. We are talking about parking on public land leased to the operators off of a major interstate with local roads plowed with state gas tax $.

Regardless of your intended activity, you could buy the uphill pass and it includes parking, correct? With some limitations on peak days but still parking. So rather than $55 a day, it's $50 for the season.

[Danno]

Being a lease holder means they have a property right; they're bound by the terms of the lease but otherwise are like the owner. So if the lease allows (or doesn't prohibit) them charging people for access to the leased land, they can charge.

[doebedoe]

Being a lease holder means they have a property right; they're bound by the terms of the lease but otherwise are like the owner. So if the lease allows (or doesn't prohibit) them charging people for access to the leased land, they can charge.

No idea if it really matters legally, but it isn't a lease. It's a special use permit that grants the holder authorization to operate (and charge for) specific activities. It's a non-exclusive permit to the area (so USFS could allow other uses on the permitted area).

Every ski area SUP I've seen when I FOIA'd them a few years back required some form of public access, with restrictions as deemed necessary by the holder and USFS.

As Neckdeep points out, it's not about access. It's about paying them for parking which is a limited resources that requires maintenance.

[Markeyz]

And that’s where it gets local. I have this pass to piss pass but the fact of the matter is that I go when going isn’t that good but it’s safe and it fits my time. Do I now risk a ticket? By definition there is no parking problem.