Liberty Ridge Resort ?

[admin]

FROM SEATTLE TIMES-

Permit issued for resort near Mount Rainier park

 

MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK - A Pierce County hearing examiner has issued a permit for a proposed 400-acre resort west of the national park.

Construction on the $70 million project could begin next fall along Highway 706.

Plans call for a 270-room lodge, condominiums, conference center, 18-hole golf course, tennis courts, spa, shopping mall and train station about 10 miles from the Nisqually entrance to the park.

Environmentalists and area residents opposed to the development have said it would ruin the upper Nisqually Valley, doubling the area's population.

Opponents appealed Pierce County's qualified approval of the project earlier this year and may appeal the permit.

END

wow.

 

[cascadeclimbers]

This is just too bad. I think we'll see more of this in/around alot of NP. I know that there is another group trying to do something like this outside Yosemite by the Mather entrance. Lame.

[Eddie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cascadeclimbers:

This is just too bad. I think we'll see more of this in/around alot of NP. I know that there is another group trying to do something like this outside Yosemite by the Mather entrance. Lame.

---

I agree bad idea. I'm sure the county likes the idea of more tax revenue though. The traffic can be too much as it is already. Imagine how it will be after this. I have a problem with road rage....

 

[jon]

This article appeared in the Times this weekend, it goes into more depth. This isn't the only place this is happening or has been tried. There is a resort currently in the works in Cle Elum by the same company that developed Sun River in Bend, Or. Golf for everyone! Here's the link for the Times http://seattletimes.nw source.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/SeattleTimes.woa/wa/gotoArticle?zsection_id=268448480&text_only=0&slug=rain29m&document_id=134242942

Current Opposition for this? I'm still looking but here are some links. If anyone finds anything PLEASE email us. For those of us who like to go to Rainier besides eat hotdogs and step on wildflowers, it's very important that we are heard. I can see this getting so bad that the road to Paradise is closed to cars, only shuttles. Police dogs with armed rangers on trails? God help us.

http://www.1000friends.org/

"Support Tahoma Audubon Society in its pursuit of a reason-

ably-scaled resort that is compatible with the National Park and

the surrounding environment."

"Local Contact: Kirk Kirkland,Tahoma Audubon Society,

(253) 565-9278"

-Jon

intensity@cascadeclimbers.com

[This message has been edited by jon (edited 10-29-2000).]

[snowleopard_x]

Gonna get a lot of "angry faces" with this thread. You hit it right on the head with politicians seeing tax revenue, without planning any futher than that. Seattle heading south and east already has sprawl & traffic problems. And if you want to know how to NOT plan an urban community around your natural surroundings, take a look at Bend (Sun River). Yes, Bachelor, Sisters, Smith, all of that is nice, and close. But all the Time-Shares, and Golf Courses, and Resorts make one sick. Irreversably damaged, forever.

I am not from Washington, but my best bet for stopping this, or curbing it at least, would be to find out who your state representitive and state senator is, and write to that person. My state rep here in Oregon gives out her e-mail address, and responds to e-mail if you put your full name and address on there (so she knows I am from her district and not some lobbyist). And with voter season up, it should be quite easy to find out who your rep and senator is.

Beyond that, I'd write to Gary Locke. While he's somewhat pro-growth, he's a bright guy and seems like he'd be open to the argument. His e-mail can probably be found on the web. I'll do a search and see if I can help.

[snowleopard_x]

Here is a link to Governor Gary Locke's personal website. This link goes directly to the "send the Governor e-mail" page.

http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/govemail.htm

If you can't get started writing, try to use terms or phrases like "irreversable" or "forever alter our state's beauty", or bring up traffic problems, or pollution. Or mention that you don't want Mt. Ranier to be the constant traffic jam that Yosemite, Grand Canyon or Yellowstone is. And do NOT forget to put your full name and address in there so they know you are a real citizen of the state, not some lobbyist. Or if you can't think of anything to write, at least cut and paste this:

Dear Governor Locke,

As a citizen of the state of Washington, I am writing to you to express my concern over the recent permit given for a proposed 400-acre resort just west of Mt. Rainier National Park. This area is one of the most pristine, beautiful places in our state. Developing it into a resort with golf courses and stip malls is not the reason many of us live here, or the world we'd like to see. I ask you to please look into this issue, and consider stopping it, or at least finding a more reasonable solution towards growing, while still preserving our state's natural beauty. Something no resort could ever provide.

Sincerely,

[This message has been edited by snowleopard (edited 10-30-2000).]

[snowleopard_x]

Okay. Snowleopard's been busy.

Here is a link the the State of Washington's government page for state Representitives, and state Senators:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/default.htm

And if you don't know who your rep is, here is a link to who is from where, and there is a link to maps with the districts on it there if you're not sure. The site is excellent and easy to surf:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/hadm/district.htm

I've done all I possibly can to make it as easy as possible for you Washingtonians. Here is your chance to be heard.

And just in case you weren't paying attention in civics class, here is a final note. Sorry if I seem heavy handed here:

Be as polite and professional as possible. Do NOT be antagonizing or preachy. You want this person on your side. Start your notes, "Dear Senator/Representitive _______", and end them, "Sincerely,". Spell check it, and write in good grammar. Yes, even e-mail.

(Note to MountainDudes. You may want to put these links up on the main page. No political statements attached. Just a "Want to sound off to local politicians about a climbing issue? Here are some links..." I'll try to dig Oregon, Idaho, and even Alaska, California, and Montana up if you like.)

[snowleopard_x]

Thanks for the update, Tim. I was starting to worry that no one cared about this issue anymore, and this meaningful thread would just die. I hope others here take up at least some of the cause as well.

[gapertimmy]

Here is some new info on the proposed resort... Jon got this via the UW Climbing board, check it out:

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:59:28 -0800

From: Chris Abajian <chris@abajian.net>

To: UW Climbers <climbers@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Park Junction resort / MRNP public comment session

There were quite a few people on this list who expressed an interest

in becoming involved with efforts to oppose the Park Junction

mega resort outside Mount Rainier national park. I've done some

poking around and phone calling and am able to report that no,

the resort is not a done deal and yes, there are things you can do

about it.

For those interested, rather than pester this list with off-topic

discussions, I've set up a website and mailing list. They're

at

http://parkdisjunction.org

Another appeal is set for December, and you can help directly by

contributing cash for the legal fees. I do not yet have an address

for donations (please don't send me anything) but I expect to shortly.

Something else you might consider doing is attending the public

comment session for the Mt. Rainier draft EIS and management plan

on Sunday, Dec. 3 at REI. This is an interesting document which

I urge you to read, at least the summary. Big changes are coming to

the way we use the park. I am not taking any position on these

proposed changes but the EIS is directly relevant to the Park Junction

resort (IMHO), and worth reading in its own right if you have (as

most on this list do) any interest in or love for the park.

You can download the eis at

http://www.nps.gov/planning/mora/dgmpeis/dgmpeis.htm

 

-- http://abajian.net/chris/pgpkey.html

 

[rayborbon]

Thanks for the good info Snowleapord and everyone else.

I have been using this for my responses as well.

-Ray

[nolanr]

I'm not at all in favor of the resort project just outside of Rainier. There may be a few bright spots, however. The resort developers suggested using tour buses to get the guests up to Paradise. While a tour bus is a bad idea on a narrow, windy road like that, it beats having 400 additional cars from the lodge driving up to Paradise every day. And let's get serious, Paradise is already completely overrun with people most of the year anyway. Is this really going to make it that much worse? I am going to take an educated guess that most people who would stay at a resort hotel like this proposed site are not going to be there to climb The Mountain or take a spin around the Wonderland Trail, so they may not get in your way all that much. Yes, it sucks that development continues to happen in areas that really don't need it and $$$ is the driving factor, but at least they're not trying to build something in the park. If you push too hard on issues like this, you can end up creating a lot of resentment by people who actually live in the Nisqually Valley who don't appreciate being told what they can and can't do by people who don't live there. Just trying to give a little different perspective on this one.

[scott_harpell]

*bump*

 

The Adams proposal seems like it may suffer the same fate as this one.

[Dr_Crash]

Ugh. That is not good.

 

If you copy snowleopard's template letter, change "stip malls" to "strip malls" first.

 

drC

[hopalong]

I wonder if this is how it happened in Europe?

[Bill_Simpkins]

I'm personally against any new development, but this is what you get when the population rises. As demand increases with the population, for places people can relax, resorts will be built to supply the demand.

I think it's pretty selfish of us to try to stop new development like this. Not everyone enjoys the outdoors the same way we do and I don't think its our place to say that if they don't enjoy the outdoors the same way we do, they can't do it at all.

If its on private land, then let it be. It could be worse.

Their not putting a goldola up Steamboat Prow or anything.

The more we gripe about them, the more THEY will gripe about us.

Ideally, I would not like this built, but it is a consequence of our population.

 

The reason I am writing this is for everyone to be careful about what they say in the letters and to realize the possible consequences of taking action like this, which could ultimatly lead to more restricted access for climbers.

 

If you want to solve this problem, tackle population growth and relocation to the NW.

[graupel]

The more we gripe about them, the more THEY will gripe about us.

Ideally, I would not like this built, but it is a consequence of our population.

 

The reason I am writing this is for everyone to be careful about what they say in the letters and to realize the possible consequences of taking action like this, which could ultimatly lead to more restricted access for climbers.

 

If you want to solve this problem, tackle population growth and relocation to the NW.

 

WTF?

 

How the hell is opposing development going to result in restricted access for climbers?

[hopalong]

Word!!!

[Bill_Simpkins]

Two ways:

 

1. The more we preserve land around what we use, the more the preserved land we use will be preserved. Dig?

This is a long-term accumulative effect, not a short-term direct effect.

 

2. If we go in and tell them they have no right to enjoy the land the way they do, then they may do the same to us.

 

All I'm saying is to be careful with the battles you pick. Picking this one will only eventually contribute something to more restricted access for climbers on the mountain.

 

These developers have a lot more money and power than the climbers do. If we raise a stink about them it would be pretty easy for them raise an even bigger stink about us.

 

I for one would not like a resort there, but I think it hurts us more to raise a fuss about it on this one. Raising a fuss about everything like this is just stupid. You have to weigh the possible consequences with the payoffs.

I think it would be more effective just to make sure the traffic situation is taken care of and maybe see if some money can be obtained to lower climbing fees from money coming in from the development. Suggest telescopes get added where tourists could see climbers on the mountain which would further add to the appeal and further add support for climbers on the mountain.

 

As the population of the area grows more and more development WILL occur no matter what you do. They WILL eventually win. And eventually probably more resorts will go up all over the Cascades. If you want to solve the problem tackle population growth. If that isn't taken care of you will lose anyways. More people will develop in the mountains, more people will want to go camping and climbing, more people will have to shop, roads will have to get wider. They have to go somewhere.

In cases like this we are wasting our energy trying to stop this developement. It WILL happen anyways someday unless the source of the problem is solved.

 

Analogy:

( It's like the ground covered is gas and someones throwing more and more lit matches in the air as time goes by. You can keep trying to catch the matches before they hit the ground, or you can take out the source. If the source isn't rid of right away the ground will eventually catch on fire. )

[Dan_Larson]

Damn , Bill if I didn't know you I would think you were a smart guy.

[Lepton]

First of all, has anyone seen the proposed site and plan for development? If so, is it accessible from the web for review?

 

IMHO if you are going to oppose this development only based on general principles that you are opposed to development of any kind near a park, then your position is weak. Personally, I am curious exactly where the development is proposed and what plans they have for the development. I have absolutely no problem with a resort in the vicinity of RNP as long as it does not impact sensitive drainages or create an ugly presence in hiking, camping, or fishing areas.

 

If the resort is placed in such a way that it interferes with existing use of the land, or if there is environmental impact for salmon streams or other wildlife habitats, then there is a sound reason for either directly opposing the development or requesting a modification of the development to mitigate the damage. I think the climbing community would do a great disservice to itself to oppose this development without first doing due diligence with research about the development and have sound reasons for opposition.

 

So, have any of you done research? Please share it with us.