from_the_NEK
Active member
"Equal Opportunity EB-5 Hater" OR "Realist"?
Can you post all of your financial info here?
No?
Then why should Sugarbush have to make all of their financials public for you to scrutinize?
-
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!
VT Digger Reports on EB-5 "Saving" Sugarbush
- Thread starter thetrailboss
- Start date
"Equal Opportunity EB-5 Hater" OR "Realist"?
Can you post all of your financial info here?
No?
Then why should Sugarbush have to make all of their financials public for you to scrutinize?
VTKilarney
Well-known member
Can we back up a step? It is certainly possible that Sugarbush would have had to declare bankruptcy. But does anyone think for a second that Sugarbush would have actually ceased to operate as a ski area? I highly doubt that. So what, then, was actually saved?
VTKilarney
Well-known member
BG is not partaking in a cash for citizenship program. Sugarbush is. It stands to reason that the latter should be required to disclose financial information whereas the former would not.
How can you highly doubt something when you have no idea how deep the pockets are of Summit Ventures? We don't even know what they paid for the ski area. The terms of the deal were not disclosed.
Sugarbush has had periods of financial hardship before though. They've gone through numerous ownership changes. They went from averaging 500K skier visits a year down to 200K. As mentioned, the place was largely neglected near the end under ASC.
VTKilarney
Well-known member
I just think that somebody would have scooped up the property at bankruptcy and continued to operate it as a ski area.
slatham
Well-known member
I recall Summit buying Sugarbush for $9mm. Pretty good deal considering what they got.
But also an investment requiring a lot more investment to make it work. I am sure Win had a plan to fund those investments over time, but the financial crisis did those plans in. I have no doubt the EB-5 program dramatically helped Sugarbush and the MRV. You can debate all you want, but that is the bottom line.
But also an investment requiring a lot more investment to make it work. I am sure Win had a plan to fund those investments over time, but the financial crisis did those plans in. I have no doubt the EB-5 program dramatically helped Sugarbush and the MRV. You can debate all you want, but that is the bottom line.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
First of all, I never said government money is involved eb-5*, I said it's a government created program, which it is.
Secondly, jobs are usually, but not always required.
Thirdly, the job accounting with this sort of crap, which I've seen first-hand, is a joke at best, look-the-other-way fraudulent at worst.
*Though there is an admin component if you want to be uber pedantic.
Of course not.
Both.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I'm still amazed that public financial disclosure isn't required with this program.
They get around that specifically because even though it is a government program proper, it is not American taxpayer money funded. Though the entire CARROT that the program's very life depends on is American domicile, which is certainly a public issue. We've already seen how the operation of EB-5 in the shadows has created a ton of scandal, public financial visibility would help alleviate that, as well as make government/corporate "shenanigans" far more difficult.
That said, if they're going to keep re-upping this program, I do view it as a positive that people are starting to realize the above and increase the scrutiny on EB-5 and increase the disclosure.
i guess the basic disagreement we have is that you believe that these visas are somehow a valuable public resource. I don't see it that way. To the govt, They are worth the paper they're printed on. They can issue more, as many as they want. And the number of visas involved in eb5 is a drop in the bucket so the effect on immigration in toto is minuscule at best. The way I see it, it's money for nothing, literally. Of course the visas have tremendous value to foreigners and so it makes sense to me to sell some. As far as scrutiny and oversight to protect the foreign investors capital, caveat emptor. i don't think any additional regulation is necessary or warranted.
so what if it's a govt. program? The govt. provides tax breaks, incentives towards many kinds of economic activities, such as oil exploration, sugar production, real estate development, etc etc etc. does that mean the govt should oversee, audit and regulate to protect investors in every activity? I think not.
Tin
Active member
ss20
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
Not my money, not my problem and I've certainly enjoyed the improvements at Jay and Sugarbush.
steamboat1
New member
Not surprised
gostan
New member
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/showth...A-Brighton-UT-Sunday-River-ME-amp-12-More-Ski
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/showth...A-Brighton-UT-Sunday-River-ME-amp-12-More-Ski
VTKilarney
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
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.
wtcobb
New member
+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.
steamboat1
New member
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.
Similar threads
