Will of the people ignored by City Council
kayla, 15.08.2006 23:09
Our water supply or a few more ski runs?
1100 Ashland residents signed a petition to the city council supporting a resolution to protect our municipal water supply by not allowing Mt Ashland Ski Association to proceed with logging the middle fork of Ashland Creek before the courts decide whether it is legal or not.
Mt. Ashland Expansion
That petition was presented tonight to the city council. At least fify supporters were there, many of whom requested to speak to this issue and were not allowed any time to speak. The vote was 4 to 2 against the resolution. The Mt. Ashland Association chairman and another board member who is a lawyer presented veiled threats to the council that they might be libel for a breach of contract if they supported the resolution.
In defense of the resolution, Paul Copeland and Leslie Adams made clear statements regarding the importance of allowing the legal process to reach its conclusion before clearcutting in the watershed begins. The petition in support of the resolution was presented by the newly formed Green Grannies, who collected the 1100 signatures in less than a month. This represents a majority of the residents of Ashland. We were simply ignored by the four Council members who voted against the resolution. What is important here, more ski runs for the 8% of Ashlanders who ski, or protecting our most precious resource, our municipal water supply?
| Download this article in pdf format >> |
| Add this article to your pdf newsletter selection >> |
| Checkout and Download your PDF-newsletter selection >> |
| Email this article to someone >> |
| Make a quick comment on this article >> |
|
Paul and Leslie MADE THEIR POINT! 16.08.2006 - 09:34 Paul Copeland and Leslie Adams did a GREAT job with presentations at last evening's Ashland City Council meeting; I watched on TV. Sometimes the correct side loses. If the process involves holding off on logging it will be because of the resolution you brought forth and the education it provided for all who witnessed. Your actions did encourage a council to say, "Don't Log. We are Watching." Thanks for the leadership! wes- a skier who drinks our tap water> Thanks to Paul and Leslie 17.08.2006 - 08:17 I also want to express my admiration to Paul and Leslie and all the others who are working to educate the public on what is happening in our watershed. Jay> A Saddening Delemma 17.08.2006 - 14:22 The proposed expansion is entering into a previously untrammeled area, and I think its valid to oppose expansion based on environmental principals and concerns regarding the current project. I have no doubt that construction of ski area trails and a new ski lift produce environmental impacts. For those of us who bring our family to ski areas, I must thank Mother Earth for the the sacifices she makes on our behalf, so that we may experience something that reminds us of the awesomeness of nature. After getting caught up in the details of the proposed expansions and related environmental issues, I still have the same difficulty in either supporting the current plan or being against current plan. I really feel strongly about the value that Mt. Ashland has for me, but is the plan worth the risk? I don't think we'll ever a way to quantify and answer that question. Its something has benefits and losses, either way. But I know that we must come to a conclusion soon, or the plausibilty of implementing any new ski trails is very unlikely. But maybe thats what I want. We should be able to carry on about our daily lives in the winter and find other things to do even without a local ski area. Will I end up driving my kids to Bachlor? What are the environmental consequences of driving and supporting other ski areas instead? Building the new chairlift and ski runs in the Middle Fork were part of the only scenario, in the Environmental Impact Statement, that indicated an economic return on investment for the Mt. Ashland. So I'm guessing that Mt. Ashland won't be able to expand under alternatives which are substantually different. The Forest Service, in the Record of Decision, did try to address everyone's comments that were concerned about full analysis and concern of the environmental impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 6. The Record of Decision was clear in its rational for selecting a project that would go into the Middle Fork. The plan they approved is supposed to minimize environmental impacts on the Middle Fork as much as they can while still putting in the lift and trails that Mt. Ashland needs. So it really seems to me that our ski area is in trouble because it seems like they really need this, but people we trust have said that we have some real environmental sacrices if we go into the Middle Fork. There is no solution in within sight that satisfies me. One one said, we have roadless area to protect, which somehow we failed to address the issue of overlap between permit areas and roadless areas. Which came first, roadless or permit area for skiing? Should one supercede the other? Mt. Ashland is allowed to go ahead with current expansion while construction costs are still economically possible, or the ski area be forced to get away from being a community-owned business dedicated to the well-being and education of children. I feel my heart being pulled in both directions. I would say that ski runs are not as bad as clearcuts for the sole purpose of logging. I'm not comparing that kind of environmental impact to the potential impacts in the expansion project. But even then, I know that every time we don't log responsibly in the Pacific Northwest, somewhere in Canada they're probably clearcutting to provide us with lower cost timber. I keep wondering if we're fighting the right battles. I think we need to get back to social justice. This kind of gets me thinking about Mt. Ashland again. It seems like Mt. Ashland has tried to be in the business of supporting kids, and has given out a lot of scholarships. I see kids on the mountain all the time. Tons of them. The weeknights are mostly youth at the mountain. It really seems like Mt. A doesn't have the full typical repuation of being a bunch of greedy skiers consuming resources and being elitist. I heard elitist argument once, and it really got me to thinking about myself as a skier. Am I really an elitest with my $15,000 annual salary? In comparison to third world countries, maybe I am. But around here, that barely gets the rent paid on our apartment, paying the bills, and having something good for my kids to do in the winter instead of watching TV and wasting away. I've tried going backcountry snowshoeing once in a while, but it was not the same experience. I'm hoping to afford telemark lessons, buy a whole new setup, and stay the ski area, but I would really miss not being able to come down Dream. Christina Sours> not worth it 19.08.2006 - 19:23 Cutting one tree in the watershed for stoooopid skiers is not worth it in any way. Duh!!!! Rain> Not an opinion but questions 20.08.2006 - 13:46 Being an avid skier and true environmentalist, I wanted to chime in on this. While I'm not at all familiar with Mt. Ashland, and I see the fundamental split on this project, I have to ask some important questions. 1) Since it looks like the expansion will be towards the bottom of the mountain, how often will those runs be closed because of not enough snow? With climate change seemingly here, will this be a sustainable benefit? 2) Really how much do a few ski runs impact Ashland's water supply? Are the runs far enough up the mountain to filter out any possible impacts? 3) Is this area a valid and inventoried Roadless Area? If so, does recreational development fit into the framework of the protections of all Roadless Areas (ie, does it enhance the "naturalness" or improve its ecological function?) 4) Will access roads be installed in order to install and maintain the ski lift? Will those roads be properly built and maintained in perpetuity? 5) If this goes ahead, what will the resort do to "mitigate" the impacts, both seen and unforeseeable? 6) Will these new runs make or break the viability of the ski area, as well as make it more of a "destination resort", reducing the amount of trips taken by locals to other more developed resorts? Christina had some very good points, pro and con. It's up to the people to weigh the impacts and benefits, determine if this fits in with the established laws and policies of our National Forests, and to feel with their hearts if this is really the right thing to do. Comments like Rain's devaluate the opinions of other "preservationists", who are much more convincing and eloquent in this particular matter. Choose wisely, folks Hotfeet> |