Much has changed with expansion plans
Things have changed for the Mt. Ashland Association's plans to expand its non-profit ski area since we offered our endorsement in 2004.
For starters, the price of expansion has nearly tripled.
Global warming studies have raised doubts on the viability of all lower-level ski areas in the future. One specific study targeted the Pacific Northwest as a particularly vulnerable area.
Also, the Ashland City Council, once an ardent supporter, is most likely headed to court as a fierce opponent. Perhaps we're reading the tea leaves a bit here, but three council members — Alice Hardesty, Cate Hartzell and Eric Navickas — are outspoken opponents of the expansion and will likely use all of their influence to block it.
Most significantly, the MAA has steadfastly refused to make public detailed plans for financing the expansion. It has refused to say specifically how much money has been raised to date in pledges. It has refused to produce a proforma for the long-term viability of the ski area.
We agree, a lot has changed.
We also agree wholeheartedly that the MAA should release everything to the public. They should set the construction date, make clear their plans to proceed, show everyone exactly how they will fund and how the ski area will benefit from expansion. To date, this information hasn't been made public, much to our chagrin.
We believe the expansion plan to be a viable and relatively non-intrusive one (though opponents assert that an expansion which does not include the Middle Branch is economically viable, we disagree. The ski area loses any number of customers, particularly families, each year because it does not have enough lower-level terrain that is blocked from the wind and less physically challenging then the current offerings). We believe the leaders and decision-makers of Mt. Ashland to be financially prudent and professional. We know them to be members of our community that have little or nothing to gain by forcing through a multi-million dollar expansion that they think is doomed to fail.
For all of these reasons we hope that ski area officials recognize the value of being completely open and forthright with their plans, despite the attacks that will inevitably come from those who are determined to stop expansion at all costs.
While we acknowledge things have changed a bit over the past two years, and admit frustration over the methodology of the ski area, we see nothing that has changed so much that we would change our endorsement.
A great deal hasn't changed.
As mentioned before the ski area is in great need of expanded facilities and intermediate runs.
The expansion land has been set aside for decades by the forest service for recreational use. The city's public works director has said impact on the city's watershed will be negligible. The expansion area is less than 1 percent of the entire watershed. The resort is not a private enterprise, but a non-profit that greatly benefits the community in many ways. Also, as a non-profit it needs far less revenue to remain viable than a for-profit entity. The expanded ski area adds to the quality of life for local residents, much as Emigrant Lake does in the summer, and Lithia Park does all year round. It's part of what drew many of us here in the first place.
Finally, the ski area's expansion will boost the local economy during the winter, when the otherwise booming tourist season is in its seasonal downturn.
We respect those who oppose Mt. Ashland. But we remind all that this won't be decided by a vote. The forest service has already given its legal approval for expansion, and barring a legal change, expansion will begin next year.
The expansion of our ski area will never be perfect. But it will continue to have our support.
