[at-l] Wingfoot & Saddleback

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 5/20/01 8:57:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gaudet@mediaone.net writes:

<< I think the postcards have more weight. 
 (Inherent mistrust of technology??)

   ~~~ From what I saw, postcards have less weight because they are obviously 
preprinted and handed out. All they require is some brief propaganda and a 
signature and they count as a vote. The responder doesn't need to research 
the issue deeply or even form his own opinion or write his own words. These 
solicited postcards are usually best used if the target group is vulnerable 
to inspection of purpose or method. It was never determined if they were 
weighed equally with letters written by persons with a background of Trail 
concern.  
 
 To orient folks: Alternative #1 was the one that Wingfoot was 
 supporting. Alternative #3 received a large number of preprinted 
 postcards in support of the Saddleback Ski Area. I'm a little vague 
 on the details of how it all turned out. I seem to remember that AMC 
 supported Alternative #2, and I think the final settlement is closest 
 to this Alternative. (It protects the visual foreground zone as seen 
 from the AT, preserves the alpine zone and nearly all the sub-alpine 
 zone. Also protects Eddy Pond, which I think is a part of the final 
 settlement.)

    ~~~ I think the final outcome was closer to alternative #3 plus some 
bonuses. What is uncertain (and what Weary brings up) is whether the threat 
to develop the entire mountain was actually possible by the struggling owner. 
In any case, if this threat was pursued, the NPS would have condemned under 
eminent domain and prevented the "Saddle" crossing trails across the 
condemned corridor. This would have prohibited the total mountain area as 
planned, but the problem was that the remaining part was vulnerable to 
payback by the owner. Even with the corridor not available he could have made 
life miserable by forcing his property rights and developing just about 
everything else while sucking the pond dry. Ugly lift house backs looking you 
right in the eye, machine noise, narrow corridor, close ski trails - it pains 
me to keep thinking of more... 
    So, I believe this is what Weary meant by "what we could have gotten for 
free" (or the assessed condemnation value).  What is clear to me is that the 
owner duped us into thinking he was going to develop it all and got us to pay 
ransom rates for his surplus acreage (south side). What is tragic is that 
this overcharge will eventually finance the undoing of the wilderness on 
Saddleback by paying for it.
 
 Anyway, in counting up the cards, letters and email from the public 
 here's what the report has to say:
 Alternative #1 - "Approximately 38.2 % of the comments were provided 
 in letter form and 59.0 % of the comments provided via electronic 
 mail. It was apparent that many of the electronic mail submissions 
 were generated by people who had contacted a specific website that 
 provided information about the Appalachian Trail and the issue of 
 Trail protection on Saddleback Mountain." The total was 1051 email 
 submissions.
 Alternative #3 - "71.2 % of the responses were provided in preprinted 
 postcard form and 25.9 % in preprinted questionnaire form. All of the 
 postcards were identical in form and content and were received as 
 part of a bulk mail submission from Saddleback Ski Area. It was 
 apparent that all of the postcards were the result of a campaign by 
 the ski area to generate support for this alternative." The total was 
 1550 preprinted postcard submissions.

    ~~~ The grassroots curve was obviously not honored. A private enterprise 
financed drive is not of the same class as a public conservation zone 
non-profit concern and should be considered for the difference in vested 
interest. Locals driven to hysterics by demonized effigies of virulent enviro 
body snatchers should not be compared to the overstretched body of Trail 
advocates who are fighting the slow attrition of their wilderness corridor. 
Seeing how comfortable Washington now is with paid lobbying, I see where this 
would now be overlooked. The postcards, in this instance, are of the same 
degree as bought votes outside the voting place -all delivered in one company 
mail sack. 
 
 So it seems that one technique may have balanced the other, or nearly 
 so. Saddleback trumped the email submissions with postcards only 
 after they got wind of Wingfoot's campaign (again, my memory). There 
 were 100 or so email submissions that _did not_ use the Wingfoot 
 template (one was mine), compared with 34 postcards that _did not_ 
 use the Saddleback card.
  >>
    ~~~ There is enough evidence to at least suggest that the postcard vs 
e-mail was a moot point by the time it got to that point. The 
closed-to-public session and other shaky situations like "wise use", the 
owner's lawyer speaking to the Interior dept agent, and the fact that 
looming, larger political shifts and project timetables were used to rush the 
deal through, point towards a prearranged goal which makes me think we were 
not really considered. Remember that the comfortable cooperation arrangement 
between ATC and NPS depends on smooth relationships and public opinion. These 
ties are not invulnerable to interruptions by new regimes who feel they 
overstepped their bounds and hurt constituents in friendly territory. Just as 
the Saddleback owner could make life miserable, so could others on a bigger 
scale. That is where we should have come in...

    It appears the big winner here was the owner. We will see how much he 
really cares about the locals as his plan progresses. The loser was mainly 
the Trail. Yes, we will be allowed an illusion of wilderness in one of the 
precious few remaining areas of AT where the Trail actually traverses real, 
dark and deep wilds. But this sounds too sentimental, I understate the real 
impact it will have in reducing the last remaining link in the unprotected 
chain of AT in Maine to a backyard walk of a ski area with all its 
accompanying intrusions of civilization in a place that fundamentally defines 
itself as the opposite of that. Make no mistake that the feeling of being on 
Saddleback is partly due to the fact that it is so far from civilization. 
Just KNOWING the ski area is within a few hundred feet is nearly as bad as 
walking through it. The flora and fauna also depend on forest continuity to 
remain at the level at which they presently exist. 

   If there was only one last mountain to be saved on this trail, that has 
come to embody a symbol of environmental preservation, it should have been 
saved, not willingly handed over to a speculator with no regard for the 
Trail. The Appalachian Trail, with all its world wide visibility, is much 
more important than the pains felt by a town that is exhibiting all the signs 
of the normal paradigm reaching its limits but refusing to change. I truly 
believe that saving the Trail was more in their long-term interest than a 
risky venture with no guarantees that could fail and still leave the Trail 
ruined. Instead they turn to the AT for relief and cut into its side with 
politicians using it as a visible sacrifice to buy time. There are plenty of 
mountains in Maine, there is only one AT. I can't believe this happened with 
us watching. The more precious commodity and expensive loss here was the AT 
not a crap chute.