Cannon Mountain...thoughts

[deadheadskier]

Where did I say that?

You didn't say it, but I assume you feel that way. ALL you talk about in regards to Cannon is money. That's all you care about.

No where in the State Parks Mission Statement does it suggest that the parks are supposed to be profit centers for the state.

 

[Cannonball]

The NH legislature commissioned a study and grouped each of the parks, with group "C" being recommended for decommissioning, transferring, leasing, selling, or being given away. DRED walked that one back at the end of 2009, however it still gets whispered when the budget woes draw attention.

NH legislature commissions lots of studies so I'm not sure which one you are reffering to but it might be this one: http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix%201%20-%20SB5%20Legislation%20and%20Report.pdf Which includes the following figures:

You throw out a lot of 'facts' in your arguments but you usually fail to put them in context. There is no doubt that Cannon has operated in the red some years...and in the black in other years. But the facts are that it is a huge revenue source for the state, it doesn't operate at nearly the losses other NH areas do, and serves a larger economic role that is not reflected in a simple balance sheet of Cannon's direct operating budget. To quote the NH's 2010, 10-yr Parks Plan:
"The State Parks represent the face of New Hampshire to millions of visitors each year. They are also a cornerstone of the state’s tourism economy, the second most important
state industry, contributing $45 million to the state through fees and taxes and over $500 million to the state’s economy through direct spending."

Do you think a privately run ski area (e.g. Sunnapee) is an appealing "face of New Hampshire" and something that can be marketed as a "cornerstone of the state's tourism economy"? I was at Cannon on Monday. Even during peak mud season (i.e. a tourist low point) I talked to families of German and Japanese tourists in the parking lot who where there for the park. I doubt they planned to pull into Loon next.

 

[deadheadskier]

crap, better lease Mt. Washington out to Exxon Mobile. 5 years in the red. What do you say Threecy?

 

[threecy]

You didn't say it, but I assume you feel that way. ALL you talk about in regards to Cannon is money. That's all you care about.

You make a lot of assumptions about me and air them in public. Kudos to you. I'm a heartless person who only cares about money.

NH legislature commissions lots of studies so I'm not sure which one you are reffering to but it might be this one: http://nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Appendix%201%20-%20SB5%20Legislation%20and%20Report.pdf Which includes the following figures:

You throw out a lot of 'facts' in your arguments but you usually fail to put them in context.

In regard to context, the charts you posted are for all of Franconia Notch State Park and thus include the surplus the Flume brings in that offsets the losses from the ski area in the cited years.

Do you think a privately run ski area (e.g. Sunnapee) is an appealing "face of New Hampshire" and something that can be marketed as a "cornerstone of the state's tourism economy"?

Considering Sunapee skis more than twice as many people now as when it was government run...and, considering the advertising dollars for leased Cannon would come out of private funds and thus state funds could be focussed on other marketing...

I was at Cannon on Monday. Even during peak mud season (i.e. a tourist low point) I talked to families of German and Japanese tourists in the parking lot who where there for the park. I doubt they planned to pull into Loon next.

So, if the Cannon ski area operations were privately leased, said German and Japanese tourists wouldn't visit New Hampshire anymore?

 

[Puck it]

In regard to context, the charts you posted are for all of Franconia Notch State Park and thus include the surplus the Flume brings in that offsets the losses from the ski area in the cited years.

The Flume offsets Cannon losses. Provide the supporting data for that statement.

 

[deadheadskier]

The Flume offsets Cannon losses. Provide the supporting data for that statement.

+1

 

[thetrailboss]

The Flume offsets Cannon losses. Provide the supporting data for that statement.

Forget that. Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time. Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?

 

[Puck it]

Forget that. Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time. Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?

I think the last three or four years for Cannon have in the black. So, that leaves '06 and '07 out. If these are red then that leaves 2 out of ~10 years in the red. Not the doom and gloom that he is portraying.

 

[threecy]

I think the last three or four years for Cannon have in the black. So, that leaves '06 and '07 out. If these are red then that leaves 2 out of ~10 years in the red. Not the doom and gloom that he is portraying.

What? 3 out of the 5 years in the charts above showed FNSP/Cannon losing money. In addition, Cannon reportedly lost money in fiscal 2006 (not in the above charts).

 

[threecy]

Forget that. Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time. Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?

No, it isn't. Cannon is in the red in 3 of those 5 years.

 

[deadheadskier]

What are you talking about? Look at the numbers. There's not a single year in ( ) indicating that Cannon/NSP is operating in the red.

 

[threecy]

What are you talking about? Look at the numbers. There's not a single year in ( ) indicating that Cannon/NSP is operating in the red.

Did you actually open the link or are you just looking at the colorful graphs?

 

[deadheadskier]

Did you actually open the link or are you just looking at the colorful graphs?

I was going off of the #s on those charts, which are all in the Black.

I had asked for data showing the difference between the Flume and Cannon. You are right, the Flume does offset Cannon. The report is ridiculously long, but the information supports your argument.

When I asked for data supporting your claim, why not say just look at pages such and such and you will see what I am referring to? Instead you have to be a dick about it.

Now, back to Trailboss's and my questions.

Should the state lease Mt. Washington State Park?

 

[threecy]

When I asked for data supporting your claim, why not say just look at pages such and such and you will see what I am referring to? Instead you have to be a dick about it.

I apologize for not treating you in the classy manner you've been treating me.

 

[threecy]

Forget that. Cannon/FNSP is in the black for all of the periods in that chart while MWSP is in the red for all of periods of time. Why am I not hearing threecy shouting to privatize that?

I believe some, if not most, of Mount Washington State Park, is already leased.

 

[Puck it]

I was going off of the #s on those charts, which are all in the Black.

I was too.

I would like to see the latest five years as comparison. Is there a documetn for the most recent years.

 

[thetrailboss]

No, it isn't. Cannon is in the red in 3 of those 5 years.

The second chart does not support you. The "Cannon/FNSP" Unit does not show a single year in the red or with (these numbers). While it is true that they did not make as much profit, Cannon/FSP is in the black, above the $0 line as you can clearly see.

 

[deadheadskier]

Trailboss

If you go into the link and scroll way down, it breaks out the FSP revenue and expenses by segment; Flume, Tramway and Cannon Ski Area. It shows Cannon as being in the red, in some cases significantly for three of the five years.

That's what threecy is referring to, not the overall data on the charts that Cannonball posted.

 

[thetrailboss]

Trailboss

If you go into the link and scroll way down, it breaks out the FSP revenue and expenses by segment; Flume, Tramway and Cannon Ski Area. It shows Cannon as being in the red, in some cases significantly for three of the five years.

That's what threecy is referring to, not the overall data on the charts that Cannonball posted.

I just saw Page 79 of the report, and have three points.

First, the information is now six-eight years old and obsolete. Second, the lease for Cannon, as I understood it, was for all the FNSP operations, not just Cannon since they are all integrated. When you factor in the Tram revenue with Cannon revenue from Page 79, it takes care of some of the red ink. I imagine if you factored in the campground operation at Echo Lake it would help eliminate more. Third, the revenue projections that we are all pointing to here suggest that they are all integrated businesses. That is not to say that they aren't seperable, but in the eyes of the state, they are the same.

 

[threecy]

Second, the lease for Cannon, as I understood it, was for all the FNSP operations, not just Cannon since they are all integrated.

I'm pretty sure the discussions for this biennial budget are around leasing the Cannon Mountain ski area, not the entire Franconia Notch State Park.