Sugar Loaf owner says resort may open for skiing in 2006
The Traverse City Record-Eagle reports that Sugar Loaf owner Kate Wickstrom is optimistic skiing can return to the Leelanau County resort this winter for the first time since 2000. "We're going to at least open up for a little bit of skiing this winter," Wickstrom said.
The state has been working with Sugar Loaf to get ski lifts certified and at least one lift should be ready to go this winter. However, a dispute over the sewer looms as a potential roadblock. If Sugar Loaf comes up with a plan to generate a small enough amount of waste this winter, the resort could be eligible for county approval of a drain field, an alternative to the sewer system.
Read Skiing again at Sugar Loaf? in the Record-Eagle.
I have to say that I really, really hope that we can be cruising down even a part of Sugar Loaf this winter. When I told my 8 year old that this might happen, he had no reaction - man it's been too long!
I'm crossing everything but my skis!!
Comment by Andrew McFarlane — September 28, 2006 @ 9:18 am
I hope this happens since I have taken up skiing again after a 34 year hiatus.
My family would like to visit Glen Arbor again since both of my kids went to Leelanau School and we are
just enamored with the area.
Of course, under one condition, no brochures or phamphlets being handed out at the top of the mountain.
Al from G.R.
Comment by forms — September 28, 2006 @ 9:52 am
Drove a little sidetrip by Sugar Loaf on my way home today (Wed, 10/04/06) and noticed
that all of the chairs on lift 2 had been removed. A guess, but maybe the chairs are
in the Sugar Barn for testing/weld inspections. Yet another sing that they're serious about
running this winter? Who knows?
Comment by polarbear925 — October 4, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
SMOKESCREEN.
Pigs will fly. Hurricane will form on Lake Michigan. Kate Wickstrom will reopen Sugarloaf.
All these things have the same probability.
Comment by Aggie1 — October 12, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
"A little bit of skiing" says Kate? One does not buy insurance, certify lifts, hire staff and buy or lease snow making and grooming equipment for "a little bit of skiing". You are either open for the ski season or you are not. I will ski at Crystal this season, just as I have for the past five winters.
Comment by goski — October 28, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
I recently listened to a talk radio program, which had as one of its guests, the father of a drug addict treated at Kate’s rehab facility StoneHawk. The father borrowed money and opened new credit cards to be able to pay the $23,500 fee for his son’s treatment. While in the care of StoneHawk, his son was taken to the hospital during detox (at the request of the father, StoneHawk advised against medical treatment) and was treated for severe dehydration at the hospital. After being released from the hospital back to StoneHawk, they encountered problems with the young man. StoneHawk’s solution was to drop him off at a seedy motel 30+ miles away from their facility, paid for his room, and left him with $10 cash. They then called his father informing him that they were washing their hands of him, told him where he could be picked up, and refused to refund ANY of the $23,500.
They had the head of Narconon Int. on the radio program, who did a poor job of dodging questions. Per Wickstrom refused to be interviewed on this radio program and to this day has not offered an explanation as to why the boy was kicked out (the boy has since been enrolled in a new rehab program and is doing well). The father confronted Mr. Wickstrom in Manistee before the planning commission meeting and was told again that he will not get a refund, but that his son could reenter the program at StoneHawk, if they pay another $3,000+ for detoxification.
I know there are always two sides to every story, but when someone refuses to tell their side, it makes me a bit suspicious. Also, if the boy was that difficult to handle, why would they be willing to accept him back (provided the family kicks in another $3,000+).
All of this makes me a bit leery. Much like the father’s experience, I don’t think the Wickstrom’s have been particularly open nor honest in their dealings with the residents affected by Sugar Loaf. If they are able to get it up and running, I’m not sure their “management†will be any better than the “mismanagement†of the past. I apologize for such a lengthy post.
Comment by UP_Skier — November 20, 2006 @ 10:18 am
As a former cedar and maple city resident,i have watched this whole sugarloaf thing for a
while and was really hoping it would work. For everybody with high hopes, i can share my own personal knowledge. The wickstrom family i have known personally for about 12 years and
i would never knowingly help or support anything they are apart of.I also read a while ago
that dominic fortuna had a hand in this. If this is still true, i see no future for any of it.
He may be the most dishonest(among other things)person i know.
Comment by dc1970 — November 27, 2006 @ 5:00 am