Vermont State Employees Union goes after ski areas

[VTKilarney]

Check out this press release:
http://www.vsea.org/node/6381

Apparently the VSEA believes that renegotiating ski area leases will save babies from dying and will balance the state budget.

What do I take from this?
1) Apparently the VSEA believes that the only contract that should be respected is their collective bargaining agreement. Everyone else can go screw themselves.
2) They have no appreciation that a healthy ski industry is important for the state of Vermont. For a ski area like Burke, an affordable state lease is likely the difference between operating and closing for good.
3) The message they want to send to businesses is that Vermont is not where you want to be.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Geez,I wonder where this mentality is coming from.Couldn't be the POTUS and his party could it?

 

[Jully]

Geez,I wonder where this mentality is coming from.Couldn't be the POTUS and his party could it?

Come on man, don't get into that

 

[Domeskier]

Perhaps some of the affected mountains will relocate to NY, MA or CT?

 

[dlague]

Perhaps some of the affected mountains will relocate to NY, MA or CT?

Killington already tried to become part of NH.

 

[steamboat1]

I kinda remember having this conversation before. Perhaps it was on another site. Anyway this is old news.

 

[cdskier]

I didn't see Sugarbush listed in that article. Does this mean SB does not have any leases with the state of VT? I know the mountain is on a lot of National Forest land, but didn't really realize it was any different than other areas in VT.

 

[ThinkSnow]

Will be interesting to see how long this thread lasts before its locked away for becoming "too political."

 

[thetrailboss]

Check out this press release:
http://www.vsea.org/node/6381

Apparently the VSEA believes that renegotiating ski area leases will save babies from dying and will balance the state budget.

What do I take from this?
1) Apparently the VSEA believes that the only contract that should be respected is their collective bargaining agreement. Everyone else can go screw themselves.
2) They have no appreciation that a healthy ski industry is important for the state of Vermont. For a ski area like Burke, an affordable state lease is likely the difference between operating and closing for good.
3) The message they want to send to businesses is that Vermont is not where you want to be.

Hmmmm...that issue died I thought. When was this posted? And, FWIW, the State just crowed about how they had a $21 million surplus from last year.

 

[thetrailboss]

I didn't see Sugarbush listed in that article. Does this mean SB does not have any leases with the state of VT? I know the mountain is on a lot of National Forest land, but didn't really realize it was any different than other areas in VT.

Correct. SB leases National Forest land and pays the U.S.D.A. that administers the USFS.

 

[steamboat1]

Hmmmm...that issue died I thought. When was this posted? And, FWIW, the State just crowed about how they had a $21 million surplus from last year.

Not a surplus, an increase in tax revenue. The state still has near a $100m budget deficit. I'm pretty sure a large chunk of the increased revenue came from VT's food & lodging tax. Ski areas couldn't of had anything to do with that could they?

 

[thetrailboss]

Not a surplus, an increase in tax revenue. The state still has near a $100m budget deficit.

Interesting. I will have to look into that.....this was what I saw: http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/10/state-ends-fy-2015-with-anticipated-21-million-surplus/

 

[VTKilarney]

Hmmmm...that issue died I thought. When was this posted? And, FWIW, the State just crowed about how they had a $21 million surplus from last year.

The VSEA took out an ad on VTDigger that featured this press release. So they are still making a push to stick it to the ski areas.


.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Come on man, don't get into that

Fair enough.But it seemed like an easy one.

 

[VTKilarney]

I kinda remember having this conversation before. Perhaps it was on another site. Anyway this is old news.

The VSEA press release came out on July 14th. Apparently your news cycle is rather quick.

 

[Jully]

Fair enough.But it seemed like an easy one.

I mean, if the most recently locked thread is any indication, it's much more complicated than that and not worth going into on this forum.

I'd rather just talk about how is going to impact our skiing

 

[BenedictGomez]

These idiots cant wait to cause their own funeral.

 

[dlague]

Well in any case - I think this statement in the article is a little over board!

But did you know that Vermonters don’t benefit much at all from the ski industry’s higher profits

What about all the restaurants, hotels, condo owners, stores, speeding tickets, F & B Taxes, sales taxes, local ski shops ........... the list can go on and on! When people start getting greedy from a tax or fee perspective all hell can break loose!

 

[thetrailboss]

Vermont is getting a bad reputation....and yet they just don't seem to care.

 

[slatham]

So the VSEA wants a piece of the "record" profits from a good ski season? Ok. So I presume they'll help cover losses from a poor one?