https://www.seattletimes.com/life/ou...box=1728999411
Printable View
Couldn't you just buy the $50 uphill ski season pass?
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 $.
The ski area has a lease from the FS. They get to charge for access to facilities within that lease.
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.
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)
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
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?
yes
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz
Organize a sit in w flowers and peace signs.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
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.
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.
They own the parking lot land, Ski Lifts Inc. that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
You could put this energy towards fundraising for more high elevation sno-parks in Washington state. Whining about a ski area charging for parking to discourage non-paying customers from clogging their lot is the wrong approach in my opinion…
Or move to a place where you’re not competing for a finite resource with millions of people who only have a handful of access points that are increasingly less available like I did.
Seattle metro population in 1970: ~1.5 mil
2024: ~4 mil
Last I checked there aren’t any new ski areas since the 1970s, and of the existing areas, parking hasn’t meaningfully increased, nor has the footprints of existing ski areas increased, and non-human powered access at sno-parks or places like Mount Rainer or Washington Pass has decreased.
I mean it sounds like there is a parking lot up there managed by the Forest Service that isn't even getting plowed. Why not start there with a movement to fund that plowing? I'm not sure exactly where it is in relation to where people want to go, but it is mentioned in the article.
OMG!!! Somebody call for a Waaambulance!
https://mynorthwest.com/3998011/summ...y-parking-fee/Quote:
Parking at the Summit will be $55 per day for general, $5 a day for people with ticket packs and free for season pass holders.
<snip>
Parking is also included with the purchase of a Flex Ticket Pack. However, the Summit said a permit is not required for Twilight or Night ticket purchasers and that Twilight guests arriving to ski at 2 p.m. are safe to park between 1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. without a permit.
Flex Ticket packs come in 2, 3 or 4. You can buy a four-pack for $59 per day including parking.
So the only people affected by this terrible horrible no-good egregious money grab are those
(a)buying a one-day pass and skiing from open to 2pm, or
(B) not buying a pass at all and just using their parking lot.
Which are you OP? A One-day-per-year gomer, or have you been using their privately constructed parking lot as a base for something other than lift-served snow riding?
Precisely. Like scatter creek.
You’re talking peak #s. I’m talking about having a walk in icy/rainy non instagram times ie the normal shit
Yeah man the pct parking lot is a no go. It’s up a narrow road into a bowl so nowhere to put the the now for a max 20 spaces and the other lot has an outhouse in the middle so plowing it would just be a turnaround with the additional negative of potentially damaging the toilet.
The land that the parking lot(s) is on is owned by Ski Lifts Inc. not the Forest Service. Are you saying that Ski Lift Inc. shouldn’t be allowed to charge for parking on land that they own and plow so that their customers have a place to park?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I ain’t paying $55 to ski Kendall nob. Just sayin. I’ve been skiing Washington for a half century and counting.
Ski lift inc wouldn’t have the opportunity to charge for parking without the publicly funded roads that provide access to those private lands.
This is correct. The parking lot is is privately owned, so charging for parking is their right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
I have concerns about what this will mean for future "parking permits" with respect to my season pass, but my hope is that this policy cuts down on losing 1/8 of parking in Lot 4 on the weekends to non-resort users. Parking won't be expanded, so starting with this policy is better than requiring carpooling to park. I think that is the next step for the Alpental lots.
You should know there is better ski touring to be had than Snoqualmie Pass then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz;[emoji[emoji6[emoji640
Sent from my iPhone using [emoji638]][emoji640][emoji640]][emoji640][emoji638][emoji638][emoji638]]TGR Forums
And while we’re at it, $ 10 for a slice of pie for the people? But damn it’s delicious.
So you want real time dynamic pricing for parking on private property, when the private property owner pretty clearly just wants to reserve parking for their paying customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
I share your anger, but this argument is true for all private parking and could be extended to any business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz
We're sort of fucked with too many assholes like me and a small but virulently vocal group that ignores the logging and mining interests but has a complete shitfit meltdown about the possible extension of recreational options in the Cascades.
The problem is to be able to find a viable media stream to promote the plans for more parking, access and lifts in the Cascades, particularly the Puget Sound. With supply and demand for access, the current gestalt only allows for the few resources to become increasingly unaffordable for those of us paying most of the taxes.
Of course I know. But Kendall fun zone is easy in and out and maybe get back to work in the afternoon. Can’t say that about Stevens or xtal or baker from the big Seattle metro.
And like I said, it’s not about big pow crowds.
It’s only the worry of the weekend warrior. Reality is that there’s a lot of empty lifts most of the time and somebody’s got to pay for the new lnvestments. That c2 cable wasn’t going to last forever.
.
Fuck man. I just paid $65 to park at Lumen Field and took a publicly funded road to get there.
Shit sucks.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Well when Covid shut things down there were still folks getting out. One guy biked to baker and had a gun pointed at him here in my hood. Never forget. Like after Oso. Locals remember.
For the not last time, I’m not talking about busy weekends. I’m talking about parking in the lots when the lifts aren’t even spinning. I thought that was clear. The alternative is parking on the road which will piss off the truckers or parking in the cabin access roads, hey that’s some nice new riprap shoring up the bridge that almost washed out a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by SorryBro
OK, I guess the movie theater owes me a free seat cuz I'm driving there on a public road?Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz
Have you considered yelling at clouds?
https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2l...s8Mf/giphy.gif
Pre season preparations can be challenging with the public running around on your ski area. In a lot of ski states you can be hit with a theft of services ticket if you aren't welcome, even on NF lands. Having uphill policies at ski areas is a privilege and not a right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markeyz
I don't like the current state of the ski industry either but it is what it is. It was a different world just 20-25 years ago. There's too many damn people today and that has a trickling affect on everything.