Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the great state of Utah, from the alpine peaks to the desert slots. Please post partners requests and trip plans here or in the Utah Climbing Partners section.
 

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby jdzaharia » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:40 pm

Dmitry Pruss wrote:There is a private property sign at a gate on the old mining road turnoff at the base of the proposed coaster area, but nobody goes through this gate to access the South Ridge anyway. You are leaving the road and turning sharply uphill before the posted gate, and to every reasonable hiker or skier it would seem that one isn't ever crossing private property.

So, it doesn't seem that the location of the proposed coaster actually impedes the climbing or skiing routes, since the coaster is situated almost exactly north/south over that mining road.



I guess I just don't quite understand the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.
User Avatar
jdzaharia

 
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Texas, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby ZeeJay » Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:53 pm

jdzaharia wrote:I guess I just don't quite understand the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.


It is not clear from the other posts, but the rollercoaster will cross and be above a public road which is a Utah Scenic Byway.
User Avatar
ZeeJay

 
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:04 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Thanked: 39 times in 28 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby jdzaharia » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:31 pm

ZeeJay wrote:It is not clear from the other posts, but the rollercoaster will cross and be above a public road which is a Utah Scenic Byway.

That is very clear from the maps.
User Avatar
jdzaharia

 
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Texas, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby climbingchic » Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:48 pm

Like heck it doesn't impose on any hiking terrain!! This is what amusement parks are for NOT THE MOUNTAINS!!! UGGGGHHHH! I can't believe what I'm reading!!! It will completely ruin the beauty up that canyon That ridge is such a gorgeous part of that mountain.
User Avatar
climbingchic

 
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:07 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Bubba Suess » Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:20 pm

Ed F wrote:Thanks, "Dick" Bass.


Who is that?
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 173 times in 97 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby rlshattuck » Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:56 pm

I've always kinda wished that Disney got his way in this place (mineral king) as them there hills are hard to climb and a monorail, well . . . pretty cool, I say. NOT.

http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... 6/176.aspx
User Avatar
rlshattuck

 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:23 am
Location: san francisco, California, United States
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Dmitry Pruss » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:50 pm

jdzaharia wrote: the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.

For those of you who live in the United States, it should be no secret that whenever one uses one's property to destroy the value of neighboring properies, then all bets are off.

Just beyond the Snowbird's property lines (and indeed under many of its runs and lifts) is the land owned by, you know whom, this great nation. So of course we should have a say.

Indeed, to secure a temporary permit for this construction. Snowbird did have to argue that this project doesn't endanger the watershed and doesn't block access for recreational users. I think that their argument were , ugm, lies.

They also needed to argue that the county should grant them a special exception from the local construction codes, which ban any development on slopes over 30 degrees. Well, yesterday the county commission did grant them this "variance" for anything up to 50 degrees :( That's the same appease-the-developers attitude which just played out in BCC with the Tavaci development. Those guys also needed (and received) a variance to build this eyesore road to a luxury development which, lo and behold, attracted no buyers - but the stupid roadcut is now there to stay...
User Avatar
Dmitry Pruss

 
Posts: 837
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:17 am
Location: Utah, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby lcarreau » Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:44 am

Bubba Suess wrote:
Ed F wrote:Thanks, "Dick" Bass.


Who is that?


Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 884 times in 663 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby builttospill » Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:43 am

jdzaharia wrote:


I guess I just don't quite understand the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.


The debate is significantly more complicated than that. While I am in favor of respecting private property rights, it's also important to remember that private decisions invariably impose costs on those around you. Sometimes those costs are tolerable and reasonable; sometimes they are not.

This is not a foreign concept. I'm not allowed to build a massive ice climbing tower in my backyard because it would be an eyesore for my neighbors. The HOA and the City/County where I live have oversight in this matter. My uncle was prevented from building as big a radio tower as he wanted in his backyard for a similar reason--there was a cap to the size that they would allow because it imposed costs on his neighbors.

Is Snowbird going to compensate anyone for the costs imposed on the holders of adjoining property (i.e. taxpayers that own the USFS land)? Will they compensate Salt Lake County for the damage done to the watershed? The fundamental problem is that, whereas most HOA's exercise fairly strict oversight on issues for homeowners, USFS (and especially BLM) exercise basically no oversight. Their process, so far as I can tell, is to approve any and all development and only consider alternatives if the public or advocacy organizations raise enough noise about it.
User Avatar
builttospill

 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:53 pm
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
Thanked: 5 times in 4 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby PellucidWombat » Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:10 am

builttospill wrote:I'm not allowed to build a massive ice climbing tower in my backyard because it would be an eyesore for my neighbors. The HOA and the City/County where I live have oversight in this matter. My uncle was prevented from building as big a radio tower as he wanted in his backyard for a similar reason--there was a cap to the size that they would allow because it imposed costs on his neighbors.


Although, in my old neighborhood of Holladay, UT, there is a 3-4 story-tall climbing wall that the Ruckmans built in their backyard. Apparently, if you don't have any habitation in the structure, in Salt Lake City such a structure can then be classified as a "Play Structure", which apparently has no height restrictions according to code (at least according to the Ruckmans when they looked into building the thing). I begged the Ruckmans to let me design a +10 story tall climbing wall in SAP for them to add to the existing "Play Structure", but they declined :lol:
User Avatar
PellucidWombat

 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Berkeley, California, United States
Thanked: 48 times in 34 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Ed F » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:38 pm

Bubba Suess wrote:
Ed F wrote:Thanks, "Dick" Bass.


Who is that?


He owns Snowbird. http://www.snowbird.com/about/dickbass.html

He's the kind of guy that thinks he's special because he paid millions of dollars so that mountain guides could drag him up the seven summits.
User Avatar
Ed F

 
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 8:15 pm
Location: High, Low, and in Between, Utah, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 13 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Ed F » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:45 pm

I guess I just don't quite understand the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.


Like others have said, it isn't like they want to change the drapes in one of their restaurants. All of us, as taxpayers, are "neighbors" to Snowbird. Just like you wouldn't want your neighbor parking a technicolor RV in their yard for a year, we don't want them to build this monstrosity in one of the most beautiful places in our state.

This is much more complicated than a simple private property rights issue. Watershed, USFS land, entities that lease USFS land, scenic byway, avy control, etc. all play into this. I think you're trying to make it into some kind of simple libertarian point. It's not.
User Avatar
Ed F

 
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 8:15 pm
Location: High, Low, and in Between, Utah, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 13 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby marauders » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:01 pm

It appears the Superior Coaster has made it through preliminary planning commission approval...oh, no, get ready for the coaster...

http://www.facebook.com/notes/save-our- ... 0952093129
User Avatar
marauders

 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Orem, Utah, United States
Thanked: 13 times in 7 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby lcarreau » Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:26 am

marauders wrote:It appears the Superior Coaster has made it through preliminary planning commission approval...oh, no, get ready for the coaster...


Excuse me, but I need to drop in on the "Utah" threads every now and again to maintain my sanity.

Did this monstrosity get "Judge Judy's" approval yet ??? :?:

Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 884 times in 663 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby apachedino » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:15 am

Please no!!! I love that ridge, I love looking down at that wild mountain from vantages further up the canoyon. This would diminish that significantly. That's it, I am never buying a daypass from Snowbird again. They have great terrain, but I can't be a hypocrite and support something like this. (That said I believe it is still fair to use my freinds season pass when he is not using it, haha)
User Avatar
apachedino

 
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:08 am
Location: Sandy, Utah, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

PreviousNext

Return to Utah

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.