# Stowe's Stone Hut Burns



## thetrailboss (Dec 24, 2015)

Just saw this on WCAX:

http://www.wcax.com/story/30825925/stone-hut-on-top-of-stowe-heavily-damaged-by-fire

That sucks.  It is a piece of history and really unique.  Hope that they are able to rebuild it.  Just shows that folks need to be careful to ensure that fires are in fact out (although they have not commented as to the cause).


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 24, 2015)

Damn.  

I had the good fortune of staying in the Stone Hut in the 90s.  Great experience.  I'm sure they'll rebuild.  The scary thing is how close it is to the top terminal of the quad and the Octagon.  Good thing the fire didn't spread.


----------



## Tin (Dec 24, 2015)

Someone didn't make sure a roach was properly extinguished.


----------



## mbedle (Dec 24, 2015)

DHS, never thought of that, but yes, good thing it didn't. That would be really bad. Put in for the stone hut this year, didn't get it. Guess it doesn't matter right now. Hopefully they will rebuilt it.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 24, 2015)

Damn-itty-Damn! Always loved that building.


----------



## Cornhead (Dec 24, 2015)

Tin said:


> Someone didn't make sure a roach was properly extinguished.



Scotty...been to Vermont recently? It does suck,  twas truly an iconic building.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 24, 2015)

They used the snowmaking to help put it out.  They were going to shuttle water up.  The building was locked....I imagine that folks had just left for the night.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 24, 2015)

More on it:

http://www.wcax.com/story/30825925/fire-heavily-damages-historic-stone-hut-on-mount-mansfield

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/12/24/stone-hut-fire-near-stowe/77873928/


----------



## Brad J (Dec 26, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Damn.
> 
> I had the good fortune of staying in the Stone Hut in the 90s.  Great experience.  I'm sure they'll rebuild.  The scary thing is how close it is to the top terminal of the quad and the Octagon.  Good thing the fire didn't spread.



I also stayed there a few times,  Great memories hope they rebuild, will check an plans and progress if it turns out to be a volunteer project. I know the state owns it ?? and controls it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 26, 2015)

Personally I have little doubt that it will be rebuilt.  It has historic significance and was pretty popular.  And at the risk of sounding blunt the State was probably making money off of it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 26, 2015)

It only cost $225 a night to rent, so the revenue to the state is pretty insignificant.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 27, 2015)

I've always wanted to stay there, but I've never put in for the lottery as my gf is adamantly against it, lol.  I feel terrible or the lottery "winners" this season, as it's no small feat, yet now they'll cancelled on.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 27, 2015)

I'm not under the impression that the odds are that difficult.  Some of the guys I went with back in the day still go every year.  Basically a group of 5-6 guys put in every year and at least one will win, sometimes more than one.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 28, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> *I'm not under the impression that the odds are that difficult.*  Some of the guys I went with back in the day still go every year.  Basically a group of 5-6 guys put in every year and at least one will win, sometimes more than one.



It's supposedly very difficult unless you book a long'ish stay.  If you choose a long stay, then yes, you'll probably nail it every year, so I bet those guys put in for 4 or more nights.  The way they do the bookings is the people who pick the longest trips win first, then they pick smaller length stays, and so on, until you get down to three-nights stays, then two-night stays, then one-night stays, etc..  So if you put in for a relatively long stay, your odds of being picked increase.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 28, 2015)

Yeah, these guys only book for 2-3 nights, but always put in many alternates.  They all live in town, so it's easier to go whenever instead of truly trying to schedule it. Between the group of 5-6 of them, they still get it every year.

Might be difficult for an individual to secure the hut, but for a group that has flexible dates, it's really not.  I have other friends different from this group that go most years as well.


----------



## mbedle (Dec 28, 2015)

Guy over on SkiVT took these, posted that that fire inspector will be there today. Just to put it in perspective, approximately 300 people put in for the lottery each year. Only about 15 percent are chosen for a reservation. The first people picked is the group that 5 day reservation, which consumes most of the reservations for the season.


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Likely a total loss according to this article:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/12/24/stone-hut-fire-near-stowe/77873928/


----------



## cdskier (Dec 29, 2015)

They've determined the cause...someone left the wood stove burning to keep it warm for a friend that was coming (but never showed up).

http://www.wcax.com/story/30850248/investigators-determine-cause-of-stone-hut-fire


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 29, 2015)

Idiots.  They should punish him/her to the full extent possible, but given this is Vermont, I have little hope of that.


----------



## VTKilarney (Dec 30, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Idiots.  They should punish him/her to the full extent possible, but given this is Vermont, I have little hope of that.



What's so bad about leaving a wood stove burning?  People do it all of the time.  


.


----------



## joshua segal (Dec 30, 2015)

The cause of fire is described in the State Police Report: 

http://vtstatepolice.blogspot.com/2015/12/press-release_29.html

The report didn't say it, but after reading the police statement, it sounded like the cause of the fire was abject stupidity on the part of the renters.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Dec 30, 2015)

More likely that proper stove maintenance and pipe replacement was not performed. Seen it often on the local FD. The pipe doesn't last forever, no matter what it looks like on the outside. They are lucky it didn't catch with people sleeping inside. Just because it was left going, shouldn't have caused a fire, or everyone that owns one would have burned their house/camp down by now.


----------



## mbedle (Dec 30, 2015)

Stupid mistake, easily made by someone that has no knowledge of operating a wood stove safely. Hopefully the mortar did not get too damaged and the rest can be easily rebuilt for next season. New and improved with a big warning sign next to the stove...


----------



## mbedle (Dec 30, 2015)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> More likely that proper stove maintenance and pipe replacement was not performed. Seen it often on the local FD. The pipe doesn't last forever, no matter what it looks like on the outside. They are lucky it didn't catch with people sleeping inside. Just because it was left going, shouldn't have caused a fire, or everyone that owns one would have burned their house/camp down by now.



It wasn't the fact that the left it open, it was the fact that they left wood up against the stove. Leaving the door open would have resulted in an extremely high temp on the stove, that ultimately caught the wood outside the stove on fire.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 30, 2015)

mbedle said:


> Stupid mistake, easily made by someone that has no knowledge of operating a wood stove safely. Hopefully the mortar did not get too damaged and the rest can be easily rebuilt for next season. New and improved with a big warning sign next to the stove...



Wouldn't be surprised if it is replaced with a gas stove.  Seems today that all new stoves installed in public places are gas, not wood.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 30, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if it is replaced with a gas stove.  Seems today that all new stoves installed in public places are gas, not wood.



Yep :sad: just the way insurance and the gas companies like it.


----------



## mbedle (Feb 18, 2016)

Sorry bump this, but new article on the rebuilding of the hut.

http://www.stowetoday.com/stowe_rep...-8c62-4784b50c1867.html?_dc=966248795855.7904


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 18, 2016)

> *The first family of snowboarding was renting the historic Stone Hut atop Mount Mansfield when it burned down Christmas Eve*, but it remains to be seen if they’ll be involved in helping get the hut rebuilt.
> 
> *Jake Carpenter,  founder of Burton Snowboards, had the place reserved when it burned down*  in the early morning hours of Dec. 24, according to Vermont State  Police.
> 
> ...



Four things come to mind after reading this article.

1) How long did it take for the Burton connection to publicly come to light?  I hadn't heard this until now.

2) It's a competitive lottery, and a very famous local family pulls what it literally the most sought after week of the year.   Could be 100% coincidences & good fortune.  Could be 100% shenanigans.

3) Clan Burton is rich as hell, they SERIOUSLY didn't offer to rebuild this treasure that they destroyed?

4) See below.  Not a Rhodes Scholar.



> “A few of the pieces were placed at an angle where *the tip of the wood  was against the stove and made a ‘hissing’ sound as the snow began to  melt against it"*


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 18, 2016)

Wow.  Beyond stupid on so many levels.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 18, 2016)

They should have offered right to help re-build right from the beginning. Pretty much admitted fault.


----------



## mbedle (Feb 18, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Four things come to mind after reading this article.
> 
> 1) How long did it take for the Burton connection to publicly come to light?  I hadn't heard this until now.
> 
> ...




1. It was known at Stowe the week after it happened. 
2. That also seemed very fishy to me. How are they getting so lucky to get the place every year for a week and sometimes two. 
3. My guess is a liability issue and an offer wouldn't come until it was ruled an accident.
4. Got to agree with that comment.


----------



## ironhippy (Feb 18, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> 2) It's a competitive lottery, and a very famous local family pulls what it literally the most sought after week of the year.   Could be 100% coincidences & good fortune.  Could be 100% shenanigans.



only legit I can see is if everyone in the family is entering the lottery (I have no idea what is involved in entering). So rather than having one chance in a 1000 (or whatever), they might have 10 - 15 or more (including cousins and uncles and stuff) which increases their odds significantly.
I don't doubt shenanigans though, just thinking out loud.

Another thing that struck me was this



> “figured if there was a fire, it had already happened,” and it would take them about two hours to get to it.



I wonder what they did instead


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 18, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> I wonder what they did instead



NOT call authorities with a serious concern, that's for sure.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 19, 2016)

One thought on how they win is Burton is a large company.  They could have a bunch of employees enter to increase odds


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 19, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> NOT call authorities with a serious concern, that's for sure.



Just imagine.....a quick call to SOMEONE at the Mountain or State might have saved the place.


----------



## Scruffy (Feb 19, 2016)

http://www.stowetoday.com/stowe_rep...-8c62-4784b50c1867.html?_dc=966248795855.7904
"
                                                                          Snyder said that, if the  Carpenters “want to play a part in helping” get the hut rebuilt, they’re  welcome to. But he said it wouldn’t be appropriate if the  Burton/Carpenter brand were allowed to lead the charge, especially since  so many different people are already offering their help, and since the  place is managed by the Department of Forests.

                                                                                                                                                                                            “It’s owned by the people of Vermont, by statute,” Snyder said. "



I think it would be more than appropriate for Carpenter(Burton) to lead the "charge" financially for their gross misconduct! But, I would not want them to take advantage of the situation and get the hut renamed the Burton Hut, or some sh$t like that, or even mount a Burton snowborad above the mantle. There is no excuse for the kids not knowing about fire/stove safety, if they were allowed to be responsible for the cabin for any length of time. Maybe a little less time traveling the world riding, and little more time on the basics of life, and we would be celebrating that 80 year old mark. You can rebuild, but forever lost is the original character of the place.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 19, 2016)

The one possible reason I am ok with the family not offering to pay for a new hut YET, is legal. They may be waiting till any legal charges or something are decided. If they are charged, and try to fight the charges, its kinda hard when you have already admitted you were at fault and paid for a new building.
However, after any charges are decided, I hope they step foward.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 21, 2016)

Looks like they may have caved into public opinion:

http://www.wcax.com/story/31274367/burton-family-pledges-to-help-rebuild-stone-hut


----------



## Harvey (Feb 21, 2016)

http://vtskiandride.com/stone-hut-carpenters-pledge/


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 21, 2016)

mbedle said:


> It was known at Stowe the week after it happened.



The stories seem to intimate this is a recently known development?      Media claiming the story "broke this week" etc....



Scruffy said:


> *I think it would be more than appropriate for Carpenter(Burton) to lead the "charge" financially for their gross misconduct! But, I would not want them to take advantage of the situation and get the hut renamed the Burton Hut, or some sh$t like that, or even mount a Burton snowborad above the mantle.* There is no excuse for the kids not knowing about fire/stove safety, if they were allowed to be responsible for the cabin for any length of time. Maybe a little less time traveling the world riding, and little more time on the basics of life, and we would be celebrating that 80 year old mark. You can rebuild, but forever lost is the original character of the place.



That's where my head's at.  

 Knowing now that they were involved, I'm pretty shocked they didn't immediately volunteer to rebuild the place.   And only pledging $100,000?   Please.  If it costs $650,000 to rebuild, the Carpenter family should foot the entire bill for their irresponsibility.  Clan Carpenter (Burton) may know snowboards, but they sure dont know PR.  I could easily see this hurting Burton's business if they dont get this under wraps soon.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 21, 2016)

Harvey said:


> http://vtskiandride.com/stone-hut-carpenters-pledge/



And this story doesn't read well for them either.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Feb 21, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> And this story doesn't read well for them either.



We must have read different articles. I though that article made the Carpenter family look less like it was turning its back on the incident. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Harvey (Feb 21, 2016)

I agree with BG.  They basically admitted that the lottery system is gamed and that it is accepted.


----------



## yeggous (Feb 21, 2016)

Harvey said:


> I agree with BG.  They basically admitted that the lottery system is gamed and that it is accepted.



I noticed that. Made me lose faith in the state.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 21, 2016)

The state gives preferences to reservation requests that are long in duration.  I don't think that they cheated.  They took advantage of the rules as written.  But that doesn't make what they did morally right.  

It looks like they are in full damage control mode right now.  I'm sure that the insurance company would go after them anyway.  If I were them I'd be working out a deal with the insurance company and making it look like it's a donation.


----------



## Harvey (Feb 21, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> The state gives preferences to reservation requests that are long in duration.  I don't think that they cheated.  They took advantage of the rules as written.  But that doesn't make what they did morally right.



Not sure I understand... if I request to stay in the hut all winter I have an advantage? Why wouldn't everyone do that? Are they going to check to make sure I am there?

That seems like a ridiculous way to use public property. But if it is true, I wouldn't call it morally wrong.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 21, 2016)

Harvey said:


> Not sure I understand... if I request to stay in the hut all winter I have an advantage? Why wouldn't everyone do that? Are they going to check to make sure I am there?
> 
> That seems like a ridiculous way to use public property. But if it is true, I wouldn't call it morally wrong.


1) Yes, longer requests get higher preference than requests of shorter duration.
2) Everyone does't do it because you have to pay for your reservation.  Not everyone can afford to reserve the stone hut for a month or more.
3) Apparently the state does not check who is actually staying at the stone hut, and that is where the state allowed themselves to be games.

Simply put, the state had a lousy system that they had to know was being taken advantage of such that the public was not getting use of a facility intended for use by the public.  But the state did nothing to fix the problem.


----------



## Harvey (Feb 21, 2016)

Is the a logistical reason for favoring long requests?  Seems to favor the rich, a crappy way to use public assets, IMO.

What is the pricing per day or week?


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 21, 2016)

The rate is $225 per night.

I just read the policies here: http://www.vtstateparks.com/pdfs/StoneHut15_16.pdf

It looks like there is more to the story than the Carpenters are telling.  I was correct that reservations for longer duration get preference.  But what I didn't realize is that the maximum reservation is for *five nights.*  Yet, the article above stated that, "For years, the Carpenters have booked the Stone Hut for *weeks at a time* . . . "

So, yeah, something is definitely fishy about that.


----------



## Harvey (Feb 21, 2016)

Sorry I didn't google that myself, I assumed it would be taken down with the hut gone.

Giving favor to longer reservations, with a five night max, is legit in my mind.

If those are the rules, it makes the VT Ski and Ride article seem less like puff. Can't believe they would want that published.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 21, 2016)

Harvey said:


> I agree with BG.  *They basically admitted that the lottery system is gamed and that it is accepted.*





yeggous said:


> *I noticed that. Made me lose faith in the state.*



Everyone has their quirks and things they're good at, one of mine if that I can calculate math/stats faster than most people can punch them it into a calculator.  I'm familiar with the way the Stone Hut "lottery" works (I'm a repeated loser), and without knowing the _specific_ data, it instantly dawned on me while reading the article, that the standard deviation on winning the #1 most requested week of the year, numerous times, simply by chance, would have to be, well, really quite low.  Factor in the info that they're extremely rich and local, and.......well.....you draw the conclusion.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 21, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Everyone has their quirks and things they're good at, one of mine if that I can calculate math/stats faster than most people can punch them it into a calculator.  I'm familiar with the way the Stone Hut "lottery" works (I'm a repeated loser), and without knowing the _specific_ data, it instantly dawned on me while reading the article, that the standard deviation on winning the #1 most requested week of the year, numerous times, simply by chance, would have to be, well, really quite low.  Factor in the info that they're extremely rich and local, and.......well.....you draw the conclusion.



Wonder if they will get any slots now.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 21, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Wonder if they will get any slots now.



It's Vermont.

It would be more unusual if they didn't.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Feb 21, 2016)

i've heard bad things in general about donna, and she sounds pretty terrible in that article, especially her dig at the stowe paper


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 21, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> i've heard bad things in general about donna, and she sounds pretty terrible in that article, especially her dig at the stowe paper



I thought that her using Jake's illness as an excuse was really petty.  It is unfortunate that he has been sick, but that does not excuse the kids from their actions.


----------



## manhattanskier (Feb 22, 2016)

The saddest part is the historic structure is gone, it can not be legally rebuilt with the same design the CCC used since it can't meet modern code.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 29, 2016)

The lottery isn't rigged because the state says it isn't rigged:
http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/25/stowe-reporter-stone-hut-lottery-system-called-above-criticism/

Apparently lightning can strike several times in the same spot.


----------



## Brad J (Feb 29, 2016)

It must be rigged I used to go the third week of March with a group of guys that had been going there for 30 years. They must have a different system than what most people would call a lottery but they call it a lottery


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 16, 2016)

Bump.  The latest.  

http://www.wcax.com/story/32767973/rebuilding-the-stowe-stone-hut

Work will soon begin.  No word as to "who" is footing the bill.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 17, 2016)

They have raise 162,000,of which 150,000 is from Burton.Cant imagine its going to cost much more that that with only the roof and interior needing rebuild.


----------



## yeggous (Aug 18, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> They have raise 162,000,of which 150,000 is from Burton.Cant imagine its going to cost much more that that with only the roof and interior needing rebuild.



Is the hut accessible by road? Or is it a helicopter ride for large supplies?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 18, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Is the hut accessible by road? Or is it a helicopter ride for large supplies?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


Toll Road runs pretty close to it.


----------



## doublediamond (Aug 18, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Toll Road runs pretty close to it.



But can a truck make it?  With the switchbacks, I bet not.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 18, 2016)

doublediamond said:


> But can a truck make it?  With the switchbacks, I bet not.


If large SUV's can make it I'm sure small supply trucks could to.


----------



## yeggous (Aug 18, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> If large SUV's can make it I'm sure small supply trucks could to.



Yeah, even if a pickup truck can get up that should be enough. With a forklift at both ends you should be able to shuttle everything in a full size pickup.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 18, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> They have raise 162,000,of which 150,000 is from Burton.Cant imagine its going to cost much more that that with only the roof and interior needing rebuild.



Honestly, Burton should be paying it all.....


----------



## Jully (Aug 18, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Honestly, Burton should be paying it all.....



Absolutely agree


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 18, 2016)

I don't see it being a problem for a small truck making it up the road. At about 4:55 you can see the short road to where the top of the Forerunner chair & the hut is.


----------



## doublediamond (Aug 18, 2016)

You're going to need something a tad bit bigger than a pickup to get the logs for the roof up.  I can't see the logs passing the turns at either 1:18 or between 2:57-3:06.

BWDIK


----------



## ss20 (Aug 18, 2016)

doublediamond said:


> But can a truck make it?  With the switchbacks, I bet not.



Then how the hell did they build it to begin with?


----------



## doublediamond (Aug 18, 2016)

ss20 said:


> Then how the hell did they build it to begin with?



It was built by hand by the CCC.  All the field stone and logs would have been sourced on the mountain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 18, 2016)

They should go old school and drag the logs they need out of the woods off Goat where all the blow down occurred from that microburst a few years ago!


----------



## cdskier (Aug 18, 2016)

ss20 said:


> Then how the hell did they build it to begin with?



I always think about things like this when hiking along the long trail and seeing some of the buildings that are quite a considerable distance from any roads. Pretty impressive what was done in the past by hand without using trucks to bring all your materials directly to the spot where you need them.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 18, 2016)

doublediamond said:


> You're going to need something a tad bit bigger than a pickup to get the logs for the roof up.  I can't see the logs passing the turns at either 1:18 or between 2:57-3:06.
> 
> BWDIK


I hope your kidding.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 19, 2016)

Considering they built the summit house 60 years before the stone hut, I don't think they will have any issues getting materials up to the hut.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 21, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> They have raise 162,000,of which 150,000 is from Burton.



It's a complete disgrace that Burton isnt paying for the entire rebuild.  He must be a total jackazz.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 21, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's a complete disgrace that Burton isnt paying for the entire rebuild.  He must be a total jackazz.


My guess is it will come in under budget.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 22, 2016)

Considering that there is a 100K deductible on the insurance plan, that pretty sticks Burton with the whole cost.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 22, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> *My guess is it will come in under budget.*



I sure hope so.    

Clan Burton's already been publicly disgraced enough in this matter via their influence peddling, and irresponsible behavior leading to this disaster, the least they could do is 100% pay for the rebuild.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 11, 2016)

I never knew there is a large building probably about the size of the Mansfield base lodge near the top of the chin where the radio/tv towers are. Saw it last week after hiking up there. You can't see it from the ski area.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 15, 2016)

Update....



> *Dear Stone Hut Enthusiasts,*
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> ...


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 15, 2016)

It will be open by Christmas.  That way the Carpenter family can win their 17th consecutive "random" raffle for that peak week.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Sep 15, 2016)

i just got home from burton's 40th anniversary party/season launch in brooklyn. jake burton certainly footed the bill for that one. top shelf open bar, free customizable t-shirts for everyone, free van leuwen ice cream, stickers and assorted branded paraphenalia. sean white, danny davis, jake burton appearances. premiere of some scenes from burtons newest snowboard film projects. some live entertainment and djs. was swag as fuck. 

no free lift tickets


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Sep 16, 2016)

Did you ask Jake about the fire?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 16, 2016)

KustyTheKlown said:


> i just got home from burton's 40th anniversary party/season launch in brooklyn. jake burton certainly footed the bill for that one. top shelf open bar, free customizable t-shirts for everyone, free van leuwen ice cream, stickers and assorted branded paraphenalia. sean white, danny davis, jake burton appearances. premiere of some scenes from burtons newest snowboard film projects. some live entertainment and djs. was swag as fuck.
> 
> no free lift tickets



And yet they cannot foot the entire bill for the landmark public facility that their kids stupidly burned down....


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Sep 16, 2016)

yep. that party definitelt cost a lot of money. I didn't realize it was gonna be so grandiose. I intended to just pop in and I ended up staying for 3 hours


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 16, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> *It will be open by Christmas.  That way the Carpenter family can win their 17th consecutive "random" raffle for that peak week*.



LOL.   I jokingly thought the same thing while reading that.

On a serious note though, the negative attention from Burton using his influence to scam the "random" lottery, has likely put an end on Clan Burton locking up the #1 most desired week year after year.

Does make you wonder what Burton did all those years for the folks who "randomly" pick the winners.


----------



## Brewbeer (Sep 16, 2016)

Here is a pic from the other day (courtesy of powderfreak)


----------



## mbedle (Sep 16, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> And yet they cannot foot the entire bill for the landmark public facility that their kids stupidly burned down....



Just so you know - he was not allow to pay for it whole hog. The state said no, Burton did offer.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Sep 16, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Does make you wonder what Burton did all those years for the folks who "randomly" pick the winners.



Inventing snowboarding and providing a lot of jobs to Vermonters probably qualifies them for some special treatment


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 16, 2016)

mbedle said:


> Just so you know -* he was not allow to pay for it whole hog. The state said no*, Burton did offer.



What on earth?  The reason being....



KustyTheKlown said:


> Inventing snowboarding and providing a lot of jobs to Vermonters probably qualifies them for some *special treatment*



It certainly shouldn't.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 16, 2016)

mbedle said:


> Just so you know - he was not allow to pay for it whole hog. The state said no, Burton did offer.



:blink:  Huh?  Where did you hear that?


----------



## mbedle (Sep 19, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> :blink:  Huh?  Where did you hear that?


After re-reading the below quote, I guess it does not exactly say that the state refused them, just that it wouldn't be right to have them pay for it all by them themselves. However, they are in fact already doing it. With a $100,000 deductible, their $150,000 donation will cover the 100K. 


Snyder said in February he would be happy with donations from anyone, but said it would not be right to have the Burton brand attached to the rebuild. He said if the Carpenters “want to play a part in helping,” they’re welcome to, but a lot of other people want to help, too.

“It’s owned by the people of Vermont, by statute,” Snyder said.


----------



## Jcb890 (Sep 19, 2016)

mbedle said:


> After re-reading the below quote, I guess it does not exactly say that the state refused them, just that it wouldn't be right to have them pay for it all by them themselves. However, they are in fact already doing it. With a $100,000 deductible, their $150,000 donation will cover the 100K.
> 
> Snyder said in February he would be happy with donations from anyone, but said it would not be right to have the Burton brand attached to the rebuild. He said if the Carpenters “want to play a part in helping,” they’re welcome to, but a lot of other people want to help, too.
> 
> “It’s owned by the people of Vermont, by statute,” Snyder said.



That quote doesn't really clear things up either.  Just because the family would/could pay the full cost to rebuild, it doesn't mean the "Burton brand" would be attached to the rebuild.  All it would mean is that they would be paying to fix what they had destroyed.  Footing the bill to help pay contractors, etc.  The quote above almost makes it sound like Burton offered to give Stowe the $150,000 if they called it the "Stowe Stone Hut presented by Burton" or "Burton's Stone Hut."


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 19, 2016)

Jcb890 said:


> That quote doesn't really clear things up either.  Just because the family would/could pay the full cost to rebuild, it doesn't mean the "Burton brand" would be attached to the rebuild.  All it would mean is that they would be paying to fix what they had destroyed.  Footing the bill to help pay contractors, etc.  *The quote above almost makes it sound like Burton offered to give Stowe the $150,000 if they called it the "Stowe Stone Hut presented by Burton" or "Burton's Stone Hut."*



Exactly, which given the circumstances, I find hard to believe that was even suggested.  The total lack of self-awareness would have been shocking.


----------



## sull1102 (Sep 20, 2016)

There's no chance of was to be renamed or anything of the sort. Guy might be a donkey most of the time, but that would take it to another level and hurt "the brand."  It makes some sense, only because this is the crazy State of Vermont, that they wouldn't let Burton pay for it entirely thinking that someday it could bite them on the a**. I completely disagree with it and they should have allowed him to pay for the full rebuild if he wanted to. It's not as if a regular UVM kid and his four friends burned it to the ground that kid would get this same treatment or have the financial ability to pay for the rebuild.


----------



## Jcb890 (Sep 20, 2016)

sull1102 said:


> There's no chance of was to be renamed or anything of the sort. Guy might be a donkey most of the time, but that would take it to another level and hurt "the brand."  It makes some sense, only because this is the crazy State of Vermont, that they wouldn't let Burton pay for it entirely thinking that someday it could bite them on the a**. I completely disagree with it and they should have allowed him to pay for the full rebuild if he wanted to. It's not as if a regular UVM kid and his four friends burned it to the ground that kid would get this same treatment or have the financial ability to pay for the rebuild.



I guess as long as it is getting rebuilt without substantial cost to the mountain or tax-payers, then it's all good with keeping as little involvement as possible by a company or other large entity.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 29, 2017)

http://www.stowetoday.com/stowe_rep...cle_40c0c652-72f3-11e7-8a5b-63b33134fa09.html

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> http://www.stowetoday.com/stowe_rep...cle_40c0c652-72f3-11e7-8a5b-63b33134fa09.html
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



So how many holiday weekends did the Burtons "randomly" get this year?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 30, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> So how many holiday weekends did the Burtons "randomly" get this year?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


My guess is 0. But let the press go d something new to follow, and in 2 years it will be back to normal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jul 31, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> So how many holiday weekends did the Burtons "randomly" get this year?



I LOL (literally) when I read about the "random" bit.   What a farce.

Also makes one wonder what it was precisely that Clan Burton was giving (and to whom) to lock up Christmas vacation every year.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 31, 2017)

Hawkshot99 said:


> My guess is 0. But let the press go d something new to follow, and in 2 years it will be back to normal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app



??????


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 31, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> ??????


What's confusing? I think the Burton's will not have any of the primetime slots for a year or 2 since it is "random" now. But as soon as the press in the area finds something new to complain about then the Burton's will be back to having Christmas every year.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Hawk (Aug 1, 2017)

What is the big deal about Burton getting holiday weeks/weekends?  Those are the most crowded times to ski at Stowe.  Christmas week is also way early at Stowe in terms of woods and lower elevation glades.  Wouldn't you want a night sometime in February or March when everything is open and skiing is great?  I do not see it as a big deal.  The trick to getting the place is to have a good size group of people all sign up even if they do not plan to go.  That way your odds get better.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 1, 2017)

The big deal is one family receiving preferential treatment for access to a State owned resource.

Otherwise I agree with what you are saying.  Locals I know have been able to get the Hut every season going back as far as I have had connection to the town in 95.  They incorporate the strategy you suggest.  There's probably at least 50+ people in that group and they make reservation requests for five nights and individuals just use it one night at a time.  They usually try for some time in March or April; not so much because the skiing is better, but for the longer day light hours to enjoy hanging outside of the hut after the ski day is done.  This is obviously much easier for locals to do than those who are trying to travel to use it.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 1, 2017)

Hawk said:


> *What is the big deal about Burton getting holiday weeks/weekends?  Those are the most crowded times *to ski at Stowe.



Mind = Blown.


----------



## Hawk (Aug 1, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Mind = Blown.



What's so mind blowing about that statement.  I couldn't care less if Burton gets all the vacation weeks.  I'm not that anal about the entitlement thing. Like deadheadskier says.  March and April are my picks.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 1, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> *The big deal is one family receiving preferential treatment for access to a State owned resource.*



Back when the roof blew off this thing (no pun intended) I thought for sure someone would do some digging into precisely how Clan Burton was securing the most coveted week year after year in a "random lottery" drawing, but nothing happened.  

It makes you wonder how many people are involved in opening/organizing the envelopes.

 Is it just one guy you need to pay off?  Typically something like this is done with a group of people present precisely so the "fix" Burton was pulling cant occur, but given we now know the thing is rigged, my suspicion is only a few people ran this "lottery" system.  It would also be interesting to know if the same family(ies) received MLK, PDW, etc.... multiple times.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 1, 2017)

Hawk said:


> What's so mind blowing about that statement. * I couldn't care less if Burton gets all the vacation weeks. * I'm not that anal about the entitlement thing. Like deadheadskier says.  *March and April are my picks.*



So it's all about you.  Got it.

What if Christmas week was your pick?  You know....kind of like it is for _many_ more ski families than March & April.


----------



## Hawk (Aug 1, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Back when the roof blew off this thing (no pun intended) I thought for sure someone would do some digging into precisely how Clan Burton was securing the most coveted week year after year in a "random lottery" drawing, but nothing happened.
> 
> It makes you wonder how many people are involved in opening/organizing the envelopes.
> 
> Is it just one guy you need to pay off?  Typically something like this is done with a group of people present precisely so the "fix" Burton was pulling cant occur, but given we now know the thing is rigged, my suspicion is only a few people ran this "lottery" system.  It would also be interesting to know if the same family(ies) received MLK, PDW, etc.... multiple times.



No it's not about me.  I assume that if you want the best experience up there, then why not pick the best time to go.  I mean who skips out on Christmas to go when conditions and crowds probably not optimal.  Well unless you have no family or you are a Jewish or Muslim family, or whatever.....  I or anybody else who really likes to ski and wants the best experience would shy away from Holidays all together.  I am sure I am not alone in this sentiment.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 1, 2017)

No, you are not alone, but traditionally, Xmas week is one of if not the busiest weeks of the year.  I am sure the demand for the hut is very high that week.  Having it's use basically gifted year after year to one family is pretty corrupt. 

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Glenn (Aug 1, 2017)

Who are the Burton's? The snowboard company founder or just some random family?


----------



## cdskier (Aug 1, 2017)

Glenn said:


> Who are the Burton's? The snowboard company founder or just some random family?



The snowboard company family...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 1, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> * traditionally, Xmas week is one of if not the busiest weeks of the year. *



Christmas used to be the busiest week of the year at Stowe when I worked there.  I remember that because I got it off every year!  As penance, however, I would work every other holiday, which as has been mentioned isn't that big of a deal IF you're a local.  That said, I am aware that the entire eastern ski population is not local to northern Vermont .


----------



## ironhippy (Aug 1, 2017)

https://vtdigger.org/2016/02/25/stowe-reporter-stone-hut-lottery-system-called-above-criticism/

This claims there is no way to bribe the officials, but it sounds like if you know the exact rules of the lottery, you might be able to game it in your favor.

Burton might be submitting multiple forms (with different names) for the Christmas week. It says there were 20 requests for 5 night stays, one might be daddy burton, another might be mommy, than grandma and then grandpa.. etc. So instead of having a 1 in 20 chance, they end up with 10/20 or 1/2 odds. That's assuming all 20 - 5 night requests were for the christmas holiday.

Still seems really fishy.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 1, 2017)

Hawkshot99 said:


> What's confusing? I think the Burton's will not have any of the primetime slots for a year or 2 since it is "random" now. But as soon as the press in the area finds something new to complain about then the Burton's will be back to having Christmas every year.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app



OK.  Now I follow you.  I was not understanding what you were saying.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 1, 2017)

ironhippy said:


> https://vtdigger.org/2016/02/25/stowe-reporter-stone-hut-lottery-system-called-above-criticism/
> 
> This claims there is no way to bribe the officials, but it sounds like if you know the exact rules of the lottery, you might be able to game it in your favor.
> 
> ...



I think that might have been one of the things that they were doing.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 1, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> I think that might have been one of the things that they were doing.



I'm sure it was. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion as others have that they bribed officials and that there's some big conspiracy here. The rules were laid out and I'm sure they used them to their advantage. Add in the fact that according to the article, Christmas week was not a popular time to rent the hut and it isn't surprising that they were able to "win" multiple times. I see people making the argument that Christmas week is a popular time in Stowe, but I don't think that correlates to how "in demand" the hut is during that time. I'd say a lot of the clientele that are doing family trips to ski areas during busy holiday periods are not exactly your typical demographic that would want to stay in a hut at the top of the mountain. Those people are more like Hawk where they are interested in times when there would be a better chance of good skiing to take advantage of.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 1, 2017)

ironhippy said:


> This claims there is no way to bribe the officials, but it sounds like if you know the exact rules of the lottery, you might be able to game it in your favor.
> 
> *Burton might be submitting multiple forms* (with different names) for the Christmas week. It says there were 20 requests for 5 night stays, *one might be daddy burton, another might be mommy, than grandma and then grandpa.. etc.*



Nope; in fact, doing that is viewed as "gaming" the Stone Hut lottery sytem and would have put Clan Burton at the very end of the line as punishment for a circumvention attempt.  

Directly from the lottery rules:



> _*Multiple requests from the same party are considered an attempt to bypass the lottery system and all of those requests will be considered last.* _


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 1, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Nope; in fact, doing that is viewed as "gaming" the Stone Hut lottery sytem and would have put Clan Burton at the very end of the line as punishment for a circumvention attempt.
> 
> Directly from the lottery rules:



Bet that's a new rule.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 1, 2017)

cdskier said:


> I'm not going to jump to the conclusion as others have that they bribed officials and that there's some big conspiracy here. The rules were laid out and I'm sure they used them to their advantage. Add in the fact that *according to the article, Christmas week was not a popular time to rent the hut and it isn't surprising that they were able to "win" multiple times.*



It. Was.  Rigged.  

And it's very easy to prove statistically. 

  First, to slightly correct something from your post, it wasn't that Clan Burton won _"multiple"_ times, it was that Clan Burton literally won the lottery for Christmas vacation week for YEARS.  Even if Christmas week isn't a "popular" time to rent the Stone Hut (which seems exceedingly hard for me to believe and oddly was not mathematically quantified by State of Vermont), I'm sure you'll concede that surely it's likely there's at least ONE other request for that week each year.

Now, lets suppose Clan Burton "only" won Christmas week 5 years in a row (IIRC it was more), and there were only 2 total entries each year for Christmas vacation week (I suspect there are more), the precise odds of winning 5 years in a row are exactly 3.13%.  Each successive year after 5 doesn't even matter, because the odds become infinitesimal.



thetrailboss said:


> *Bet that's a new rule.*



Nope, that's from the 2013-2014 Stone Hut application package.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 1, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Nope; in fact, doing that is viewed as "gaming" the Stone Hut lottery sytem and would have put Clan Burton at the very end of the line as punishment for a circumvention attempt.



The only problem with this is that the request form never asks for the list of people in your party so VT had no accurate way to correlate the submissions. So they absolutely could have submitted multiple entries with different names.



BenedictGomez said:


> It. Was.  Rigged.
> 
> And it's very easy to prove statistically.
> 
> ...



Your math is assuming a single entry from the Burton group, which is highly unlikely. Multiple entries from the same party may have been technically against the rules, but again, since they didn't ask who was in your party on the form, this is pretty easy to get around.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 2, 2017)

cdskier said:


> The only problem with this is that the request form never asks for the list of people in your party so VT had no accurate way to correlate the submissions. *So they absolutely could have submitted multiple entries with different names.*



You mean using names of "friends" who have no real intention of actually being at Stone hut, but allow you to use their name(s) to win?

Well, two things about that possibility:


1) I don't think it's likely given State of Vermont claims they only get about 20 five day entrants (i.e. it's not like they had 50 entries).
2) What you're describing would be extremely unethical


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 2, 2017)

But you're right, I guess that is possible, so lets test the math on that too................  

Lets say each year Clan Burton has 5 entries (1 real one & 4 dirty ones), against 1 other families entry.   That 5/6 means they have an 83.3% chance of winning.  So that's it, right?  Wrong.  Because the statistical replication year-after-year, even with those high odds, should eventually bite you in the ass.

Even with 83.3% odds of winning each year, the odds of winning 5 years in a row are only 40.2% (i.e. statistically unlikely), and 8 years in a row is only 23.3%.  Keep in mind, again, I'm mathematically using a "best case scenario" in which every year they're only up against ONE other entry, so the math is probably even more unlikely than what I'm showing.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 2, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> You mean using names of "friends" who have no real intention of actually being at Stone hut, but allow you to use their name(s) to win?
> 
> Well, two things about that possibility:
> 
> ...



If there are only about 20 five day entrants for the entire year...perhaps there were NO other 5 day requests for the Christmas period, giving Burton an automatic win essentially. VT already said Christmas week wasn't popular for requesting the hut. Now add in the very real possibility that any other requests could have been for less than 5 days in that time frame and you give Burton an even better chance of winning.

You can keep using statistics all you want, but they "prove" nothing since you have no idea of how many requests they actually received for the Christmas week. In fact, your stats "prove" that none of these scenarios were "impossible" and that it didn't "have" to be rigged in order for Burton to win. 

As for multiple entries being "unethical", absolutely, but other groups were doing this as well (not that that makes it right, but until VT takes steps to actually eliminate that possibility I don't blame people for doing it).

I'm not saying I think the Burtons should be entitled to have it every year. In fact I definitely think the lottery methodology is highly flawed and inherently unfair. No longer giving preferential treatment to longer duration requests is certainly a tiny step in the right direction and levels the field a bit.

My arguments here against what you're saying is that I have seen no actual concrete proof that the lottery was rigged and the Burton's received preferential treatment. As such, I'm not about to call people in the VT State Parks department corrupt. "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" is still how things work in this country. I simply prefer not to accuse people without actual proof.


----------



## Hawk (Aug 2, 2017)

What's interesting is the level of scrutiny to this pretty obscure Stowe benefit of staying in the Hut.  You realize that the general skiing public does not even know about this or even care.  I have stayed there once because a friend was up there and invited me.  I have to admit it was pretty fun especially because it snowed overnight and we got 2 runs in via skinning before the lifts opened.  But I seem to get the impression of special animosity to the Burton Family in general.  I have to ask, is there something about them that is personnel that makes you feel that way.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 2, 2017)

The name Burton doesn't matter to me.  It could be the Adamms family. The only thing that particularly matters is the giving of preferential treatment for a state resource.  That basically goes against the very principle of what  state or national parks are supposed to be all about.  Equal access to all.

Maybe the Burton's repeated reservation of the hut truly is on the up and up, but I tend to side with BG on this one and think that statistically it's not very probable.  They probably had a connection at the State Park administration hooking them up. Who knows, maybe a former employee or simply a friend.  VT is a very small state, the Burton's have been there a long time and presumably have numerous connections through their business.  

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Aug 2, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> The name Burton doesn't matter to me.  It could be the Adamms family. The only thing that particularly matters is the giving of preferential treatment for a state resource.  That basically goes against the very principle of what  state or national parks are supposed to be all about.  Equal access to all.
> 
> Maybe the Burton's repeated reservation of the hut truly is on the up and up, but I tend to side with BG on this one and think that statistically it's not very probable.  They probably had a connection at the State Park administration hooking them up. Who knows, maybe a former employee or simply a friend.  VT is a very small state, the Burton's have been there a long time and presumably have numerous connections through their business.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



I agree with DHS here. I think there was some special treatment. I do not think it was bribing by any means, but a friend or something else is probable.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 2, 2017)

Hawk said:


> What's interesting is the level of scrutiny to this pretty obscure Stowe benefit of staying in the Hut.  You realize that the general skiing public does not even know about this or even care.  I have stayed there once because a friend was up there and invited me.  I have to admit it was pretty fun especially because it snowed overnight and we got 2 runs in via skinning before the lifts opened.  But I seem to get the impression of special animosity to the Burton Family in general.  I have to ask, is there something about them that is personnel that makes you feel that way.



The fact that their family burned the place down without much of an apology is a good reason not to "like" them. I think I read that they paid some of the costs to repair the place and that the State paid for a lot of the work. That's not good.

Add to the fact that they seemed to always get the place on Christmas week seems like more than a coincidence. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## ironhippy (Aug 2, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> I think I read that they paid some of the costs to repair the place and that the State paid for a lot of the work.



Maybe it's different with State owned assets, but if that was a private building insurance would cover the costs to rebuild.. not sure how a family could intervene without being criminally negligible to point where insurance wouldn't cover it. (or something, obviously just guessing)


----------



## cdskier (Aug 2, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> The fact that their family burned the place down without much of an apology is a good reason not to "like" them. I think I read that they paid some of the costs to repair the place and that the State paid for a lot of the work. That's not good.





ironhippy said:


> Maybe it's different with State owned assets, but if that was a private building insurance would cover the costs to rebuild.. not sure how a family could intervene without being criminally negligible to point where insurance wouldn't cover it. (or something, obviously just guessing)



The state had to pay a $100,000 deductible. Insurance covered the other $176,000. The Burton family also donated $150,000 towards the re-build cost...so really the state is ahead of the game. Supposedly there were some "optional" improvements the state made as well that Insurance didn't cover. Even with those improvements costing additional money, the state should still have had extra money left over from the donations (there were also another $12,000 in donations from other people).

Not sure what kind of apology people are looking for, but $150,000 is pretty generous and more than covered the state's share of costs towards the re-build.

Edit: Those were initial projected costs above, actual total costs came in closer to $370,000, but the state was only responsible for a total of $130,000 ($100K deductible + 30K in optional upgrades not covered by insurance). After accounting for donations, the state still had a surplus of over $30K.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 2, 2017)

I wonder how much the Burton clan would be willing to pay if someone else won Christmas week and was open to bartering....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 2, 2017)

cdskier said:


> If there are only about 20 five day entrants for the entire year...*perhaps there were NO other 5 day requests for the Christmas period, giving Burton an automatic win *essentially. *VT already said Christmas week wasn't popular for requesting* the hut..*You can keep using statistics all you want, but they "prove" nothing* since you have no idea of how many requests they actually received for the Christmas week.



Well, for starters, you're correct, I cannot "prove" anything.  

And the reason I cant "prove" it, is because State of Vermont didn't release precisely the one bit of data I need. Which I find odd.

Especially odd given the indignant, _"How DARE you SIR, accuse ME of such a thing!"_ attitude taken in the article boasting that State of Vermont's lottery system is 100% beyond reproach.  

Given the fact we know from the piece that State of Vermont clearly retained the data, why not simply release precisely the number of entrants for that Christmas week each year, rather than telling up precisely how many 5,4,3,2,1 day entrants there were in total (which is not useful), and telling us, _"Christmas isn't popular"_.   Oh really?  Well, why not tell us just how unpopular of a request the #1 most "popular" ski vacation week of the year is then?  Because, sorry, I'm not buying that on faith alone.  Skiing doesn't get more "popular" than Christmas week.

So you're right, I cant "prove" it, however, I can show how likely improbable an event is, and point out State of Vermont's behaviour in "clearing their good name" is also odd.   In other words, I smell something fishy.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 2, 2017)

$370K to rebuild a stone hut of like 300 square feet? Sounds like the contractor was the real winner!

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 2, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> $370K to rebuild a stone hut of like 300 square feet? *Sounds like the contractor was the real winner!*



And the insurance company was the real loser.   Wonder how much State of Vermont's insurance rate got jacked?  

They kept it $225 per night this year, but watch them in the next year or two raise it to $250 or so to recapture some of the increased insurance costs from the fire.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 2, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> $370K to rebuild a stone hut of like 300 square feet? Sounds like the contractor was the real winner!



Yea...that seemed excessive to me as well, although they said that included fire cleanup costs and furnishings. But still...


----------



## dlague (Aug 2, 2017)

Well if you look at the pictures, there was a lot of clean up.  While it is a stone hut, I am sure there may have been some structural issues with the walls.  Also the materials had to get brought up to the hut's location.

Google Search on Stone Hut Fire


----------



## Hawk (Aug 2, 2017)

Exactly.   This is what I do for work and I know what they faced.  It's not like they are building a house in the Valley.  Site logistics for that work were extremely hard and costly because every delivery had to be unloaded, put into 4 wheel drive trucks and delivered to the site.  Considering that they had to demo and clean up the site, repoint and fix a good chunk of the existing stone work, haul all of the materials up there on 4 wheel drive vehicles and also get the labor up there every day, I am not surprised it didn't cost a lot more.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 2, 2017)

Hawk said:


> I am not surprised it didn't cost a lot more.



When that happens and the project goes over the estimate (as it nearly always seems to do in these government cases), does the buyer have any recompense, or do they just have to eat the full overage?


----------



## Hawk (Aug 2, 2017)

Every Project is different.  It totally depends on the type of contract that the state uses.  In MA,  when public money comes into play, there is a specific process that needs to be followed.  The documents(Plans and Specs) are produced and in most cases they are vetted and are very tight as far as scope.  The trades are bid out publicly in an open bid, with prevailing wage rates that apply.  Once subs are vetted including the GC, a qualified low bidder is awarded and are held to the plans and specs.  If any of the site conditions differ from the plans and specs, the sub is entitled to a fair extra on the job.  Usually there is an OPM or Owners Rep that is in charge of proofing the costs.  I am not sure what process VT used on this but that cost seem not that far off for what they did in my opinion.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 2, 2017)

cdskier said:


> The state had to pay a $100,000 deductible. Insurance covered the other $176,000. The Burton family also donated $150,000 towards the re-build cost...so really the state is ahead of the game. Supposedly there were some "optional" improvements the state made as well that Insurance didn't cover. Even with those improvements costing additional money, the state should still have had extra money left over from the donations (there were also another $12,000 in donations from other people).
> 
> Not sure what kind of apology people are looking for, but $150,000 is pretty generous and more than covered the state's share of costs towards the re-build.
> 
> Edit: Those were initial projected costs above, actual total costs came in closer to $370,000, but the state was only responsible for a total of $130,000 ($100K deductible + 30K in optional upgrades not covered by insurance). After accounting for donations, the state still had a surplus of over $30K.



In my world, if one is 100% liable for an incident then they pay 100% of the damages.  Ideally, the State should have pursued them for damages and should have had them make right the wrong.  The facts here were pretty convincing that the Burton kids were 100% at fault for the fire.  They revved the stove and left it.  Completely stupid.  

I also thought I read in here that the State would NOT allow them to pay for it all because they did not want to "owe" the Burtons anything or something like that.  

That said, this probably isn't over.  The State's insurer has the right to go after the Burtons and their respective insurer(s) in subrogation.  I imagine that is more politically acceptable.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 2, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> In my world, if one is 100% liable for an incident then they pay 100% of the damages.  Ideally, the State should have pursued them for damages and should have had them make right the wrong.  The facts here were pretty convincing that the Burton kids were 100% at fault for the fire.  They revved the stove and left it.  Completely stupid.
> 
> I also thought I read in here that the State would NOT allow them to pay for it all because they did not want to "owe" the Burtons anything or something like that.
> 
> That said, this probably isn't over.  The State's insurer has the right to go after the Burtons and their respective insurer(s) in subrogation.  I imagine that is more politically acceptable.



Didn't the official report on the fire though list the cause as an "accident" and not "negligence"? There's no doubt what they did was stupid, but can the insurer still go after them if it was classified as an "accident"? Or is the liability from an insurance/claims perspective unrelated to the fire investigation report?

As for the state saying they wouldn't "accept" money from them, I vaguely recall reading/hearing that originally as well, but I guess they changed their tune since they did accept the money. Although technically the money was donated to the Vermont Parks Forever nonprofit which then gave the money to the project, so maybe that explains why/how they ultimately accepted the money?


----------



## cdskier (Aug 2, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> When that happens and the project goes over the estimate (as it nearly always seems to do in these government cases), does the buyer have any recompense, or do they just have to eat the full overage?





Hawk said:


> Every Project is different.  It totally depends on the type of contract that the state uses.  In MA,  when public money comes into play, there is a specific process that needs to be followed.  The documents(Plans and Specs) are produced and in most cases they are vetted and are very tight as far as scope.  The trades are bid out publicly in an open bid, with prevailing wage rates that apply.  Once subs are vetted including the GC, a qualified low bidder is awarded and are held to the plans and specs.  If any of the site conditions differ from the plans and specs, the sub is entitled to a fair extra on the job.  Usually there is an OPM or Owners Rep that is in charge of proofing the costs.  I am not sure what process VT used on this but that cost seem not that far off for what they did in my opinion.



To add one other point, after re-reading the articles it isn't clear that they actually did exceed the original estimate. The $270,000 estimate for the rebuilding may have been purely for the rebuild and not inclusive of the cleanup work.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 2, 2017)

cdskier said:


> Didn't the official report on the fire though list the cause as an "accident" and not "negligence"? There's no doubt what they did was stupid, but can the insurer still go after them if it was classified as an "accident"? Or is the liability from an insurance/claims perspective unrelated to the fire investigation report?



Accidents are often the result of negligence.  I have not seen the report, but I bet that they say that they are not charged with finding fault.  

And I was going to edit my response by adding that chances are that the Burtons are now off the hook because, if they were smart, their "donation" would in fact be a "settlement" of any claims complete with a nicely signed release that bars anyone from coming after them.  I would not be at all surprised if this was all confidential and was trotted out as a "donation" to mask the fact that it was a settlement.  Honestly, a $150,000 settlement is not too bad considering that there would be little or no legal fees, hassle, etc.  The "justice" motive in me though makes me angry because these assclowns first appear to have gotten preference for YEARS, burned the place down, and then didn't own up to it.  That's wrong.  However, karma is a bitch and I will let karma do what it will do.     



> As for the state saying they wouldn't "accept" money from them, I vaguely recall reading/hearing that originally as well, but I guess they changed their tune since they did accept the money. Although technically the money was donated to the Vermont Parks Forever nonprofit which then gave the money to the project, so maybe that explains why/how they ultimately accepted the money?



Yeah, I don't recall what the exact reason was, or who said it, but it seemed illogical until you thought it through and understood the concern about the appearance that the Burtons "donating" money may in fact make them look good.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 2, 2017)

So I emailed the director of the State Parks for the missing Stone Hut data I need to precisely nail down the odds of winning the lottery for 'X' years in a row.  

It's obvious from the article that State of Vermont does retain that data, and it seemed odd to me that it wasn't provided given it would/could 100% clear Vermont's name of any funny business, since that's exactly what Vermont claimed in the article when it says their lottery is _"above criticism"_.

We'll see if I get a reply.  It's a publicly run facility, so it is public information after-all.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 2, 2017)

thetrailboss said:


> Honestly, a $150,000 settlement is not too bad considering that there would be little or no legal fees, hassle, etc.  The "justice" motive in me though makes me angry because these assclowns first appear to have gotten preference for YEARS, burned the place down, and then didn't own up to it.  That's wrong.  However, karma is a bitch and I will let karma do what it will do.



One thing I'll agree with BG on, I would love to see VT release the actual details on number of requests so we can see definitively whether they really did get preferential treatment.

Thinking about some earlier statements made in this thread, it is entirely plausible that they didn't, but without the raw data we simply don't know either way for sure. BG made a statement that there were only about 20 total requests for 5 day stays. That's over the course of the entire hut rental season (which is approximately 15 weeks in length). If Christmas week is in fact a not-so-desirable week for the hut, it is plausible that there may have been no other 5 day requests during that period as the other ~19 5-day requests could have been during more desirable time-frames during January, February, and March. Christmas week could have had some shorter-duration requests of 1-4 days, but with the lottery giving 5 day stays first shot, those would be irrelevant. Also factor in that other people that did request 5 day stays for Christmas week may have had that time-frame listed as a backup choice and not their first choice. So if those requests were "chosen" prior to the Burton's, they could have received their first choice which would still leave Christmas week open. Ultimately due to the complexity of the lottery rules, you just simply can't calculate a decent probability without details on the various requests received.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 2, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> So I emailed the director of the State Parks for the missing Stone Hut data I need to precisely nail down the odds of winning the lottery for 'X' years in a row.
> 
> It's obvious from the article that State of Vermont does retain that data, and it seemed odd to me that it wasn't provided given it would/could 100% clear Vermont's name of any funny business, since that's exactly what Vermont claimed in the article when it says their lottery is _"above criticism"_.
> 
> We'll see if I get a reply.  It's a publicly run facility, so it is public information after-all.



Does VT have anything similar to NJ's Open Public Records Act? If they did, that would make it difficult for them to refuse to provide the information.


----------



## Hawk (Aug 3, 2017)

Unless you march your ass down to the department that actually does this work, personally request the information and continue to show up and be a nuisance to them, you will get nothing.  They will just say that they are overwhelmed with requests and you are at the end of the list.  To get the information you are requesting they would have to actually do some research.


----------



## VTKilarney (Aug 3, 2017)

cdskier said:


> Does VT have anything similar to NJ's Open Public Records Act? If they did, that would make it difficult for them to refuse to provide the information.





Vermont does.


----------



## mbedle (Aug 3, 2017)

How old is this son? Is he an adult? Police report is: 

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.tow...-11e5-b367-4f81c0b9aec0/56cc9c4bf396b.pdf.pdf


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 3, 2017)

mbedle said:


> Police report is:



The most interesting thing I glean from the full police report is that the reservation week was scheduled under Jake Burton's name, so that eliminates the _"they win with numerous bogus entries in their friend's names" _ hypothesis - at least for 2016.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 3, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> The most interesting thing I glean from the full police report is that the reservation week was scheduled under Jake Burton's name, so that eliminates the _"they win with numerous bogus entries in their friend's names" _ hypothesis - at least for 2016.



One heck of a coincidence.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 3, 2017)

mbedle said:


> *How old is this son? Is he an adult?*



Doesn't matter.  People this stupid shouldn't be playing with fire...or knives...or guns.... or electric tools, or chemicals, etc...   Even an 8 year old would know not to "dry wood" against a fire with the door open.

The explanation for the cause of fire is like something you'd see in a comedy film and think to yourself, _"nobody is THAT stupid"_ it's just a movie.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 3, 2017)

Also, they _"built the fire up really big" _(direct quote) and left the "stove's door open", and realized several hours later the place would be unattended, but DIDNT go up to put the fire out because _"it was a 2 hour hike"_ and _"they figured it would have been on fire already"_ if it was going to catch fire.

Isnt there something between "accident" and "arson" they could have been charged with?   

Like..... _"irresponsible, lazy,and smug arrogance leading to destruction of property, and fire on State land"_


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 3, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Also, they _"built the fire up really big" _(direct quote) and left the "stove's door open", and realized several hours later the place would be unattended, but DIDNT go up to put the fire out because _"it was a 2 hour hike"_ and _"they figured it would have been on fire already"_ if it was going to catch fire.
> 
> Isnt there something between "accident" and "arson" they could have been charged with?
> 
> Like..... _"irresponsible, lazy,and smug arrogance leading to destruction of property, and fire on State land"_



Charge them with "being stupid"


----------



## Jully (Aug 3, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Also, they _"built the fire up really big" _(direct quote) and left the "stove's door open", and realized several hours later the place would be unattended, but DIDNT go up to put the fire out because _"it was a 2 hour hike"_ and _"they figured it would have been on fire already"_ if it was going to catch fire.
> 
> Isnt there something between "accident" and "arson" they could have been charged with?
> 
> Like..... _"irresponsible, lazy,and smug arrogance leading to destruction of property, and fire on State land"_



Gross negligence while using a public structure?


----------



## Hawk (Aug 4, 2017)

You can't fix stupid as they say.  But actually you would be surprised how many folks have absolutely no idea how to run a stove.  I have seen some pretty stupid things even at my own place in VT by relatives.  I had a nephew put his wet gloves directly on top of the stove once.  It makes you shake your head.  It has come to the point that I have to quiz people and have a long talk with them if they are going to stay alone at my place.  We have actually thought about installing a lock on the stove so people don't use it.  But that is obviously a little obsessive.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 4, 2017)

Hawk said:


> You can't fix stupid as they say.  But actually you would be surprised how many folks have absolutely no idea how to run a stove.  I have seen some pretty stupid things even at my own place in VT by relatives.  I had a nephew put his wet gloves directly on top of the stove once.  It makes you shake your head.  It has come to the point that I have to quiz people and have a long talk with them if they are going to stay alone at my place.  We have actually thought about installing a lock on the stove so people don't use it.  But that is obviously a little obsessive.



Well put. Back in the day, people had more exposure to wood stoves. Not so much today. You really have to know how to operate a stove in order to not burn down the structure. Like everything, there's a learning curve. They are a wonderful source of heat, but it's nothing like the "set and forget it" of a thermostatically controlled heating system. Ours heats our a-frame nicely. But you have to stay on top of it; which means watching it, adjusting the air control and monitoring the thermometer that's on top of the stove. If you ever see a stove that has a chalky look to either the stove surface or the pipe, there's a good change it's been over-fired. Dry wood + too much air x an inattentive owner = over-firing.


----------



## Hawk (Aug 4, 2017)

I have a new Jotul stove.  It is excellent and once the fire is established, it is pretty easy to run.  I throw 4 good size logs in and shut is all the way down and it will run at 250 degrees on the stove pipe type thermometer for about 8 hours.  The biggest issue is if you leave the ash door open it does go nuclear.   That is my biggest fear when people stay over.  So by the sounds of it, Burton's kid did Two of the biggest no-no's for wood stoves.  He leaned something against it and he left a big draft open that overheated the stove once it got going.  It is obvious that he had no experience with stoves because those are lessons one and two that you would first learn.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 4, 2017)

Did the stove in the Stone Hut have instructions provided for people not familiar with their usage? They definitely did some very stupid things.


----------



## WWF-VT (Aug 4, 2017)

It's definitely the State of VT that should be blamed for this "accident" .  If the State had provided the Carpenters with a fresh supply of dry firewood than there would have been no reason to rest wet wood against the stove.  I think the Carpenters should lawyer up and be compensated by the State of Vermont for at least the cost of the overnight rental fee of the Stone Hut as well as the grief, anguish and humiliation that they have suffered a a result of the negligence of the State of Vermont and Stowe Mountain Resort.


----------



## Jully (Aug 4, 2017)

WWF-VT said:


> It's definitely the State of VT that should be blamed for this "accident" .  If the State had provided the Carpenters with a fresh supply of dry firewood than there would have been no reason to rest wet wood against the stove.  I think the Carpenters should lawyer up and be compensated by the State of Vermont for at least the cost of the overnight rental fee of the Stone Hut as well as the grief, anguish and humiliation that they have suffered a a result of the negligence of the State of Vermont and Stowe Mountain Resort.



+1

Completely agree. Classic VT gov incompetence


----------

