Developers eye 80 acres below Spirit Mountain
July 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
A local developer is leading an effort to amass 80 acres for housing, lodging and retail at the base of Spirit Mountain.
Continue Reading
Developers eye 80 acres below Spirit Mountain
13 Comments
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
27
This is a town. A town is a place for people to live. You are free to move into a cave on the north shore.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
24
What a shame. More beautiful waterfront property to be reserved for those with big bucks, keeping it exclusive and preventing everyone from enjoying it. Once it’s gone, it’s gone for good, destroying what brings people to the North Shore in the first place.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
20
The fear of the future is what has kept this area in the 1950′s. If you build it, people will come. Bringing along with them children, jobs, money and prosperity for all of us.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
11
Go for it! This town needs all the developement it can get. (Tax base to pay for the $437MILLION School ‘improvements’)
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
11
I never said I wasn’t free to move to one, David, and if you can find me one for cheap, or a remote cabin, more power to both of us. I merely stated it makes me sick that everyone wants to pave every single inch of paradise and put up a parking lot, for lack of a better phrase. It’s the forests, woods, trails, lakes, rivers and parks that makes this area so beautiful in the first place. Why ruin such a good thing? And yet, people would rather see it turn into another mega-opolis mess like that one 2+ hours south of us.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
20
This town would have to double in size just to get back to where it was 80 years ago. Don’t worry about this becoming Minneapolis in the bay.
I would just ask you to have a little perspective. We are talking about a minuscule plot of land compared to the vast acreage of the arrowhead.
Like or Dislike:
21 
7
When the state gave Duluth the land it was to be used “exclusively for park and recreation purposes in connection with the proposed Spirit Mountain Ski and Recreation Area.†So now some local lawyer with his fingers in the pot dreamed up a scheme to get it anyway….. give it back to the state and they can transfer it to the developer by way of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This is exactly what is the problem with Duluth. A few people with their hands on the public wallet and pros at back room deals shaft the people of this area every time. I’m not saying I oppose some sort of development down there, far better than the last proposal for a golf course, but let’s not start it out with some sleezy land transfer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
8
Seems to me we could use a little less park land and a little more tax paying real estate.
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
David, on your comment this is a beautiful place to live. I moved here for the parks, and north shore. Send me to a cave???? You want development? Move to the cities! Where you cannot drive easily to and fro to work (that is if you work, any comment about getting more taxpayers makes me think one enjoys living off the system, watching hard working Americans get stripped of their income they try to provide their families).
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Those are the competing visions aren’t they: Do you have one mega city that everyone lives in and the rest of the land is allowed to go fallow, or do we spread out and use the land. My position is let each person decide that for themselves. This is the moral position in my world view.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
Well then whatever, develope away, but I don’t want to hear complaints when those of use who frequently use those trails they’re building over start walking through yards. That’s part of my issue with this whole thing. If they want to develope, why do it over trails already in place, surely they could find a spot where there aren’t any, or at least none of the well-known and already mapped ones. I wonder how many of you thumbs-downed my comments were against the house on skyline…
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
I’m all for development and tax base but this is just a lousy spot to do it. There is no infrastructure, you dont have a direct route to anywhere in the city, and since we already cant sell the condo’s we’ve got up here(beacon point,building by electric fetus, condo’s by lester river on superior street) why the hell would we need to build more? To David, We have tourists here because our area is nothing like where they come from(Twin cities Metro) so why are you so interested in making this area like that crap hole?(and Yes, the metro would be better if it was bulldozed) I see by your previous responses you are completely ok with Urban Sprawl for the sake of money. If you dont like parks, go live in the metro.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1