I am not a wildlife biologist nor have I ever represented that I was. Nor have I made legal arguments. So GTFO with that bullshit, we're two dentists arguing shit on TGR. I do know, however, that significant environmental review was done about that parcel, and when Vail did discover it owned the property, it rezoned it so that 18 of the 23 acres would be preserved; that rezoning was approved (ie they don't do that unilaterally). Other projects in the very same habitat have been approved in the interim. Those projects did not undergo the same environmental review.
And the decision Vail received was final, AFAIK. It was rescinded by the subsequent council, so in that sense it wasn't final, but my understanding is that Vail Resorts did not need additional approvals.
So if it is PURELY a "save the bighorn" thing, why now? Why, conveniently, with an affordable housing project?
If you think this is really all about the bighorn sheep* I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
* No doubt it is all about the sheep for some environmentalists who have no skin in the game, and would prefer that nothing be developed anywhere in their habitat, and surely would have been happy if those other projects weren't approved either, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
Bookmarks