When a ski hill goes too far: Mt Spokane

[cakeo48]

The ski hill in Washington's largest state park, even that doesn't sound that great. Well it's basically the only mountain within in 45mins, that holds snow, so a ski hill makes sense. But it's taken half of the mountain over, and now the "non-profit" company wants to takeover the untouched westside.

 

Over half a decade ago Mt Spokane has wanted to expand, with much resistance. Using manipulation of the facts, a lie here a there lie, and exaggeration to gain some support. Even some of higher up people in the company have lied. Here are some of companies lies:

 

It would be safer to have the new lift, people wouldn't get stuck in the backcountry. Truth: having a lift on the westside would attract more un-experienced people into the sidecountry, increasing number of people getting stuck. The area has little other use, than for lift served skiing.Truth: It's the only reliable undeveloped backcountry ski area in the county, and is one of the only wilderness like areas near the city, great for off trail hiking. People would not be able to backcountry ski if the land was not classified for alpine skiing, and rec. Truth: there is no land classification the land could be put in, that would limit Backcountry skiing.

 

The ski area would stay open longer. Truth: The slope aspects, altitude, or temps. aren't any better than the existing skiing area, and the ski hill's snow is so bad late season opening longer would not be beneficial. The expansion will help the community's economy. Truth: Only a few job positions would be created, mostly being filled by volunteers, and college students. Mount Spokane could never become a destination resort, with the worst terrain, and snow between the four resorts within a sixty mile radius, and Spokane international only serving some of the best skiing skiing states, so there's no real effect on the economy.

 

It's really redevelopment not first development. Truth: There is really no evidence of any kind of extensive run cutting in the area of the expansion, just a small rope tow setup for a short amount of time. Previous ski developments were only in the south meadows area, or near chair one. Under no definition the area contains old growth forest, and isn't unique. Truth: Well under most definitions The Spokane area contain no Old growth forest, but this area has some of the oldest forest in the area, and within just a few decades it would become old growth forest. It also contains some of the most unique forests I've seen in the area. There's a lack of alpine skiing in the area. Truth: There's a plentiful supply of alpine skiing in the area, including Schweitzer with 2900 acres, which is almost empty on weekdays.

 

Overall Mt Spokane's expansion is unneeded and doesn't solve any of it's current problems, like slow lifts, and low capacity, low snow quality, run down lodges, and limited learning area. This plan would be way more beneficial: http://www.savemtspokane.org/Mt_Spokane_2020.html Hopefully the Injunctions can delay the westside expansion for a while...End of rant...

[genepires]

I feel for you man, but this is spray. I don't feel the urge to scream and yell against the OP, which is typical for here.

 

Maybe your posting belongs in the regular forums.

[genepires]

Or maybe this is a troll attempt it piss people off?

 

Would be more fitting if it was labeled, "amazing discovery on the west side of mt Spokane". Then we could really get some hate going on.

 

So is the some kind of public hearing about this expansion? Any place we can send hate mail or emails?

[G-spotter]

TRUTH: this is a fucking boring "my backyard" post which does not belong in spray

 

it's = it is

its = possessive

 

PS eat a dick, bitch

Edited February 1, 2016 by G-spotter

[genepires]

Didn't this thing get approved over a year ago? Isn't this way too late?

 

Sounds like a drunk ranting about things long simmering on.