Big Burke announcement

[thetrailboss]

Goldberg says they are going to start changing the signage to drop the "Q"! Interesting that they would take on that expense.
(I'm listening to the press conference http://www.wcax.com/story/24396596/watch-live-coverage-onwcaxcom)

"Burke will probably be sold first....."

Interesting.

And, of course, Shumlin wants to shut it down quickly. Not quick enough...

"Do you think that the State will be sued for its representations..."

"You did say on the video that the State audited the projects?"

Paul Heintz for the win.

 

[cdskier]

Goldberg says they are going to start changing the signage to drop the "Q"! Interesting that they would take on that expense.
(I'm listening to the press conference http://www.wcax.com/story/24396596/watch-live-coverage-onwcaxcom)

Maybe they think removing the Q will help distance themselves from the previous regime and will help prevent future potential buyers from being scared away

 

[fbrissette]

Goldberg says they are going to start changing the signage to drop the "Q"! Interesting that they would take on that expense.

Money well spent in my opinion.

 

[fbrissette]

They can probably find many volunteers who would do it for free.

 

[Edd]

Goldberg says they are going to start changing the signage to drop the "Q"! Interesting that they would take on that expense.

Could be some well spent marketing dollars to lure pissed off customers back.

 

[thetrailboss]

Maybe they think removing the Q will help distance themselves from the previous regime and will help prevent future potential buyers from being scared away

+1.

Exactly.

 

[from_the_NEK]

I'm pretty sure any potential owners are going to be well aware of the "Q". But then new ownership may want to come in with their own spin on the branding. Thus the potential for two new logos/names within a year.

Just removing the Qs from everything in the hotel will be a major undertaking (it is literally EVERYWHERE).

And when he says "Burke will be sold first" I'm wondering if he is talking about the hotel or the entire resort (hoping for the latter).

 

[thetrailboss]

And when he says "Burke will be sold first" I'm wondering if he is talking about the hotel or the entire resort (hoping for the latter).

That was an interesting comment.

 

[JoeB-Z]

"Burke will probably be sold first....."

Interesting.

And, of course, Shumlin wants to shut it down quickly. Not quick enough...

"Do you think that the State will be sued for its representations..."

"You did say on the video that the State audited the projects?"

Paul Heintz for the win.

That reporter is very astute. Shumlin personally assured potential investors in the sales video that the EB-5 projects would be "audited" by the state of Vermont. Once the losses are tallied you can bet there will be claims against the state. Why not?

 

[thetrailboss]

That reporter is very astute. Shumlin personally assured potential investors in the sales video that the EB-5 projects would be "audited" by the state of Vermont. Once the losses are tallied you can bet there will be claims against the state. Why not?

Exactly. You did not miss the ball either.

 

[thetrailboss]

Here is the 32 minute conference.

http://www.wcax.com/story/31829194/officials-jay-peak-will-remain-open

 

[BenedictGomez]

You are wrong and right. Jay Peak used to have 30 employees in the summer. Now it's several hundreds. Many year-round jobs have indeed been created. Still far from the few thousands it was supposed to create however.

Which means I'm 100% right, as there are nowhere near the thousands of jobs promised, which was the entire point of this madness.

A "few hundred" jobs is an economic pittance, and dont forget, part-time jobs do not count, you need FTE for the math, and I doubt there were even "a few hundred" new and sustainable FTE created in total. The reality is, it's a joke, a boondoggle, and trying to defend the summation of job's created in the NEK from this trainwreck is really a futile exercise in putting lipstick on a pig at this late date. The sad thing is, people enriched themselves by preying on people's economic fears and hopes for a better tomorrow.

That reporter is very astute. Shumlin personally assured potential investors in the sales video that the EB-5 projects would be "audited" by the state of Vermont. Once the losses are tallied you can bet there will be claims against the state. Why not?

Good. I hope State of Vermont bleeds. Maybe then the dopey voters up there will finally hold people accountable.

 

[thetrailboss]

Good. I hope State of Vermont bleeds. Maybe then the dopey voters up there will finally hold people accountable.

Nah, they went right back to the utopian discussions instead of facing the real issues that face Vermont. Ethics Commission for the Legislature? Nah, that's boring. Legalize pot? Wahoo!

 

[steamboat1]

Good. I hope State of Vermont bleeds. Maybe then the dopey voters up there will finally hold people accountable.

I haven't heard any outcry from Vermonters about Shumlin raising the gas taxes to pay for the $2m or so the state lost trying to implement a single payer healthcare system. Vermonters are just comfortably numb.

 

[fbrissette]

Which means I'm 100% right, as there are nowhere near the thousands of jobs promised, which was the entire point of this madness.

To be fair, you pretty much implied that no job was created. Even if these are not awesome jobs, you don't run a golf course, a waterpark, 1 arena, three hotels and hundreds of other lodging units without a significant number of people.

You are most definitely correct for the rest.

 

[benski]

I haven't heard any outcry from Vermonters about Shumlin raising the gas taxes to pay for the $2m or so the state lost trying to implement a single payer healthcare system. Vermonters are just comfortably numb.

They want gas to be more expensive to reduce demand, since gas is bad for the environment.

 

[mbedle]

To be fair, you pretty much implied that no job was created. Even if these are not awesome jobs, you don't run a golf course, a waterpark, 1 arena, three hotels and hundreds of other lodging units without a significant number of people.

You are most definitely correct for the rest.

Just to be fair, they don't just count the job created by the new company. They also count the indirect jobs created outside of the business to support the business. That is where I believe they get most of the job count and that is also where I think the majority of number fudging occurs. I would love to see some of the petitions to remove the conditions of the visas. It would be very telling on how these jobs are accounted for. My guess is they use jobs like, more tourist results in more people needed to sell gas at the local convenient store. If the company that they purchase soap from hires a new employee to increase product of said soap, they can count that as a job. Hell, if a person that bakes cookies that get sold in the hotel, starts a business, that counts as a job. Apparently there are models that are used to determine these numbers. I am trying to get an example of one just to see the madness. Plus you can count the construction jobs if the project last longer than 2 years. Another good reason to extend the construction of these project over multiple years.

 

[mbedle]

http://www.cost.org/uploadedFiles/C...s/M. Press Article Economic Impact Report.pdf

Example report.

 

[mbedle]

I also believe that in 2009 the USCIS started to allow some of the seasonal works at the resort to count for some job creation. I think this is tied to the seasonal nature of the ski business.

 

[BenedictGomez]

To be fair, you pretty much implied that no job was created. Even if these are not awesome jobs, you don't run a golf course, a waterpark, 1 arena, three hotels and hundreds of other lodging units without a significant number of people.

You are most definitely correct for the rest.

It's silly if you interpreted my comments as that I literally meant that not a single full-time job was ever created.

They want gas to be more expensive to reduce demand, since gas is bad for the environment.

If true, that's an extremist belief.

Not to mention, it dramatically and disproportionately economically harms the most poorest members of society, who ostensibly, are the ones the progressive movement routinely claims to be helping.