Local Group Lobbies New Hampshire Legislature to Privatize Cannon

Yep, they are at it again. Local citizens and businesspeople from the Franconia Region are making another pitch to the legislature that Cannon should be leased to a private operator. They produced a petition with 150 signatures supporting the motion.

The article.

Your thoughts?

I am against this move. I know that the proponents point to the "success" of Sunapee, but that has come at a cost. Sunapee is now quite expensive for locals to ski.....now granted they do have "local" deals on Sunday afternoons and on midweek, non-holiday periods. But the fact remains that their season pass rates are excessive and the day ticket rates are on the upper middle of the market.

The proponents also have "forgotten" that the Muellers have been very intent on expanding Sunapee like they have with Okemo, despite the fact that Sunapee is a state park. The expansion, which has been shot down on local and state levels, was not in terms of terrain, but for housing.

The article mentions that Cannon is a state treasure and was bought in 1925 using funds collected from 15,000 donations. The creation of the park was to protect the area from the threats of corporate interests and logging. To elaborate, the area is to be a public treasure and not another opportunity for one of New England's private resort conglomerates to make a buck.

I am being a bit of a purist, I know. But Cannon is a special place and one of the last places where the "Common Man" can afford to ski. Some argue that the State of New Hampshire is not in the ski industry, and that is right. But a private company is not always working for the public interest at all times. Having a state owned ski area is the lesser of two evils.

couldnt agree more with ya

OK,from a guy who calls this mountain his second home and one of his favorite places anywhere.I've had 34 season passes in a row so I think I'm a little qualified to speak from a regulars point of view.Most of the locals have mixed feelings about Cannon being leased out.Our favorite pastime is complaining about how inept the state can be running the MT.Some of this is justified by the simple fact of how government runs any entity.They are almost never run efficiently like a private company has to to survive.It's kind of the nature of the beast.A good part of the reason I fell in love with this MT is because it was not a condo village wrapped around a ski area.It still is pretty pure in that sense.Also it is a nice piece of terrain.Another reason was it was affordable and one the biggest was because we just don't have the crowds that Loon or Waterville and the like get on a regular basis, in part because Cannon does not run a top shelf product.Here's the weird part.As much as we complain about that,it's why were here.If someone came in to run the mt and bring many more skier visits we would not be happy about that so it's a damd if you damd if you don't thing.Also,Mittersill would probably be reopened and while that sounds good,It's not for those of us who like having a "spare" mt next door for natural condition backcountry skiing.I guess most of us come down on the side of not leasing for selfish reasons.

I wonder if the locals wanting a lease would not be so adamant if Cannon could implement a few techniques that would make them more profitable...

just lease cannon to myself, i will run the mtn... then all will be good in the world.

Quote from the article: [Johnson said one fear many people who oppose leasing the mountain have expressed is the development in Franconia, which, he said, is "already happening off the slopes of Cannon with numerous residential communities under construction. The management of Cannon by a private operator is totally irrelevant to the development that has and will continue to occur in Franconia," he said.

"The lease of Cannon Mountain to a private operator will likely result in increased tourism and tourism spending in the Franconia area and in the North Country," Johnson said.]

Rather contradicting himself, isn't he?

Nice to have you here, Mapnut!!! :beer:

SIKSKIER said:

....Some of this is justified by the simple fact of how government runs any entity.They are almost never run efficiently like a private company has to to survive.It's kind of the nature of the beast.

Click to expand...

I'd disagree with the automatic assumption that a private company is always a better model of efficiency and that anything that's government run is just an inneficient mess that's by its nature incapable of being well run. This is a broad generalization that has been so well grafted onto public conciousness that nobody questions its validity any more. I can think of number of exmamples that would support this point but it could get political so I'll refrain.

A lot of the issues about this possible leasing out to private hands has to do with who benefits form such arrangement. I'd venture to say that the actual skiers/rides and park visitors (for seasons outside of winter) would be at the back of the line if a lease would actually go through. I suspect that the local business owners like Kevin Johnson, are not exactly motovated by what's good for Joe Public.

I was also under impression (based on previously posted article on this subject) that the actual winter operation of Cannon Mt is not being run with a deficit. If that's so, perhaps the local business community ought to come up with some other stratagem to increase their business.

ASC is a private company and they suck at running resorts too. It's not just the government.

Bumpsis said:

I'd venture to say that the actual skiers/rides and park visitors (for seasons outside of winter) would be at the back of the line if a lease would actually go through. I suspect that the local business owners like Kevin Johnson, are not exactly motivated by what's good for Joe Public.

Click to expand...

I think I get your meaning. However, it would not surprise me that skier/rider would go up if Cannon was privatized. The advantage would be a longer season and consistent snow surface (other than hardpack). A high visit count in itself provides all the motivation for private business and land owners in the area. It's in their best monetary interest.

BTW, my family hates staying in the Franconia area. Very few places to eat and the ones close by have very slow service.

SIKSKIER said:

OK,from a guy who calls this mountain his second home and one of his favorite places anywhere.I've had 34 season passes in a row so I think I'm a little qualified to speak from a regulars point of view.

Click to expand...

ok...

jack97 said:

I think I get your meaning. However, it would not surprise me that skier/rider would go up if Cannon was privatized. The advantage would be a longer season and consistent snow surface (other than hardpack).

Click to expand...

How does changing ownership change surface conditions?

dmc said:

How does changing ownership change surface conditions?

Click to expand...

The new operators (not owners) will become aggressive in snowmaking and with constant grooming. Places nearby, Loon and Bretton Woods do this religiously, thus they have better surface conditions to attract the crowds. From what I have heard, Sunapee and Wachusetts under government control was know for icy trails and lack of maintenance. With private operators, they turned it around.

Disclaimer, just because I say this does not mean I support this.

sunapee never skied off at 11 am when it was state operated. New people can't stop the wind from blowing, so i know cannon will always be cannon. The day tripper really loses on this i think.

snoseek said:

New people can't stop the wind from blowing, so i know cannon will always be cannon. The day tripper really loses on this i think.

Click to expand...

The lower mnt trails have good protection from the wind. Thats where I focus the snowmaking. Also, theres Mittersill and the area close by where they just added the new trails....

jack97 said:

The lower mnt trails have good protection from the wind. Thats where I focus the snowmaking. Also, theres Mittersill and the area close by where they just added the new trails....

Click to expand...

no area can afford to make snow for the whole winter...

You also have to take into consideration two major costs that the state does not have to pay - insurance and property tax. At an area like cannon between the two you are probably looking at 1 million a year if not more. That is sure to cut into the snowmaking budget.

it reminds me of the "Cartman Land" episode of South Park

dmc said:

it reminds me of the "Cartman Land" episode of South Park

Click to expand...

Good one, that is a funny episode of SP and very apropos.

MarkC said:

You also have to take into consideration two major costs that the state does not have to pay - insurance and property tax. At an area like cannon between the two you are probably looking at 1 million a year if not more. That is sure to cut into the snowmaking budget.

Click to expand...

Not sure about insurance but exemption from property tax can be huge. The rumor I've heard was that Wachusett is exempt from paying any assessment when pumping water from the reservoir. Sometimes I wonder if the Muellers have the same arrangement with Sunapee.