One of the keys to the future of the economy and the environment in the northern Catskills is in a Department of Environmental Conservation document presented at a public forum last week. It's what's known as the unit management plan for Belleayre Mountain Ski Center, which is located within the Catskill Park. The DEC has laid out five options for its proposed expansion and redevelopment, from "no action" to "full build-out."
The latter is what Crossroads Ventures, developer of the proposed adjacent Belleayre Resort, wants to see. Crossroads is speculating on building luxury hotels on the mountain, and seeking to flip them to a large commercial developer or hospitality organization, at maximum profit for investors. It therefore advocates permitting the biggest resort possible, tied to "full build-out" at the ski center.
But bigger won't serve the public interest better. The resort Crossroads proposes would be the equivalent of a whole new town on the mountain, covering more land than nearby Phoenicia, with about as many housing units as the neighboring hamlets of Pine Hill and Fleischmanns combined.
It would clear-cut and regrade steep slopes and ridge-tops, worsening local flooding and threatening the Pepacton Reservoir. It would require the state to buy the developer's land and build trails and lifts on it, subsidizing ski-in/ski-out capability for the private resort's guests at public expense.
The DEC's plan describes a better alternative. Its "east alternative" would expand Belleayre's trails roughly as much as the full build-out proposal, adding expert ski terrain in Cathedral Glen, but using land that the state already owns. Combined with elements of the so-called "core alternative," which would upgrade and expand existing ski facilities at the base, this approach could still provide new high-speed lifts, energy-efficient snowmaking facilities, and satellite lodges up the mountain. But it wouldn't subsidize the developer with millions in state funds, and would cost about half the $74 million price tag of the full build-out.
Crossroads advocates full build-out, so Belleayre Mountain Ski Center can essentially serve as a larger amenity for a larger resort. But it also works the other way: a lower-build ski center upgrade would complement a lower-build, lower-cost resort. It would mean fewer resort rooms — about 300 vs. 629 — but that's a more appropriate scale.
Crossroad's own economic consultant concluded that with 629 rooms, the resort would be only "marginally feasible"—and that was before economic conditions deteriorated in 2008. Since then, analysis commissioned by the Catskill Heritage Alliance shows a fully built-out resort couldn't meet operating projections. It would not attract visitors to boost the area's economy, but cannibalize existing businesses. It would also demand more in municipal services than it would pay in taxes.
None of that matters to the developer if the proposition is to permit as large a project as possible, flip it, and generate short-term profit for investors. For residents who live here, the project's economic and environmental viability and fiscal responsibility matter.
The lower-build alternative could be the basis of an effective compromise. It might mean less short-term profit for resort investors, but it offers more value and better results for residents. Upgrading the ski center and right-sizing the resort would create new facilities, support all-season recreation as ski seasons decline, and add an appropriate number of lodging units without threatening to swamp communities, literally and figuratively, in valleys below.
Belleayre could be a showpiece for appropriate development — but only if the project is guided by facts, not spin, and balances short-term investor profits with long-term viability. We urge residents to submit comments to the DEC, attend Wednesday's hearing on the project, and support the lower-build alternative as a reasonable compromise benefiting all stakeholders.
Nolan is chair of the Catskill Heritage Alliance, www.catskillheritage.org.