2007 BVMR Green Report Card

2007-12-04 08:07:47 Hi All, Did anyone see this article in the chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/04/MN68TNG4R.DTL. Talks about how "Green" are thr regional ski resorts. Squaw and Alpine get an "A". Bear Valley gets a "D". Go figure. This is where the eco-nuts drive me crazy. Do these people ever go outside? Have they ever been to BV? Probably not. —BobRynd

2007-12-04 08:45:01 i agree.... I just looked at the webcam and indeed it's very green up there still, while Kirkwood is mostly white.... lol. Sigh. —TonyZuccarino

2007-12-06 08:49:35 Check out Martin]s (pronounced marteen) blog on the bearvalley.com site. He explains the green thing. —SusiLewis

2007-12-06 10:10:32 Susi, The "Green" report was put together with development being 60% of the score. So, with Bear Valley having expansion/development plans, it puts us in the automatic "sh** list" for this anti-development, anti-growth eco-group. This report is flawed, it's not worth the paper it's written on. I'm all for conservation and environmental issues but this group is what i would consider extreme. Did they visit Bear Valley before issuing this report? I'd say no. How can anyone, in their right mind, stand in Squaw parking lot vs. Bear V parking lot and say that SQuaw has less environmental impact. —BobRynd

2007-12-06 19:59:54 I can. Lordy, Bob! Your tone makes me wonder who's the extremist here. It's not what they did, it's what they're doing. That's how some ski resorts have improved their grades from D's to A's: Implementing recycling programs, mending meadows and vernal areas, upgrading equipment, & etc. In fine, I bet Squaw would have received a lousy grade years ago; but, today is a different story. The shocker for me was finding out they didn't have a recycling program since I know for a fact the Gentlings are zealous in that regard. (Note that Martin avoided that topic in his blog.) —DanAhlborn

2007-12-06 20:19:20 Thanks, Susi, for pointing us toward Martin's blog. I didn't read it at first because I figgered it was just political poo not unlike how the parents of a mass murderer always say: "My kid would never do thaaat!" Indeed, he noted the offered incentives the support and how he stands behind this and that; but, the bottom line—hidden between the lines—is this: "We will support YOU doing stuff IFF you want, but I ain't gonna do it!" To wit: Martin offers ride-sharing incentives to skiers. The cost of gas should be incentive enough; therefore, the incentive, coming after the fact and in the face of a never-ending escalation of gas price rings hollow: He asked his guests to do that which he didn't demand of his own company. Likewise the other "see how good we are" points he brings up in his blog. (What's the opposite of Gemuetlichkeit?)—DanAhlborn

2007-12-06 20:31:05 B: The 60 percent number is interesting. Or, at least, how and why they chose that particular number. I don't think anyone can look at that without some measure of skepticism, saying: "Dang. That's the perfect number!! Why, that's just what I was thinking—60 %!!" In short, we probably all questioned this point. Finally, as somebody put it the other day, "Why do they want to develop a whole 'nother area when they can't even fill up the one they got?!" No doubt the price of a ticket will be prohibitive by the time they build the thing—then throw in the price of gas...! —DanAhlborn

2007-12-06 20:50:14 with as little use as Bear Valley as a whole (town + ski area) gets relative to Squaw/Tahoe, my casual observation is that the SACC folks are a group of people who, if they want to accomplish something environmental, should focus on the blight of development in Tahoe, and leave BV alone to just try and thrive for a change. —TonyZuccarino

2007-12-06 21:43:34 Tony: The idea is to make money. Whether or not the town of Bear Valley thrives or not is either secondary or as distant as completely immaterial. Having said that, I do believe the TBI/Dundee development team are trying to avoid Kirkturd's mistakes at all costs. Unfortunately, I hoped for better but in fact got exactly what I expected from Martin: that warm, fuzzy feeling that comes with vacuous political deflection ala Menlo Park CEO-dom. It would have been nice if he'd stood up and said, "You're right. We haven't done enough", so that the next Chronicle story could read: "BVMR Vows To Turn Things Around". Skiers stay. Bleeding stops. Finally, the folks in Tahoe have been, are now, and will continue to be in a bloody death-match over development until the shoreline is completely filled-in with 9000 square foot abominations like the embarrassment going up on Snowshoe whose owner could have saved himself millions by just getting the penis stint instead. —DanAhlborn

2007-12-06 21:44:16 Here HERE! Tony. I agree with that. I just watched the film: Resorting to Madness. Quite a good documentary about Mt communities and their demise due to big money corporation takeovers. It is a MUST SEE. Got it from our BV library upon recommendation of our esteemsed librian. I have been quietly sitting on my feelings and misgivings about where our beloved BV is going. I need some help here. I want to say something, but yet worry about biting the hand that feeds you. I feel it is a very historic, special, unique place. That the changes are thar are coming worry me, are an understatement. WE ALL LOVE what is here, and what isn't here...................................... —SusiLewis

2007-12-06 21:53:45 This is all Bob's fault.... —DanAhlborn

2007-12-06 23:28:50 Dan you slay me! Let me be more clear on my position. BV the resort and BV the town both need some serious investment, but even with that, BV will be so far from the mess that has become Tahoe, that the enviro-soldiers shouldn't place BV at the top of their s**tlist. I am all for and hoping that Dundee continues to invest according to their plan. Without it, I think BV the town slowly deflates... with less and less services, to the point where you'll have to drive to Arnold to buy a loaf of bread, and I don't think anyone wants that. I do see a strong coupling between the mountain and the town... if the town sucks, then all of Dundees investment won't matter because there is no place to stay/eat. And the town won't improve unless someone like Dundee puts money into the mountain first and then the in the town as part of the plan. Susi, I can't see BV losing it's *charm* (if we can call it that) because all of Dundee's vision might come to pass. It would still be a LONG way from South Lake Tahoe. —TonyZuccarino

2007-12-07 04:09:59 Beware of my cynicism but I am secretly pleased (until now) that BVMR got a "D" grade. Simply put "they are not leaders" of "green" development nor operations. I agree that a 60% blow for development is bias, but development also needs to be taken very seriously. If BVMR & Dundee were more proactive about how to operate and develop in a more sustainable manner I believe their grade could have been higher. —AaronJohnson

2007-12-07 19:09:09 Oooooh, Tony! More about the coupling part. —DanAhlborn

2007-12-07 19:47:03 Dan, enough coupling of completely uncorrelated collections. —TonyZuccarino

2007-12-07 23:18:40 Could you flesh that out some more? —DanAhlborn

2007-12-12 16:45:31 Hey folks, If we get a " d" How did Squaw rank higher? did we forget about the hundreds of trees Alex Cushing destroyed on a whim without asking the Forest Service. ? I wonder how many points that had in thier grade. ""0"" —DavidPye

2007-12-13 06:09:48 Hi Dave, Good point about Squaw. I think this report is more reflective of the current operations. I believe Squaw paid some heafty fine for past misdoings, but has since changed it's tune considerably. —AaronJohnson