|
Letters
to Editors
___________________________
Ty--
Thanks for your letter, but it's too long. Our limit is 300 words.
Randy Wilson
Editor
04/02/2004 02:01 PM
Skeptical that the Arizona Snowbowl's proposed expansion
is commercially inclined and gives into the American elitist mentality,
that the capitalistic way of livelihood is better than any other way
of living, gives me reason not to support any type snowmaking and new
construction. The only practical development that is perhaps overdue
is a play area which can be made environmentally and non-destructively
and may include a bit of rehabitation on the part of Snowbowl. Rather
than exploiting land under the "good for the economy" guise,
there must be a medium where all people who have interests in Snowbowl's
propositions, both pro and con,
can resolve specific issues. Environmentally, snowmaking is not an option
as is new construction but what about removing minor ski lifts and exploring
the possibility of replacing the runs with an area where children can
sled and play and tube for free. There are perhaps more than one way
to make this play-area without upsetting environmentalists and American
Indians who have considerable concerns for the damage the area might
incur because of expansion. This could also be tied into a shuttle service
from a parking lot off the mountain to ease traffic and pollution. And
perhaps, the play-area could be created in such a way to make it a place
for year-round recreational area such as a mountain bike racetrack for
warmer weather. Economically, bringing people to the mountain for fun
and games may be a good idea but if fun means paying $10 parking and
$10 beers to watch an event that costs $10 per person that indirectly
makes greater the gap between the rich and the poor, I would not beinterested.
The few who own the Arizona Snowbowl including all those they wish to
cater to should not have preference over those like families who want
to have an inexpensive outing. No body should be denied access to the
mountain and people who can afford two grand skis and an extended weekend
on the mountain should be allowed access the same as snowboarders, tire
tubers, wooden or else plastic disk sledders out on the slopes for a
few hours. Perhaps an annual event like toilet bowl sledding will bring
the locals out to commemorate the farce idea that using reclaimed water
to
make snow was practical?and safe. Finally, the American Indian issue
which is very delicate in nature because it deals directly with nature
and the plan to exploit nature for monetary gain. I truly believe that
any alteration to the land will be met with opposition but a campaign
to rehab some of the land might be met halfway. Improving the current
landscape without causing any damage to any area since they contain
plants that Indians use in ceremony is probably the safest route of
meeting the economic and spiritual conditions both. Downsizing lifts
to make way for play-areas is a good idea to me because it has the possibility
for appealing to people who have considerable interested in making the
Peaks a
place for recreation in the winter and summer as well as keeping the
Peaks sacred. Perhaps a fair in the fall time that celebrates the coming
of winter and the end of summer just like the Navajos and Hopis do annually.
Perhaps a mountain biking competition in the springtime that encourages
people to get out doors and do something active. I believe that the
Arizona Snowbowl's proposals for the 777 acres they wish to develop
along with the Coconino Forest Service's almost adamant biased position
to allow development to occur without direct input from American Indians
is wrong.
For one, no one will be benefit more than those who want to turn the
mountain into a sewer dump. Second, any opposition from anyone should
be grounds to not allow the development to happen. Thirdly and last,
there always is a medium where people can agree upon something and leave
in resolution. I can only think of environmentally appealing to the
American Indians and not allow any new construction nor development.
Personally, I think a play area can be created without new construction
or else damage
to the land, but new ski areas and fake snow only smells like elitist
mentality creeping into small town community.
Ty Maloney
____________________________
The front page of February 6th’s Daily Sun read,
“To Snowbowl, more snow is more green.” “Green”
was not a reference to the environment but to that higher power: money.
One of Snowbowl’s owners, Eric Borowsky, candidly stated “It
would make no sense to continue owning the Snowbowl without snowmaking.”
I’m continually amazed, as an economist, at how eager the American
public is to embrace two of capitalism’s essential ideological
pillars. The first one is: when businesses are making big profits, they
respond by stating that such profits are justified as a reward for the
investors’ “risk.” Yet when profits evaporate, investors
suggest that the public bail them out, despite their poor decision-making.
The second pillar comes to the rescue: equate individual economic self-interest
with the public good. Thus, they appeal to Charles Wilson’s logic:
“What’s good for General Motors is good for America.”
Wilson was CEO of General Motors when the public questioned his appointment
as Defense Secretary by President Eisenhower. Eric Borowsky’s
comments are evidence of both ideological mainstays. The owners’
1990s investment decision has soured. Their rate of return is unrewarding.
Yet they knew that snowfall is the “risk.” Their solution
is to invest more dollars, get public buy-in, and expand. It’s
the logic of self-interest: what’s good for Eric Borowsky is good
for the Flagstaff public. We’re supposed to be grateful for the
revenue stream. First, require them to air their accounts. Or the city
could buy it and run it as a public recreational investment. Then we
could protect the Peaks environment and simultaneously show respect
for Native Americans. There’s a last resort to stop this irrationality:
bring Michael Moore here to help us. He’s a recognized veteran
at exposing individual greed masked as public good. Let Eric Borowsky
be Charles Wilson.
Doug Brown
____________________________
Dear Editor,
Although the snowmaking proposal is now supported by a variety of local
groups, an overlooked question that we need to ask is this: who needs
this particular expansion? Native Americans have said, “not us.”
Others are less certain. Clearly, local businesses will support snowmaking
as it costs them nothing to do so, and any incremental dollar of new
revenue is welcomed. But as the DEIS suggests the multiplier effect
of snowmaking for local businesses will be minimal. And we need to recall
that this proposal is not about eliminating the ski area and its accompanying
economic impact. The question is about only the additional revenues
that might accrue. So who needs it? The Snowbowl owners. This expansion
may well allow them to show an acceptable rate of return on their investment.
Here’s another thought: they might well put the ski area on the
market to be sold as soon as this proposal is fully approved. Such an
expansion will surely make the Area more marketable at a price high
enough to recoup the invested capital and a rewarding return. Maybe
they should be obligated to disclose their books before the public is
swayed by the logic of “what’s good for them must be good
for us.” It is the nature of our economic system to always maintain
that what’s good for profits is good for everyone. So far, only
Native Americans have been smart enough to see through this logic of
self-interest masked as the public good. If it’s the owners who
want public support for their economic self-interest, they should explain
their “need.”
Doug Brown
____________________________
(This letter was originally sent Feb 22, 2004, and I
received no response from the Sun).
To the editor:
Sure, pumping water uphill for skiing in a desert climate defies common
sense. So do industrial agriculture, local subsidies for Big Box stores,
and the city of Phoenix. It's just steroidal capitalism as usual.
But when Snowbowl argues that "only" one percent of the Peaks
will be affected by snowmaking -- so screw the whining Indians and the
superstitions they rode in on -- I beg to differ. You might as well
say that the chalice used to celebrate the Eucharist at St. Mary's constitutes
"less than one percent" of the church.
If you are a skier or businessperson and think your playtime or profit
margin is worth offending the religious beliefs of a couple hundred
thousand of your neighbors, fine. Just look in the mirror and say so.
MICHAEL WOLCOTT
____________________________
Is the environmental legacy of Bruce Babbitt a becoming
catechism of hypocrisy?
In a speech made in 1995 about the endangered species act, Bruce Babbitt
used the passionate imagery of “the sacred blue mountain”
(the San Francisco Peaks) and how a “young Hopi friend…taught
me that the blue mountain was, truly, a sacred place.” to illustrate
“that the land, and that blue mountain, and all the plants and
animals in the natural world are together a direct reflection of divinity”.
He further expressed that, “By its silence the church implicitly
sanctioned the prevailing view of the earth as something to be used
and disposed however we saw fit, without any higher obligation”
and how “that mountain, named by Spanish missionaries for Saint
Francis, remains a manifestation of the presence of our Creator.”
In that ’95 speech Babbitt revealed, “outside…church
I always had a nagging instinct that the vast landscape was somehow
sacred, and holy, and connected to me in a sense that my catechism ignored.”
Today, the 13 tribes who Babbitt worked with on shutting down the White
Vulcan mine, are calling Snowbowl’s plan a blatant desecration.
The DEIS states there will be adverse “irreversible” and
“irretrievable” cultural and spiritual impacts to the Peaks
if the proposed development is allowed. Since this is what’s “strengthening”
Babbitt’s support for this proposal, maybe he has fallen into
a new “catechism” of hypocrisy.
Would these impacts be “an acceptable balance” and “extraordinary
asset” if it was 1% of Mr. Babbitt’s church? Is it conveniently
acceptable only now because Babbitt is a consultant for Snowbowl? Where
is Babbitt’s proclaimed understanding of the significance of the
Peaks, where is his credibility?
I assure Mr. Babbitt that the affected tribes will not take for “granted”
the desecration of the “sacred blue mountain” and the division
in this community that his support for this proposal is fueling.
A copy of the Bruce Babbitt speech, "Between the Flood and the
Rainbow: Our Covenant to Protect the Whole of Creation," December
16, 1995 is available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew951218.htm
Klee Benally |
