Sunapee sueing the state

[powers]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071019/FRONTPAGE/710190304

While Okemo has improved the mountain since they got the lease, it still isn't "their" mountain. They bought the land on the back side thinking they could pull a fast one and get the state to let them develop the land for personal profit. What do you all think? I'll put on some caw-fee and we can talk.....

 

[snoseek]

I'm going to assume gov. benson was the one making promises for rights to expansion...

 

[tree_skier]

So they are suing for breach of agreement (lease) for not being able to get an amendment to the lease and are upset about the boundries stated in the lease/survey that they signed. Hummmm, not much sympathy on my end.

 

[threecy]

They have a decent argument. The Muellers have done a tremendous job in making Sunapee a top notch ski area. Their management and investment has made two struggling state areas into successes. That area could certainly use the jobs, too.

I'm not a fan of this quote:

Opponents say allowing a private business to expand onto publicly owned land would set a bad precedent.

It already is a private business on public land. The Muellers want to build a resort on property they already own - they simply want to be able to add some skiing terrain to the state park property to connect it to the existing ski area.

 

[Charlie Schuessler]

It appears the Mueller's no longer like the agreement they executed a number of years a go....they are not getting much local sympathy either...

 

[ski_resort_observer]

The Meullers were well aware of what they were agreeing to when they were awarded the lease. They are using the same argument that Grand Targhee is using in their big battle to expand in that they need the added real estate to make a profit...problem is not too many people agree with that accessment.

The Meullers are 0-1 when it comes to big resort related lawsuits, they sued and lost twice regarding how they lost the bid for the purchase of Steamboat from ASC. I think 0-2 is the cards.

 

[powers]

Part of the original agreement is that some profit that is generated goes to the state, thus helping out the park system, which is good and outwardly the mountain is in its best general condition in years. What I want to know is why would you want to have real estate that is dependent on a ski area you do not own? They are clearly trying to make a personal profit since Okemo doesn't own the land, the Meullers do and they are just looking for a quick buck when they sell it and bail out. The housing market is going flat and the land is "worthless" until you put something of "real value" like ski slopes or condos. So are we supposed to use our state park money to expand the area just so a private holder can make a profit? Would this new base area also be leased like the rest of the mountain so if the state tells them to pound sand and not renew the lease, they get shut down? Maybe they should have just bought Ragged so they could develop to their hearts content. Danbury is just full of pig farmers any way.....just kidding.

 

[deadheadskier]

Curious why the locals are so anit-expansion? There's not much for jobs in that area, so the resort's success is definitely beneficial to the local economy. I can understand no sympathy towards the Muellers for trying to generate real estate profits, but I do see a benefit in slope expansion and market share.

 

[bobbutts]

Curious why the locals are so anit-expansion? There's not much for jobs in that area, so the resort's success is definitely beneficial to the local economy. I can understand no sympathy towards the Muellers for trying to generate real estate profits, but I do see a benefit in slope expansion and market share.

Wondering the same. It seems like the difference would be trying to make it from a day area to multi day. There's not much for lodging and the town seems to be pretty dead. Ended up in New London just looking for a bite to eat around there. Mostly a summer area.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Rising real estate values, protection of public lands, higher property taxes, more traffic, the usual suspects. The Lake Sunapee area is already expensive due to all the vacation homes owned by Bostonians around the lake.

 

[riverc0il]

Sueing the owners of the property you lease? That is sure a dumb move. So much of the revenue from the lease now has to be used to defend the state from the law suit. Additionally, the state's legal and judicial system will be more taxed due to the trial. Does a contracted/leased business have the right to sue if they think there is a breach of contract? Sure. But being an employee in a contracted business, I can tell you that it is not good to piss off the people in charge of signing the lease. Very short sited... that is unless the long term plan all along was to expand the real estate and now there is nothing to lose.

This law suit does not have a leg to stand on, IMO. As I understand it, the lease does not include cutting additional trails to access land the Muellers bought to try to capitalize with real estate from the lease. Gotta wonder if the state would be able to cash in on that real estate too, since it is useless without the state allowing access to the state park land via expansion. Whole lot of hog wash to me.

I really don't see how this could create any local jobs. Contractors would be brought in to do a short term project on clearing a few trails, new lift, new houses. After everything is built, no more permanent additional jobs except maybe an opportunity for a local landscaping company and a new person to do property management. Contractors will likely be pulling in their own help, perhaps a few local construction jobs. I suspect the area would be more interested in long term sustainable business development than a short term project that has no direct benefits.

 

[millerm277]

I really don't see how this could create any local jobs. Contractors would be brought in to do a short term project on clearing a few trails, new lift, new houses. After everything is built, no more permanent additional jobs except maybe an opportunity for a local landscaping company and a new person to do property management. Contractors will likely be pulling in their own help, perhaps a few local construction jobs. I suspect the area would be more interested in long term sustainable business development than a short term project that has no direct benefits.

Assuming I understand what they're trying to do, it definitely would create more jobs, maybe not a lot, but at least a few...although probably low-paying. You'll need lift attendants for that new lift, probably more ski patrol for the new trails...etc. In addition to that, typically expansions bring in more people to the mountain, if they have more people, there is more money being spent on and off mountain....

 

[snoseek]

Wonder if this will come up next time leasing cannon is proposed....

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Wonder if this will come up next time leasing cannon is proposed....

I would think this move by Triple Peaks will provide additional ammunition for the anti-lease state ski hills folks in regards to Cannon.

 

[deadheadskier]

I suspect the area would be more interested in long term sustainable business development than a short term project that has no direct benefits.

suggestions?

 

[snowman]

that is unless the long term plan all along was to expand the real estate and now there is nothing to lose.

.

Bingo

Things appear to run backasswards down there as opposed to here. You would think the state/county would be all about that. New building = new property tax revenue. The new building would also be bringing money in from out of state, as it would be vacation homes for people from Mass. As I understand it, NH is very dependant on property tax revenue due to lack of or low taxation in other standard government areas of taxation. Here, we have a really high sales tax etc etc, however, they'd pretty much let you construct a 100 story high rise in the middle of a residential neighborhood if it meant more tax revenue.

 

[Geoff]

Bingo

Things appear to run backasswards down there as opposed to here. You would think the state/county would be all about that. New building = new property tax revenue. The new building would also be bringing money in from out of state, as it would be vacation homes for people from Mass. As I understand it, NH is very dependant on property tax revenue due to lack of or low taxation in other standard government areas of taxation. Here, we have a really high sales tax etc etc, however, they'd pretty much let you construct a 100 story high rise in the middle of a residential neighborhood if it meant more tax revenue.

I don't think you understand how New Hampshire works. Local property taxes stay local. Expanding Sunapee to double the skier visits will create some significant state expenditures to upgrade state-maintained roads to get all those Massholes in SUVs to the ski area. I presume you've driven around there? It's goat paths. The Mueller lease doesn't begin to cover the added costs to the state. It's not like New Hampshire collects a sales tax. They have a corporate income tax but ski resorts don't generate much in the way of profit so that is not going to fund all the state spending needed to expand the area.

In my opinion, the state should just lease Cannon to the Muellers and let the expansion happen there. It's right on I-93 which is 80% funded with federal money. It would be close to zero impact on the state budget. Now that Old Man of the Mountain is gone, I don't see Franconia Notch State Park as such a critical environmental and historic area compared to the Presidential Range. Okemo-ize New Hampshire on the I-93 belt rather than a place with no roads.

 

[riverc0il]

Okemo-ize Cannon? Them's fitting words Geoff. My big issue is not to blur the lines between State (and Federal/National for that matter) parks and private industry. Private business makes lots of money off being located near the parks. Once the line gets blurred, where does it end? The State has been very reserved with its state park system considering just how pro-Business NH is. I have a huge appreciation for that. But one development begins encroaching on State/Federal Park land, where does it end? Bad precedents, IMO.

 

[bobbutts]

Sueing the owners of the property you lease? That is sure a dumb move.

I see where you're coming from with this. It seems win or lose this creates a problem to consider when lease time rolls around. I wonder if this move more indicates desperation than stupidity. If the Sunapee area isn't the place to expand maybe the Mueller's want to do dump it.

 

[riverc0il]

Yea, that was definitely where I was going with things towards the end of my post in regards to damned if you do damned if you don't.