Page 6 of 7

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 20th, 2012, 11:59 pm
by grammafreddy
That's a minor point. How do ya feel about the way the Liberals have gone about all this - incorporating a new town where there are no residents, no buildings, etc for a ski resort that does not yet exist and which may never exist, and if it did would be about the size of Silver Star - and appointing a new city council for that non-existing town who will have carte blanche to make decisions over all kinds of developments and *ahem* favours to friends and etceteras?

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 1:18 am
by Homeownertoo
grammafreddy wrote:
Homeownertoo wrote:Great news. I look forward to riding my skis down its slopes and enjoying its restaurants and condos. A nice addition to the Kootenays amenities.


You approve of the way its gone down so far?

The local are none too pleased.

What locals? I thought this was in the middle of BC's last remaining chunk of wilderness. There will always be naysayers. The issue is, what are the pros and cons from a reasonable point of view.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 8:44 am
by Captain Awesome
grammafreddy wrote:How do ya feel about the way the Liberals have gone about all this - incorporating a new town where there are no residents, no buildings, etc for a ski resort that does not yet exist and which may never exist, and if it did would be about the size of Silver Star - and appointing a new city council for that non-existing town who will have carte blanche to make decisions over all kinds of developments and *ahem* favours to friends and etceteras?


I feel absolutely neutral on this. Doesn't strike me as an issue - given the circumstances of middle of nowhere, no people living around, and need for certain elements from legal point of view - municipality, city council, etc.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 9:22 am
by Rwede
grammafreddy wrote:That's a minor point. How do ya feel about the way the Liberals have gone about all this - incorporating a new town where there are no residents, no buildings, etc for a ski resort that does not yet exist and which may never exist, and if it did would be about the size of Silver Star - and appointing a new city council for that non-existing town who will have carte blanche to make decisions over all kinds of developments and *ahem* favours to friends and etceteras?



You mean planning ahead and putting people in place to do things properly is a bad idea? Okay. :137:

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 10:56 am
by hobbyguy
I can't figure out the economics of this proposed development. To me, it looks like a "promoter's dream" where the promoter gets rich, and the investors get hammered.

What do you figure they will get per skier day?

Would they be able to exceed the average number of skier days per resort, given that it will likely be pricey and local skiers are 1/3 of the market?

How much would you be willing to spend to ski there?

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 11:08 am
by grammafreddy
There is no ski resort. There may never be a ski resort. There's no reason to incorporate a town there yet.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 1:39 pm
by Captain Awesome
hobbyguy wrote:I can't figure out the economics of this proposed development. To me, it looks like a "promoter's dream" where the promoter gets rich, and the investors get hammered.


You'd have to take a look at partnership structure to make those observations, and I don't think they're even hammered out yet, so I wouldn't jump into conclusion here.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 2:09 pm
by SurplusElect
Waste of money paying salaries considering there is no investors and it will be shut down when the NDP get in power.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 2:14 pm
by Rwede
SurplusElect wrote:Waste of money paying salaries considering there is no investors and it will be shut down when the NDP get in power.



For once I agree with Bago about the NDP. In fact, the whole province will be shut down IF the NDP get in power.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 6:09 pm
by grammafreddy
SurplusElect wrote:Waste of money paying salaries considering there is no investors and it will be shut down when the NDP get in power.


Salaries? How will they pay salaries to anyone? Salaries are paid from charging property taxes on the owners of residential, commercial and industrial lands. There's nothing there. No gazetted lands, no businesses, no industries and no homes. No taxes generated. No salaries - unless the good taxpayers of the whole province step forward and pays these salaries and other expenses (that's you and me courtesy of the provincial government). Hell, there isn't even a city hall to hold a city council meeting in. There is nothing. Just a newly incorporated city that doesn't even have a designated landmass or boundary and a newly provincially-appointed council.

What a friggin' joke.

What is this? The Liberal's last guffaw at us? Their last chance to steal more before they are booted out for all their lies and thievery already? Their last golden opportunity to lay some more gold on some "friend's" palm?

Mind you, I don't think the NDP would do any different, or the Conservatives, either. This was, after all, originally an NDP initiative.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Nov 21st, 2012, 6:20 pm
by SurplusElect
grammafreddy wrote:Salaries? How will they pay salaries to anyone? No salaries - unless the good taxpayers of the whole province step forward and pays these salaries and other expenses (that's you and me courtesy of the provincial government).

What a friggin' joke.

What is this?Their last golden opportunity to lay some more gold on some "friend's" palm?


You said it.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Jan 6th, 2014, 2:07 pm
by GordonH

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Jan 6th, 2014, 2:16 pm
by rvrepairnut
Liquidnails wrote:I think the project is beyond it's "best before" date. All the current resorts in BC are overbuilt and prices are in a slow decline. The Boomer bulge is trading in cold Winter recreation for warm beaches with bikinis.

as much as Iam for free enterprize.hate walfare,hate indian tax payments, etc etc I agree with u on this
we don't need no more stinking skihill developments etc

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Jan 8th, 2014, 10:51 pm
by KL3-Something
Liquidnails wrote:I think the project is beyond it's "best before" date. All the current resorts in BC are overbuilt and prices are in a slow decline. The Boomer bulge is trading in cold Winter recreation for warm beaches with bikinis.

rvrepairnut wrote:as much as Iam for free enterprize.hate walfare,hate indian tax payments, etc etc I agree with u on this
we don't need no more stinking skihill developments etc


I hope it fizzles and falters and never gets built.

Jumbo should be kept wild.

Re: So, a ski hill on a glacier?

Posted: Jan 9th, 2014, 7:00 am
by twobits
hobbyguy wrote:
Would they be able to exceed the average number of skier days per resort, given that it will likely be pricey and local skiers are 1/3 of the market?

How much would you be willing to spend to ski there?


Am thinking there just might be a significant number of people that would pay to ski in our summer months without having to go to Australia or New Zealand. And then there are those that will just go for the bikini scenery.