How do you feel about Cannon?

[Smellytele]

What was the result? Who was ultimately fault? I think this refers to the west bowl expansion that has yet to materialize, correct? If the state really did re-neg on their promise, that's not on the Muellers, of course. It's ironic that the issue arose in '07.

As a side note, I wonder to what extent real estate/trail expansion issues are mitigated by the area's location in US forest land.

The State won - http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090420-NEWS-90420019. Well the case was dismissed by the Judge. It turned a lot of people sour toward leasing state property and may have saved Cannon from being leased.

The Muellers had another issue in CO with the locals and USFS as well about expanding Crested Butte onto Snodgrass Mtn. Not always as nicey nice as you suggest.

 

[Puck it]

The Sunapee thing was a dispute over like a 100 yards of state park that needed to be added to the ski area lease in oorder to get to the new land for the west bowl expansion.

 

[Smellytele]

The Sunapee thing was a dispute over like a 100 yards of state park that needed to be added to the ski area lease in oorder to get to the new land for the west bowl expansion.

Says 175 acres in the article

 

[EPB]

Says 175 acres in the article

I've seen some conflicting reports on this. Some sources seem to call the 175 acres state land in need of approval while others refer to a smaller buffer zone between land the Mueller's purchased for $2.1MM and the existing resort footprint.

 

[EPB]

Here's an example. My mistake. "Sunapee sued after Gov. John Lynch refused to present an amended lease for Mount Sunapee State Park - expanding the ski area to include the entire park - to the Executive Council for approval. The buffer areas prevent Sunapee from connecting to property it purchased for $2.1 million in Goshen for an expansion. The ski area cannot be expanded on the east because of an old-growth forest."

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130430/NEWS02/130439918

Generally speaking, this thing sure seems like a mess. Without knowing how this was represented in negotiations and to what extend the gubernatorial change affected the status of the relationship between the Mueller's and the state of NH, I find it difficult to identify culpability all that well.

On one hand, the Mueller's and their representatives should have ironed this out earlier. On the other, the state had to know that building real estate at Sunapee must have been a huge priority to the Mueller's and that an attempt to block real estate development would be faced with serious hostility.

 

[Smellytele]

Whomever is at fault it left a bad taste on the lease and the future lease of Cannon when that idea began to be raised.

 

[EPB]

Whomever is at fault it left a bad taste on the lease and the future lease of Cannon when that idea began to be raised.

I'm sure there's a great deal of deal fatigue going on and that a Cannon lease is much less likely to be on the state's list of priorities as a result, but let's not loose sight of the bigger issue here. Cannon might not be leased for any time in the foreseeable future because the state botched its first try at a lease agreement, not because it doesn't have the appetite.

I think of it like this. Imagine if you work for a resort manager and it's your job to pitch the idea of a Cannon lease to the powers that be at your firm. The pros are abundant and I don't need to get into them now, but you can rest assured that one of the most important questions you'd need to answer is "well, what the hell happened between the Mueller's and the state over at Sunapee?" You'd essentially have to argue that the Mueller's didn't read their lease agreement properly and got overzealous when they purchased an adjacent property to the tune of over $2MM on which to make their hay on real estate.

The obvious fear from a developer's perspective is that the Mueller's made a lease agreement with one gubernatorial regime and that years later, Lynch runs on an anti Sunapee development stance, refuses to work with the lessee and essentially implements a scorched earth policy where he refused to allow the lessee to make the investments that they expected to undertake when they made the lease agreement. In addition, the fact that the two sides weren't able to settle would be very discouraging.

Back to that initial framework that I set out, the Sunapee/Mueller issue comes down to whether the state entered into a bad agreement, or whether they ultimately picked a bad partner. On paper, at least, the Mueller's seemed like an excellent partner up until the land dispute, for what its worth.

 

[deadheadskier]

I seem to recall a fair amount of local opposition to real estate development when this was going on. Perhaps that influenced the position of the state on the matter at least a little

 

[EPB]

I seem to recall a fair amount of local opposition to real estate development when this was going on. Perhaps that influenced the position of the state on the matter at least a little

That's entirely possible. I grew up in the Portsmouth area and did my skiing in the MWV, so Sunapee matters were never of great relevance to me when this was going down. If that were the case, I'd have to chalk that up to the "bad partner/fit" side similar to the issues that Les Otten had trying to build a Grand Summit Hotel at Sugarbush before the town shot it down.

 

[Not Sure]

Another 500 mile away skier, I do love Cannon but have not been there for some time, I'm planning on going next year, I am not a big fan of government involement in buisness, But some exceptions are Ok.
Just thinking if it was leased they may not let people skin up . My local area doesn't allow it.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Cannon is part of one of the states jewels in Franconia Notch State Park.Can't see them letting a private entity get in the middle of that without even more of a political change that has already occured in the last 5 years.

 

[thetrailboss]

I know this borders on politics, but seeing as we have global warming discussions, I think this is appropriate as it pertains to skiing and the ski industry in general.

I've read a little bit at www.taxpayersforcannon.com but I don't feel this provides a balanced argument.

I'm especially interested in how NH residents feel about this

Can of worms: Opened

I don't think that our good friend threecy has chimed in yet. He is very adamant on his POV--so much so that he does not consider other views.

That said I disagree with him. A lot of what he says is skewed to say the least. I also heard that he is upset that he was not hired for a position there a few years back and has had a hard time working in the industry. Maybe it is a factor, maybe not. His intense feelings against Cannon seem to correspond time-wise with the rumored rejection.

I understand his general argument that a state should not be in the ski business, but it ignores a longstanding policy decision made by NH now almost 80 years ago. If he disagrees he can voice his view with his representatives and should understand if folks disagree with him.

From what I've observed, DeVivo has done a fabulous job with what he has in terms of resources. It is going strong.

Advocates for privatization just assume that the outcome will be a better ski experience and product. While Cannon does not have the longest season or blow the most snow, it has been pretty consistent in terms of what they do in the past few years and at a pretty reasonable price. That's worth something. As we've seen in the past few years with POWDR and Peaks private does not always mean better. In both of those cases folks grumble about sub-par skiing product and cost cutting measures that create more anger than enthusiasm. Who is to say that a similar entity would not step into Cannon and make the season shorter than it already is?

 

[thetrailboss]

You won't get any useful info here. Arguments devolve before that can happen. Moderators here (esp DHS) encourage that.

I disagree.

 

[thetrailboss]

I seem to recall a fair amount of local opposition to real estate development when this was going on. Perhaps that influenced the position of the state on the matter at least a little

This.

Though the buffer was only about 100 yards wide or so it ran the entire southern boundary of the area. Hence perhaps why it amounted to 175 acres.

Muellers were smart enough to buy the land next door and had it queued up for Okemo II. But there were some conservationists who did not like the idea. One guy in particular had some power....his last name was Lynch.

 

[EPB]

I don't think that our good friend threecy has chimed in yet. He is very adamant on his POV--so much so that he does not consider other views.

That said I disagree with him. A lot of what he says is skewed to say the least. I also heard that he is upset that he was not hired for a position there a few years back and has had a hard time working in the industry. Maybe it is a factor, maybe not. His intense feelings against Cannon seem to correspond time-wise with the rumored rejection.

I understand his general argument that a state should not be in the ski business, but it ignores a longstanding policy decision made by NH now almost 80 years ago. If he disagrees he can voice his view with his representatives and should understand if folks disagree with him.

From what I've observed, DeVivo has done a fabulous job with what he has in terms of resources. It is going strong.

Advocates for privatization just assume that the outcome will be a better ski experience and product. While Cannon does not have the longest season or blow the most snow, it has been pretty consistent in terms of what they do in the past few years and at a pretty reasonable price. That's worth something. As we've seen in the past few years with POWDR and Peaks private does not always mean better. In both of those cases folks grumble about sub-par skiing product and cost cutting measures that create more anger than enthusiasm. Who is to say that a similar entity would not step into Cannon and make the season shorter than it already is?

I'm certainly not going to speak for Threecy. As far as skewed-ness is concerned, however, we all have our views, so I don't quite understand why bringing up the fact that he happens to be skewed has any relevance to any conversation on this board. I equate that, in many ways, to how people point out that *gasp* Fox News leans conservative. We all have our angles. That's okay as far as I'm concerned- for instance, I very much enjoy DHS's points of view as an Okemo regular growing up and as a Seacoast NH resident. What's life without genuine points of view? Granted, I get what you're saying about Threecy's difficulty playing nice with others - it's too bad because he could have been an asset to certain degrees on this site and I do enjoy his work on newenglandskihistory.org.

As far as the longstanding NH State Government involvement in the ski industry point, my counterpoint is, as respectively as possible, who cares? Furthermore, who cares what Lynch's constituents have to say. At the end of the day, if there is reasonable deal to be made that earns money for the state of New Hampshire that is made with a good lessee, then it makes sense to make a reasonable deal. I did allude to the POWDR (i think I said SKI by accident which was the ticker for ASC [?]), ASC, Peak aspect, and I would respectfully submit that I lived my entire ski life under ASC or Peak regime, so I'd tell those people to get over it - big brother isn't always your friend. That's life.

I don't mean to come off as negative, but by the same token, I don't get what you/people on your wavelength expect. Peak is all to quick to shut Attitash down in favor of Wildcat, which I saw as a good business move because Wildcat has lower overhead for a day of operations (one lodge and one lift), has coldr weather, and is right down the street from Attitash and the MWV.

If anything, Boyne (if they leased Cannon), might very well choose to shut Sugarloaf down early in favor of Cannon because it is twice as close to the Boston market, has northern exposure, and is at higher elevation. So, while I get that private companies might not run their areas as long as a public ones (if they continue to run at unsustainable losses), I really don't get your point here either. It sounds like you are saying that the taxpayers of NH would somehow benefit from going to Cannon en mass when it's unprofitable to run the place because "businesses won"t run the place unless they see a profit" Am I correct in that assesment, or am I missing something?

 

[deadheadskier]

If anything, Boyne (if they leased Cannon), might very well choose to shut Sugarloaf down early in favor of Cannon because it is twice as close to the Boston market, has northern exposure, and is at higher elevation.

Totally separate conversation and a hypothetical one, but I highly doubt Boyne would do that. I would think Sugarloaf's huge bed base and regulars spending money off hill is the reasoning they keep it the last mountain standing for Boyne. It does receive and retain a significantly larger amount of snow than Cannon does. I think those reasons negate any positive gain they'd get from Cannon being closer to Boston. Despite Cannon's easy access, they only get about 100K skier visits a season. Sugarloaf being as remote as it gets for a major New England ski area gets closer to 350K skier visits a season. I think that highlights the advantage of having a big bed base.

When you think about it regarding Boyne, if they felt that proximity to the Boston market is what's most important for late season operations, they'd already go for it with Loon. If they wanted to, they could blow the hell out of Flume and connect it via downloading from base area lifts.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Go Scott Brown!

 

[Puck it]

Go Scott Brown!

Now that is political.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Now that is political.

What? Noooo. Okay let's get back to discussing ewoks. Was Ewok Adventures that bad of a movie?

 

[Cannonball]

Go Scott Brown!

Is he your type?