Just found out through word of mouth that Victory Hill Trails in VT are closed for the upcoming season? Website confirms and says details will come forward soon. Anyone have any more info?
I support this. Shorter lift lines in the winter, empty trails and more beer for me. We'll build the wall from hemp and maple syrup, it'll be an engineering marvel.An extreme solution would be to build a wall around Vermont. If you are not a Vermont resident, you are not allowed in.
A less harsh idea would be to appease the locals by naming one of trails, "Dead Chicken Way", in honor of their smooshed fowl.
2 point I find interesting. One, this is a microcosm. Not all of Vermont wants to be saved by tourism. We can dismiss the locals as backwoodsy, crazy, whatever. A town of 60ppl doesn't want to be a destination for thousands of MTB tourist. Pretty real and basic issue.Apparently at one point last fall a neighbor took an excavator and dug a giant ditch across the road to keep people out. I don't think the Act 250 is real an issue. Burke Bike Park didn't need one.
I responded above, but as I read it, yes. If the trails were not pay to play, act 250 would not apply. They don't have to close this year, just stop collecting fees. This could cause folks to take a closer look at the relationship between the company that holds the land, and the group doing the trail work. It's kind of gray as my CPA wife reads it in the filing.I'm interested in the opinions of folks who have read the Act 250 decision and/or have dealt with Act 250 in the past: would making the trails free to all move the network towards having a "municipal purpose" as opposed to a "commercial purpose," the latter being subject to Act 250, the former not? This seems to be a key point in the filing, does membership in the VTS, which has pay-to-play networks on its membership rolls (KTA, Catamount).
Dave points out that it is a wonder more commercial trail building hasn't been affected by Act 250. I feel the same way and it appears VTS membership, either straight up or as part of VMBA, has been the saving grace for many spots avoiding Act 250 red tape.
Do any Vermonters know the status of the Act 250 hearings that happened last fall? There seemed to be a growing sentiment that recreational trails should not be subject to Act 250 - I wonder if the state has addressed this recently?
This is why VH and other organizations should just operate with the museum model of "this is our suggested donation" but come here for free.I am also interested in the Current Use status. Can a pay to play bike park also enjoy a special tax rate under Current Use? Under the landowner liability act, they are also exposed to liability if they charge a fee.
Current use.... "Development and Penalties
Once land is enrolled, it is subject to a lien. If this land is ever developed, the owner at the time of development must pay the Land Use Change Tax. The land use change tax is calculated as 10% of the fair market value of the developed parcel or portion of a parcel. When a portion of a parcel is withdrawn or developed, the fair market value of the portion is determined by valuing the portion as a stand-alone parcel.
In this program, development includes any of the following:
Subdivision so that one or more of the resulting parcels is less than 25 acres
Construction of buildings, roads, or structures not used for forestry purposes
Commercial mining, excavation or landfill activity, or cutting timber contrary to the management plan or contrary to state standards."
Excavation? Yup. Roads? Well, excavated bike trails are close. Any trees cut during trail development? Likely many many small trees.
Land Owner Liability Act. "The law does not cover:
• Individuals who are invited onto the
land by the owner for a reason other
than recreation,
• Those who pay a fee to the landowner
for recreational use of the land,
• Lands owned by a municipality or the
state.
Landowner liability is the same whether or
not there is a conservation or recreation
easement on the property.
The law states that an owner shall not be
liable for property damage or personal injury
sustained by a person who does not pay a fee..."