Guest Commentary
Lessons From Tamarack Resort
The entire episode hints at the larger question of what type of society we want to live in.
By Guest Writer, 3-28-09
Tamarack Resort closed on March 4th, the latest in a long line of boom and bust stories in the West. Located 90 miles north of Boise, Idaho, it was first major ski, golf and lake resort to open in the US in over two decades. Hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, Tamarack and CEO Jean-Pierre Boespflug failed to generate enough revenue from real estate sales to keep operating. As a skier, former Tamarack employee, cattle rancher, and Idahoan, I wish to write a few words in reflection.
I don’t have to say this is an economic disaster for the over 200 employees and the general area. Some of the discussion has been that Tamarack would have made it if the economy just wouldn’t have slumped. It would be more accurate to say it never would have got off the ground if (opening in December 2004) it hadn’t caught the end of the largest housing bubble in history.
Tamarack attracted only 27,000 skier visits this season, far less than neighboring Brundage Mountain. Locals didn’t ski there. To them it was known as Tam-a-scam, Glamarack, and finally, when it all went down, Tamtanic. This sentiment was partly due to them lamenting the loss of their Valley. And it was partly due to the dislike being mutual. Upper management openly told us during meetings their goal was to make it a private hill, open only to property owners or people who pay club fees of thousands of dollars. This required a certain degree of hubris, as the ski course falls almost entirely on public land.
This is why you could find powder at Tamarack for a week after a storm, while at Brundage it’s gone within the day. This was a remarkable sacrifice, given the devotion to powder skiing in Valley County.
The entire episode hints at the larger question of what type of society we want to live in. Do we want to live in a society like America was (with notable exceptions) toward the middle half of the 20th century? That was a society of one class of people, who sent their children to public schools, and were protected by public police officers, and drank public water. Or do we want to be a society like Mexico, with an ultra-rich class, living in gated communities protected by private security, sending their children to private schools, and drinking private water? The general population gets what remains. Tamarack was a gated community whose distance from town negated the need for a gate.
Consider the principles behind which Tamarack was founded: lack of concern about local people or the environment, private incursions on public property, massive amounts of debt, funneling money and power to those who already have them, class divides, opulence, and so on. They’re strikingly similar to the policies either explicitly endorsed or highly associated with neo-liberal economic policies. This isn’t some abstract concept; neo-liberalism is championed by both political parties, and is written into domestic economic policies along with trade agreements such as NAFTA. The negative affect these policies have on every one of our lives can be neither underestimated nor dismissed.
It is sometimes thought that neo-liberal policies are good for the economy at the expense of the environment (Tamarack was fined $185,000 by the EPA for violations of the Clean Water Act). We are now even more certain that they are a disaster for the environment and the economy.
Was West Mountain not creating wealth when it was providing us with clean air and water, wildlife habitat, trees, hunting grounds, and native grasses which were utilized by family ranches? Why is it only wealth when we put boundaries around it and exclude people? This isn’t wealth creation, it’s wealth usurpation.
It is important to provide outdoor recreation opportunities. But it just doesn’t make any sense to build new ski resorts. Global warming continues to loom over the head of the entire industry. The percentage of skiers who are beginners is decreasing. We are losing community hills, the lifeblood of the sport. The one segment that is growing rapidly is backcountry skiing. New and expanding resorts take away prime areas from this sector, and are highly resented for doing so.
In 1864, George Perkins Marsh wrote that the earth was given to us “for usufruct alone, not for consumption, still less for profligate waste.” When we give the earth back to the future after the short time it was in our hands, they will wonder what happened on West Mountain.
The author, a graduate student in natural resources, ski patrolled at Tamarack.
[End of article]I love these pieces coming from Valley County folks. You all believed the hype and turned your back to the legitimate questions that were raised about a project that was dubious from the beginning. As long as every nail pounder, dry waller, journeyman electrician, spec house contractor, amateur real estate trader, and washed up tennis pro was racing to Valley County to get a piece of the action, things were fine! Just a real estate play? Of course not -- this is going to be a real resort. Rampant sprawl and subdivision? Who cares - we've still got plenty of open space left. Locking up public lands? So what -- we've got plenty of other places to go. Marginal location without a commercial airport and adequate infrastructure? As long as we build it, they will come. Promise. Kit log home on every 5 acres from McCall to Donnelly? -- of course they will sell because you can never have enough. Well, you sleep in the bed you make, Valley County. Live with the debacle that you helped to create.
Comment By Snowman, 3-28-09A very insightful and perceptive piece, Lee. Thank you for sharing your views. I lament the job losses and the disruption of lives this fiasco has caused, but I won't miss a resort of this type. On powderblog.com I frequently take shots at the wealthification of skiing. Like you I'd rather see a resurgence of small and medium sized ski areas offering affordable skiing fun to families of all economic stratas.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 3-28-09I'd have to agree that business models for ski resorts like the Yellowstone Club and Tamarack which rest on conspicuous and ostentatious consumption of the mountain lifestyle by the uber wealthy is in for some tough sledding if not outright extinction. And certainly no way in hell do I want public land leased to become a private resort for the rich. But it might be possible to tweak the model to instead become a planned community model with worker bee or low income housing included in a mixed income community. It might be possible to build such a model if Idaho law provided for a real estate transfer tax. The U.S. during the 20th century has built a large middle class using a lot of public spending and incentives for home ownership and education. But lately the middle class has been shrinking, many of its members sliding into the marginalized under class. But the U.S. has never been a one class society. Beginning with the founding fathers, many of whom believed that wealthy white men who owned land should be the only people eligible to vote, the U.S. has been more or less run on an elitist model of society managed by supposedly deserving plutocrats. The idea being that the poor are poor because they are either lazy or dumb. So once again, as in the financial Crash of 1929 this economic model has been discovered to be fraudulent and we find ourselves in deep doodoo dropped on us slum dogs by the wealthy.
Comment By Doremus, 3-28-09Lee:
It is "effect" (noun) not "affect" (verb).
Is there a suggestion there that yuppies are dying out?--or is it just that the beautiful people have moved on to a new level of snobbery which yearns for those good old days when everybody was equal--back in the middle of the twentieth century--back in the fifties, I mean, when wogs were pretty much still under control--back before all of this multi-cultural nonsense?--back when Sun Valley was still a place to be seen..?
Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-29-09This essay pretty much rings hollow.
The Fifties was not a classless society at all. While Americans may have shared a sense of purpose and identity (at least the white people) in the postwar era, that's because of the forced focus of WWII.
Et cetera.
I'm kind of amazed that Mr. Spencer, for all his angst about the destruction of West Mountain, supposedly, had no problem signing on as a patroller to catch those week-long remainders of pow. So the mountain was ruined but the skiing was still pretty good, hah?
There may still be value for Valley County to capture from Tamarack. It depends on how much infrastructure is still in place after the bankruptcy circus folds its tent. The time might be over for the grandiose visions of the elite, but regular folks might be able to make it work for them.
Let me guess Sagehen is from Boise and hates Valley County. Uhhh probably right. Cascade is getting a whitewater park so you have one more reason to hate. It seems aside from the lifeless Tamarack Valley Co is kinda like it was 10 years ago. Still 20 years behind Colorado. Some people like it some people dont. I hate crowds and traffic jams so I aint going anywhere. I live w/in a 1/4 mile of 55 and after midnight nary a car goes by anymore.
One thing about Idahoans either left or right they be hating on somthing. They dont forgive and they dont forget.
I like Brundage and Tamarack and the backcountry here is the some of the best in the US. I ride pow at Brundage for a few days after the storm the tighter the trees the fresher the snow.
People will get sick of the more popular places in the west and people will continue to come here. I talked to guy today at Brundage who was stoked on the area and liked the small town friendly vibe. He was from Oregon.
The whole negative "sleep in the bed you made" from a Boise County or Treasure Valley local just sums up some of the fools around here.We are pratically neighbors I dont wish for your area to crash and burn. just stay down in the valley dOOd. And keep your head in that smelly place you call your ass.
This guy kills me will all the usual liberal buzz words, so predictable. How about Freedom. If a bunch of guys want to build a ski resort, no matter how dumb or exclusive what is the harm. When I go in the back counrty across the US I never see more than a person or two. If you want no development and open spaces, Tammarck is not stopping you, try Alaska. Why are you people so intolerant of others. You go do your thing and leave the developers alone. They are not the evil dumb people you paint them as. They are just people.
Comment By Bilbo, 3-30-09The ski resort biz in this country was founded by folks who loved to ski. The primary reason early skiers worked to put a tow rope, t-bar or a lift up a hill was so they could ski down it - not so they could build more condos or latte shops at the base of it.
Many of our first resorts were founded by 10th Mountain Division refugees looking for a reason to stay in the mountains they loved. "Real estate" was just a shelter from the storm.
Somewhere along the way, the ski biz got turned on its head and real estate became the reason for more lifts and expanded resorts. When a Carnival Cruise Line exec was hired to manage Vail in the early 90's, I knew that an industry founded by skiers for skiers had changed forever.
Thankfully there are still places like Bogus and Brundage, where the original spirit of the sport lives on. Powder to the people!!
I couldn't agree more with the author's central argument, and it appears clear to me that there's been harm done to the community and surrounding resources by this development.
If this resort is located on public land, and the county and taxpayers are now stuck with the associated costs of this failed development, it's the community that are the real losers. The real shame is that the project went forward in the first place, since the ski resort was only developed as an excuse to sell real estate.
I have to tell you about a "karma" moment my wife and I experienced at Tamarak. We had heard lots about Tam and finally checked it out on New Years Eve of 2007. I was first struck by the enormity of the development effort. I had never seen so many dump trucks in one place. Upon arrival, we first skied the entire nordic system. It was great - well groomed with a nice mix of hills and flats. Next we sampled the Alpine area. It was OK - not great, but some good potential was obvious.
After a full day of skiing and with empty bellies, we headed to the lodge for dinner. Though there were people in the restaurant eating, we were told we would have to wait an hour until the restaurant opened for dinner. No problem. Off we went to the bar area in search of snacks. As soon as we squeezed into a spot in the crowded lounge, a waiter plopped a huge tray of chips and cheeses in front of my wife. Jokingly she said to the waiter "thanks, you shouldn't have". Snootily he replied, "These snacks are for Whitetail Club members only. Are you in the club?" "What is the Whitetail Club?" said my wife as she drooled into the brie. The bar manager, standing nearby, quickly came over to apologize but the damage was done. The snooty attitude of exclusiveness, combined with our low blood sugar, had turned us off. Who knows, we may have joined the Whitetail Club if we had been invited to partake with a smile and a just a hint of friendliness.
We took our hunger to the local Subway and never went back to Tamarak. Maybe it's not fair, but that single incident colored our perception of the resort. If we want a high end resort, we head over to Sun Valley where, by the way, we've always been treated like royalty. During 70 years of actually serving royalty, the folks at SV have realized, it's best to treat everyone as if they're in the White Tail Club.
Bilbo:
Something wrong with your story. "Whitetail Club" is the very exclusive enclave at the Whitetail Lodge on the lake at McCall, about 20 miles away from Tamarack. The Whitetail Lodge was renamed "The Shore Lodge" recently upon a change of ownership. It now caters to the public. Good story, wrong venue.
There are a few key things going on here that might help to clarify thinking on the subject of Tamarack. First of all the price of desirable places to live like mountain resort towns is bid up by the wealthy who can outbid the middle and low income classes. And then there is casino style capitalism that's been practiced lately with crazy risk to asset ratio's. Then there is justified resentment of the affluent upper class who can buy exclusion and at the same time claim that they are just regular folks. Then there's trickle down or trickle on which works up to a point. The riffraff can get a job but they can't afford to live or shop anywhere near the place that they work. For example in Sun Valley, very high end hotels have been approved recently on the trickle down theory that more business will be generated if wealthy have a place to stay and be pampered and of course most of the help can be bussed in maybe from as far away as Mexico. On the other side of the issue are the Nimbys, Smart Growth and Environmentalists who portray developers as evil incarnate. Of course these people stink to high heaven with their own hypocrisy. Their underlying rationale is that they are entitled to be the last settlers in paradise and they set about restrictive zoning like crazy, falsely whining that development is sprawl and will ruin the environment along with their quality of life. They thereby raise the cost of building housing for the working stiff and raise property values of existing land owners to the point that some of the old timers have a hard time paying property taxes. Seen in a positive light this could all be an economic stimulus package for lawyers and local government bureaucrats and planners.
Comment By Johnny Thundersockeye, 3-31-09Big surprise that the same developers ,who are so ecologically inept that they named the resort after a tree that doesnt even exist in the state or not for 1000s of miles,would also royally miscalculate the entire resorts operation strategy!!That was a pet peeve of mine from the beginning-THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREAKIN TAMARACK IN IDAHO OR ANYWHERE IN THE ROCKIES!!!!There are WESTERN LARCH(Larix occidentalis) AND SUBALPINE LARCH (Larix lyalli)-but TAMARACK(Larix laricina) is a completely different species which grows in Minnesota!!!DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I LOVE McCALL and BRUNDAGE and wish all you WEST ID-PAYETTE folks PEACE and PROSPERITY!!! somehow,through GODS GRACE!!!!!-from the east side of the Clearwater Kingdom!!!!!-B-ROOT VALLEY
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 3-31-09You really don't want to get diverted by arguing about common names of trees. In some parts of the west Lodge pole pine is called Tamarack by the locals. And in other parts of the west, any species of Larch is called Tamarack. Of course all of these trees are growing less than 1 thousand miles from Boise. When you start calling trees by their Latin names the only person you usually impress is yourself.
Comment By Bernard, 3-31-09There are larch (tamarack) growing on the north side of the mountain just south of Smiths Ferry.
Comment By Johnny Thundersockeye, 3-31-09Hey Mickey -I really dont care about impressing you or anybody else with latin names-Im just stating facts-if you want to call a lodgepole a larch go right ahead and be technically wrong,! If you want to call it a Chevrolet-go ahead.The fact still remains there are ONLY LARCH IN IDAHO,NOT TAMARACKS!!! Loggers call young Ponderosa -Bull Pine and older specimens Yellow Pine,but there still both only PONDEROSA!! If you want to call a blueberry a Huckleberry -fine-but its incorrect, they are SIMLAR BUT NOT THE SAME SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING!!! and Thanks Bernard IM sure there are LARCH,just South of Smiths Ferry,but not TAMARACKS!!!! And I'm not trying to "get diverted by arguing"about any of this!!!As I stated its a "pet peeve",not a crucial issue. Theres really no arguing right vs.wrong.!!!!!
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 3-31-09Question of the day. What kind of tree is Piss Pine?
Comment By Johnny Thundersockeye, 3-31-09Mickey Ive never heard of piss pine,but piss fir seem to be Grand Fir although to me its actually Engelmann Spruce that really smells like cat piss or is that cougar urine IM smelling while rummaging around under spruces so often.?Anyhow I really meant no harm!!!I just thought it was kind of funny!!The original European sounding name of Val-Bois or whatever it was supposed to be made more sense to me espescially from the standpoint of trying to attract the desired ritzy-ditzy clientele and it was just my opinion that the name of a species that technically doesnt grow there was a silly name for the resort .It truly is a shame that the locals were not treated better as is the whole economic situation !!! Obviously these pompous elitist societies that such resorts are based upon are undesirable for many reasons-but then again I hesitate to bitch as Ive had underpaid ,overworked crumb scrounging employees of similar places accuse me of being a communist for suggesting they should be treated more equitably by their obscenely affluent employers!!!!! Like I said Mickey really I was not trying to annoy any body-I just thought it was kind of funny.PEACE 2U and your family!!!!!!!!!!
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 3-31-09Right you are. It could be any tree that smells like piss when you cut it and more often is referred to as piss fir. Toward the coast its usually White Fir or Abies Concolor. The point being that there are many different common names for the same tree depending on which neck of the woods you live in. I'm certainly not annoyed. I, like you, am amused.
Comment By Yes we can't, 4-01-09Wow you guys really know how to party. To add to the debate, I find it ridiculous that Yellowstone is called yellow when really it is mustard in color. Can you imagine the confusion this causes?
I've also measured the sky in Montana and found it to be precisely the same dimensions as ordinary sky, leading to much confusion. The recent plane crash has been attributed to pilot error as the sky isn't any 'bigger' than normal. He ran out of sky thinking it was big as advertised.
Mr. Spencer,
Thank you for an interesting piece. You raise some important questions about the west, public land, wealth, and policy. I look forward to reading more of your work.
I knew the day the name was changed from Val ...whatever to Tamarack (Larch is to close to lurch) the area was doomed! After all there was already a Tamarack Ski Area in Idaho which had failed. Bad karma!
Comment By boomer, 4-02-09Thanks for this, Lee. Your post should be spread all over the Intermountain West, as the topic sure isn't confined to just Idaho.
Tamarack is just another remnant of the late 20th Century crap that sprouted and took shallow root. You're right- it had much less to do with the resort itself than all the hyper-inflated real estate paper it could generate as money makers for the to big to fail banks.
Tamarack, the Yellowstone Club, and hundreds of other projects all geared toward exclusivity were doomed from the start. It was only a matter of time before the collapse happened. I hope that the current trend of the wealthy away from this conspicuous nonsense becomes permanent- the po' folks will always give away too much for a good paying job, even if it's short and leaves behind much damage and no long-term benefit.
Bilbo, you apparently haven't heard of the land swap Brundage made with the Payette National Forest so they can build and sell condos and houses at the ski area.
Comment By J Peters, 4-14-09Thank you very much for posting a local perspective. I am curious about any opinions of the former operations VP Jim Spenst. He is heading back to Colorado to manage the Boulder local hill Eldora.
Comment By Markus, 4-22-09If this initiative had truly put local stakeholders first it might have had some legs. Local governments that fail to protect their land heritage with proper controls have only themselves to blame. The whole notion of living on the hill anywhere in sensitive alpine environments is an eco disaster of the first magnitude. If you want to build luxury units somewhat NEAR a ski hill OK but do not build them on State parcels that are not freehold or on clear cut swaths of draining and eroding land. The so-called equity that supports the business model for Ski-real-estate is tenuous and approximates a scam. In areas of great need for economic development and tourism you have to wonder who are the one's taking the bribes to allow this fool's gold to go forward? Are there environmental assessments? If so by whom? In the Alps you have rural populations who have been there for thousands of years and in Italy they more or less decided that boom and bust condo development would not be tolerated and that Inns/hotels/restaurants run by small LOCAL entrepreneurs would provide the services to visitors who are there for the experience not the investment. Get in get out and leave a tip. In certain Italian regions where smaller hills have struggled the state has created community organizations with federal grants to run some ski operations. The hill is subsidized so the rest of the economy can exist. These hills are seen as important to the local economy and if they did not put the local stakeholders first these operations would cease to be funded. The stories of Tamarack and Elk Meadows seem like modern versions of the gold rush period and there seems to be very few winners in this equation especially those that invested in their units. There are at least two things at play here that should be reviewed. One is the complete lack of community heritage protection and the second is the lack of consumer protection. Without singing the familiar refrain of class warfare like other posters one has to believe a major rethink is in order. What is sustainable "enterprise" in rural economies and should a more stringent set of rules be applied in order to avoid the potential dog eat dog wrecking ball from unwanted sharks and promoters.
Comment By BeckyJ, 4-22-09Markus, No homes were built on State Land. The homes, condos, hotel, etc were all built on private land. While I'm not writing to defend Tamarack, they did have a number of positive impacts on our communities. A county-wide free bus system was started and continues to operate, sewer lines were taken over to the West Mountain area and will make it easier for homeowners in pre-existing subdivisions to eventually hook into the local sewer system and get off septic systems or actually hook their previously "dry" cabins up to sewer. That can only be good for the Lake Cascade. Tamarack also brought people to our area that might not have come that have gotten involved with the people here. One couple who came beacuse of Tamarack donated $500,000 to help build a whitewater park that will increase recreational opportunities and help diversify our now tourist dependent economy.
Comment By Markus, 4-28-09I had read that some of the resort was developed on former state land so if that is not the case then thanks for the clarification. A resort of this magnitude in an out of the way location really needs the state to directly take on some of the potential liability or underwrite some of the loans making sure monies go to sustainable amenities jobs and not temporary private home construction. It is too easy for developers to borrow money using the future real estate as collateral and then cut corners on the projects pocketing or misappropriating the difference. In the resort business this happens all the time. If municipalities and state tourism had gotten behind either the Golf course or the hill and let private investment take car of the real estate, say adjacent the lake and golf course, then at least the real estate liability would not be able to take the whole thing down. The idea that some shining white knight with deep pockets is going to underwrite a luxury high end paradise is foolhardy. I wonder what they actually do at the state tourist department where they would stand by and allow their tourism brand to be part of such a high stakes gamble.
Comment By Doremus, 4-28-09Markus:
I echo Becky's comment that no homes were built on state land. All were built on long held former private ranch land. The Ski lifts, mountain bike trails and summit ski patrol hut were built on Idaho state forest land leased from the state.
Remember that this state forest was formerly logged. Years ago, the Idaho legislature dedicated all revenues from state forest use to finance new school construction and ongoing school/Department of Education operations. Although I am not certain, I believe that Idaho state forest revenues were the primary, and possibly the only, source of education funding for the state.
When the logging industry went belly up a few years ago, the state education department had a problem. That is, until Tamarack came along. Tamarack abandoned its predecessor's labored and unsuccessful attempts to get federal ski permits for the nearby federal forest land, and instead, sought permits from the Idaho legislature for the adjoining state forest land. I believe that Tamarack's annual lease payment for that small parcel of difficult-to-log slope was far in excess of any logging revenue ever hoped for. The rest is history.
It remains to be seen whether or not Tamarack will keep its 40 year lease and make its next annual payment to the legislature. If not, the legislature faces the funding problem once again, and this time when we have state-wide and nation-wide hurt, making no viable alternative funding easy to find. Of course we can raise taxes.
So you see, depending on your values and viewpoint. there is good and bad in every decision. Nothing is perfect. And to sit there and do nothing is imperfect as well. We live to try.
I would be pleased to learn what parts of my message are inaccurate.
Doremus
Doremus, my viewpoint is that locals aways have to come first. I believe there is a great tourism asset there no question. Some interested party or parties will pick up the ball and that resort will be reborn. The hill isn't too far from the populated west coast and it has has some very serious terrain. If they want the destination skier/boarder they will have to get the word out because only through this current controversy and set back did I hear of the place. There seems to be 2 types of hill, the weekend favorites close to major centers and the big concerns like the Whistler and Vails. Hopefully there is a place for credible ventures somewhere in the middle like Silverstar in British Columbia. Tamarack could be like that.
Comment By Tamaglam RIP, 5-16-09Sockeye....where are you from? No Tamaracks in Idaho?! They're all over the place. Ever seen those trees that look like pines put turn golden in the Fall?
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/lessons_from_tamarack_resort/C559/L559/