• 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!

Belleayre Resort will fail unless scaled back, Catskill Heritage Alliance(NY Catskil

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
12,000
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
http://www.watershedpost.com/2014/b...s=798819416817390&fb_action_types=og.comments

I agree it to much and not fair.



Above: A rendering of the planned hotel and lodge buildings at Highmount -- part of the proposed Belleayre Resort project -- from a supplemental draft environmental impact statement released in April 2014 by the DEC.
The Catskill Heritage Alliance, a local environmental group that has long been critical of the proposed Belleayre Resort project in Highmount, has released a study that claims the resort will fail unless scaled back.
The study, commissioned by Washington, D.C.-based firm Public and Environmental Finance Associates, takes aim at another study commissioned last year from national hotel consultants HVS by resort developer Crossroads Ventures. In documents prepared in 2013 for the state's ongoing review of the project, Crossroads relied on the HVS study to make a case for the resort's financial viability and economic benefits to the region.
At the time, HVS issued a glowing review of the Belleayre project, stating that if built, the resort would be "an extraordinary asset that can reasonably be expected to gain recognition as one of the premier destinations and vacation ownership communities in the world, and the top-quality facility of this sort in the Northeastern United States."
The Catskill Heritage Alliance now claims that HVS's study was flawed. In an analysis of the HVS study (embedded below), PEFA's Michael Siegel writes that Crossroads is "seeking to charge champagne prices for a resort that is to be built on a beer budget," and relying on grossly inflated estimates of the resort's potential revenue.
The PEFA study recommends that Crossroads build only the lower portion of its two-part proposed development -- the "Wildacres" site -- and scrap plans to develop a hotel and lodge at the upper elevation Highmount site.
"A Wildacres-only scenario would be more supportive of the regions’ existing communities and lodging sector. It would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and allow the State to focus its resources on improvements to the existing Belleayre Mountain Ski Center," Siegel writes.
Among the criticisms Siegel lobs at the HVS study is that it assumes potential revenue for the Belleayre resort will be on par with the revenue made by top-flight five-star ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains. Compared to Belleayre, the Rocky Mountain resorts have longer ski seasons, better terrain and natural snow, proximity to commercial airports and interstate highways, and are not dependent on the state government for upgrades to ski centers, Siegel writes.
In a statement issued in response to the PEFA study, Belleayre project coordinator Gary Gailes questioned PEFA's credentials and expertise, and characterized the firm as an "anti-development consultant."
"In response to the so-called economic analysis contracted by the Catskill Heritage Alliance to support their longstanding opposition to the Belleayre Resort project, I would only ask readers of this report to compare the credentials of the internationally renowned consulting firms of HVS, Inc and Ragatz Associates employed by Crossroads to evaluate the economic viability of the project versus the firm of PEFA (an anti-development consultant) hired by the financial backers of the Catskill Heritage Alliance," Gailes wrote. "Perhaps if the Catskill Heritage Alliance revealed the source of their funding to hire PEFA, one might better understand the conclusions reached by PEFA."
The Catskill Heritage Alliance also commissioned a 2011 study from PEFA that was critical of a plan to transfer the state-owned Belleayre Ski Center, next to the proposed resort, from the state Department of Environmental Conservation to the Olympic Regional Development Authority (ORDA). That plan was put into action by the state legislature in 2012, and Belleayre is now under ORDA's management.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation is still working to produce a final environmental impact statement for the Belleayre Resort project, which will include analysis of its economic impact on the region. Project developers expect that statement to be issued later this year. Once the environmental impact statement is complete, the project will go to local town planning boards for review.
Below: PEFA's critical analysis of a study commissioned from HVS by Belleayre Resort developers Crossroads Ventures.
 

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
12,000
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235458964/PEFA-2014-Analysis-of-Belleayre-Resort
Review of HVS’ 2013 “Feasibility Study and Sensitivity Analysis,Proposed Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park”
Michael Siegel, Public and Environmental Finance Associates,July 10, 2014
Summary
This review of HVS’ updated feasibility analysis shows it to contain virtually all of the problemsfound in its earlier analysis, together with yet additional problems identified herein. Accordingly,HVS’s new analysis remains unreliable for decision-making purposes. Briefly,

HVS’ analysis assumes the Applicant can charge champagne prices for a resort that is to be built on a beer budget. HVS’ revenue per available room (RevPar) reflects 5-star, top-of-market resorts in Aspen, Vail, Telluride, CO, Deer Valley, UT, and Jackson Hole, WY whileits inaccurate and incomplete construction estimate is commensurate with a mid- or lower-tier resort hotel. The difference is not trivial. As positioned by HVS, the constructionestimate upon which it evaluates feasibility is off by between about one-hundred to three-hundred million dollars.

HVS’s analysis exhibits confusion and contradiction, opining the proposed resorts’ hotelelement
is not
economically practical without the detached units (HVS 2013, p. 9) while alsoconcluding the hotel element
is
economically practical without them (HVS 2013, p. 77).These two conclusions are mutually exclusive. They are illustrative of other conflicts andcontradictions in HVS’ analysis.

HVS’ failure to account for lucrative real estate product cash flows from more limited – butnot zero – sales of shared-ownership units is most consequential for the Wildacres-onlyscenario. The deterioration of this market enables a Wildacres-only scenario to capture aboutthe same level of real estate sales and cash flows as the Wildacres+Highmount scenario over a typical investment horizon. Had these cash flows been recognized they would have greatlyenhanced the feasibility of a Wildacres-only scenario.

The proposed resort will not be developed as analyzed by HVS. Nor does there appear to beany obligation for the Applicant to do so. This is not conjecture. Confirming earlier comments, HVS’ new analysis indefinitely defers all of the proposed resort’s 206 detachedunits amounting to one-third of the 629 units proposed (HVS 2013, p. 8). The balance of the proposed Highmount element is also likely to be indefinitely deferred or abandoned.

A smaller and less capital-intensive resort of perhaps 250 (+/-) units in the Wildacres areamay be feasible. At this scale it would increase the number of lodging units in the Route 28Corridor by about 80 percent. It would rank among the largest base area resorts in the Northeastern U.S. and exceed the size of all but one of HVS’ Rocky Mountain resort set
For example, HVS’ 2008 Hotel Construction Cost Survey reported the average unit
1
construction cost of luxury and resort hotels to be substantially greater than that applied in itsanalyses. Later Surveys showed lower costs but explain this to be due to fewer higher-end luxuryand resort projects rather than lower costs thereof. Recent industry sources report average luxuryhotel developments to cost “$1.0 million a key”. See: Turner, S., “Despite Interest, Luxury
Public and Environmental Finance AssociatesWashington, DC(202) 237-2455
Page -2-

A Wildacres-only scenario would save the State potentially tens of millions of dollars in public outlays to purchase and make improvements to the defunct Highmount ski area, andwould save BMSC $1.2 million in annual operating costs (Alpentech 2013, p. 15). AWildacres-only scenario would be more supportive of the regions’ existing communities andlodging sector. It would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and allow theState to focus its resources on improvements to the existing Belleayre Mountain Ski Center (BMSC).More specifically, HVS’ analysis:

Relies upon construction costs well below that of other similar base area resorts,

Does not include the construction cost of any similar resort,

Does not determine the Applicant’s construction cost estimate to be within reason or supported by similar projects,

Applies RevPar from top-tier world-class base area ski resorts that is not commensurate withthe relatively modest construction cost applied,

Under-estimates departmental expenses,

Contains internal contradictions and flawed logic,

Fails to account for realized sales and related cash flows from more limited – but not zero – sales of the shared-ownership units,

Shows RevPar for the Northeastern set of resorts to have deteriorated since 2008,

Confirms the proposed resort will not have a significant international or national clientele.HVS’ analysis: a) applies sub-par and incomplete construction costs with, b) top-of-market RevPar from truly world-class 5-star Rocky Mountain resorts c) for which unit construction costs are abouttwo to three times that applied by HVS to determine the feasibility of the proposed Highmountelement. Additional error is introduced by, d) potentially under-estimating departmental expensesfor rooms, operations and maintenance, marketing, general and administration, and property tax.With respect to construction costs, it is significant that HVS omits its earlier statement that theestimate it applies to determine feasibility is “within reason” and supported by other “similar projects”. The estimate applied (both then and now) is not within reason, and HVS proffers nosimilar projects consistent with its applied construction cost.The Applicant’s construction estimate was previously shown to be low by between about 20 to 30
 

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
12,000
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
Their a lot more 17 pages when you click on the links.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235458964/PEFA-2014-Analysis-of-Belleayre-Resort

This is the last page:
Conclusion
As before, HVS has utilized improper, unrealistic, incomplete, and inconsistent assumptions for itsnew feasibility analysis. The new version evidences conflicting and contradictory statements, falselogic and bias. It relies upon an even lower unit construction cost than previously applied, anamount that was already unrealistically low. And, it may significantly under-estimate manydepartmental expenses. Notably, HVS omits an assurance that the construction costs applied are “within reason” andsupported by “similar” projects. When compared to reported construction costs of some of theRocky Mountain set, the unit cost applied by HVS is one-half to two-thirds lower. Consistent withearlier comments, HVS’ co-Consultant (Ragatz 2008) shows HVS to have omitted hundreds of millions of dollars from the estimated construction cost of the hotel elements.As before, HVS’ new analysis is critically flawed and unreliable for decision-making purposes.Rather than reflecting a realistic assessment of the proposed resort’s prospects, HVS’ analysisreflects confusion, contradiction, error, yield optimization and/or goal-seeking. On balance, HVS’ flawed analysis appears to favor the proposed resort, retaining its more problematic Highmount element, and all detached units. As documented in earlier comments, themarket for the detached units has collapsed, while this report shows the Highmount element wouldlikely fail HVS’ feasibility analysis were realistic construction costs, RevPar, departmental expense,and other factors herein considered. Rather than being necessary as HVS and the Applicant contend,were it to be built the Highmount resort elements’ failure could well-trigger that of the Wildacreselement.Subject to further analysis, it appears that a less capital-intensive and smaller-scale resort of about250 (+/-) overnight lodging units in the Wildacres area might be feasible when realistic factors areapplied and taking into account its ability to capture nearly as much cash flows from more limitedreal estate product sales as the Wildacres+Highmount scenario.At about 250 units, a more appropriately-scaled resort would rank among the largest base areadevelopments in the Northeastern region. It would increase the Route 28 corridors’ room count byabout 80 percent. And, it would maintain the viability of the existing lodging sector in the Route 28corridor along with the character of its existing communities, hamlets, and villages that aredependent thereon.Finally, a more appropriately-sized resort would enable the State to forego taxpayer-supportedoutlays to acquire the adjoining defunct Highmount ski area and avoid imposing additional operatingcosts on BMSC.
 
Last edited:

AdironRider

Active member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,217
Points
38
So a bunch of NIMBY's project the project they don't want to succeed, won't succeed.

The sky is blue isn't it!

Their a lot more 17 pages when you click on the links.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235458964/PEFA-2014-Analysis-of-Belleayre-Resort

This is the last page:
Conclusion
As before, HVS has utilized improper, unrealistic, incomplete, and inconsistent assumptions for itsnew feasibility analysis. The new version evidences conflicting and contradictory statements, falselogic and bias. It relies upon an even lower unit construction cost than previously applied, anamount that was already unrealistically low. And, it may significantly under-estimate manydepartmental expenses. Notably, HVS omits an assurance that the construction costs applied are “within reason” andsupported by “similar” projects. When compared to reported construction costs of some of theRocky Mountain set, the unit cost applied by HVS is one-half to two-thirds lower. Consistent withearlier comments, HVS’ co-Consultant (Ragatz 2008) shows HVS to have omitted hundreds of millions of dollars from the estimated construction cost of the hotel elements.As before, HVS’ new analysis is critically flawed and unreliable for decision-making purposes.Rather than reflecting a realistic assessment of the proposed resort’s prospects, HVS’ analysisreflects confusion, contradiction, error, yield optimization and/or goal-seeking. On balance, HVS’ flawed analysis appears to favor the proposed resort, retaining its more problematic Highmount element, and all detached units. As documented in earlier comments, themarket for the detached units has collapsed, while this report shows the Highmount element wouldlikely fail HVS’ feasibility analysis were realistic construction costs, RevPar, departmental expense,and other factors herein considered. Rather than being necessary as HVS and the Applicant contend,were it to be built the Highmount resort elements’ failure could well-trigger that of the Wildacreselement.Subject to further analysis, it appears that a less capital-intensive and smaller-scale resort of about250 (+/-) overnight lodging units in the Wildacres area might be feasible when realistic factors areapplied and taking into account its ability to capture nearly as much cash flows from more limitedreal estate product sales as the Wildacres+Highmount scenario.At about 250 units, a more appropriately-scaled resort would rank among the largest base areadevelopments in the Northeastern region. It would increase the Route 28 corridors’ room count byabout 80 percent. And, it would maintain the viability of the existing lodging sector in the Route 28corridor along with the character of its existing communities, hamlets, and villages that aredependent thereon.Finally, a more appropriately-sized resort would enable the State to forego taxpayer-supportedoutlays to acquire the adjoining defunct Highmount ski area and avoid imposing additional operatingcosts on BMSC.
 

x10003q

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
749
Points
16
Location
Bergen County, NJ
Wow. They criticize the developer's reports while presenting a completely confusing and nonsensical report themselves.

Here is my favorite paragraph:
"At about 250 units, a more appropriately-scaled resort would rank among the largest base area developments in the Northeastern region. It would increase the Route 28 corridors’ room count by about 80 percent. And, it would maintain the viability of the existing lodging sector in the Route 28corridor along with the character of its existing communities, hamlets, and villages that are dependent thereon."

Calling 250 units one of the largest base area developments in the Northeast region is simply incorrect. I guess they have never been to Stratton, Okemo, Killington, Sugarbush, Seven Springs, Mountain Creek, Holiday Valley, Hunter Mtn and Windham Mtn. :-o
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,773
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Way, way, way, too TLDR, but Belleayre Mountain will fail either way without government life support.

It should either be bought out by private equity and given a fair chance at life, or just go the way of the Dodo Bird, and 8 track tapes, phone books, etc....
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
17,347
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, CT
Wow. They criticize the developer's reports while presenting a completely confusing and nonsensical report themselves.

Here is my favorite paragraph:
"At about 250 units, a more appropriately-scaled resort would rank among the largest base area developments in the Northeastern region. It would increase the Route 28 corridors’ room count by about 80 percent. And, it would maintain the viability of the existing lodging sector in the Route 28corridor along with the character of its existing communities, hamlets, and villages that are dependent thereon."

Calling 250 units one of the largest base area developments in the Northeast region is simply incorrect. I guess they have never been to Stratton, Okemo, Killington, Sugarbush, Seven Springs, Mountain Creek, Holiday Valley, Hunter Mtn and Windham Mtn. :-o

I'm guessing they're playing some partisan massaging the numbers game here with this, such as when they refer to the "Northeastern Region" they consider New England to be it's own separate entity from the Northeast! ;-) Kind of like when marketing departments make statements like "longest steepest widest" verses "longest, steepest, widest" to describe a trail :rolleyes: :lol:
 

catskills

New member
Joined
Dec 26, 2004
Messages
1,343
Points
0
NY Casinos and Tappan Zee Bridge Bridge APPROVED with no problems here.

Belleayre 4 Season resort waiting 10+ years for approval. :roll:
 

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
12,000
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
Anyone ever get any feed back on how sales of the Big 3 Pass went last season?

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

I think their might be an answer here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/233383701/Audit-of-ORDA-by-NYS-Comptroller-Thomas-DiNapoli

Cash and Grant Management
The majority of ORDA’s operang revenue is earned in the last ve months of its scal year, from
November through March. This along with ORDA’s lack of adequate cash reserves and need to
borrow in ancipaon of grant funding cause it to borrow from a Line of Credit (LOC) to meet its nancial obligaons. For example, ORDA borrowed $900,000 from its LOC on February 1, 2013, to pay its annual State Rerement System bill. In addion, it borrowed $130,000 on October 25,
2011, to cover its payroll costs. It borrowed another $100,000 for payroll on June 4, 2013, despite
reporng that the 2013 ski season was highly successful. Given its cash situaon, ORDA relies on outside contribuons and loans to cover cash shortages. Consequently, ORDA’s outstanding LOC balance on June 18, 2013, was over $3.4 million, and it reported balances at the end of scal years 2007-08 through 2012-13 ranging from $2 million to almost $4.6 million. Because ORDA has connued to maintain LOC balances, it has incurred
$531,518 in interest and fees between January 2008 and June 2013.
When discussing ORDA’s cash situaon, ORDA ocials indicated their organizaon is unlike most public authories because it has very cyclical revenue streams. They emphasized ORDA earns nearly 85 percent of its annual revenues over a ve-month period of winter business. They also
indicated that revenues are largely dependent on uncontrollable factors such as weather and tourism trends.
While many factors contribute to ORDA’s cash situaon, we believe management and the Board
of Directors (Board) can take certain steps to improve ORDA’s cash and grant management, a
 

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
12,000
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
Another $123,781 is owed by ESDC for the construcon of the Lake Placid Convenon Center. We were advised this amount is not collecble, but ORDA has not wrien it o. The remaining
$13,000 was charged to ESDC’s account but has not been paid.
Further, ORDA should take more proacve collecon measures when it provides venue vouchers and ckets to area businesses to sell on its behalf. The businesses sell the vouchers and ckets at
a discounted value and keep an agreed upon amount with the balance due to ORDA. In one case,
Belleayre had an agreement with an area ski shop during scal 2012-13 to sell discounted ckets redeemable on specic days. Belleayre issued 1,500 cket vouchers to this ski shop, and ORDA received payment for only 1,173 ckets totaling $35,190. However, ORDA did not bill the shop unl aer the purchasers actually redeemed the ckets at Belleayre. ORDA did not require the ski shop to return the unsold ckets or to pay ORDA its share of ckets sold which may not have been used. Also, ORDA did not aempt to account for why 327 ckets were not redeemed. By
not doing so, ORDA cannot determine whether the ski shop gave ORDA all the monies it collected
for ckets that were purchased but never redeemed. ORDA should have a roune cyclical credit and collecon process where it determines whether accounts receivable are collecble, sends accounts for collecon where necessary, writes o uncollecble accounts, and determines whether to connue to extend credit to others. ORDA did not maintain evidence that sta had periodically reviewed whether accounts receivable were collecble. In response to our ndings, management indicated ORDA will implement a formal, documented quarterly review process to beer ensure it collects and properly classies past due accounts. Failing to take proacve measures to collect accounts receivable may contribute to ORDA not having sucient cash reserves to pay its bills.
 

Downhiller

New member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
2
Points
0
Wow. They criticize the developer's reports while presenting a completely confusing and nonsensical report themselves.

Here is my favorite paragraph:
"At about 250 units, a more appropriately-scaled resort would rank among the largest base area developments in the Northeastern region. It would increase the Route 28 corridors’ room count by about 80 percent. And, it would maintain the viability of the existing lodging sector in the Route 28corridor along with the character of its existing communities, hamlets, and villages that are dependent thereon."

Calling 250 units one of the largest base area developments in the Northeast region is simply incorrect. I guess they have never been to Stratton, Okemo, Killington, Sugarbush, Seven Springs, Mountain Creek, Holiday Valley, Hunter Mtn and Windham Mtn. :-o

Hi, thanks for your comment. The Belleayre Resort at Crossroads Park is a single resort development. To clarify, the proposed Crossroads hotel/resort complex at Belleayre would be among the largest single resort developments in the Northeastern U.S. This is what the report is referring to, a single resort development.

A resort area such as those you have mentioned consists of multiple individual resort developments.

Of course resort areas of Stratton, Okemo, Killington et. al. have a larger total room count than the proposed Crossroads resort at Belleayre. However, few of the individual resort hotel developments at these areas are larger than the Crossroads resort would be, which is the point being made. Feasibility as in this instance is being assessed for an individual project, not an entire (multi-project) resort area.

For those who have followed this issue, HVS' analysis concerns an individual resort project (the Belleayre Resort). HVS bases its feasibility analysis on other individual (and supposedly) comparable resorts. It does not base its analysis on resort areas such as those you mention, and as such, neither does the review commissioned by CHA. Virtually every comparable individual resort HVS references in the NE states and the Rockies is smaller than the proposed resort, most significantly so. All of the 5-star resorts cited by HVS for which data is available show construction costs 2x to 3x greater than HVS assumes. Yet HVS applies the higher RevPar from the Rocky Mountain 5-star resorts, which is much more than the RevPar of the comparable NE resorts it cites.
 
Last edited:

VTKilarney

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,415
Points
38
Location
VT NEK
I'll translate the above post: Their "analysis" is complete crap. Garbage in garbage out.
 
Last edited:

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
12,000
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
Hi, thanks for your comment. The Belleayre Resort at Crossroads Park is a single resort development. To clarify, the proposed Crossroads hotel/resort complex at Belleayre would be among the largest single resort developments in the Northeastern U.S. This is what the report is referring to, a single resort development.

A resort area such as those you have mentioned consists of multiple individual resort developments.

Of course resort areas of Stratton, Okemo, Killington et. al. have a larger total room count than the proposed Crossroads resort at Belleayre. However, few of the individual resort hotel developments at these areas are larger than the Crossroads resort would be, which is the point being made. Feasibility as in this instance is being assessed for an individual project, not an entire (multi-project) resort area.

For those who have followed this issue, HVS' analysis concerns an individual resort project (the Belleayre Resort). HVS bases its feasibility analysis on other individual (and supposedly) comparable resorts. It does not base its analysis on resort areas such as those you mention, and as such, neither does the review commissioned by CHA. Virtually every comparable individual resort HVS references in the NE states and the Rockies is smaller than the proposed resort, most significantly so. All of the 5-star resorts cited by HVS for which data is available show construction costs 2x to 3x greater than HVS assumes. Yet HVS applies the higher RevPar from the Rocky Mountain 5-star resorts, which is much more than the RevPar of the comparable NE resorts it cites.

All the Catskills hills that are still open today( 4 left used to be a lot more) will never have hotel stays on New England or the resorts out west because we have hills that get snow,rain and everything in between. The place out west and north vermont get a lot more snow and are bigger acres wise then any thing we have to offer down here.
 

VTKilarney

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,415
Points
38
Location
VT NEK
All the Catskills hills that are still open today( 4 left used to be a lot more) will never have hotel stays on New England or the resorts out west because we have hills that get snow,rain and everything in between. The place out west and north vermont get a lot more snow and are bigger acres wise then any thing we have to offer down here.

Ah, I see that population density must be completely irrelevant. My bad. It's just as convenient for a resident of New York City to go to Aspen or Jay Peak, right?

And this explains why there are no decent hotels at Mountain Creek. Who would want to stay in a nice resort hotel at ski area in New Jersey? No way, no how!
 
Last edited:

marcski

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
4,576
Points
0
Location
Westchester County, NY and a Mountain near you!
I don't think Scotty is so far off the mark. I'm quite skeptical that a "build it and they will come" approach will work for Belleayre. Especially here, where it seems that the plan is to build a hotel and resort first before building up the mountain's infrastructure. Also, skiing (and boarding) are relatively stagnant with regard to growth. So, to even come close to the resort's projected total skier visit numbers, they are going to have to get weekend skiers away from Southern Vermont. Now, unless you ae going to revitalize every town in the vicinity to suddenly become those "cute, white church steepled New England towns" that offer shopping and other amenities the city slicker skier and non-skier family members want, it just isn't going to happen. It's doomed for failure with NY taxpayers dollars going down with it. It seems to be State and public funded private development.
 

JimG.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
11,198
Points
63
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
I don't think Scotty is so far off the mark. I'm quite skeptical that a "build it and they will come" approach will work for Belleayre. Especially here, where it seems that the plan is to build a hotel and resort first before building up the mountain's infrastructure. Also, skiing (and boarding) are relatively stagnant with regard to growth. So, to even come close to the resort's projected total skier visit numbers, they are going to have to get weekend skiers away from Southern Vermont. Now, unless you ae going to revitalize every town in the vicinity to suddenly become those "cute, white church steepled New England towns" that offer shopping and other amenities the city slicker skier and non-skier family members want, it just isn't going to happen. It's doomed for failure with NY taxpayers dollars going down with it. It seems to be State and public funded private development.

Totally agree with one addition...the terrain at Belleayre is not world class. Anyone who thinks skiers will choose Belleayre over resorts out west or even VT or any other NE resort is delusional.

If NY spends tax dollars on this every governmental official and every politician in NY should be lynched.
 

VTKilarney

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
5,415
Points
38
Location
VT NEK
I don't think the issue is whether they will choose Belleayre over out west. Not every consumer is deciding between the two each and every time.

In any event, it appears that the consensus is against the project. If Belleayre can't draw sufficient guests, the Balsams must be DOA.
 

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
12,000
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
Part of the problem is the base lodge in the middle of the hill. And another problem is the first 30%top of the hill is nice pitch then it gets flat as pancake (flatter then Okemo).

I mean it barley makes money now without any fancy stuff. Fancy stuff here will not work. Most of people I see the times I ski Route 28 Catskills mounts are not NYC people their are from Hudson valley and are locals. Their are deals out their to bring in locals for many years that were more then 50% less then average ticket would sell for at other 3Catskills hills.



 
Top