How do you feel about Cannon?

[MadMadWorld]

Is he your type?
View attachment 12622

Isn't that everyone's type?

 

[thetrailboss]

Good comic relief guys even if it just made me spit up my coffee.

 

[Puck it]

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

Deadhead is on the right and I am on the left!!!!

 

[deadheadskier]

:lol:

 

[dlague]

I live in Concord and spoke to a business owner who also was elected to the state legislature. Cannon is part of the NH Division of Parks and Recreation. NH Division of Parks and Recreation is as a whole self funded and they have their own budget outside of the Capital Budget. So technically it is not tax payer dollars. While NH Division of Parks and Recreation does obtain State and Federal grants which could be considered tax payer dollars - those dollars go to NH Division of Parks and Recreation to be spent as they decide. Whether Cannon existed or not those grants would still come. Cannon is one piece of the puzzle in Franconia Notch State Park and I would not want to see a private entity manage it.

I never ski Sunapee because it is always too expensive both for lift tickets and Season Passes. And - is many of you know - if I am not skiing it then there is really no deal that I consider worth it! I do not want to see that happen to Cannon.

 

[thetrailboss]

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.

I've been pretty clear that I respect his POV; what I don't appreciate is someone with such a personal vendetta that they mislead folks on things and present made-up facts. That's what it looked like. I also didn't like the fact that he would not respect other POV's.

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.

Lynch hasn't been governor for a while. And the issue of a public owned and operated ski area is a public policy decision. As a side note I find it interesting that there has been a lot of discussion about Cannon but little or none about NY operating at least three major resorts (correct me if I'm wrong).

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.

I personally don't have any beef with Peak. My point was that Peak and POWDR are often criticized for cost-cutting measures and not investing in what folks want.

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.

I agree with DHS that this hypothetical is out of place. It also is factually inaccurate as Sugarloaf is taller (4,237 feet vs. 4,080 feet) and Sugarloaf also has a northern exposure. I agree though that Cannon is closer.

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?

No. My point is that proponents of privatizing Cannon assume that a private company will offer a better skiing product by investing in the mountain and operating it differently than the State. Contrary to popular belief Cannon actually has to go through quite a long bureaucratic process before it can make capital improvements and with regards to operation decisions--it does not have unlimited capital whenever it wants. Proponents assume that private is always better. My point is that this is not always the case as we've seen with some private resorts that are undercapitalized--which I named.

And as to the NH taxpayer perspective, this again comes back to my point that the state made a public policy decision that the state benefits from having a publicly owned and operated ski area. Back in the days of the Great Depression the cited benefit by Alex Bright and others was tourism dollars. The other benefit that is cited is (more) affordable skiing for NH taxpayers and residents. It is, admittedly, publicly subsidized skiing, but a public policy decision was made that the benefits outweigh the costs and they've returned to this decision many times and the majority seem to agree. It's understandable if you don't agree, but for now the majority in NH support things as they are.

 

[EPB]

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.

I might have opened up a bad can of worms on this one, but I'll explain my train of thought here and then jump back into the shadows for a bit. When I look at Boyne's decision to keep Sugarloaf open latest, I interpreted the decision to be centered on overhead costs necessary to run that area vs. Sunday River or Loon. I certainly agree/believe that Sugarloaf holds snow as well as anyone in the east and it's imprudent to ignore that Sugarloaf gets a bit more snow than Cannon. The better snowfall and retention dynamic allows Boyne to save money by forgoing the Superstar @ Killington-esque glacier snowmaking scheme at its more accessible resorts. That's the driver as far as I'm concerned. All three areas appear to have strong bed bases, but running the Superquad by itself on weekends-only is the company's cheapest option.

On top of not wanting to run multiple lifts, the other problem with upper mountain operations at Loon is that the base of those two upper mountain lifts is at ~1510 feet. I'd just as soon try to blast a trail off of the Seven Brothers triple, which has a base elevation of ~1000. That way, you'd save a ton of overhead every time you decide to open up. Granted, either endeavor would be very expensive because Loon is not a good candidate to stay open late on a regular basis.

While not ideal from a cost perspective, I'd be hard pressed to think that a company like Boyne wouldn't be tempted to spin the Cannonball and keep the tram running for the weekend (or 2-3) that the summit area would be open and inaccessible from the bottom of the resort. The base of the Cannonball is in the 3150 feet of elevation range, which compares very favorably to that of the Superqad, Loon's upper mountain lifts, or Sunday River's Locke mid station by a wide margin and I've got to imagine that a deep base on Cannonball would hold just about as well as anywhere in spring.

 

[thetrailboss]

I live in Concord and spoke to a business owner who also was elected to the state legislature. Cannon is part of the NH Division of Parks and Recreation. NH Division of Parks and Recreation is as a whole self funded and they have their own budget outside of the Capital Budget. So technically it is not tax payer dollars. While NH Division of Parks and Recreation does obtain State and Federal grants which could be considered tax payer dollars - those dollars go to NH Division of Parks and Recreation to be spent as they decide. Whether Cannon existed or not those grants would still come. Cannon is one piece of the puzzle in Franconia Notch State Park and I would not want to see a private entity manage it.

Another major fact that was kicked around in here was that Cannon, in a good year, actually subsidizes other state parks.

I never ski Sunapee because it is always too expensive both for lift tickets and Season Passes. And - is many of you know - if I am not skiing it then there is really no deal that I consider worth it! I do not want to see that happen to Cannon.

Sunapee was a compromise that they made in the 1990's in order to improve Cannon. Privatize one and improve the other. It, again, was a public policy decision weighing out the benefits and costs to the NH taxpayer.

 

[thetrailboss]

While not ideal from a cost perspective, I'd be hard pressed to think that a company like Boyne wouldn't be tempted to spin the Cannonball and keep the tram running for the weekend (or 2-3) that the summit area would be open and inaccessible from the bottom of the resort. The base of the Cannonball is in the 3150 feet of elevation range, which compares very favorably to that of the Superqad, Loon's upper mountain lifts, or Sunday River's Locke mid station by a wide margin and I've got to imagine that a deep base on Cannonball would hold just about as well as anywhere in spring.

FWIW the base of the Summit Quad at Mount Ellen is of comparable elevation and Win and Company don't run it in the spring because of cost.

 

[EPB]

I've been pretty clear that I respect his POV; what I don't appreciate is someone with such a personal vendetta that they mislead folks on things and present made-up facts. That's what it looked like. I also didn't like the fact that he would not respect other POV's.

I concur.

Lynch hasn't been governor for a while. And the issue of a public owned and operated ski area is a public policy decision. As a side note I find it interesting that there has been a lot of discussion about Cannon but little or none about NY operating at least three major resorts (correct me if I'm wrong).

To my knowledge, he was the one that ran on (obviously in addition to many other issues) the opposition of the Mueller's Okemo 2.0 project at Sunapee. He was also the guy whose regime couldn't keep their fight with the Mueller's out of court. I'll (what I think is fairly) assume that both parties are to blame for that. I'm an NH guy, so I don't see the need to get into the NY state stuff. In theory, as you can imagine, I'm opposed to it. Also, I believe Belknap county owns Gunstock, though I might have that wrong.

I personally don't have any beef with Peak. My point was that Peak and POWDR are often criticized for cost-cutting measures and not investing in what folks want.

Understood. My point is that life under Peak is frustrating, but ultimately not that bad.

I agree with DHS that this hypothetical is out of place. It also is factually inaccurate as Sugarloaf is taller (4,237 feet vs. 4,080 feet) and Sugarloaf also has a northern exposure. I agree though that Cannon is closer.

I see it as a base elevation to base elevation issue. The limiting factor is the base depth, right?

And as to the NH taxpayer perspective, this again comes back to my point that the state made a public policy decision that the state benefits from having a publicly owned and operated ski area. Back in the days of the Great Depression the cited benefit by Alex Bright and others was tourism dollars. The other benefit that is cited is (more) affordable skiing for NH taxpayers and residents. It is, admittedly, publicly subsidized skiing, but a public policy decision was made that the benefits outweigh the costs and they've returned to this decision many times and the majority seem to agree. It's understandable if you don't agree, but for now the majority in NH support things as they are.

This seems more like a history lesson to me than an evaluation of what makes sense going forward. Unless there's polling information on the matter, which I am not aware of, I won't speculate on the "majority's" opinion is on Cannon's operation status. I don't believe in everything that my candidates/representatives believe in and this is by no means a front page issue in the grand scheme of NH politics in my view. In any event, I've spent about as much time on this as I have to give. I enjoy the debate on this as always.

 

[thetrailboss]

To my knowledge, he was the one that ran on (obviously in addition to many other issues) the opposition of the Mueller's Okemo 2.0 project at Sunapee. He was also the guy whose regime couldn't keep their fight with the Mueller's out of court. I'll (what I think is fairly) assume that both parties are to blame for that. I'm an NH guy, so I don't see the need to get into the NY state stuff. In theory, as you can imagine, I'm opposed to it. Also, I believe Belknap county owns Gunstock, though I might have that wrong.

I think you're right on Lynch running on that. And yep Belknap County owns and operates Gunstock.

Understood. My point is that life under Peak is frustrating, but ultimately not that bad.

Nothing's perfect. I just know that in the privatization argument the proponents make it out to be better than sliced bread and I personally don't completely agree.

I see it as a base elevation to base elevation issue. The limiting factor is the base depth, right?

I was wondering if you meant a higher base. In that case I think Cannon is slightly higher.

This seems more like a history lesson to me than an evaluation of what makes sense going forward. Unless there's polling information on the matter, which I am not aware of, I won't speculate on the "majority's" opinion is on Cannon's operation status. I don't believe in everything that my candidates/representatives believe in and this is by no means a front page issue in the grand scheme of NH politics in my view. In any event, I've spent about as much time on this as I have to give. I enjoy the debate on this as always.

Perhaps it is historical; my main point was that state officials made the initial decision before we were all around and on subsequent revisits they have stuck with it.

 

[deadheadskier]

Belknap County does own Gunstock. In that ski areas long history, it has only operated in the red a handful of times. It has been profitable almost every single season. It has a better financial track record than many privately run ski areas. So, it's not that publicly run ski area can't be profitable.

 

[ScottySkis]

I understand where everone is comig from with my love for Platty and how it has to cpmpete with NY woned Bell.

 

[thetrailboss]

I understand where everone is comig from with my love for Platty and how it has to cpmpete with NY woned Bell.

Yeah you lost me there....

 

[steamboat1]

FWIW the base of the Summit Quad at Mount Ellen is of comparable elevation and Win and Company don't run it in the spring because of cost.

I don't think cost of operations had anything to do with that decision. You have to run two chairs to get to the top of either Lincoln Peak or Mt. Ellen. I'm pretty sure you know the real reason spring operations were moved to the Lincoln Peak area.

 

[thetrailboss]

I don't think cost of operations had anything to do with that decision. You have to run two chairs to get to the top of either Lincoln Peak or Mt. Ellen. I'm pretty sure you know the real reason spring operations were moved to the Lincoln Peak area.

Yep. Money. And the base areas.

 

[Edd]

The Gunstock and Cannon situations aren't identical (just pointing this out for clarity's sake). I'm under the impression that the Cannon workers are actual state employees. The Gunstock staff are not county employees. It's more of a private business that the county owns.

 

[thetrailboss]

The Gunstock and Cannon situations aren't identical (just pointing this out for clarity's sake). I'm under the impression that the Cannon workers are actual state employees. The Gunstock staff are not county employees. It's more of a private business that the county owns.

That's interesting. I did not know that.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[dlague]

The Gunstock and Cannon situations aren't identical (just pointing this out for clarity's sake). I'm under the impression that the Cannon workers are actual state employees. The Gunstock staff are not county employees. It's more of a private business that the county owns.

Keep on mind while the Cannon employees are in fact state employees their budget for NH Parks and Recreation. This budget is separate from the Capital Budget (tax payer revenue). The NH Parks and Recreation as a whole is sustainable and has be since 1993 and effectively it's own business!


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone

 

[doublediamond]

While I can see why people don't think the State should be in the business of business.

And yet there are no calls to close down the state-run liquor stores.