1 billion dollar development plans for the Mt. Washington Hotel at Bretton Woods

[arghman]

On a serious note, how can you best voice your opinion on something like this? Is it best to write a letter to local town officials, state government, the developer, local residents, the governor? Who would actually listen?

what smitty said.

Jason's Guide to Obstruct Developers
(1) read the local zoning ordinance
(2) attend a few planning board meetings to get a sense of the procedure + the viewpoints of the board members
(3) if there are loopholes in the zoning ordinance, get them closed before a big project comes in to take advantage of them
(4) when a big project comes in, watch them like a hawk + be prepared to point out any errors that they try to push over on the local board. at this point it is really too late though....
(5) if you're not able to do 1-4, find the local activists who are of similar mindset & do whatever you can to support them
(6) most importantly, support your local land trust so you can protect the nice areas + don't have to worry as much about 1-5.

My guess is that it's already too late to stop something with this much $$$$$ behind it.

True if they're well-organized. Many developers, however, believe it or not, make stupid mistakes on technical grounds.

On a side note, I just wanted to shout a huge THANK YOU to every single person or organization in New England that actively aims to protect/preserve land. I think that's just about the best way we can really "make a difference" these days.

yes.

Is this entirely in Carroll or is any of it in Crawford's Purchase? If the latter, it gets kind of weird as the land use would be governed by Coos Cty & they have different subdiv regulations.

In either case, from a political standpoint I would think this would be welcomed by many local officials for tax purposes. Waterville Valley has one of the lowest tax rates in the state: lots of property value + not many year-round residents needing services.

Of course then you run into the trap of gentrification: outsiders see a town with low property tax rates & then move into town, increasing population + services + property values, which then raises the tax rate again and forces long-time residents out. Game over. See #6 above.

 

[peakbagger]

New Hampshire tends to give the localities a lot of control on development. There are few statewide regulations like act 250 in VT or regional control like LURC in Maine. The net result is that a large developer can effectively steam roller a small locality with volunteer boards. NH does not have a citizen petition option in the state constitution so forget about passing a state law to stop this development. The typical zoning approach is to spread out houses in large lots hoping that anything built on a large lot is a high value property that pumps a lot of property tax dollars into the local community. The highest expense for a town is low cost houses with school age children, therefore a high end development with second homes is real attractive to locals as they pump in a lot of tax dollars and dont have a lot of kids to educate. So move to the town, become a resident, then get several folks to sign a petition to make major changes to the town planning ordinance, wait until the next town meeting, get the folks to vote for the changes and there you go.

Waterville Valley may be a good comparison to the proposed development, It is essentially an inholding in the national forest with extensive second home development. Folks who live there can probably comment further on the impact to the area of the development. I dont remember any mechanical Moose being reported. I believe that a responsible developer put in private rules and restrcitions to control the development, I suspect that the Mt Washington Resort developers will also institute policies to keep the resort high end.

BTW, the area already has dispersed high end development along the base road to the cog. This development occured during the last real estate boom and may have been one of the reasons that one of the prior owners of Bretton Woods went bust.

Heck if you want to try to save an area get in on the ground floor and help out the Mahoosuc initiative.

 

[Zimmer]

Carroll actually just voted to change their zoning ordinance six weeks ago to accommodate the proposed development. The development lies mostly in Carroll, with a small segment of the future development in Bethlehem.

As for those who are patting us poor North Country folks on the head and oohing and aahing about the number of jobs, sorry, but these are not the types of jobs that we need up here, and in fact many such jobs already go unfilled, which is why Bretton Woods has to fill so many positions (lift operators, cashiers, housekeeping) with guest workers from abroad.

Here's a link to the Mt. Washington's informational page about the overlay district that was approved by voters in March:

http://www.mountwashingtonresort.com/general/media/villageoverlay

 

[Waumbek]

BTW, the area already has dispersed high end development along the base road to the cog. This development occured during the last real estate boom and may have been one of the reasons that one of the prior owners of Bretton Woods went bust.

Heck if you want to try to save an area get in on the ground floor and help out the Mahoosuc initiative.

Hear hear. I couldn't agree more. High-end developments have been creeping quietly into this area for awhile now, witness Ledgewood in Bethlehem/Carroll. I was amazed to see the development along the Cog road that Peakbagger mentions. It's a ski area. It will attract crowds. Historically, Carroll was a high density tourist area in the 19th c., and it's apparently headed back there again, this time with the second home crowd. It's cyclical. This has not been a "pristine" area for 150+ years, ever since the first Crawford House and the MWH itself. I wouldn't waste a lot of time and tears lamenting more houses. In fact, better to cluster them there along with all the amenities. Clusters are easier to avoid.

I would put my efforts into saving places that are relatively pristine, e.g., the Mahoosucs, while it's still possible.

 

[Mike P.]

As the voice from CT (& these will still be out of my price range I'm funding 529's & buying home heating oil with my Tax refund package check)

Fertizler run-off will be an issue unless they aren't planting grass. (Does the staff arborist get paid more than the landscaper)

Assume they won't cut all the trees down & then let the folks plant non-native ornamental trees

Vacation homes & places to retire don't require new schools (I could be here in 20 years, likely more affordable than NJ Shore property & who knows exactly where the beach will be in 20 -30 years. Will need fire & paramedics

Jobs, not really a whole lot in Twin Mountain now, working at the 99 might be better & they have some health benefits & maybe a 401K. Hedge Fund & MD retirees do need MD's Physical Therapists, home nursing car, dentist, a bank, a tax accountant along with chain restaurants, security for the resort, a shuttle driver & retail outlets or at least a coach bus or limos to drive them to N. Conway.

Gas prices don't really impact this crowd, the MWH had a good year last year. It's the traditional clientele of Twin Mountain that got whacked. 2005 & 2006, no snow for sleds, now, too expensive to ride sled & tow them behind the F250 (Silverado, Tundra....)

If you made 400K+ in 2007, (Some of the Hedge Fund guys made that every two weeks, their tearing down million dollar+ 90 year estates just to build new one )

Still really hard to get to Corey's in ADK's, you may be able to hide there a few years before the hedge fund guys buy jets & pay for an airstrip there just for them. I suspect the gofl at the MWH will get harder to play

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

Development

"Heck if you want to try to save an area get in on the ground floor and help out the Mahoosuc initiative."

"I would put my efforts into saving places that are relatively pristine, e.g., the Mahoosucs, while it's still possible."

I agree, but it doesn't mean we should turn our backs and let them do whatever they want in Bretton Woods. Development there should at the least be closely monitored, and in my opinion this project should be scaled back considerably.

KDT

 

[Pig Pen]

Just checking in to let everyone know that I have no opinion on this issue.

I visit often but I don't live there. I think the locals can do a fine job of handling the issue as they see fit. I don't think it is any of my business.

 

[Fisher Cat]

Before it sounds to the contrary, I'm not a proponet of this or any expansion. That's just my nature. But the fact remains that this is private property. By right and within the legal limits, they can do as they please.However, in NO WAY do they have the right in the name of "progress" to damage and destroy what those presently or in the future can enjoy, even more so what it can damage environmentally. To me, in this case, its risky to leave it to the "good neighbor" philosophy. Last year while working on the Alpine Garden Trail I was aghast at the amount of condos visible when looking to the SE. It was an ugly mar on the landscape. This scenario makes me think of my first impression of the clearcut on the good ol' Elephant in Berlin. A private developer makes a clearcut swath, then zones and advertises the real estate as potential "health club/spa". One would have to be at their complete limit of incompetence to think this is viable. Why they would forecast the desire or need for such in that area is absurd. There is no resort or spa there now, but the scar remains. Hopefully the former remains true and the latter heals itself.
I think the Grande Old Dame is a wonderful piece of NH history. My dad worked there when I was a kid and I roamed its halls and crannies. With my wife and daughter we've stayed there for the experience, but that's when it was owned by folks from NH, now that they're gone, I now longer have that interest. Is there a need for more condos? I doubt it, but if they want to bleed themselves on such speculation, let 'em.
I went to school with on of the head planners (his brother too), and their good locals from Whitefield. He returned to NH and was hired by the present owners. I trust him, but in my mind I shudder to think of the pressure that can be put upon him by the policies of those above, who may not feel the same about the concerns locals have. My brother, another local- a contractor in Gorham - has been hired by the present owners to do a lot of work, not only presently, but a stream of work for the future. They could have hired an out-of-state firm, or brought their own in, but at least in this case, they did not. How long will it be till they do completely? I don't know, to some extent they already have. But menial jobs are not the only ones they have created. They treat him well too. He finished the temporary "Alpine Club Building" ahead of schedule this winter, not only did they give him a nice bonus, but a good amount of lift tickets too.Not only did he benefit from the income, but his employees too.
But I can't help being skeptical. Hopefully a condo/ski village plan doesn't require offending the landscape anymore than has already been done. If one is going to be concerned over its impact, especially visual, let's not clear every 30ft tree in the area and then build 40-60ft condos. As mentioned, the residents have had a say on its impact. I praise them for thinking of both its benefits to them and how it could potentially damage what is most valuable to them and us too. They are in the best position to know. Though the wheels are spinning on this project we can do what has already been said, monitor it. Make sure its not being abused. Keep up to date with the goings-on. I check the local papers on-line and my copy of the Democrat I get in the mail. It certainly can't hurt to be aware. Most important, continue to support the local businesses, that I certainly hope will withstand this out-of-state invasion. People, buildings, projects..they come and go, but the spirit of almost every NH native will continue to protect the naturalness that is valuable to them. That will never fade. I think we can rely on that.

 

[TCD]

I'm not local and rarely go to the affected area. But I've been following this discussion, because it can be relevant to the Adks. There are many legit reasons to oppose a particular development, or to support it. I think economic arguments are very strong. A developer should be challenged to show how their plan will really benefit local people. That's an important job that local review boards should do. Environmental arguments are also strong, regarding runoff, habitat, etc. The "visual" argument, to me, is weak. Let's say: "I like condos. The trees I see on the other side of the property line are unattractive to me." Reaching across the property line; how is that different depending on who's doing it? "Look, but don't touch, what's not yours" still applies as it did when we were children. The weakest arguments are the ones which seem to blend in a mix of envy, dislike of people with money, and a belief that people who aren't skilled woodsmen don't deserve to own a house near the woods. That stuff makes us look bad.

TCD

 

[Mattl]

I hardly think VT is the new NH..not even a close comparison. As much as I am opposed to this new development NH is still 90 protected and conserved land from the White Mountains to the Canadian border. VT has far less conserved land then NH and just because they have half the population, it is spread throughout the entire state instead of being all in one located like NH (Manchester and southeast areas). Right now ritsy little tourist towns like Jackson and North Conway and located just outside the White Mountains and that was fine with me, but to have one built the the heart of the mountains is going to be a black spot for the White Mountains for view standards. I am not concerned with "stealing" land that could be for wildlife since I dont think that is the major issue, more so on the eye sore it will be creating as well as increase in activity in the area. To say this will help Coos County is an excuse rather then a solution, this is located right on the very southern edge of Coos County not in Berlin or Errol which would be more realistic economical solution for people living there and actually driving to work there. -Mattl

 

[Puck]

The "visual" argument, to me, is weak.
TCD

Scratch the surface a bit more on that one. It is not a cosmetic concern. The issue of land use and preservation is the heart of the matter.

Darren made a post awhile back discussing the sprawl in Southeastern Mass that eloquently stated the issue. People come to these areas because of thier unique visuals, culture (or lack of culture) remoteness, Nature, integrity etc. Developers promise a piece of the area to investors. Once the area gets subdivided and built it stops being what is was and becomes somthing else.

A great example of preservation is on Martha's Vineyard. Everyone would like a piece of it. However the zoning and building constraints are very stiffling. They are able to keep the integrity and uniquiness of the area. Furthermore every land transaction has a fee so more green space can be purchased.

This proposal is not needed. It is for second homes for people who do not live there, it creates jobs for people who do not live there (besides once property values, rents etc increase where will the help live?) Once changed it is gone for ever. A trip to the Presidentials will give a view of a city. How is that unique? How is this concern a weak arguement?

 

[Mike P.]

A question to people who have hiked the Moats or climbed at White Horse or Cathedral ledge:

I envision the homes to be similar to the development around the White Mounatin Inn at the base of the cliff off of West Side Road.

I've driven through the roads on the way to the Inn & past it on West Side Road & from the ground, it seems to be pretty tastefully done, well far as a development goes.

What's the view look like from the top? It's proabbly not so bad since the eyes are focused either on the beauty of the untouched scenery or on the scar that is the North Conway development

From Washington & the Presidentials, even the MWH is just a small speck with a red roof in a fairly large clearing (the golf course)


Things I hate seeing from Vistas are sand & gravel operations (from Bare in the Holyokes or walking by it on the way to Norowttuck) or from Higby in CT. (Higby is also blessed by having I-91 beneath it & congested Meriden & Wallingford in the viewshed. At least it's still open to the public...

 

[TCD]

“Scratch the surface a bit more on that one. It is not a cosmetic concern. The issue of land use and preservation is the heart of the matter.”

>I support land conservation and preservation. Lots of us do, which is why governments have spent our money buying land and buying easements. If we think more land should be preserved, more of us have to support it and be willing to spend our taxes on it. That’s the equation for land preservation. But trying to “take” more land than we are willing to pay for, via a cosmetic argument of “If I can see it from the top of the highest mountain in New England, I can claim control over it” is not a valid approach.

“This proposal is not needed. It is for second homes for people who do not live there, it creates jobs for people who do not live there (besides once property values, rents etc increase where will the help live?)”

>This is not a weak argument. It is a strong, economic argument, and I hope that local review boards are considering it.

“A trip to the Presidentials will give a view of a city. How is that unique?”

>Sorry, I think this is a weak argument. I share your viewing preferences, but I can’t support that logically. They are just preferences.

TCD

 

[dRitter]

I'd rather see the billion used to erase the real eyesores in the prezzies - the summit observatory, the auto road, and the cog. That would be money well spent.

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

Mw

"I'd rather see the billion used to erase the real eyesores in the prezzies - the summit observatory, the auto road, and the cog. That would be money well spent."

Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?

KDT

 

[Puck]

“ But trying to “take” more land than we are willing to pay for, via a cosmetic argument of “If I can see it from the top of the highest mountain in New England, I can claim control over it” is not a valid approach.

“A trip to the Presidentials will give a view of a city. How is that unique?”

>Sorry, I think this is a weak argument. I share your viewing preferences, but I can’t support that logically. They are just preferences. TCD

A preference is: Vanilla or strawberry; boxers or tighty whities; dry flies or nymphs; a real poncho or a Sears poncho; New England or Manhattan clam chowder; National league or American League.

If it is a matter of preference those who prefer to look at condos, chain restaurants, Wal-marts and pavement have their choices approaching infinity and they can go anywhere for it. . While those who prefer a more pristine natural landscape have a small bank of diminishing options.

However, my view point on the Bretton Woods sprawl and all of the underlying concerns stems from my deep seated life values. It motivates my activism, donations and how I spend my time in much the same way that others are stirred to action on issues of injustice, charities and free elections. To call these values “preferences” is demeaning and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue. However, people of lesser convictions could view me and my ilk as self righteous zealots.

Because we view the same issue from different conceptual frameworks we will not appreciate or understand each others arguments. You find mine weak, I find yours superfluous and ungrounded.

This is a question of legacy and landscape, land use and preservation. By landscape I don’t mean should one plant viburnums or azaleas. I mean should the integrity and heritage of the area remain intact for the present and future generations or should it become part of the encroaching monoculture? Face it people will not come to the area to look at beautiful condos. They come for the unique landscape and natural experience. Once it is gone it is lost forever. I hate to think of the hoards of people on the viewing deck on the summit shouting “Hey I can see my condo from up here!” Once the condos are built the only good views will be from inside, providing they face in the right direction.

But what is behind the view of the marred landscape? The eyesore is just a visual sign of a deeper pathology. With the condo sprawl and commercial infrastructure there will be loss of habitat, impact on wetlands in the entire Ammonusuc valley, and loss of a cultural heritage and identity. These ARE valid issues. Gov Kunin fought this type of development of ski areas in Vermont in the 80’s. At stake was the character of the area. The people of a town, county or entire state can make that determination through a democratic government without land acquisition.

Land acquisition is not the only means to protect and area as I have already mentioned. It can be done by wetland protection, planning and zoning, building ordinances etc. These approaches range from the cosmetic making sure that an historical district is painted in colonial white to making sure habitat for an endangered species is protected.

With all of that said I have no hope that this sprawl will be stopped. Big money usually wins.

 

[Fisher Cat]

Once it is gone it is lost forever.

I agree with this entirely, and sad to say, part of that visual value in this case has been lost already. However, is it too late to appreciate that value? Case in point: For everyone who has hiked the Bonds, one knows there is a wonderful spot(and there are others in the Whites)where you can attain an unobstructed view of Wilderness. Does anyone rush thru that spot to attain the view of Loon and its ski trails? You don't have to walk very far to pass that line where one is quickly reminded of civilization, and at the same time I don't think a single one of us would want to give it up, its an opportunity to reflect, imagine, and enjoy something as valuable as a wilderness vista.

 

[peakbagger]

Interesting debate, but beyond wishing hoping and complaining about the development (which is easy) what approach do folks suggest that fits within the legal framework in place to prevent the development? As I pointed out, there arent a lot of tools out there for a state approach to protecting the area, the locals have already voted to accept the development, so the local approach is out, county government doesnt have any control to speak of. So its either a private approach (buy an easement or the land), or a federal approach (unfortunately the NH delegation is weak and probably have other fish to fry).

I guess the alternative is for everyone complaining to collectively hold their breath until something like a real estate collapse occurs (wow that might happen so maybe holding ones breath works)

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Funny how the value of the view is so passionately appreciated... until the view tax comes up (in NH) and then everyone downplays it... it's a lake if you're selling, but a pond if you're buying

Tim

 

[Sugarloafer]

The weakest arguments are the ones which seem to blend in a mix of envy, dislike of people with money, and a belief that people who aren't skilled woodsmen don't deserve to own a house near the woods. That stuff makes us look bad.

Very well said.