Local Group Lobbies New Hampshire Legislature to Privatize Cannon

[jack97]

no area can afford to make snow for the whole winter...

No, just enuf to keep up with Loon and Bretton Woods. Most likely Loon, IMO, Cannon has some intermediate terrain and great scenery that can challenge a place like Loon. Waiting in those 30 min plus lines at Loon can be aggravating.

 

[dropKickMurphy]

Not sure about insurance but exemption from property tax can be huge. The rumor I've heard was that Wachusett is exempt from paying any assessment when pumping water from the reservoir. Sometimes I wonder if the Muellers have the same arrangement with Sunapee.

Why would the operators of Wachusett or Sunapee pay property taxes? You don't (directly) pay property taxes when you lease a house or apartment, do you? The owner of the property pays the taxes; and presumably recoups his expenses from the revenue that is generated by the lease.

 

[jack97]

Why would the operators of Wachusett or Sunapee pay property taxes?

Wachusetts and Sunapee are state owned, the Crowleys and Muellers respectively has the leasing rights to operate on this land. Main point is state leasing to private operators has significant cost benefits as compare to a private land owner who operates a ski area; they do not have to pay property taxes and other hidden taxes such as water usage.

 

[dropKickMurphy]

It seems to me that there are 2 competing interests here. Local business owners would love to see changes made to Cannon that would increase skier visits. Skiers (in general) would not want to see changes that would change the essential character of Cannon.

I'd like to see the local business people adopt a different strategy for attracting more tourists; one that takes advantage of Cannon's unique characteristics. Both Loon and Bretton Woods are convenient to Cannon, and both of these areas attract plenty of extended-stay visitors. I'd love to see these areas offer vacation packages that included an option for a day at Cannon. Along with this, I'd like to see a shuttle service offered between Loon, Franconia, Cannon, and Bretton Woods.

Since the state owns Cannon, perhaps tax incentives can be offered to Loon and Bretton Woods to participate in this concept. I believe it would be beneficial to both of these resorts to offer a vacation package that included the option of skiing the classic historic terrain of Cannon; as well as visiting the Ski Museum, the new "Old Man" exhibit, and spending some time shopping and dining in the authentic village of Franconia. It would certainly be something that could distinguish their vacation packages from those of other all-inclusive resorts. In addition, it would decrease the trail crowds and lift lines at their areas...factors that I believe are extremely important in attracting return visits to their resorts.

 

[MadPadraic]

The only change I would make to cannon is putting a very small warming hut, but not an eatery, somewhere in the general area of the front 5.

But more generally, if Cannon was gifted to the state as a public treasure than it should be that way and not go the way of commercial ruin; this is especially true if the winter operation is in the black. I wouldn't object to a nice set of associated XC paths.

I went to Mt Sunapee this year for the first time. I'm not sure how it was prior to its Okemoization, but I wasn't all that impressed. The trails were too wide and straight, and the surface was too compressed. On the otherhand, the views were amazing. Maybe I'll feel differently during a spring visit.

 

[Charlie Schuessler]

Land owned by the public for preservation and protection from abuse by the private sector should never be operated by the private sector.

 

[riverc0il]

The only change I would make to cannon is putting a very small warming hut, but not an eatery, somewhere in the general area of the front 5.

But more generally, if Cannon was gifted to the state as a public treasure than it should be that way and not go the way of commercial ruin; this is especially true if the winter operation is in the black. I wouldn't object to a nice set of associated XC paths.

cannon already has a warming hut near the front five, it is called the tram base lodge franconia inn already has an impressive XC network nearby, surprised that cannon and franconia inn do not have some more well published packages.

the folks in favor of leasing cannon are operating on some huge assumptions, especially those that believe a lease will dramatically increase revenue and/or skier visits. i think even folks in favor of the lease will admit that there needs to be some base level at which anything below would not be worth the sacrifice of handing a state treasure over to a private interest. I.E. a minimal increase in revenue or skier visits would certainly not merit a lease. so before calling for such drastic action, how about some (independent) research that shows how much leasing would really change revenue or skier visits. included in the research would need to be figured things that the state would not want to sacrifice (affordable skiing, no base area development (yea, that's you muellers), etc.).

who really thinks of sunapee as a state owned ski area any more? i think of sunapee as the muellers property all but officially. the prices for sunapee are perhaps the worst value for product in new england today, imo (full disclosure, i have never skied there, mostly due to the price and what looks like lack of what i consider interesting terrain).

despite my steadfast belief that leasing cannon is not a good idea, i am always open to a strong argument to convince me other wise. so far, no argument has been made. the only claim that seems relevant is revenues will likely increase with a lease. this is generally true as leasing takes away financial risk which is assumed by the leasing company and assures revenue even during bad years. but how much of an increase in revenues would there be? cannon is profitable from what i understand, the mountain ops are certainly not loosing money (which i think is a key point, if cannon was a money suck on the state of NH, then leasing would seem like an option to be considered). how much revenue increase is worth selling the soul of the NH park system's prize jewel? is an increase in revenue worth an increase in ticket prices (there is a reason why cannon's prices are so cheap for what they offer: more than 2k verts, two high speed lifts, one of the only two trams in the northeast, huge amount of regular, grooming, etc.). NH residents may loose what i would argue are some of the best deals going, including a ridiculously cheap season pass.

perhaps the state doesn't want to be in the ski area business? maybe that is their problem. NH used to be the ski capitol of the east but got blown away by VT a long time ago. part of that was terrain, snow, and better accessibility in VT for NY, NJ, and CT skiers. part of that also (seems to me at least) is NH doesn't market their product as effectively as VT.

cannon is a quirky mountain and operates well with current management. it isn't perfect, but i just don't see how a private lease is going to benefit the mountain nor the state coffers. i can't really see how a private lease would increase skier visits much. look at the market? no slopeside, no resort, so no lease operator is going to lure away people who opt for loon, WV, BW, etc. the mountain will always have an image problem (windy, cold, steep, icy, etc.). current mountain admin have gone to great lengths to make cannon look beginner, intermediate, and newb friendly. actually, it has been a great campaign, i have never seen any other ski area attempt to de-fang their image as much as cannon has. but the perception still exists (see the recent post on AZ from an intermediate skier that wasn't sure if he was "ready" for cannon yet).. i just don't see how they are going to get more skiers, especially if prices go up and current die hard cannon skiers get alienated. perhaps i just am not seeing the opportunity here. like i said, i am open to evidence pointing to the huge amount of benefits of leasing, but so far the only valid argument of revenue generation isn't researched at all, just a lot of political conjecture and loud mouthing, and whether the trade off for the soul of the park system is worth the money increase (if substantial enough at all?) is not being addressed. while they are at it, why doesn't NH lease out the entire park system? we should also look into leasing the national park service as well. maybe we should lease out our entire government while we are at it.

 

[jack97]

i have never seen any other ski area attempt to de-fang their image as much as cannon has. but the perception still exists (see the recent post on AZ from an intermediate skier that wasn't sure if he was "ready" for cannon yet).. i just don't see how they are going to get more skiers, especially if prices go up and current die hard cannon skiers get alienated.

IMO the de-fanging has worked. Since they added the new trails for beginners and intermediates, they have made aggressive radio advertising about the discounted lift tickets for these trails. Makes this very family oriented. Past three years, every I time I go at the weekends, lot more families are making it their destination. I usually boot up over at the lodge next to Peabody, lots of family with the coolers laying claims over the folding table.

 

[Brettski]

If they lose 2 for tuesday, I would be unhappy.

I would also think privitation would mothball the tram as to costly to run

 

[riverc0il]

IMO the de-fanging has worked. Since they added the new trails for beginners and intermediates, they have made aggressive radio advertising about the discounted lift tickets for these trails. Makes this very family oriented. Past three years, every I time I go at the weekends, lot more families are making it their destination. I usually boot up over at the lodge next to Peabody, lots of family with the coolers laying claims over the folding table.

indeed. i didn't spell it out in my post, but this was meant to be one of my points. cannon's management, planning, and marketing has done an excellent job selling the de-fanged version of the mountain. i don't see how skier visits in this demographic could be increased much by a leased company given how well cannon has already done. a good portion of the population doesn't believe and will never believe big bad windy and icy cannon can possibly skied by anything less than an upper intermediate. i don't see much development in these demographics, either the message was heard about the gentler side of cannon or people believe the hype, i don't see much middle ground.

 

[snoseek]

I agree 100 percent with what rivercoil said. Well thought out comments.

 

[MadPadraic]

cannon already has a warming hut near the front five, it is called the tram base lodge

Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Warming at the tram and then going uphill to the zoomer chair isn't what I meant

To play devils advocate, a commercial interest could come in and give Cannon their own flavor. If the Muellers came in, we could see more snow making, straighter trails, and relentless suppression of natural snow. Others might make different changes... So if you like thes things than there could be a reason. But...yuck!

From a skiing perspecive, I can't possibly see how taking Cannon private will improve the experience..

As far as Franconia motel owners: when I stay over night in the region I'm a price sensitive shopper, so try beating Lincoln prices (which are pretty good).

Even if Cannon was, say, twice as popular, Franconia is still on the wrong side of the notch, and Lincoln/Woodstock certainly aren't full midweek. Furthermore, we have to wonder if ski 93 is a zero sum game, and if a more popular Cannon would just be taking skiiers from BW or Loon. If this is the case there probably would be little effect on Franconia's occupancy rates.

 

[riverc0il]

Even if Cannon was, say, twice as popular, Franconia is still on the wrong side of the notch, and Lincoln/Woodstock certainly aren't full midweek. Furthermore, we have to wonder if ski 93 is a zero sum game, and if a more popular Cannon would just be taking skiiers from BW or Loon. If this is the case there probably would be little effect on Franconia's occupancy rates.

i had meant to make this piont but forgot about it. ski 93 also includes waterville, tenney (when they reopen), ragged, and i would even through burke in there. i think for the most part, it probably generally is a zero sum game. there may be some room for client growth but i think generally any increase at cannon in skier visits is likely coming at the decrease of another NH ski area, most likely a ski 93 area.

for the warming hut idea, i was not suggesting hiking back to the zoomer chair from the tram base. whenever i ski the front five, generally i ski the zoomer chair for a while and then hit the tram when i want to warm up or access the rest of the mountain. i am not normally a tram skier, but it does serve its purpose if you are lapping the zoomer chair. if you want to get back to zoomer, you get a top to bottom run for your efforts in getting over to the tram which can be done fairly painlessly by taking avalanche or banshee. i think a warming hut either at the top or bottom of the zoomer chair would be rather under utilized. actually, there already is one there, the ski club building. if it is open, you can duck in there to warm up.

 

[thetrailboss]

Skiing the Front Five doesn't warm you up at all???!!! :lol:

 

[jack97]

i think for the most part, it probably generally is a zero sum game. there may be some room for client growth but i think generally any increase at cannon in skier visits is likely coming at the decrease of another NH ski area, most likely a ski 93 area.

If it is (and the If is in question) a zero sum game along 93. Cannon could be losing skiers, it seems stuck in an earlier circa given all the disadvantages it has compare to Loon, WV and BW. I love the place as is but I can see why family, friends and peers would choose other options. If they continue on this losing trend you have to question why it should still be open as a ski area.

 

[MadPadraic]

If it is (and the If is in question) a zero sum game along 93. Cannon could be losing skiers, it seems stuck in an earlier circa given all the disadvantages it has compare to Loon, WV and BW. I love the place as is but I can see why family, friends and peers would choose other options. If they continue on this losing trend you have to question why it should still be open as a ski area.

What loosing trend? According to this site: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/FinancialReports/cannon_2002.html

Cannon turned a profit MUCH LARGER than the amount that the Mt Sunapee lease brought in in 2001. Granted that is 5 years old, but it was the first one that I could find. If the current numbers are substantially different, please correct me.

Considering that 1) The Cannon skier experience is superior to Mt Sunapee.
2) "Improvements" to Cannon would likely i) Raise ticket prices, ii) increase lines, iii) increase snowmaking and grooming which inflict considerable damage on the enviornment.

Leasing is the first step on a slippery slope to condos, which would ultimately provide competition for Franconia motel owners.

I don't see how this is a win for anyone but ideologs.

 

[riverc0il]

If it is (and the If is in question) a zero sum game along 93. Cannon could be losing skiers, it seems stuck in an earlier circa given all the disadvantages it has compare to Loon, WV and BW. I love the place as is but I can see why family, friends and peers would choose other options. If they continue on this losing trend you have to question why it should still be open as a ski area.

what loosing trend? personal observation seems to indicate an increase in skier visits but i am open to data that contradicts my observations...

 

[riverc0il]

Leasing is the first step on a slippery slope to condos, which would ultimately provide competition for Franconia motel owners.

that is why it seems so weird any local franconia inn keepers would be behind a lease. if i was a big company thinking about leasing cannon, the first thing i would do is try to buy out the mittersill resort and push that expansion through. there may not be room at cannon proper for slope side, but i could certainly see some back door action occurring if/when an interconnect occurs.

 

[jack97]

What loosing trend? According to this site: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/FinancialReports/cannon_2002.html

Cannon turned a profit MUCH LARGER than the amount that the Mt Sunapee lease brought in in 2001. Granted that is 5 years old, but it was the first one that I could find. If the current numbers are substantially different, please correct me.

Considering that 1) The Cannon skier experience is superior to Mt Sunapee.
2) "Improvements" to Cannon would likely i) Raise ticket prices, ii) increase lines, iii) increase snowmaking and grooming which inflict considerable damage on the enviornment.

Leasing is the first step on a slippery slope to condos, which would ultimately provide competition for Franconia motel owners.

I don't see how this is a win for anyone but ideologs.

Old data. The legislator(s) pushing for this is comparing either visit count or revenues to other places. IIRC, Loon specifically and citing current revenues success from Sunapee.

 

[jack97]

what loosing trend? personal observation seems to indicate an increase in skier visits but i am open to data that contradicts my observations...

That is what I would like to see, hard evidence that Cannon can not keep up with it competitors. People pushing for privatization has been saying this for the past two years.

Others want to maximize the earning potential of the place, so they could be fudging the numbers to their benefit.