Document text
http:// --> Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Obituaries Weather Archive Hot Topics Forum Photo Gallery Past Readers Polls Revels Etcetera Backpage O-Zone Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad Online Games Movie Preview October 19, 2006 MAA: Council violated lease By Alan Panebaker Ashland Daily Tidings A letter from the Mt. Ashland Association could spell a lawsuit against the City of Ashland. The Mt. Ashland Association claims the City of Ashland violated a lease agreement earlier this month by changing its practices Oct. 3 and asking the U.S. Forest Service to deal directly with the city on matters surrounding a proposed ski area expansion. An Oct. 12 letter from the Mt. Ashland Association to Ashland City Administrator Martha Bennett claims the city violated the Mt. Ashland Ski Area's lease. The City of Ashland holds a special-use permit through the U.S. Forest Service to operate the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. The city leases the permit to the non-profit Mt. Ashland Association for $1 a year. Communication between the city and Mt. Ashland Association are strained since the Ashland City Council requested MAA provide a detailed business plan before initiating expansion activity. City officials worry the ski area's failure could leave the city to foot the bill. The struggle follows a Sept. 20 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Owen Panner in favor of the U.S. Forest Service in a lawsuit against the organization for approving the ski area expansion. Panner has not yet released an opinion explaining his ruling. Although plaintiffs in the lawsuit — one being the Rogue Group Sierra Club — plan to file an appeal, logging in the expansion area could begin before that happens, environmental groups say. The Oct. 12 letter, signed by Mt. Ashland Association President Bill Little, states the city's bypassing of the group to deal directly with the Forest Service violates the lease. "The terms of the lease do not allow for the city to exclude MAA from some or all of its performance obligations under the permit," the letter reads. Its request to deal directly with the Forest Service on expansion issues, may violate some legal aspects of the lease, Little's letter reads. "The city's actions further violate the lease by interfering with MAA's planned expansion of the ski area as expressly authorized by sections 3 and 6 of the lease," it reads. Section three of the city's lease states the ski area has the exclusive right to work on the ski area. Section six states the Mt. Ashland Association has the right to make changes to the area as it deems necessary. The Mt. Ashland Association's letter could mean a lawsuit against the city for breaking the lease, Bennett said. "We recognize that it laid out the grounds for possible litigation," she said. Bennett would not say what specific actions the city is taking to respond to the letter other than consulting with another attorney to determine its standing regarding the lease with the Mt. Ashland Association. Ashland City Attorney Mike Franell would not comment on the matter. Little was also not available for comment Wednesday. Staff writer Alan Panebaker can be reached at 482-3456 x 227 or [email protected] . Current Comments: I am middle of the road on this issue. But, geez, this seems like a real bad PR move by the the MAA corporation. Suing the City isn't going to win you any friends. The City is going to be left holding the bag if the Mt. fails (remember AFN) and so are the taxpayers. They want a good business plan and to know the Mt. isn't going to screw up the water supply. MAA suing the City makes me want to support the conservationists in this effort. Citizen - Ashland, Oregon - October 19th, 3:24 PM Citizen, MAA should sue the City. Ashland citizens need to feel the pain caused by the obstructionists (Please do not call them "conservationists.") Let our elected officials choose their side & learn that violating lawful agreements has consequences. Trying to reason & compromise with zealots never works, as the "direct action" preparations show. Rich Kline - Ashland, OR - October 20th, 5:55 AM I wish the City would give up it's CONTROL and "liability" of Mt. A by a new non-profit being formed as leaseholder. Hook up to TAP's sooner than later; a better qulity/quantity water source supply than Reeder... Then everyone is happy except for those (4)so invested making a career of sueing/closing MT.A (Hartzell, Navikas, Dimitre, Linegar) that they can't walk away as equal winners. City only paid $1 for it and signed "a grant request" for it, how hard is that for council to walk away from? wanna b a trustfunder2 - Ashland - October 20th, 6:56 AM Reasons against expansion: It clearcuts in the watershed. It clearcuts in a roadless area. It increases cars on the mountain. It removes trees that sequester CO2. It reduces threatened animal habitat. Global warming will ultimately doom skiing. The economic viability is risky. Reasons for expansion: Skiing is fun. Some businesses will profit. Less crowded ski slopes. More ski terrain. Ultimately it is a question of values. What are yours? Jay Almarode - Ashland - October 20th, 9:03 AM It's sad to see MAA try to sue the city who has so generously allowed them to continue operating despite numerous lease violations on the part of the association. These guys are digging themselves a hole that's going to put them all out of a job, and good riddance. We need people on the board who are willing to disclose the cost of their plans. Then we can all ski down some new terrain that we can afford, instead of the proposed expansion which would cost $17 million. Rafferty - Ashland - October 20th, 1:10 PM Rafferty, just curious, but where are you coming up with $17 million? Last I heard was $3million for phase 1. John - Ashland - October 20th, 1:41 PM Ya gotta be kidding Raferty. "...the City has been so generous in allowing Mt. Ashland to continue...?" Huh? Is like saying ,"Bush Admin has been so generous to the Iraqi civilians?!" & Jay A: don't remotely believe in your questions 5-7 being at all true, 1960's reruns; but yes I do value the recreation over #1-3; especially in this emasculated testosterone-free zone we call Ashland. Lastly to be accurate nobody is clearcutting 71 acres. There will be some clearcuts within the 71 acres, yes. wanna b a trustfunder2 - Testoserone-Free Zone - October 20th, 4:48 PM Thanks 'wanna b' for your honesty. I'm disappointed that you and so many others value leisure sport over the watershed and roadless areas. It's sad that so many retirees and yuppies care more about fun than the future of the planet. Regarding the economic viability, the recent letter to council from Mr Buser, ski industry CEO, clearly details the financial risk, especially in regards to global warming. He advises against expansion. Does anyone know if the ski area made any profit last year? Jay Almarode - Ashland - October 21st, 9:41 PM "Little also said the board has consulted with professional contractors about how much their expansion plans will cost. After the meeting, Hanson said they estimate the project will cost anywhere between $5 and $17 million dollars. " -Daily Tidings October 18, 2005 Rafferty - Ashland - October 22nd, 7:17 PM Leave a Comment: Advertisement: Advertisement: Paid Advertising Inkjet Printers Student Loans Water Filter Helzberg Diamonds Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Advertisement: Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.