Building a resort in the Red River Gorge

I happened across this article in my news feed the other day.

https://www.wave3.com/2019/10/17/town-hall-meeting-held-discuss-possible-resort-red-river-gorge/

A developer is planning to build a massive resort in the Red. 900 acres was mentioned in the article. As far as I can tell it all stems from this initiative.

https://www.redriverky.com

At the end of the article they say, "They’re encouraging everyone who has an interest in the project to email them." Can't seem to find an email address anywhere.

I'm not local, so my stake in all this isn't nearly as great. But I can say with some certainty that this development will make me less likely to visit the region and frequent the businesses I've been frequenting for many years. But that's just my 2¢.

Keep in mind that RRG is located in one of the most impoverished areas of the US. There are much bigger issues than keeping a climbing area “rustic.”  Besides, the RRG has already been blown up and overrun, so what’s a resort that may just provide employment and revenue in the community. 

whoever is dreaming up this pie in the sky......is likely not a climber......and probably never visited Miguels

Chuck Parks wrote:
At the end of the article they say, "They’re encouraging everyone who has an interest in the project to email them." Can't seem to find an email address anywhere.

redriver@kychamber.com  (per this source)

the schmuck wrote: Keep in mind that RRG is located in one of the most impoverished areas of the US. There are much bigger issues than keeping a climbing area “rustic.”  Besides, the RRG has already been blown up and overrun, so what’s a resort that may just provide employment and revenue in the community. 

^^^^ didn’t read any of the linked articles ^^^^

Pnelson wrote:

^^^^ didn’t read any of the linked articles ^^^^

Well, isn't what he said basically on the first two pages of this (linked from within the second link in the OP)?

http://www.redriverky.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/E.-Ky.-Destinaton-Resort-Concept-Paper-10-30-18-FINAL.pdf

the schmuck wrote: Keep in mind that RRG is located in one of the most impoverished areas of the US. There are much bigger issues than keeping a climbing area “rustic.”  Besides, the RRG has already been blown up and overrun, so what’s a resort that may just provide employment and revenue in the community. 

I've spent most of my life in the rural south and I completely agree. Although I would not personally like a big tourist-trap-resort in the Red, it would create a lot of jobs in a very poor part of Appalachia. 

Seems a bit more sustainable than the coal mines.

Wanna revive this thread since I'm heading down there in March and want to see people's views on development there.

For me, I am afraid/worrisome that it will just be a poorly planned quick fix to a systematic issue of disinvestment in local economic initiatives. Given that the planning firm and the one that did the initial economic resort study are just international corporate conglomerates, I have little faith in them doing a good job at creating a viable resort option. Public participation in the planning and talks seem to be as minimal as possible so that the State/Chamber of Commerce can do whatever they want and say they finally have a Resort in a wilderness area.

Now, this doesn't mean I am against the development of the Resort but the planning behind it is wholly half-assed. There needs to be investment or at least support of, local businesses, the RRGCC, KY State Parks (Natural Bridge), local municipalities for roadway and emergency service improvements if the State wants to see the area become a sustainable (not necessarily eco-friendly, but to handle the additional traffic load) eco-tourism destination. Additional Investment in the area is definitely needed as it is one of the poorest regions in KY and the Appalachian Region, but I do not think the progress of this development so far is going to get the results the State, investors, or Chamber of Commerce wants. 

Just don't go.  TBH, it's already overcrowded to the point where I don't wanna visit   I don't think a resort is that big of a problem.

Men Boon wrote: Just don't go. 

This is what everyone who is afraid of their problems says to themselves.

 TBH, it's already overcrowded to the point where I don't wanna visit   I don't think a resort is that big of a problem.

 Damn

Eric wrote:

Ryan Brown lives in Albany, yet has deep concern that this substantial investment in another state is just a distraction from the "systematic issue of disinvestment in local economic initiatives"

I'm sure the people of Kentucky appreciate your concern, and are waiting for your proposal to address the "systematic issue of disinvestment in local economic initiatives"

I am sure you are also aware that systematic issues...are well... systematic and present in multiple places. Given the geographic disparities between my current location and the location of concern, I am sure you also recognize that different areas can have similar characteristics and population behaviors. 

I also hope that you are aware that a person does not need to be actively present in a location to disagree with, oppose, or have an opinion about actions being taken there, especially with the data and reports coming directly from the economic development corporation's website. 

Given your logic that because I don't live in KY/RRG my argument/opinion about the resort is invalid, you shouldn't be able to post your opinion about my response because we don't really know each other. 

You are also detracting from the entire purpose of the post where I ask a general question about your opinions on the proposed Resort being developed...not my post.

Something to keep in mind is that climbers are just a percentage of people that utilize the RRG. I would guess us climbers are generally poorer and contribute less to the area than the "tourists" that just hike around during the day, eat out every evening, and hang out by the camp fire with their families at night. It's not really on us to decide, not that we cant have an opinion, but they probably arent even thinking about "climber's" dollars anyways. They're thinking about destination weddings, and bachelor parties, and other hacky trends where people throw their money away.

I highly doubt a resort would bring more climbers to the area that weren't already planning to come anyways. So, I dont think it would negatively effect the climbing, other than maybe waiting in traffic on 11, or possibly never being able to get a slice from miguels again. The Red sucks during the "season" already, so this development wont be anything new for climbers. I'll add, if it does happen, embrace it, cause there's nothing any of us can do about it.

Eric wrote:

I wonder what people from Kentucky -- especially non-climbers looking for work -- think about the value of your opinion coming from Albany.  Perhaps if I say "systemic" a few times, they'll appreciate your input.

I wonder why your opinion matters in this post then

Paved paradise to put up a parking lot!

Men Boon wrote: Just don't go.  TBH, it's already overcrowded to the point where I don't wanna visit   I don't think a resort is that big of a problem.

I felt the same way. The climbing was stellar IMO, but I was never more than a few yards away from another climber. Even went I went trad climbing (in the rain) there was a guided group climbing next to us, and some hippies climbing with a dog and a hammock blocking the trail. 

It is way too close to a gym for my tastes. Ask my climbing partner, he thinks it is world class and can't be beat.

Differing tastes I guess. I prefer relative solitude and multipitch trad, he likes grid bolted shit he isn't afraid to fall on.

Ma Ja wrote: Something to keep in mind is that climbers are just a percentage of people that utilize the RRG. I would guess us climbers are generally poorer and contribute less to the area than the "tourists" that just hike around during the day, eat out every evening, and hang out by the camp fire with their families at night. It's not really on us to decide, not that we cant have an opinion, but they probably arent even thinking about "climber's" dollars anyways. They're thinking about destination weddings, and bachelor parties, and other hacky trends where people throw their money away.

I highly doubt a resort would bring more climbers to the area that weren't already planning to come anyways. So, I dont think it would negatively effect the climbing, other than maybe waiting in traffic on 11, or possibly never being able to get a slice from miguels again. The Red sucks during the "season" already, so this development wont be anything new for climbers. I'll add, if it does happen, embrace it, cause there's nothing any of us can do about it.

The AF has studies showing that climbers are generally higher than average wage earners and spend more money that stays in local economies. Tourists/hikers come visit and leave for home some times the same day meaning they eat and sleep outside of the local area. 

To also clarify my original post, I am not against the development of the resort. I am concerned more with the implications it will bring along with it. The RRG area needs jobs, I am all for creating jobs. But how many of these resort jobs will be a) temporary/seasonal b)low paying/minimum wage c) take away, replace, or push out existing local businesses. If the resort is planned to cater as a more luxury resort, the jobs may be better paying, more permanent, and occupy a different sector than local businesses.

With this though, no matter the type of resort, how will the area deal with the increase vehicular traffic? As it stands highways 11, 715, and 1036 have limited expansion possibilities due to steep slopes, winding geography, and stream/rivers and flooding hazards. It's great that people will come to the resort and put money into the area economy, but where will they go once they want to leave the resort? Back to Winchester or Stanton?

As for climbers vs. tourists, I agree climber traffic will probably increase slightly, also given the opening of Miller Fork, but that is not a great issue as climbers do give back to the land/climbing coalitions to maintain the area. But for the State and National Forest, area they investing in them to help maintain and improve their ability to take the additional load of hikers and tourists walking on the land? I've visited both Natural Bridge Park and the Boone Forest and both have basic trails that are seeing incredible erosion that is washing away tons of soil each season. This creates issues throughout the entire ecology of the region from the 'mountain top' forests, the stream and creeks, local drinking water qualities, natural systems of biological nutrient uptake and filtration, general pollution control measures from natural systems, etc.

The issue for me is not that there may be a resort developed because there is, but the manner in which the development is conducted and evaluated to help or mitigate local issues and needs. Development is a natural tendency of societies, but it needs to be done sustainably if it wants to be successful for all. Yes, some are going to suffer more than others, but when an entire community/region is put on the back burner for a Chamber of Commerce made up of bankers and financiers, do red flags not pop up?

Hey Ryan I don’t know if you’ve checked out this site http://rrgunited.org/. It’s a site discussing the impact of the proposed resort both in the short term and long term. Made by local business owners. Mountain project is now poisoned by so many trolls it seems futile to start a discussion here. For some intelligent discussion of this I’d head over there.

Jack Sparrow wrote: Hey Ryan I don’t know if you’ve checked out this site http://rrgunited.org/. It’s a site discussing the impact of the proposed resort both in the short term and long term. Made by local business owners. Mountain project is now poisoned by so many trolls it seems futile to start a discussion here. For some intelligent discussion of this I’d head over there.

I'm looking at the site right now lol. I've been on MP long enough to know about the trolls and futility. But I always hope my logical and intelligent arguments backed up with facts and scientific data help at least one person. I just sometimes enjoy dragging trolls around, I guess type 2/masochistic fun ya know

Hey Ryan I don’t know if you’ve checked out this site rrgunited.org/. It’s a site discussing the impact of the proposed resort both in the short term and long term. Made by local business owners. Mountain project is now poisoned by so many trolls it seems futile to start a discussion here. For some intelligent discussion of this I’d head over there.

yup ^^^^ this

2 ChainS wrote: Only trolls I see here are those individuals who think they can somehow stop the changing of times, it was obvious years ago something like this was due to come to the Gorge. I suppose everyone had their panties in a bunch when Cliffview came to the area too. You trust funders are really comical.

Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong point. 

Trust funders   

Ryan Brown wrote:

The AF has studies showing that climbers are generally higher than average wage earners and spend more money that stays in local economies. Tourists/hikers come visit and leave for home some times the same day meaning they eat and sleep outside of the local area. 

To also clarify my original post, I am not against the development of the resort. I am concerned more with the implications it will bring along with it. The RRG area needs jobs, I am all for creating jobs. But how many of these resort jobs will be a) temporary/seasonal b)low paying/minimum wage c) take away, replace, or push out existing local businesses. If the resort is planned to cater as a more luxury resort, the jobs may be better paying, more permanent, and occupy a different sector than local businesses.

With this though, no matter the type of resort, how will the area deal with the increase vehicular traffic? As it stands highways 11, 715, and 1036 have limited expansion possibilities due to steep slopes, winding geography, and stream/rivers and flooding hazards. It's great that people will come to the resort and put money into the area economy, but where will they go once they want to leave the resort? Back to Winchester or Stanton?

As for climbers vs. tourists, I agree climber traffic will probably increase slightly, also given the opening of Miller Fork, but that is not a great issue as climbers do give back to the land/climbing coalitions to maintain the area. But for the State and National Forest, area they investing in them to help maintain and improve their ability to take the additional load of hikers and tourists walking on the land? I've visited both Natural Bridge Park and the Boone Forest and both have basic trails that are seeing incredible erosion that is washing away tons of soil each season. This creates issues throughout the entire ecology of the region from the 'mountain top' forests, the stream and creeks, local drinking water qualities, natural systems of biological nutrient uptake and filtration, general pollution control measures from natural systems, etc.

The issue for me is not that there may be a resort developed because there is, but the manner in which the development is conducted and evaluated to help or mitigate local issues and needs. Development is a natural tendency of societies, but it needs to be done sustainably if it wants to be successful for all. Yes, some are going to suffer more than others, but when an entire community/region is put on the back burner for a Chamber of Commerce made up of bankers and financiers, do red flags not pop up?

You've thought this through way more than me, so I dont have much more to add. I think you bring up real concerns that hopefully state officials will have addressed before anything moves forward. I think a reasonable person could see positives and negatives from a large developement like this, in a community like this. Anyone that's strictly against it, or over the top for it, are just basing their ideas off their emotions and not reality.