|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday,
July 1, 2008
Markets
and Housing
- While
interviewing candidates for city offices as part of the Daily Sun
editorial board, I heard the comment, on more than a couple of occasions,
that "markets don't work." Of course, this is
false. What is really meant is that we don't always like market
outcomes and we wish we could just wave our magic wand and change
everything. And, that's exactly what the lazy social activists
keep doing, except that they substitute the government for the magic
wand, and, in reality, the world doesn't change into a land of milk
and honey. I was especially dismayed at how one of the city
council candidates - Karla Brewster (who won a seat) - made this
sentiment the [il]logical foundation for her proposals to deal with
our "affordable housing" crisis. So, I took this
opportunity to address the general issue and to explain how markets
function. This comment ran on
May 11.
Editorial
Board Sounding - Want
lower prices? Open affordable housing
problem to market solutions
One of the
truly repulsive ideas that has been kicking around during this
election cycle is that “markets don’t work.” This
criticism has been especially in vogue insofar as
“affordable housing” is concerned. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
Markets
are a mechanism for directing resources to the production of
goods and services and the distribution of those goods and
services to consumers. The freer it is from arbitrary
political constraints, the more effective and efficient
mechanism it is, allowing us to enjoy the unparalleled
standard of living that we have today.
Why is
housing so expensive in Flagstaff? The reasons are
simple - a lot of people would like to live here, we face
unique physical constraints, and there are a host of political
restrictions that stifle supply. Prices are high because
of these three factors, not because of markets.
To
reduce housing costs, we could focus on reducing demand.
We could work to shun new businesses from locating in
Flagstaff, we could ask the state to move NAU to Kingman, we
can reduce our amenities, and we can encourage the growth
and development of potholes. And, like magic, housing
prices will fall.
Or, we can reduce restrictions
and regulations that hamper growth. Loosen up zoning
rules. Allow for more mixed uses and for taller
structures. Allow for the market to try out creative
solutions to our housing “needs.” Let’s be open to
the reality that dynamic and vibrant change can’t be
directed by city hall.
Dennis Foster has a Ph.D. in
economics, teaches at the university level, and is an avid Grand
Canyon hiker.
|
What continues to amaze me is that so many
people don't understand that the market is a reflection of our tastes
and preferences. Instead, they seem to think that it is some
kind of external mechanism, whose workings are mysterious, that
control our lives. Hence, they come up with an endless list of
government rules and regulations and subsidies to try and create an
outcome they like. The effort will either be unsuccessful or
will lead to a host of unintended consequences - keep lot density low,
require that trees remain standing, institute an onerous permitting
process and end up with high housing prices. Require builders to
devote some of their developments to "affordable units" and
that makes everything else more expensive. And, now you have to
determine who is entitled to these subsidized units. It reminds
me of a passage from John Kenneth Galbraith's The
Affluent Society (I think it was that book) where he mused about
whether a mouse running circles on a wheel might make for a good model
of what we do. He used it to describe the pursuit of
consumption, but I think it could be applied to public policy as well!
|
|
Tuesday,
July 8, 2008
The
Character of Flagstaff
- While interviewing candidates for city
offices as part of the Daily Sun editorial board, I have often heard them
say that they want to "preserve the character of
Flagstaff." This was true of mayoral candidates as well as
those for city council. Perhaps it is just a meaningless phrase,
but one that every politician must utter, as if it were some kind of
loyalty oath. I don't know. But, I do know that it is
meaningless and, so, took this opportunity to address the issue of
what a city's character means. This comment ran
on
May 18.
Editorial
Board Sounding - Which
character are we really trying to preserve?
Do you
ever wonder what candidates mean when they say that they want
to “preserve the character of our community?” I do.
The character of any community changes over time; such is the
nature of life. Read the Flagstaff history column on
Saturdays to get a sense of how this community has changed.
I can’t say that I’ve ever overheard someone discussing
the current price of wool, which once seemed a topic of local
interest.
I don’t
consider myself an especially long-term resident, but I do
remember when there was a working lumber mill in town and when
4th Street was a shopping magnet. I remember using the
front entrance to Cline Library, on the west side of the
building. I would often go to Cline to rent an IBM
typewriter; I think it was fifty cents an hour. I
remember that there was a Chinese restaurant where the
Checkers store is on Old Route 66, where I used to buy the
Sunday edition of the Daily Sun.
I still
have furniture I bought at Ole’s and books I bought at
Duck’s. I have a backpacking cook pot set, which I
still use, that I bought at a little store up on Beaver Street
back in the late 1970s. Long since gone.
Somehow, I
don’t think that these political candidates are talking
about preserving that Flagstaff, before there were city buses,
before there was an F-cubed
and before there was public “art” that looked like alien
outhouses.
Dennis Foster has a Ph.D. in
economics, teaches at the university level, and is an avid Grand
Canyon hiker.
|
Some more on some of the local references:
Flagstaff
history column.
Every Saturday, for some time now, there is a column, on page two,
that summarizes some of what was going on (at least as reported in the
paper) 100, 75, 50 and 25 years ago that week. The woman who
puts that together served with me on the virtual
board a couple of years ago. It's usually quite interesting,
and next year I will be reading about what was going on when I first
lived in Flagstaff (i.e., 1984 will be 25 years ago). One of the
things I have noted over time is that the topic of sheep come up often
in the news of 100 years ago.
Duck's
Bookstore.
Ah, I can half close my eyes and recall this quaint little shop.
Where was it? I want to say that it was in the Greentree
Shopping Plaza, but I think he may have moved around a bit. For
those familiar with Bookmans,
Duck's was like a small version of that
store, selling mostly used books. I would stop by whenever I
could while I was working at the Grand Canyon in the late
1970s/early 1980s, in search of old canyon-related books.
Edited
references.
With a 250 word limit, I had to drop a
few additional references that I liked, including one about dropping
off typed "letters to the editor" at the Daily Sun office on Santa
Fe, driving down a 2-lane Butler Avenue, the old Flamingo Motel (now
a Barnes & Noble) and the old Wendy's (now a Carl's Jr.).
F-cubed and
alien outhouses.
The
activist group, Friends of Flagstaff's Future, is probably made up
of more recent residents to this area, and they certainly have no
interest in preserving Flagstaff's character. Rather, they
cloak their desire to mold Flagstaff into the vision they have and
use the character issue as the justification. The "alien
outhouses" cost the city's taxpayers $50,000 and sit across the
street from the main post office. It was part of an
ill-conceived public art program that has, thankfully, gone away.
|
|
Friday,
July 25, 2008
Sounding
Board Editorials
- It
has taken me a while to wrap up this project, but the complete
annotated "sounding board" editorials that I wrote over the
spring of 2008 are up in a special
section. There is a featured link in the center panel of my
home page, which will stay up for some time yet. Thanks for
reading.
|
|
Saturday,
August 23, 2008
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0208a/0208a0c9855b7a464d03ca77327d20f2350e17f4" alt="" The
Five Ring Circus
- I
have never been much of an avid follower of the Olympics. I have
only seen bits and pieces over the years, although I do remember
catching some of the major events from time to time. This is
especially true of the summer version, when there is so much else to
do with my time, energy and effort. The winter version, on the
other hand, fills up dead space in my schedule.
So, since the games have begun in Beijing, I have tuned in a few
times, on a sporadic basis. And, what do I see? Well,
there is beach volleyball, some kind of handball version of soccer,
some kind of stick version of broomball, archery, more beach
volleyball, some "real" volleyball, water polo and some women's weight
lifting. I must say that I scratch my head and ponder exactly
what the Olympics are supposed to mean. And, then, there is the
issue of how many medal opportunities a participant may have - for
swimmer Michael Phelps it is quite high, while for a basketball player
it must certainly just be one. So, how do you compare the
performance of the two? Well, here are my suggestions . . .
Eliminate team
sports.
To my eye, the Olympics should be about individual achievement.
So, team sports should be tossed. No water polo. No
soccer. No hockey. No softball. Those might be
interesting games, but they should only appear in some other venue.
Exceptions:
Teams where the competition is not one-on-one, like rowing and relays.
Eliminate games
entirely.
I
don't think chess is an Olympic sport . . . yet! But, tennis
is, and it shouldn't be. The Olympics are a competition, but
not one in a game. No tennis. No ping pong. No
badminton.
Eliminate
competitions based on judging.
Any competition where the participant must look up to see how they
scored among a set of judges doesn't cut it with me. There must
be rules for competitors, and some enforcement mechanism, but let's
just throw out all the "sports" that get scored. No
pommel horse. No rings. No synchronized swimming. No
diving. No trampoline.
Exceptions:
Change the gymnastics "competition" into truly athletic
events - who can jump the most pommel horses in one minute, etc.
Crown one
champion.
Whoever wins the decathlon, or some
variation thereof, would be deemed "the Olympic Champion."
Score this as currently is done, or come up with some alternative
scheme that can produce an overall champion that excels across many
fields. The modern day triathlon is really a better indicator
of who is "best" than is someone who wins nine medals in closely
related competitions.
|
|
Tuesday,
August 26, 2008
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67a97/67a97070fd2ef8082dc005d9af76ce52b2ec09b6" alt="" Dem
Con 1 - Hollow
- I
have pretty much always been a political junkie. I usually make
it a point to watch the conventions, even if I know who I am
supporting. This year is no different, but I now have the
opportunity to comment on these affairs. So, first up are the
Dems who are convening in my, more or less, hometown of Denver,
Colorado. Day one I have decided can best be summarized as
"hollow."
Of course, the highlight of the evening's show was Michelle Obama,
wife of the candidate. She was personable and gave a good
speech. I would echo Juan Williams comments, made on Fox, that
it held special cultural significance and that it served as a role
model for a stable middle-class black family.
But, when it came to content, we heard only the same shallow rhetoric
that filled the primary season. I really don't know what is
meant by saying that Barak Obama will "bring about the change we
need." This was especially awkward in the context of Ms.
Obama's rousing story of her success - strong, hard-working father,
close knit family, the wherewithal to send both kids to college,
etc. One would think that her story is an example of what is
right with this country, and not the foundation for the "change
we need." I just don't get it.
Her funniest line, which was unintentional, but I don't hold it
against her, was that Barak "grew up way across the continent in
Hawaii." Once you pass by California, you're no longer on
the continent.
The star of the night was really Ted Kennedy. Man, can the guy
talk a good line. I don't buy the whole "health care is a
fundamental right, not a privilege" nonsense - as Ayn Rand
pointed out so many years ago, if you have a right to something like
health care, then someone is obliged to provide it, and that
obligation is going to come at the point of the gun wielded by the
government. Still, he seemed in his usual top form and gave a
stirring talk. The video tribute, done by Ken Burns, fell flat
for me. It is hard to feel some special connection to someone
who owns a giant sailboat and is able to flit about the ocean with his
family. It just doesn't resonate with the lifestyle of the
common masses.
|
|
Wednesday,
August 27, 2008
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2ac3e/2ac3e4aad3e7e500ba1725bf694c00f9165fd7ba" alt="" Dem
Con 2 - Humdrum
- Last night it was time for the Dems to chip away at McCain and
for Hillary to have her moment in the spotlight. The delivery
was fine, but on content, I was not
impressed. The rhetoric got sharper, but it almost always
sounded like nonsense. But, I guess when you're the party of
redistribution, the whole notion of wealth creation is
unimportant. Otherwise, it is hard to fathom how anyone can
believe the ranting. So, my take on the night - humdrum.
The keynote speaker was Mark Warner, candidate for the Senate from
Virginia (and former governor). Boring. He didn't seem
especially passionate and his message was convoluted - from his
participation in the cell phone revolution (hmm . . . he's starting to
sound like Al Gore, who invented the internet) to 100 mpg hybrid
vehicles for all. The worst was his "complaint" that
George Bush's major flaw was that he failed to rally the American
spirit after 9/11. Awful.
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer was more animated and did a much
better job of rousing the crowd. Still, the content of his
message was weak, from arguing for tax credits to consumers that buy
hybrid cars (ouch!) to his remark that "petrol dictators will
never own American wind and sunshine." Well, that kind of
talk is bound to make us friends and influence people. Not!
Hillary was the highlight, naturally. She gave a great
performance, although she could have paused at times when the crowd
was all riled up and thunderous in their applause. Instead, she
kept surging through her speech, which struck me as unusually short,
ringing in at just a tad over twenty minutes. I doubt that Bill
will be that brief tonight! Here are some of the parts that
caught my attention . . .
"18 million
cracks in the glass ceiling" -
The reference is to the number of votes she got and the invisible
barrier to women that want to climb to the top of the corporate
ladder. Well, she got to run for President! Isn't that a
sign that there is no "glass ceiling?" Apparently not; only if
she won would that ceiling have shattered. Oh, give me a
break!
"I've
spent 35 years in the trenches" -
This reference really should be phased out in politics. It is
so over the top and denigrates the blood, sweat and tears of those
that really do spend time in trenches (i.e., our military).
"We've
suffered 8 years of failed leadership" -
She makes it sound as if we live in a gulag, or something.
Brit Hume, on Fox, made the same kind of comment, in a more general
fashion, as part of all conventions. Yes, but still it is just
rhetoric. This got worse at the end, when she said that with
this election, the "fate
of the nation hangs in the balance." You mean, we
might actually privatize social security? Woo hoo! Of
course, even if the Dems lose the presidential race (and, I think
they will), they are certainly going to keep control of both houses
of Congress.
"No
way. No how. No McCain." -
One of the highlights and, really, kind of funny although it doesn't
rhyme.
"We will
create a world class educational system and make it affordable
again" -
Ouch! If we don't already have a "world class" system,
what do we have? And, isn't this more than a little bit
contradictory? A Hummer education for the price of a Yugo?
I don't think so.
"Stop
padding the pockets of energy speculators" -
If a politician doesn't understand the role that speculators play in
stabilizing economic conditions, then they just don't understand
anything about the economy.
I think one thing was clear from her performance - she would have been
a much stronger candidate against McCain than Obama will be.
Will she run against a President McCain in 2012? Probably.
Will she run in 2016 if Obama gets two terms? Probably not.
|
|
Thursday,
August 28, 2008
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e3461/e3461ab21c2fab91108cad5fb5f3660fae631a56" alt="" Dem
Con 3 - Stooge Night
- Last night, the marquee speakers were Kerry, Clinton, and
Joe. Hmm . . . perhaps the program should have been billed as
"Three Stooges Night." With apologies to Larry, Curly and
Moe.
Clinton was in fine form, feeding off of an appreciative
audience. He speaks well, and carries it off with a great deal
of conviction. But, since we know that little of what he says is
actually true (yes, yes, yes, I know it all depends on what the
meaning of "is" is), we can write him off as stooge #1 for
the night. Some of his antics included:
"The
American Dream is under siege here at home." -
Oh, give me a break.
"People
around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our
example rather than the example of our power." -
Hmm . . . the power of his examples did little more than fuel the
continued rise of radical Islam until it culminated in the 9/11
attack. During his eight years, we could have used some more
examples of power!
16
years ago, critics said he was too young and inexperienced to be
commander-in-chief -
I thought the fact that he was dope-smoking, draft-avoiding hippie
was the reason. Shows you what I know. But, two more
points here - first, he had actually been a governor for multiple
terms, unlike Obama's weak resume, and second, he only won in 1992
because Ross Perot's third party challenge siphoned off way more
votes from Bush than from Clinton.
Next up was John Kerry, the last standard bearer of the Dems.
It's too bad Fox cut away from this exercise in tomfoolery - it must
be their liberal bias showing. CNN and MSNBC showed this speech,
although I watched it on C-SPAN (as I did with all the
speeches). He was a bit humorous in his attack of McCain,
essentially calling him a flip-flopper [Before McCain debates Obama,
"he should finish the debate with himself."]. I think
that Kerry was poking fun at himself, the king of flip-floppers, but
maybe it was just subtle advice. His throwaway line about being
in "the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time"
begs the question of what the right war/place/time would be.
He didn't specify, naturally. Finally, his attempt to tie Obama
to the military by referring to Obama's grandfather and great uncle
was laughable.
Joe Biden gave the final speech for the night, in his acceptance of
the Vice Presidential nomination. I have watched Biden for years
- well, he has been in the Senate for 36 so far - and, sometimes he
says sensible things. Then there are times when he is just a
loon. He made a few minor slip-ups, but otherwise carried off
the style portion of the competition well. His shtick with the
Obama/McCain contrast ("That's not change, that's more of the
same" and "That's the change we need.") was
entertaining. I suspect we'll hear more of this over the next
two months. Otherwise, some of the oddball things he had to say
included:
"Failure is
inevitable, giving up is unforgivable." -
This sage advice from his mother seems to have fallen on deaf ears for
someone that voted for the resolution that sent our troops into Iraq.
"Anyone can
make it if you try hard enough." -
More sage advice from his mother. Yet, he seems not to
understand what it means! Especially, when you consider this
next one . . .
"People
worked hard on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than
their yesterdays." -
I don't recall ever seeing any such "promise." And, doesn't it
just take hard work anyway?
Obama
would help to rebuild Georgia. -
Yikes! Granted, we have an interest there, and will probably
help, but it would seem that this is way down the list of our
priorities. And, if this spending is really going to take
place in earnest, let's not hear any more about federal deficits!
Obama
wants to send two more brigades to Afghanistan. -
OK, insofar as a careful consideration of policy goes. But, I
can't believe that the base of the Democrat party will embrace this
platform.
|
|
Saturday,
August 30, 2008
Dem
Con 4 - Histrionics
- Thursday evening, the Dems wrapped up their convention with
Obama's acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium in Denver, about a mile
from where my dad lives.
While there were a number of speakers during the night, the show
featured former Vice President Al Gore and a "surprise" visit from
the current VP candidate, Joe Biden.
For a while, I thought Al Gore might actually downplay his whole
global warming crusade, as his talk began with lots of regular
partisan rhetoric. He did mention the "borrow from China to
pay for oil from Saudi Arabia" line and did so in a way that made
me think that this was his line to begin with. Well, you never
know with this guy! I thought his most memorable, and funny,
line was about how "Big Oil and Big Coal have a 50 year lease . .
. on the Republican Party." Of course, most of his
immediate audience certainly took it as literal truth rather than as a
witty turn of a phrase. I did not remember him ever mentioning
either of the Clintons, although he made a point to say that Joe
Biden's acceptance speech was great (which, of course, it
wasn't). Still, the former Veep was at his pompous
"best" when he compared Obama to Abraham Lincoln.
Maybe Obama should start wearing a stovepipe hat . . . ?
Obama's fifty minute speech was, as usual, articulate and had more of
the kinds of specifics he used in his primary speeches. The
short biographical video was interesting, although the attempt to
downplay his ivy league education just continues to astound me.
While there had been some hubbub about the Greek columns, the backdrop
looked like a stylized version of the White House, which I think was
smart.
As to content, we were once again made to believe that our economy is
worse than the Great Depression. How ironic that second quarter
GDP figures came out that morning, showing robust growth of
3.3%. Well, we wouldn't want anything like economic growth get
in the way of our fairy tale narrative! Indeed, as he went
through a litany of personal stories of economic hardship all I could
think of was that here was the ultimate lazy social activist. If
some people need help, start a charity to help them; don't try to
shove a hugely wasteful government program down our throats just
because you and your friends are too lazy to do something about these
"problems."
Obama went on and on about something called the "American
Promise." Exactly what that means, and how it differs from
what we generally call the "American Dream" escapes
me. He did mention a few points here which just sounded like our
existing system (e.g., that the market should reward innovation), but
other points were disturbing - "Business has the responsibility
to create jobs and take care of workers." Delusional.
Obama did spell out what kinds of changes he would promote. Here
are some of them:
Cut
taxes for 95% of all "working families." -
Impossible, given the enormous amount of additional spending he is
proposing. It is quite likely this "promise" would be
operationalized as cutting income taxes for 95% of all working
families, but then raising a host of other taxes that would more than
offset this reduced tax burden. Well, he is a lawyer!
End
our dependence on oil from the Middle East in ten years. -
So, I looked up data on where we get our oil (find it here).
It turns out that Canada is #1. Of the top 15 countries, the
only Middle Eastern countries are Saudi Arabia (1.5 million barrels
per day - bd), Iraq (700,000 bd) and Kuwait (200,000 bd). So, why on
earth would we want to stop importing oil from Kuwait and Iraq?
So, it really comes down to just Saudi Arabia. OK, lets do
this. We will just import more oil from our other oil trading
partners to make up for this difference - Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
Nigeria and maybe even Libya and Russia! Well, there's a
statement!
Tap
into natural gas, clean coal and nuclear -
Yikes! Do his supporters know this?
We
have a moral obligation to give every child a world class education. - OMG! He told us, early on in his speech, that his mother made
him get up at 4 a.m. to work on his studies. Is that lesson not
meaningful? Barack Obama's journey from a bi-racial union to the
ivy league to the nomination to be President of the United States is
truly remarkable. He has lived the life of personal
responsibility and hard work. Yet, he wants to use the
government to make these lessons impossible to learn. Like John
McCain, I guess, I just don't get it.
Insurance
companies must stop discriminating against sick people. -
This shows how Dems in general, and Obama in particular, have not a
smidgen of understanding about what "insurance" means.
Paid
family leave; change bankruptcy laws to protect pensions; equal pay
for equal work. - As one
commentator remarked, it seems like Obama wants to turn us into
another European country.
There was more, of course, but these were some of the lowlights for
me. I thought that his deferring on a Martin Luther King
reference until the end of his speech was also smart. The more
he tries to take on the mantle of the portion of black America that
descended from slaves, the worse he looks. The only one in his
family background that ever had suffered any racial prejudice in
America is him, and he is running as a major party nominee for
President. So, I give him some kudos for drawing some of these
connections in a subtle manner (versus, say, a Jesse Jackson).
He did much to make this election a "crossroads in history"
and he pledged to "march into the future" which makes this
historic event one that may be better described as histrionic.
|
|
Sunday,
August 31, 2008
Snowmaking
Immoral?
- I
have often jousted with Marcus Ford, a fellow faculty member at
Northern Arizona University. Although our disagreements are
generally polite, it certainly isn't because we have a foundation of
mutual respect. On August 22, the paper ran a letter
of his, where he argued that snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks, at
the Snowbowl ski lodge, was immoral. Despite the fact that the
Ninth Circuit Court had just ruled in favor of Snowbowl, Ford argued
that what was legal was not necessarily moral and raised the example
of slavery to make his point. An excellent example of
hyperbole. And, who will decide what is moral? Apparently,
Ford feels up to the challenge, since he decided that the city
council's selling of reclaimed water to Snowbowl was "a
mistake." I quickly penned a reply, which was published
in the paper on August 29:
To the editor:
The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that using reclaimed water
for snowmaking at Snowbowl does not infringe on the religious
freedoms enjoyed by Native Americans, or others for that
matter. Although a letter writer contends that this decision
is immoral because it doesn't respect "the beliefs of
Native Peoples," such an argument is an exercise in
absurdity.
The court stated that,
"the sole effect of the artificial snow is on the
Plaintiffs' subjective spiritual experience." Is that a
sufficient reason for disallowing snowmaking? No, ruled the
court. The contention of the plaintiffs, and the letter
writer, would, in the opinion of the court, give each citizen
"an individual veto to prohibit the government action
solely because it offends his religious beliefs,
sensibilities, or tastes." And, even granting such a veto
is problematic as it clearly would "deprive others of the
right to use what is, by definition, land that belongs to
everyone."
A decade ago the same argument was raised in opposition to
sending one ounce of Eugene Shoemaker's ashes to the moon. The
moon is sacred and such an action was disrespectful, claimed
Navajo President Hale, totally ignoring the notion that there
may be six billion people that also have some feelings,
religious or otherwise, about the moon. That was exactly the
point made in the snowmaking case as decided by the Ninth
Circuit Court. The plaintiffs' views are hardly moral; they
are really just plain childish. But, then, so is the notion
that snowmaking is akin to slavery. |
I am not really a big fan of the Ninth Circuit Court, but they nailed
this one on the head. You can see their opinion here.
There is nice short write up about Shoemaker's ashes here
and you can read about former Navajo President Hale's remarks here.
The sentiment expressed by Ford is quite ghastly, yet he received
plenty of positive comments on the web. Follow the links, above,
to each of our letters to read web comments. I was heartened,
however, to note that his letter received a rating of 2.4 stars, based
on 32 ratings, while mine has received 2.7 stars, based on 55
ratings. Quite frankly, in liberal Flagstaff, that just doesn't
happen very often. But, there are a lot of people that are
passionate about being able to ski up on the peaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|