Trapp plans housing development, road across XC trails in Stowe, Vermont
Lew Lasher
the Haul Road, which is one of their main trails) would
be ruined by the planned development.
Most of the damage would likely be to the relatively under-
utilized trails, controlled by Topnotch but seldom groomed,
that go downhill from the Haul Road.
The new road would necessarily cross the Catamount Trail as
well as the route for the Stowe Derby.
So much for Johannes von Trapp's legacy as a conservationist
and skier.
Lew Lasher
Cambridge, Massachusetts and Stowe, Vermont
Trapps plans 50 lots on Adams land
513-acre development would include Trapp-Mt. Co. road
By Pete Hartt
The Trapp Family Lodge plans to subdivide 513 acres above the Ranch Camp
Valley and along the Haul Road into 50 residential lots, lodge owner
Johannes von Trapp disclosed this week.
The proposed development includes a new road linking Trapp Family Lodge
to Stowe Mountain Resort, roughly along what is now the Haul Road.
The proposal is among the largest residential developments in Stowe’s
history, along with the Robinson Springs subdivision off Edson Hill
Road, and Stowe Mountain Resort’s $300 million project currently
underway.
The Trapp’s project, currently in the design stages, is being carried
out on a parcel of land purchased from George F. Adams Co. in 1998 by
von Trapp.
The proposed road would go from Luce Hill Road, proceed somewhat
parallel to Route 108, along the edge of the ridge down into Ranch
Valley, serving the 50 proposed house sites along the way, and coming
out near the current location of the Stowe Mountain Resort Ski Touring
Center. Discussions have been held with Stowe Mountain resort officials,
and there is an agreement in principal on running the road through the
touring center property, von Trapp said. In all, the new road will be
about three miles long. Von Trapp hopes to get the plan permitted,
locally and at the state’s Act 250 level, sometime this summer, and
begin working on it within a year. Von Trapp did not disclose cost
estimates for the road and other infrastructure.
The proposed development is somewhat at odds with statements von Trapp
and others made at the time of the $800,000 purchase of the property
when he said he intended to leave the parcel wild.
“I honestly don’t remember what I said at the time,” von Trapp said in
an interview this week. “It was not my intention to develop the
property. When I took over the title of president in 1969, I set a goal
of buying most of the land that our trails were on, to control what went
on on the property.”
In a story in the July 9, 1998, Stowe Reporter, von Trapp was quoted as
saying that he would “...like to keep it (the property) wild.”
Olivier Garrett, then the general manager of the Adam’s Co., said in the
story that: “Part of the (reason for selling to Trapps) was the feeling
that the land was likely to remain as it was.”
Despite those comments, Bill Adams, who was on the board of the
now-defunct company, said his family had no expectations that the
property would not be developed at some point.
“To my recollection there was nothing promised,” Adams said. “The sale
was not based on any promise. We sold the land based on there being a
legitimate offer with legitimate financial backing.”
Adams noted that the land had previously come very close to being sold
(in the early 1990s) for the purpose of development, but an inability
for the buyer to get the necessary permits caused the deal to fall
through.
“I think that some family members hoped that by selling the property to
Johannes (von Trapp), it might be preserved,” Adams said. “But my father
(Curtis Adams) had told me years before, when we were out hunting, that
I should enjoy it, because it wouldn’t be there forever.”
According to von Trapp, efforts to sell the development rights to the
property to the Vermont Land Trust were unsuccessful. Eventually, other
factors led to the decision to develop. One of the factors cited by von
Trapp was the delay in bringing the expanded sewer plant on line, which
pushed back other development on the Trapp Family Lodge property.
“If I could have developed the villas five years earlier I might not
have had to develop the Adams land,” von Trapp said. “The delay of the
sewer project has cost a lot.”
The new development will likely use about 60 percent of the 513 acre
Adams property, and von Trapp expects to conserve the remaining 200 or
so acres and split that land into two parcels on either side of the
development.
When the land was purchased it increased the size of the Trapp
landholdings from nearly 2,200 acres to 2,700 acres.
The lots in the proposed development are expected to range in size from
three to 12 acres. Lots of those sizes are currently selling anywhere
from 150,000 to $400,000, with the median price of an acre at almost
$30,000. At those kinds of prices total sales could exceed $15 million.
“The price (of lots) will be in line with the great increase in land
prices in Stowe,” von Trapp said. “They are not going to be ‘ski out to
the lift’ types of sites, with the prices those can command, but they
will carry a premium price.”
The entire project will have to be approved by Stowe’s Development
Review Board as well as the state’s Act 250 panel and von Trapp expects
permit applications to be filed later this summer.
Copyrighted Stowe Reporter 2004
Gene Goldenfeld
Is that going to obliterated?
Gene
Lew Lasher
> Is that going to obliterated?
That trail, Ranch Camp, should be unaffected, as it is well to the northwest
of and above the proposed development. In fact, the only really popular trail
that could be affected is the lower Haul Road, depending on where the new road
would be built. As for the Stowe Derby, well, they already have to shovel
snow and stop traffic so that the race can cross VT route 108 and another
street, so what's one more road crossing.
This isn't the first time that Johannes von Trapp has placed real estate
ambitions ahead of skiing. This past season they messed up the Luce trail
(the continuation of the clockwise loop from the lower Haul Road) for
construction of the new luxury timeshare buildings.
What is especially appalling is that, in the article I posted, he tries to
weasel out of his past statements about preserving the land by blaming the
town for not building the municipal sewer earlier, and claiming that, because
he couldn't get the timeshares up sooner, he "had to" engage in the new $15
million project. What a nasty, greedy lout he has become.
Eric Shmo Chandler
> weasel out of his past statements about preserving the land by blaming the
> town for not building the municipal sewer earlier, and claiming that, because
> he couldn't get the timeshares up sooner, he "had to" engage in the new $15
> million project. What a nasty, greedy lout he has become.
That's kind of harsh. My family is part of a land partnership in
Maine. That partnership finds itself doing things it would rather not
in order to keep the larger portion of the land undeveloped. In
essence, a gravel pit operation allows us to pay the taxes on the rest
of the land. We do not post the land. In fact we post signs
encouraging people to hike, hunt, snowmachine, and ice-climb on our
land, among other things. The thanks we get is that people leave
truckloads of trash on our property, even while they are recreating on
it.
It is very possible...possible, I said... that this 15 million dollar
project on the Trapps part will keep the greater operation alive. I
suspect that selling trail tickets to people like us in Subarus is not
that profitable. But calling someone a "nasty greedy lout" for running
a ski operation and doing what he wants with HIS money on HIS land
within the law...that's uncalled for. If everybody who pisses and
moans about what developers do to "our" land would pony up and make it
worth developers while to leave things undeveloped, the argument would
be solved. But that will never happen. The Nature Conservancy is about
the only outfit that puts their money where their mouth is.
But I'm sure I'll hear why I'm wrong.
Shmo
Chris Cline
I do ecological restoration as part of my job, which
usually involves acquiring land and/or getting
conservation easements for long term habitat use
(often with recreational use, also). Your post is a
very elonquent description of what life is like for
the landowner who has desires to keep land
undeveloped, and who is trying to do that to the
extent possible without going broke while doing it. I
wish everyone who has the urge to take extreme
positions such as calling someone on the other side a
"nasty, greedy lout" (often understandable due to
frustration, previous bad experiences, etc., but often
totally unjustified in any sense), would slow down and
think about what might be going on for the person who
will get kicked by their knee-jerk reflex. Calling
people names (so that they change their minds and
decide that preserving land and access is a thankless
task) is only going to prove the axiom that "No Good
Deed Goes Unpunished." What often happens is that
either a) the people just sell their land to a
developer and get the hell out, or b) go over to "the
other side" and develop with a vengence because they
have been so wounded by their supposed friends and
supporters.
good luck keeping your land open- I hope you and your
family can keep your strength and resolve in the face
of the arrogant selfishness of the few.
Chris Cline
SLC, UT
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Lew Lasher
> project on the Trapps part will keep the greater operation alive. I
> suspect that selling trail tickets to people like us in Subarus is not
> that profitable. But calling someone a "nasty greedy lout" for running
> a ski operation and doing what he wants with HIS money on HIS land
> within the law...that's uncalled for.
Let me be clear why I called Johannes von Trapp a "nasty, greedy lout."
It's not particularly because he chooses to subdivide his land to make a huge
profit. I don't begrudge anyone to do what they wish with their own property.
It's because he made public statements when he bought the property, holding himself
out as a conservationist, and then ... forgot what he had said.
It's because he blames the town for his change of plans, rather than just saying
that he changed his mind and decided to make several million dollars of profit
because he feels like it.
It's because he says that he "has to".
Now, of course, I haven't audited his books, but I sincerely doubt that he is in
financial distress. I agree that the cross-country ski business is not
particularly profitable; it is a sideline to his successful hotel business. (The
Trapp Family Lodge is the second highest-rated and most famous hotel in Stowe,
which is the biggest resort town in Vermont.) Several years ago, I would have
believed that he needed the money, because he owed a considerable sum to his
relatives whose share of the business he had bought out for control of the hotel
empire. So he added a big new wing onto the hotel, renovated some of the less
desirable parts of the old hotel, and cultivated convention business for the
hotel. More recently, he added on a set of luxury timeshares. So far as I can
tell, he is a smart businessman. It's quite possible that he's losing money on
some of his business ventures, although I doubt that. But he is not subsisting on
a woodlot and gravel pit. More to the point: I would be more sympathetic if it
were the case that one of his business ventures didn't work out as well as he had
hoped, regardless of whether this was his own fault or bad luck. I don't begrudge
him for taking chances in business, I would not begrudge him if sometimes those
chances were to fail, and I would not begrudge him for trying to bounce back from a
business failure. Quite the contrary: I admired him for bouncing back and
reinvesting in the hotel after the collosal loss in court to his relatives, just as
his family bounced back after losing their European fortune by famously reinventing
themselves in America. So, if he had said: I took a gamble with the high-end
timeshares, and it didn't work out as well as I would have liked, so I regretfully
have to go back on what I said I wanted to do with the other property, then I would
have respected him. But, instead, he says, the town screwed up, and now I "have
to" go for this big quick profit, and, I can't even remember saying anything about
conserving the property. That lacks credibility, and it has cost him my respect.
Eric Shmo Chandler
> conserving the property. That lacks credibility, and it has cost him my respect.
>
> Lew Lasher
> Cambridge, Massachusetts and Stowe, Vermont
Now that's more like it. This is a lot different than name calling.
And, like you said, you haven't seen his books.
Thought provoking anyway.
Shmo
Gary Jacobson
"Lew Lasher" <Lew.L...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:40DA56D2...@verizon.net...
>> Let me be clear why I called Johannes von Trapp a "nasty, greedy lout."
> It's because he made public statements when he bought the property,
holding himself
> out as a conservationist, ....
Around here, we call "conservationists" people who already own land and a
house in the country.
Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY
AKA Gary the Snail, and definitely a conservationist no matter how you
define the term.
Mitch Collinsworth
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 ah...@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
> Yes, after the lawsuit they brought and won, after he did
> not pay them fair value for their shares of the estate.
>
> This new development creates a real moral quandary for me.
> For years I have dreamed of buying a retirement shack on
> Luce Road, near the Haul Road trail. Live there Dec-March,
> ski every day.
>
> Should I protest this new development, or get in line...
If the houses are going to be built with you or without you, then
you're not causing it to happen by buying one. Does that help?
If you can afford to buy one and an adjacent lot and keep that
one vacant then you can even contribute to lessening the impact.
-Mitch
Lew Lasher
> I do love the skiing there, and would love to have it outside
> my back door for Dec-Mar of every year.
Hundred thousand bucks, and you've got yourself a piece of it. The back door,
and the house onto which to attach the back door, cost extra.
Meanwhile, I sent in a Letter-to-the-Editor to the Stowe Reporter newspaper.
Their Web-based letter-submission page was not working particularly well, so it
remains to be seen whether they ever received my letter, let alone published
it. I'll find out tomorrow if it's fit to print. I did tone it down a bit -
"nasty greedy lout" didn't test well - and I am grateful to the readers of
rec.skiing.nordic for helping me refine my thoughts.
Lew Lasher
in to complain, Say it isn't so, Jo-hannes!
The other letter was more along the lines of "think about the trees and the birds
that will be displaced by the trophy homes", whereas I focused more on the damage
to ski trails and on the bullshit about how he "had to" do this.
Anyone who is interested in this mini-outrage can see the letters (from now through
the morning of July 8) at:
http://www.stowereporter.com/Sections/Opinion/Letters/completeletterslisting.html
Lew Lasher
I got a message on my voice mail this afternoon from Johannes himself,
saying that he was "disturbed" and "pissed off" at my letter, and
inviting me to call him back (although he did not leave a number) or
visit him (although he did not suggest a location) so he could set me
straight about these matters.
I think I'll wait a little while for him to cool down first.
Lew Lasher
Stowe, Vermont and Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mitch Collinsworth
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Lew Lasher wrote:
> Apparently I struck a nerve.
>
> I got a message on my voice mail this afternoon from Johannes himself,
> saying that he was "disturbed" and "pissed off" at my letter, and
> inviting me to call him back (although he did not leave a number) or
> visit him (although he did not suggest a location) so he could set me
> straight about these matters.
>
> I think I'll wait a little while for him to cool down first.
Maybe a reporter from the paper would be interested in listening to
your tape?
-Mitch
Lew Lasher
> Maybe a reporter from the paper would be interested in listening to
> your tape?
Perhaps, but I think that would be a side-show to the real issues, which
are about the proper accountability for their proposed real estate
development on their land.
I think I shall reply to Mr. von Trapp via snail-mail (if I can somehow
get my free-with-computer printer to work). I would encourage him to
reply to the public at large, by publishing a response in the newspaper,
rather than by defending himself in a private audience with me. If
the newspaper has quoted him erroneously or otherwise misrepesented him,
or if I have taken information from the newspaper article out of context
and twisted his words to distort his actual intended meaning, or if he
disagrees with me on matters of opinion, then it would serve him best to
set the record straight to as wide an audience as possible.
Andrew Bolger
At which point will you ask him for a good deal on the plot?
Sorry, I couldn't resist that. Your dilemma is a bigger version of one most
of us face everyday as we profit by actions that destroy the environment we
love.
andyb>
>
>
>
Gene Goldenfeld
information, then maybe his response is better left unanswered for now.
You are entirely correct that it is a public issue (which doesn't
necessarily preclude private contact). I would keep the tape, tho.
Gene
Eric Shmo Chandler
> get my free-with-computer printer to work). I would encourage him to
> reply to the public at large, by publishing a response in the newspaper,
> rather than by defending himself in a private audience with me. If
> the newspaper has quoted him erroneously or otherwise misrepesented him,
> or if I have taken information from the newspaper article out of context
> and twisted his words to distort his actual intended meaning, or if he
> disagrees with me on matters of opinion, then it would serve him best to
> set the record straight to as wide an audience as possible.
>
> Lew Lasher
> Stowe, Vermont and Cambridge, Massachusetts
I can't resist.
If you have "taken information from the article out of context and
twisted his words to distort his actual intended meaning", you would
be a man and call him up immediately. And then, when you confirm that
might (I repeat, might) have taken place, YOU would write a letter to
the paper apologizing for what you said.
My dad always taught me that if I wasn't willing to say something to
someone's face, I shouldn't say it. Failing that, after I got a call
from Johannes. I would go have a cup of coffee with the man. As a man.
Your suggested course of action for Johannes reeks of cowardice. If
YOU are incorrect, YOU are responsible for "setting the record
straight" in your next letter to the editor.
I read your letter to the editor. I personally take my beefs directly
to the person. Different technique I guess. I guess you'll do that
with Johannes via snail mail.
I will press the enter button against my better judgment.
Eric Chandler
Duluth, MN
Lew Lasher
<a personal attack against me>
I have responded directly to him with email.
Eric Shmo Chandler
change your tactics in Stowe. I regret the insults and profanity. For
that I apologize to Lew, Gene and everybody in this newsgroup. I let
my passion cloud my judgment.
I still contend your actions will only serve to polarize and entrench
your opponents. I personally think you're fighting the good fight up
there. But my opinion is that your tactics won't work.
Eric Chandler
Lew.L...@verizon.net
Lew.L...@verizon.net
Gene Goldenfeld
didn't make it here. This is Lew's baby. When I worked at a steel mill
back in the '70s, some co-workers used to kid me about rocking the
boat. My response was that the boat was already rocking, I was just
brazen enough to point it out sometimes. They couldn't disagree. I
don't think Lew has done anything more than that. If Von Trapp really
wanted to talk, his message to Lew would have been more temperate and he
would have left contact information.
Gene