Snowshoe wastewater problems + growth insight
8 posts
8 users
1k+ views
February 4, 2006
Member since 03/7/2004 🔗
83 posts


Article discusses problems with growth vs. the county... but what is interesting is that Snowshoe plans to increase condo units by 100% by 2010 (to over 1000+).
February 5, 2006
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
I think it would be nice to see them slapped with a little bit more harsh punishment for violating the waste regulations. Also, increasing condo units by that much is insane. Snowshoe is a big mountain but certainly not that big. I couldn't imagine that many people jammed into that area. I think Intrawest is taking the "development" a little too far.
February 5, 2006
Member since 01/11/2000 🔗
609 posts
They better open some terrain if they are doubling the condos. However, does this include Silver Creek?
February 5, 2006
Member since 11/30/2000 🔗
194 posts
No matter how much Intrawest adds on TOP of the mountain--- it's still gonna be the same ol' WV mountain roads to get there! Corridor H is great for CV, but doesn't do much for Snowshoe past Moorefield where you have to drop South on 55/28. H will swing way North then back down to Elkins. Even driving a bit faster, you have to go so many miles out of your way, you won't save any time staying on H (whenever that is done - 10+ yrs???). Besides, they tell me the vast majority of SS Winter customers come up from the South anyway.
People have to get the "ski" part out of their minds. SS is becoming a 4-Season resort ala The Homestead/Greenbrier and is aiming at the Convention trade for the Summer. The new Convention Center will take up that empty space between the Village and Shavers Ctr.
February 5, 2006
Member since 01/1/2003 🔗
276 posts
Yeah, I heard they were getting rid of skiing and turning their winter focus to intelectual fireside conversation. Man, Intrawest is ruining that place
Roger Z
February 5, 2006
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
I was surprised about the costs. Seems to me that if Snowshoe is the source of the problem, they should be required to front most of the charges. It would hardly be noticeable to the average martini drinker up on that mountain anyway.

And I can't see how eminent domain can be justified in this case, though I don't know the West Virginia law. If there are other sites within a reasonable price range, it's hard to argue that the site is unique and therefore subject to seizure, particularly when a number of other public goods- Native American and American historical sites, trout streams, karts- are potentially threatened by the plant.
February 5, 2006
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
Just to interject regarding Rogers E.D. comment, local state senator from Moorefield/Elkins that I've met with personally has introduced legislation for E.D. to only be used in specific cases for public roads, public/gov based buildings, and a very limited scope of uses. it's not law yet, but he's pushing hard and it appears everone all the way up through Manchin appears to support it.
February 6, 2006
Member since 12/27/2004 🔗
235 posts
I'll be very upset if they harm the trout fishing.

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.15 seconds