[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Saddleback Mtn. & NPS

Matt Perrenod writes:
> Pox Populi wrote:

>> The current NPS purchase offer is an insult that was rightfully
>> rejected.

> The offer was based on appraisal.  This is a requirement of federal
> law.

That doesn't make it less of an insult, especially when the
appraised value seems less based on the actual development
potential of the land in question than on whether the ski
resort can expand elsewhere, or install faster lifts to pack
the slopes with more skiers.

>> Meanwhile, those in the "trail community" who want to protect
>> this section of the trail seem perfectly willing to let the
>> taxpayer foot the bill. It makes one wonder who is "swindling"
>> who here. If any of you jokers are willing to put your money
>> where your mouths are, there should at least be a Saddleback
>> A.T. corridor purchase fund to which people can contribute.

> I object to your use of the term "swindle".  

Understandable. It was the original poster's use of the term
that prompted me to write.

>                                              Taxpayer money is my
> money.  I'm a citizen and have a right to assert my view of how it
> should be spent.  

I trust it wasn't your desire that the effort to secure the
Saddleback Mountain corridor should become the $600 toilet
seat of the Appalachian Trail. The government is stalling on
revealing how much of "your" money they have spent in the past
ten years of fruitless Saddleback negotiations. I wonder why.

As a taxpayer, I'm rather frosted at the behavior of the NPS
and their cheerleaders in the AMC; almost enough to overcome
my natural loathing of ski resorts and side with them on this
issue. The only thing holding me back is that they're behaving
just as badly.

>                  Protection of the AT became part of the national
> mission when Congress passed the National Scenic Trails Act.  I'd be
> willing to bet that if put to a referendum, voters nationwide (and in
> Maine) would support this use of their funds.

The mob is fickle.

>> Keep in mind that hikers don't contribute much to the economy,
>> unlike the "beautiful people" who take to the slopes.

> Fortunately, the choice isn't between the ski resort (which already
> exists, and has other room to expand) and the Trail.  The NPS
> proposal allows for both.

Rerouting the Appalachian Trail to the south slope would accomplish
the same goal. That is not without precedent; it was done on nearby
Sugarloaf. For that matter, where's the uproar over the trail passing
right next to the Wildcat gondola line?

--
mfuller@somtel.com; Northern Franklin County, Maine
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt.  }>:-/> --->


* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================