Stowe's Stone Hut Burns

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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:


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

Click to expand...

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.

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 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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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)

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

$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

deadheadskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

deadheadskier said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

Hawk said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

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.