Did Vail buy shares in OpenPath?
Printable View
Did Vail buy shares in OpenPath?
^its not about the sheep
NIMBYism at its finestQuote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
For those who didn’t catch it YoY epic pass and epic local pass sales were down 10%. Overall prebook products were up 9% (4 packs or whatever they call them). Vail spent ~$20m relocating lifts to Whistler after Park City blocked their permitting for upgrade at PCMR. Vail operating at about 30% Margin
You couldn't have read the issue more incorrectly. But nice gut reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
No, it’s rich people protecting their property value by preventing additional “poor people” housing. It’s NIMBYISM. Folks can’t find a place to live and we care about big horn sheep? Give me a break. No one would have batted an eye if was being developed into multi million dollar single family homes, just like they haven’t said anything as areas around Vail got that treatment. If the big horn sheep are going to survive it’s not going to come down to some dormitories directly overlooking I-70.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Much of conservationism these days is just as much about property value for the ultra rich.
Fact.
Rather than just snarkily deriding someone else's take, why don't you regale us with your reading of the issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Town of Vail sucks just as bad as Vail Resorts. Stop thinking that there is a good guy and a bad guy in this fight, and the shit will always run downhill.
At first I assumed rich NIMBY stuff too, but looking at the land for the proposed development, it is really land that should never be developed regardless if it is employee housing or Elon Musk's new crib. It borders the Eagles Nest Wilderness area. There is a hiking trail up Pitkin Creek into that wilderness that would pass by this development. It is an extremely steep slope. And that slope leads directly up to pristine, remote mountains.
The city of Vail offered Vail $12 million for the land. Vail rejected that offered so the city sued for eminent domain where the court will now set the purchase price. It could be much more than $12 million (or less). If Vail and their taxpayers want to shell out to protect this land, good for them. The city will be paying Vail fair market price for the land so what's really problem?
Attachment 430870
Attachment 430871
Attachment 430872
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/...iles-petition/
Stick those Mexican employees down valley where they belong, eh, MTM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Nothing you said is wrong.
There is some nuance here, such as VR having some better parcels to build on, particularly in ways that wouldn't stress local transit, but VR doesn't want to. Does that make it OK for the Town to go back on its previous approval of this housing project and to try and steal VR's land to force VR to do it the the new way the Town just decided they wanted? Fuck no in my book.
Literally the only time in my life I've taken VR's side.
The city is paying for it. Sounds like you disagree, in principal, with the concept of eminent domain. Governments can use eminent domain to acquire land for any public purpose. Keeping land next to wilderness undeveloped is a public purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Wildland preservation is important, especially when it's 5 acres next to an interstate.
These are the things worth fighting for.
The only reason the sheep like that spot so much is because the mag chloride makes the grass extra tasty.
A wee bit racist, and I should know, but not necessarily a bad idea. Vail could buy acres and acres around the town a Gypsum to build employee housing and then invest in a private bussing system for employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Critical community good accomplishable no other way, like an interstate? Sure.
Eminent domain doesn't have to be for "critical" things like roads. The statutes vary by state, but in general, governments are allowed to use eminent domain for things like parks, and open lands, that are not necessarily "critical."Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
It will be interesting to see if Vail counter-sues the city arguing that the city's eminent domain is not for an appropriate "public use."
I gave you my opinion on how it ought to work. I did not give my interpretation of the law as that is not my specialty.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
I think you are confused. The land WITHIN wilderness should be undeveloped. I love wilderness and forests and nature as much as the next person, but every time more land is deemed special and given wilderness or open space or conservancy designations, the price of land nearby goes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
But I would be all for eminent domain if it means bulldozing a few mansions and dividing up the land for a few dozen locals to put prefab or tiny homes.
Believe it or not but some people think there isn't enough wilderness in the US and that even more land should be preserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmm...pow!
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?
You may be familiar with Kelo -v- City of New London. Sounds like you would (rightfully) side with the plaintiffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Kelo wasQuote:
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.
And side with Clarence Thomas. Who knew we had so many Clarence Thomas fans on TGR.Quote:
Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw
Broken clock is correct twice a dayQuote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
I thought it was one of the worst decisions of the century.Quote:
Originally Posted by boltonoutlaw
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.
Quite accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Redacted
Same reason I like pretzels.
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
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
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
Spare me the sob story. Next thing, you libertarian zealots are going to start complaining about zoning. Here's more back story on this:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/2...g-development/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.
^^^:fm: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.
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.