Backlash Against Vail Resorts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmmm...pow!

The land WITHIN wilderness should be undeveloped.

---

Believe it or not but some people think there isn't enough wilderness in the US and that even more land should be preserved.

Yes, I-70 is right next by this property but there are lots of examples where wilderness comes even closer to a paved road. I would be pretty pissed if the US, as a whole, or Colorado, as a whole, was using tax dollars to buy this property. But Vail is essentially the wealthiest city on planet Earth. If they want to buy up all the land around them, so be it. Yes, it may make Vail even more expensive to live, and make it even harder to get by as a ski instructor, teacher, cop, ect. there. But Vail apparently values keeping this land undeveloped over making their city affordable. Unless you are a resident of Vail, and paying your taxes there, why should any of the rest of us care what Vail (the city) is spending their money on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

Eminent domain was not in my opinion intended for government to go, "oh this is a nice idea lets do some takings... we like that plan today vs last week when we thought something else was a nice idea."

Critical community good accomplishable no other way, like an interstate? Sure.

---

You may be familiar with Kelo -v- City of New London. Sounds like you would (rightfully) side with the plaintiffs.

Kelo was

Quote:

---

a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment...

...After the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans; however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw

You may be familiar with Kelo -v- City of New London. Sounds like you would (rightfully) side with the plaintiffs.

---

And side with Clarence Thomas. Who knew we had so many Clarence Thomas fans on TGR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

And side with Clarence Thomas. Who knew we had so many Clarence Thomas fans on TGR.

---

Broken clock is correct twice a day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw

You may be familiar with Kelo -v- City of New London. Sounds like you would (rightfully) side with the plaintiffs.

---

I thought it was one of the worst decisions of the century.

For those NOT familiar:

Quote:

---

This week Pfizer announced that it was closing down its offices in New London, Connecticut. This marked a sardonic conclusion to Susette Kelo’s sad story. She lost her home in a long and bitter fight against the City of New London which sought to take her property through the power of eminent domain to give to a private developer. The plan was for the City to take her property and to give it to the developer, who would then build condos and a convention center, all of which was intended to encourage people to visit the Pfizer facility and to promote the City's economy.

While government may use the power of eminent domain to take private property for public purposes, it was traditionally understood that those purposes were limited to things like the construction of highways, bridges and other such projects. But, in the Kelo case, the government was seeking to take her property not for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of private interests. In an infamous opinion, the Supreme Court upheld the practice. The Court concluded that the government could take private property so long as the political process concluded that the taking would ultimately be in the public’s best interest.

It was evident that the Court had placed a great deal of stock in the fact that the City had gone through the ‘democratic process.’ After all, the decision to take the property, and to give it the private developer, was based upon the political judgment of elected representatives of the people; they had held public meetings and reviewed reports. The Court essentially found that we ought to defer to the judgment of elected officials in these matters.

Evidently the City of New London’s judgment was poor in concluding the development would rejuvenate their community. Susette Kelo lost her home, and ultimately Pfizer is leaving town. There are no winners in this story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Name Redacted

The only reason the sheep like that spot so much is because the mag chloride makes the grass extra tasty.

---

Quite accurate.

Same reason I like pretzels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by summit

I thought it was one of the worst decisions of the century.

---

Ditto.

Following up on Bunion's post:

Jeff Benedict wrote an excellent book about the case that was adapted into a so-so movie, Little Pink House.
Also, The Grasping Hand, by Ilya Somin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Rather than just snarkily deriding someone else's take, why don't you regale us with your reading of the issue?

---

This is strictly a flex by current council as a backlash against VR for seemingly fucking the ethos of the Town. They are willing to throw a lot of cash at it too. I almost feel bad for the TOV taxpayers, but not really.

And yes, I personally know people on council, and yes, I've represented landowners and municipalities in condemnation trials.

This has nothing to do with NIMBY, as everything in the TOV is literally in your backyard.

My personal take on the issue is that the TOV approved the development and should let it go through. Fuck the sheep, they have thousands of acres of wilderness up in the Gore to get their snack on. Shit, we were averaging 3 run over a year before they put up that ghetto chain link fence.

In other news, I70 is closed. Shocking.

Just another shopping mall ski area

What's legal and what's right are not necessarily the same thing, as they aren't in this case. It's interesting that when the lawyers weigh in legality is the only consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

What's legal and what's right are not necessarily the same thing, as they aren't in this case. It's interesting that when the lawyers weigh in legality is the only consideration.

---

Legality and the associated process has to be their focus. Naturally there are junctions where they can and should consider what is ‘right’ (eg do I want to represent this client?) but they should strive to be like Altasnob & focus on legality while cheerfully being morally or otherwise wrong about a lot of things. :fmicon:

Lol. Who knew Vail, inc., one of the most evil corporate entities ever grace the planet, is morally correct. Hopefully Vail buys up some undeveloped mountainside near you and shoves a Walmart in there.

this is all funny as shit you know
as mtm said vail put up a chainlink fence well over a year ago and burned all the vegetation summer of 21 I think
I laughed my ass off

ski town politics are a joke it's a bunch of well to do people who have time on their hands and millions upon millions of free tax payer dollars to spend on feel good touchy projects the idea that they are having to deal with failing water systems like flint in so far from their radar they are more concerned about 250k or more spent planting of flowers each year

there is nothing wrong with building the housing there other than a possible 100 year avalanche path but vail as has started looking the other way and allowing homeowners to encroach on these paths in the past few years because there is no buildable land in vail and howmeowners with money you know

the same bullshit happens in summit right now the town council is heming and hawing over a tank farm for natural gas these same people will have excels head on a stick when they can't operate their resturant grill or the guests are going without heat so excel does their best to mitigate this possiblity but its so unsightly to have gas storage in breckenridge

these people can't get out of their own way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frorider

Legality and the associated process has to be their focus. Naturally there are junctions where they can and should consider what is ‘right’ (eg do I want to represent this client?) but they should strive to be like Altasnob & focus on legality while cheerfully being morally or otherwise wrong about a lot of things. :fmicon:

---

No. The town doesn't have to do eminent domain just because it can. That is my point. And the people here saying it's OK because it's legal aren't part of Vail's legal team (town or resort.) But my point is a broader one--we seem to have divorced the law and morality in this country, probably because rich people write the laws. (What's unusual in this case is that it's a rich company that is getting screwed--eminent domain usually screws poor people. Although ultimately it's the workers who will have to commute a long distance or sleep in their cars who will get screwed the worst.)

Spare me the sob story. Next thing, you libertarian zealots are going to start complaining about zoning. Here's more back story on this:

Quote:

---

bighorns play key mountain ecological roles, eating grasses and shrubs, and as prey. They are Colorado’s state animal, revered for their curled horns, head-butting and photogenic profiles on cliffs. Bighorns have decreased statewide to about 6,800 animals, down from an estimated 7,600 in 2012 and 8,000 in 2001, state data shows. In the Vail Valley, bighorns have decreased to about 5% of their historic numbers, along with other wildlife species. The herd that forages east of Vail has shrunk over the past 12 years by 40% to around 50 bighorns.

---

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/2...g-development/

^^^

Quote:

---

The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) is one of four native sheep species that inhabit the North American continent and the only one that resides in Colorado. Bighorn sheep play a key role in bringing tourist and revenue into the state.

---

:fm:

I’m sure the big horn sheep need a couple acres to watch traffic build up on I70.

Vail co has definitely done a number on the ski resort industry and ski towns, but they don’t even get an honorable mention or even an invite to the ‘evil corporation’ annual awards ceremony.

I get it, I get it. No one gives a shit about the sheep. It's all about those poor South Americans Vail imports on H1B visas to clean the toilets and clear the cafeteria trays. Gotta fight for Vail's right to displace ski bums across America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XavierD

I’m sure the big horn sheep need a couple acres to watch traffic build up on I70.

Vail co has definitely done a number on the ski resort industry and ski towns, but they don’t even get an honorable mention or even an invite to the ‘evil corporation’ annual awards ceremony.

---

Poison my drinking water if you must, but don't you dare make my frozen water expensive to slide on!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

I get it, I get it. No one gives a shit about the sheep. It's all about those poor South Americans Vail imports on H1B visas to clean the toilets and clear the cafeteria trays. Gotta fight for Vail's right to displace ski bums across America.

---

Do you understand that the land in question is literally adjacent to an interstate and not some pristine unspoiled habitat? And that whether or not this project gets built will have virtually no effect on the species survival of the bighorn? And the project was already approved? And the town is simply using the bighorn as a pretext to now halt the project? FFS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Do you understand that the land in question is literally adjacent to an interstate and not some pristine unspoiled habitat? And that whether or not this project gets built will have virtually no effect on the species survival of the bighorn? And the project was already approved? And the town is simply using the bighorn as a pretext to now halt the project? FFS.

---

Do you have any sources or is this just your assumption?

It actually sounds like it is a critical habitat for the gore range bighorn herd. According to a quick Google search has a winter range of around 1000 acres. The herd is down to 75-100 individuals so probably slim chances for survival if they continue to lose suitable habitat to weather the winter, which is when the herd sees the most death. Unfortunately, when they built i-70, they put it at the bottom of the valley where there's the least amount of snow in the winter and this area has now seen a lot of development over the last 20-30 years resulting in a 40% decline in the gore range bighorn sheep herd.

I've seen a lot of bighorns in Colorado around/near i-70. Used to see a lot between Silver Plume and Georgetown. And while I don't travel that stretch as much as I did 20 years ago, I haven't seen any there for quite some time. I get that humans probably see little value in land next to a major interstate (except as maybe a place to house seasonal workers to serve the rich) but sheep probably give too shits as long as there's exposed grass to munch on to get through the winter. So in short, wildlife (deer, sheep, elk, those that don't hibernate and aren't adapted for deep snow) probably don't care that some land is next to an interstate in the winter when getting food is more important than avoiding humans or potentially getting hit by a car.

What's more important: the gore range bighorn sheep herd or housing for seasonal workers to serve Vail's clientele?

The quick google search I did, the first results are the people fighting Vail Resorts, so if that is your source of info recognize that it is biased.

The land is adjacent to the interstate, that is a fact. The development was already approved, that is a fact. Vail Resorts wants to build on 5 acres of land (they own 23), that is a fact. As for whether this project will kill the bighorn sheep, or whether the town is simply using the bighorn as a pretext to now halt the project, those are not facts. But the second part, the pretext, seems very straightforward. The Town of Vail, and the wealthy homeowners adjacent to this project, didn't suddenly become staunch conservationists. The entire valley would look a lot different if they were. And if the bighorn range is now only 1000 acres, well, it used to be a lot bigger, no? And some of the people fighting this live in homes that were part of that bigger range. Why do they get a pass? And 5 acres out of 1000 is 1/2% of their habitat. Immediately next to an interstate.

Should all of that valley have been developed? Probably not. But should Vail Resorts be held accountable for all the development that came before, and be held hostage by adjacent wealthy landowners who liked their view and a town council that is fighting them over bigger issues? No.

If you want to read a different take, here's a Reason article (Reason is, of course, a libertarian anti-condemnation publication): https://reason.com/2022/10/21/colora...loyee-housing/ And this doc on page 3 has an aerial view of the whole 23 acre parcel (5 acres was approved for construction, the other 18 would be preserved for open space).

I'm in favor of protecting the sheep, for sure, but I am also very much against a government arbitrarily picking winners and losers because of the influence of some wealthy landowners (and yes, I realize the humor in calling Vail Resorts the "loser" here). And the incremental impact of this single project seems very much more of the latter than the former.