The Star Tribune reports that the Giants Ridge ski and golf resort in Biwabik, Minn., has never made money during its 30 years of operation ("State-subsidized ski resort leaves trail of red ink," April 5). The resort is owned by the state of Minnesota and directly managed by the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB).
In the past decade, the resort's total losses have been $40 million. From 2006 through 2014, ski visits have dropped 20 percent and golf rounds are down nearly 30 percent. In an attempt to turn around resort operations, "the IRRRB is focusing on improving how the resort is run … how to run Giants Ridge more efficiently." Also, in just a few weeks, the IRRRB will break ground on a new $12 million event center and ski chalet.
Evidently, attainment of a Giants Ridge "balanced budget" is not an IRRRB priority — if ever attainable.
Is this "Biwabik boondoggle" characteristic of our Legislature's competence when finite, taxpayer-sourced funds are (supposedly) strategically rationed?
Gene Delaune, New Brighton
• • •
I would like to add positive thoughts to the Giants Ridge story, and it is related to Nordic, not alpine, skiing. To my mind Giants Ridge has one of the finest trail systems in the Midwest. It was designed, I think, to World Cup specifications, so some of the trails are very challenging, and, for good reason, the state high school Nordic meet is held there yearly. Further, over the past five years or so the grooming of the trails has improved vastly, making it a real jewel in the crown of the Minnesota Nordic scene. That the number of people participating in Nordic skiing in the Upper Midwest (and in other parts of the country) is booming might mean that financial problems at Giants Ridge may begin to improve. Given great trails and grooming, and of course reliable snow, if could become a national ski destination.
Anthony Pellegrini, Bloomington
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
We engage the courts because rights are not a local issue
D.J. Tice ("Irreconcilable differences and democracy," April 5) suggests that same-sex marriage rights should not be determined by the courts, regardless of the fact that determining the constitutionality of laws has been the purview of the courts since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Instead, Tice would prefer we wait for a genuine reconciliation of opposing views, lest we find ourselves with "a culture-transforming court decree that remains a cause and symbol of political and social estrangement four decades after it was handed down."
I would ask Tice: Should the courts have waited until opposing views on racial integration could be reconciled? If they had, we would still have separate drinking fountains and lunch counters in many places. I would further remind Tice that the judicial system is a coequal branch of government, rightly involved in examining the laws passed by Congress. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by our Constitution; rights should not be subject to the vagaries of prevailing local opinions.