VT Digger Reports on EB-5 "Saving" Sugarbush - Page 4

AlpineZone

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 106
  1. #31
    Tin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    ZooMass Slamherst
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by from_the_NEK View Post


    It will never end.

  2. #32
    Economics is not my strong suit. Nor are politics. Even less so is investment banking. From a layman's perspective, money flowing into these resorts is great.


    I don't see the gloom and doom with this program. Worst case scenario, it's an ASC situation where shit hits the fan... but these mountains are getting improvements that will serve them well for 50 plus years, no matter the EB-5 situation. Sunday River did not die with ASC/Otten. Why? ASC built SR. They built Canyons. They built Killington. They made permanent improvements that could never be taken away and created strong, financially sustainable resorts. Here we are, 15 years later... these resorts are powerhouses that are at the top of the industry.

    ...back to EB-5

    You can question the program's effectiveness in regards to Sugarbush, but do you really believe it'd be the same Sugarbush without EB-5? Mount Snow got the 100+ investors they needed for West Lake and Carinthia in a matter of months. They've been struggling to get more water for 25 years... could not have done it without EB-5. Jay Peak has had their issues, but the face of that mountain has been forever changed for the better with the Pump House and the new hotel(s). This "scandalous" program is gonna make these mountains great again.

    Would you rather have "bad money" or no money? To be honest I can see differing opinions... but as far as I'm concerned there's a .01% EB-5 will negatively affect my personal financials/political situations... but it's already affected my ski life in a way that is absolutely, undeniably positive.

    Take this all with a grain of salt... I don't post on this issue much because I know posts like this get trashed.
    2019-2020 19 days and counting...
    Thunder Ridge: 12/7, 12/8, 12/21, 12/26, 12/27, 12/28, 12/29
    Killington: 11/15, 12/16, 12/17, 12/18, 12/19, 12/20, 12/23 Mount Snow: 11/27, 12/2, 12/24 Jiminy Peak: 12/6 Catamount: 12/13 Pico: 12/19 Mohawk: 12/27
    "Skiing is the closest you'll get to flying without leaving the ground." -snowmonster

  3. #33
    I'm with you all the way ss20

    Not my money, not my problem and I've certainly enjoyed the improvements at Jay and Sugarbush.

  4. #34
    steamboat1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn,NY/Pittsford,VT.
    Posts
    6,613
    Not surprised

  5. #35
    I was a long term Sugarbush skier who left the mountain from 1995 until returning in 2010. The folks who are critical of Sugarbush's use of EB-5 have the right to voice your opinions, but there really is nothing to complain about here. Overall,Vermont is really a depressed state economically. The vibrancy and recent rebirth of Mad River Valley has been revitalized by Win Smith and Sugarbush and their visions. We should all be applauding the successful use of EB-5 funds to provide such positive results as well as the fact that the EB-5 investors are being repaid. And Sugarbush remains an independent Mecca (not without issues) in this era of large conglomerates owing our ski areas and all of the USA becoming a homogenized rubber stamp.



    And Sugarbush (as far as we know) is not for sale like many ski areas are per this thread elsewhere on Alpine Zone.


    http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthr...mp-12-More-Ski
    Stan

  6. #36
    A couple of thoughts:

    1) Rather than post endless GIFs of someone beating a dead horse, the more mature thing to do is to just not participate in the conversation. Things are talked about repeatedly in just about every thread in this forum. Deal with it.
    2) EB-5 is more nuanced than 90% of people here realize. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Encouraging investment is great, but government should encourage the best investment, not just any investment. I don't see any such analysis when it comes to EB-5. A minimum wage job is treated no differently than a high paying job.

  7. #37
    The other side of that argument is that if there was no EB-5 investment in these areas, there would be no investment at all.

    IMO that's a much better situation than say a government / taxpayer backed project like the Balsams, which will produce the same kind of jobs.

  8. #38
    wtcobb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North of the Notch
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    The other side of that argument is that if there was no EB-5 investment in these areas, there would be no investment at all.

    IMO that's a much better situation than say a government / taxpayer backed project like the Balsams, which will produce the same kind of jobs.
    +1. The north country has limited options for work, and even part-time, hourly jobs make a difference.

    As for previous comments regarding the addition of new vs. the keeping of current jobs: any investment that can keep these jobs - even without adding more - has to be seen as a benefit opposed to losing those positions. Lose a job, lose a resident, lose that resident's income back into the community.
    All skiing is good. Some skiing isn't as good. But all skiing is good.

    @mtncobber on the instafeeds.

  9. #39
    [QUOTE=VTKilarney;918811]A couple of thoughts:

    1) Rather than post endless GIFs of someone beating a dead horse, the more mature thing to do is to just not participate in the conversation. Things are talked about repeatedly in just about every thread in this forum. Deal with it.
    2) EB-5 is more nuanced than 90% of people here realize. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Encouraging investment is great, but government should encourage the best investment, not just any investment. I don't see any such analysis when it comes to EB-5. A minimum wage job is treated no differently than a high paying job.[/QUOTE


    dont forsake the good for the perfect. Sure we would all like to see great paying jobs coming out of this program as opposed to entry level positions, but better something than 'nothing especially when said program isn't costing either the govt. or US citizens anything.

  10. #40
    steamboat1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn,NY/Pittsford,VT.
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by slatham View Post
    I recall Summit buying Sugarbush for $9mm. Pretty good deal considering what they got.
    Pretty sure DHS is correct saying we don't know what Summit Ventures paid for Sugarbush. ARA Services sold Sugarbush in 1985 to Claneil Enterprises for $14.5 million. Claneil sold Sugarbush in 1994 to LBO Enterprises (Les Otten) for $9.1 million. I believe it was just before Claneil sold to LBO that rumors of Sugarbush going bankrupt were circulating. Certainly the depressed sale price would indicate that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:59 PM.