I think you're absolutely right DHS. I was thinking of that too when I was writing my last post. The private Belleayre resort project by the old Highmount ski area base faced tremendous environmental opposition. The project was first proposed over 15 years ago and only last year finally received final approval. Even so, I believe more lawsuits were filed even after they had final approval to stop them or force them to scale back further. If Gore or Whiteface were privatized, any new development in the base areas of lodges, etc would probably be tied up in lawsuits and court battles for decades...
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Why the MTA sent $5 million to Upstate SKi Resorts
- Thread starter catskillman
- Start date
catskillman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,174
- Points
- 48
The state would have had a receivable (asset) on their books for $5. How did they get rid of that? Write it off as a loss? Is it still sitting there erroneously as a receivable? By the "transfer" between the MTA and the resorts it hits their balance sheets and not the state.
i could go on and on about the implications and misstatements to the P&L, working capital etc....
catskillman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,174
- Points
- 48
http://www.grindtv.com/skiing/new-yorkers-upset-after-mta-funneled-4-9m-to-bail-out-3-ski-resorts/
[FONT="]One quote from the abouve article. Apparently the Post had an article but I did not see that. this will get interesting
“Commuters are facing hellish, dangerous commutes due to Gov. Cuomo’s mismanagement, and the Governor taking $5 million from the MTA to fund ski slopes is a punch in the gut to riders,” New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox, who called the the actions of the Cuomo administration, “secretive and unusual” [/FONT]told the Daily News[FONT="] in a subsequent story.[/FONT]
[FONT="]One quote from the abouve article. Apparently the Post had an article but I did not see that. this will get interesting
“Commuters are facing hellish, dangerous commutes due to Gov. Cuomo’s mismanagement, and the Governor taking $5 million from the MTA to fund ski slopes is a punch in the gut to riders,” New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox, who called the the actions of the Cuomo administration, “secretive and unusual” [/FONT]told the Daily News[FONT="] in a subsequent story.[/FONT]
Scruffy
Active member
I don't disagree with your position in this thread with respect the accounting and whether the state should even be in the ski resort business in general. But, as I recall, you prefer Plattekill, Whiteface and Gore to the "Big Box" ski areas. So, this might fit in the pigeon hole of: careful what you wish for.
The headlines and quotes in these articles are sensationalism and poor journalism at their finest. The MTA didn't "bail out" the ski areas. They owed the state money for services the state provides to the MTA. I read some articles on this subject where some lawmakers were saying they wanted to pass laws to make the MTA exempt from paying the state for services. So basically they want the state to provide various services free of charge (on top of the $6B+ in subsidies the state already gives the MTA). Not sure why they think the MTA shouldn't have to pay their bills.
If the MTA had paid the state and the state had then allocated the money to ORDA, this wouldn't even be a discussion at all. I still fail to see why cutting out the middle man is an issue. (How the state figures out how to properly account for it on the books is their problem). If my brother owed my sister $100 and my sister owed me $100, I'd be perfectly happy with my brother simply giving me the $100 and we're all even.
abc
Well-known member
Say your neighbor's kid backed into your car and cost $1000 damage. Instead of having him pay the garage $1000 for the repair, would you ask him to pay your plumber who happened to be installing a new hot water system in your house $1000 instead?
After all, you owed the plumber $1000 and your neighbor owes you $1000. Once he pays the plumber, you're all "even". Why not just cut out the "middle man"... YOU?
abc
Well-known member
"Going" political? It WAS political to begin with. It was meant to be. I have no doubt catskillman would confirm.
When the state chooses to operates a business DIRECTLY. Then the operation of that business is no longer pure business. It's part of the state politics.
Your analogy is flawed as the garage never gets paid and is short $1000 at the end...so everyone isn't "even".
A better analogy would be the garage owing a plumber money and the kid paying the garage's plumber directly. If the garage and kid both agree to that...that's between them. Is it normal/standard? No. Iis it hiding something? Not necessarily as long as the garage somehow accounts for both the revenue and expense on their books.
In the MTA/NYS/ORDA example, the MTA's CEO and General Counsel both signed off on the direct payment to ORDA. They could have said "we'd rather pay the state budget office directly" if they felt it wasn't legal.
Instead of saying "good job on being more efficient" we immediately say "omg, this must be some underhanded evil scheme to hide something!" I think there are much bigger issues than wasting time worrying about why money went from A to C directly instead of from A to B to C as long as the amounts were truly owed.
Another analogy...most employers make direct payments to the state and federal governments on an employee's behalf for taxes instead of giving the employee the entire paycheck and then having the employee make the payments to the state/fed. That's not that different from this situation. I still have to report all my "gross" income from an accounting perspective even though a good chunk of that money was never in my possession. Same thing applies for insurance as well. My employer pays my health insurance company directly instead of giving me the money and then having me pay the insurance company. So again, payments cutting out the middle man are not automatically "scandalous" as these articles want people to believe...
catskillman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,174
- Points
- 48
You obviously do not understand GAAP, and believe me the state controllers audit department does. This accounting (based on the article, I do not work for the state and can't verify the journal entries actually processed. It may have just been cash, expense and misc income) is not proper in any form. It has mis stated the MTA, ski resorts and NYS financial statements. They are operating on erroneous profit/expense/working capital etc info.
You would not want to own a business and have mis stated info to operate efficiently and profitable on.
Smellytele
Well-known member
Seems fine to me. You have 2k in bills and only 1k in coming. Does it matter which you pay with the 1k? Either way you have to come up with the other 1k. Stupid analogy.
And that's the problem...no one involved in writing any of these articles (or commenting here) has seen how this was accounted for on the books. If the state audit dept has a problem, then it should be an issue when they find something, not before. Stories and accusations missing half of the facts benefit no one and just lead to rampant speculation. That problem is far too prevalent in the media today in general. Thoroughly investigate something and then report on it when you have at least most of the facts. Headlines like most of these articles used are misleading at best and nothing more than "click-bait".
Smellytele
Well-known member
It can be worked out in the accounting. In your accounting you are owed 1m from company X and you owe company Y 1m. Just put in that company X gave you 1m and you gave Y 1m and have X give Y 1m. As long as X has that they gave you 1m and Y says you gave them 1m. It matters not as long as all ledgers state the same thing.
Fair points, especially in regards to Sugarloaf trimming at high elevations. There are some mountains in VT that have trimmed pretty high up, but not to the extent that Sugarloaf has.
It appears in addition to Bigelow, there were a few others proposed in the past that would have offered 2K+ vertical of skiing. Mt. Abraham, Mt. Blue, Old Speck as well as some proposals for Saddleback out to the Horn that got shot down. In the case of Maine, the lack of customer base within a reasonable drive probably slowed past developments more than in other states.
http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/Maine/
My overall comment though really centers around available high peak real estate that conceivably could have been developed. Just in the Catskills alone, there are 35 peaks over 3500' compared with 29 in the entirety of VT. There are 89 more in the Adirondacks. New Hampshire has 101. Maine has 64. Yet, VT by far has the most developed skiable acreage in the region.
Two I really wished would have happened are:
http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/cancelledskiareas/NewHampshire/northtwinmtn.php
http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/cancelledskiareas/NewHampshire/willardbasin.php
I bet both of those projects would have offered similar if not better skiing experiences to what I view as NH's two best in Cannon and Wildcat.
Smellytele
Well-known member
The Willard one with the mono rail always piqued my interest.
The whole range for Willard could have been like Sunday River on steroids. Higher elevation, more vertical, better natural snow fall and retention. It's too bad when the Balsams we're developed back in the day that they didn't select the Willard location instead. When I've visited Lancaster for work, I always look over and salivate what could have been.
Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
It really is fascinating to think about how much untapped potential there is/was in areas like the Catskills and Adirondacks. I never realized the Cats had that many peaks over 3500'.
Smellytele
Well-known member
Now they just have to move the Catskills to somewhere it snows.
benski
Active member
The Catskills have a lot of trouble since most of the mountains don't get a lot of snow. Platakil is the only catskill mountain with less than 95% snowmaking. I think the fact that Hunter was built on a site that demanded so much blasting says something about the quality of the options. I think there are lots of mountain with long narrow cliff bands and steep lower mountain that make it tuff to build a ski area in the Catskills.
benski
Active member
In general ski terrain fallows diseconomies of scale so in general the best mountains are developed first, with later mountains tending to be more difficult to develop, hard to get too or harder to get too.
Similar threads
