Mount Snow seeking EB5 investors for Snowmaking, Lodge, and Real-Estate expansions

[drjeff]

Why is it that they are only about 55% open, then?

Plummet, Committed, Ripcord, Little Steep, about 1/2 of Exhibition and the Super Pipe - all snowmaking terrain not currently open (the pipe is in final rough shaping and awaiting the cutting work currently and fan guns were set and turned on on Middle Ex this morning) - given the cold forecasted temps this week, I wouldn't be surprised to see Committed/ Ripcord get their 1st snowmaking run of the year later this week. Then the "chronic flurries" that put down a legit 3" in the last 24hrs (and it was still snowing at a decent clip when I left about 4 this afternoon) will need to keep doing its thing to get a bunch of larger acreage natural snow terrain open

Sent from my DROID RAZR using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

Do you think the EB5 programs would have to exist if the Mountains could get funding through traditional banks?

EB-5 isnt specifically for ski resorts.

Banks are so tight with lending it's sad that companies have to look into a program like this.
Is this due to the high risk banks would have to take lending to ski resorts that are already heavily leveraged?

Businesses arent entitled to banks lending them money.

The question you should be asking is, if multiple giant hotels, a water park, a spa, an ice hockey rink, several new restaurants, and god only knows what else, are such a fantastic investment with a slam-dunk return on investment, then why didn't numerous banks offer to loan eleventy-million dollars to Jay Peak in the first place?

The answer is, of course, because it's not. Jay Peak would never be able to pay off such a loan.

 

[Euler]

EB-5 isnt specifically for ski resorts.



Businesses arent entitled to banks lending them money.

The question you should be asking is, if multiple giant hotels, a water park, a spa, an ice hockey rink, several new restaurants, and god only knows what else, are such a fantastic investment with a slam-dunk return on investment, then why didn't numerous banks offer to loan eleventy-million dollars to Jay Peak in the first place?

The answer is, of course, because it's not. Jay Peak would never be able to pay off such a loan.

This is true. EB5 is not an "investment", it's simply allowing wealthy people to purchase the right to immigrate to the US.

 

[abc]

And how many of these people here, who are so sure of the such things, run a successful business the size of a ski mountain?

 

[Euler]

And how many of these people here, who are so sure of the such things, run a successful business the size of a ski mountain?

If I were running a for-profit business, I would likely take advantage of the EB% program...it makes sense from the businesses perspective. I don't think it's good government policy to tie immigration to wealth.

 

[abc]

I don't think it's good government policy to tie immigration to wealth.

Why do you think it's a bad policy?

 

[deadheadskier]

I disagree with the ethics of "selling" citizenship, but the US is hardly alone in the practice.

 

[abc]

I disagree with the ethics of "selling" citizenship, but the US is hardly alone in the practice.

I don't agree it's "selling" citizenship. We already exclude criminals from immigrating and settling here. And we further give priority to people who have better education, better skill, what's so special about people who have more money? Sure, not all of them made the money themselves, but some of them did. So we're inviting individuals who have track record of success to immigrate, how's that all so different from someone who has a Ph.D.? Further more, the EB5 scheme tie up their money, so it's up to them to see to it that it makes them a return!

Remember, they don't have to come to Vermont, they could have taken their money and go to San Francisco. Or they could have gone to British Columbia, Canada!

 

[BenedictGomez]

If I were running a for-profit business, I would likely take advantage of the EB% program.

Uhhhh, yeah.

In fact, my biggest confusion is why hasnt every mountain in Vermont jumped on this scam's bandwagon. There are lawyers, accountants, and fixers you can hire who specialize in making this travesty a reality. Vermont politics is the only answer I can think of. Perhaps you need to "know" someone or pay-to-play.

 

[deadheadskier]

I don't agree it's "selling" citizenship. We already exclude criminals from immigrating and settling here. And we further give priority to people who have better education, better skill, what's so special about people who have more money? Sure, not all of them made the money themselves, but some of them did. So we're inviting individuals who have track record of success to immigrate, how's that all so different from someone who has a Ph.D.? Further more, the EB5 scheme tie up their money, so it's up to them to see to it that it makes them a return!

Remember, they don't have to come to Vermont, they could have taken their money and go to San Francisco. Or they could have gone to British Columbia, Canada!

It's a judgement call. I believe the judgement shouldn't be made based upon the size of someone's bank account.

 

[abc]

It's a judgement call. I believe the judgement shouldn't be made based upon the size of someone's bank account.

But you're deluding yourself.

They've been "buying citizenship" for ages: there're shell company that will take their money, hire them as special skilled labor (paying "salary" from the money they took in) and get them green card using the H1 visa! A couple years back, there was a big bust of a law firm that facilitate that.

With 1/2 million dollar, there're many other loop holes they can exploit. By offering the option to "invest" their money in exchange for citizenship, it pulls the rug from under illegal paths. Kind of like legalizing marijuana...

 

[Euler]

Why do you think it's a bad policy?

As a nation we should value a wide variety of immigrants. We need brainpower, innovators, laborers, etc. Selling permanent resident status to the extremely wealthy flies in the face of that value.

I would like our nation to be one that reaches out to those in need, that allows people to immigrate to find a better life, to be with family, to escape oppression. The EB5 program instead makes me believe that we value extreme wealth above all else.

It's really coming from a personal moral code, a sense of ethics that is mine and not my country's. I find the increasing disparity between the haves and the have nots to be troubling. The EB5 program shines a bright light on how those with billions can keep piling up the opportunities to keep thier $$ while excluding others from the opportunity to make a better life. I just read an article that cites a report claiming that the 85 richest people on Earth have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the population. Makes me sick.

http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...uality-20140120,0,7080817.story#ixzz2r08kojWT

 

[BenedictGomez]

I just read an article that cites a report claiming that the 85 richest people on Earth have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the population. Makes me sick.

That's not possible, lol.

Just think about that for a moment.

 

[deadheadskier]

But you're deluding yourself.

They've been "buying citizenship" for ages: there're shell company that will take their money, hire them as special skilled labor (paying "salary" from the money they took in) and get them green card using the H1 visa! A couple years back, there was a big bust of a law firm that facilitate that.

With 1/2 million dollar, there're many other loop holes they can exploit. By offering the option to "invest" their money in exchange for citizenship, it pulls the rug from under illegal paths. Kind of like legalizing marijuana...

I'm well aware that there has been back door deals and loopholes to gain citizenship into this country for as long as the USA has existed.

It doesn't mean I agree with it. I simply just don't think money should be an avenue to gain citizen in this country.

 

[snoseek]

That's not possible, lol.

Just think about that for a moment.

Yeah I read that today also. You can too: http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...esthavesamewealthasbottom50percentreport.html

 

[abc]

As a nation we should value a wide variety of immigrants. We need brainpower, innovators, laborers, etc. Selling permanent resident status to the extremely wealthy flies in the face of that value.

I would like our nation to be one that reaches out to those in need, that allows people to immigrate to find a better life, to be with family, to escape oppression. The EB5 program instead makes me believe that we value extreme wealth above all else.

Those two sentences do not result in the same.

Many other countries focus on the former rather than the latter. While the US still puts a big focus on the latter.

I believe adding EB5 makes the immigration policy a little closer to your first statement. You, like many others, need to make up your mind as to which one to focus: immigrants that would benefit our economy, or immigrants that needs sheltering regardless of the economic benefits.

So the question is whether the US wants to remain the only country that continues to "give us your poor, sick...huddle masses". It is in the constitution, but in practice it's been slowly moving away from it for decades, in more way than one. There're several exceptions that gives visa and green card no questions ask, to nurses and software engineer and ... ski instructors!!!

Why is suddenly all the objection when one more is added? Or is that just jealousy when it comes to... money?

 

[Euler]

That's not possible, lol.

Just think about that for a moment.

Why is it not possible? It's not saying that 85 people own half the worlds wealth, but rather that 85 people own as much wealth as the poorest half of the worlds population combined.

From the article: The 85 richest people own about 0.7% of the world's wealth, which is the same as the bottom half of the population.



http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...uality-20140120,0,7080817.story#ixzz2r0DnEVSs

 

[Euler]

Those two sentences do not result in the same.

Many other countries focus on the former rather than the latter. While the US still puts a big focus on the latter.

I believe adding EB5 makes the immigration policy a little closer to your first statement. You, like many others, need to make up your mind as to which one to focus: immigrants that would benefit our economy, or immigrants that needs sheltering regardless of the economic benefits.

So the question is whether the US wants to remain the only country that continues to "give us your poor, sick...huddle masses". It is in the constitution, but in practice it's been slowly moving away from it for decades, in more way than one. There're several exceptions that gives visa and green card no questions ask, to nurses and software engineer and ... ski instructors!!!

Why is suddenly all the objection when one more is added? Or is that just jealousy when it comes to... money?

Do you really not see a difference between valuing person for her knowledge and/or skill versus valuing a person for her wealth?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the constitution says anything much about immigration. The "poor huddled masses" bit is from a poem by Emma Lazarus that got stuck on the Statue of Liberty

 

[abc]

Do you really not see a difference between valuing person for her knowledge and/or skill versus valuing a person for her wealth?

Only if the person inherited the wealth. No difference if the wealth was created by innovation.

Say, if Steve Jobs or Bill Gate was Chinese. Would we not want to have them and their money to immigrate to the US? (keep in mind both of them were technically "college drop-outs")

 

[deadheadskier]

Only if the person inherited the wealth. No difference if the wealth was created by innovation.

Say, if Steve Jobs or Bill Gate was Chinese. Would we not want to have them and their money to immigrate to the US? (keep in mind both of them were technically "college drop-outs")

What about if the person created their wealth and their only desire is to retire here? I'm sure plenty of EB5 investors fall in that category.