The latest in the Sunapee Lease Saga.
Thoughts?
I recall that local reaction was mixed. Most actually wanted development....
Thoughts?
I recall that local reaction was mixed. Most actually wanted development....
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Sunapee v. State of New Hampshire
- Thread starter thetrailboss
- Start date
Robert Goulet
New member
Oh boy, back to this issue. First I'm going to talk about the politics behind this thing and then I'll address the lawsuit from my perspective. This is my opinion only.
Little background on where I'm coming from. I was born and raised in the area. I know it well. I've worked with conservation organizations in the state, including the SPNHF, which helped set up Sunapee state park. I'm a skier. I'm a conservationist. I think it is as important to preserve land for its environmental value as well as its value in protecting cultural heritage of a given rural area. But i also think the Muellers have done a great job with Sunapee, so far (this expansion thing aside).
Politics.
in 2004, when lynch was running for governor, one of his campaign positions was that the Sunapee lease should not be altered. Lynch won, ousting an incumbent governor after only one term for the first time in roughly 100 years in NH. Not saying it was all due to the Sunapee position, but the surveys I conducted in 2004 for a conservation PAC showed that NH citizens did not support the expansion. the resisitance was even more fierce locally, with multiple local organizations being created and getting involved, the largest of which is the Friends of Mount Sunapee. Here in NH, we believe that if its yours, you should be able to do what you want with it as long as it doesn't have a huge effect on everyone else. However, the land in question is not the Muellers land. If there is one thing people in NH hate more than the Yankees, it's out of staters telling them what they should do with their land. The muellers suing the state over this is a terrible political move, but it seems they never had much state sympathy for the project in the first place, so they don't really give a s@#$ if it pisses people off even more. If the Muellers build all their condos on teh side of the mountain, when fully occupied, it will nearly double the population of the town of Goshen. Just think about that for a minute. the plan the Muellers have is for real estate purposes, not for enhanced ski experience. All the new trails they wanted to cut on their land in Goshen, and crossing through state owned land, would service condos. That is their pupose. The purpose is not to create new trails on challenging and new terrain. The trails and lifts they want to install go to and from the condo complex. in order to connect it with the rest of the ski area, they need to go through or over state land that is not included in the lease. This is the contention. The Muellers claim that the state promised them that they would consider changing the lease, but the state never said it would change the lease.
The arguement that it would help the area economically is complex. Basically, if the Muellers only hire local contractors to build them, there may be a short term economic boost, but probably nothing long term. And that's assuming the Muellers hire local contractors, etc.
Lynch has never been aggressively attacked politically by the republicans for his stance on the Sunapee lease because they know its not a winning issue with state residents.
The Lawsuit.
To the Muellers, Good luck with that. In the discussion around the signing of the lease, the state never said that they would change the lease agreement, they just said they would consider it. well, they considered it. It's state land and the people in the state don't want it to be changed.
"Higgins said ..... Lynch himself gave a verbal thumbs-up to the project during a meeting with the Muellers and leaders in the Legislature in February 2005, telling them, "This is an excellent plan. Who could possibly be against this plan?""
First of all, this arguement is not supported by any public statement Lynch has made. This is the exact opposite of anything lynch has said publically. Not to mention this arguement will not be admissable in court because the Statue of Frauds requires that all contracts related to the sale, lease, transfer of land has to both be
a) in writing and
b) signed by the parties
The Statute of Frauds would clearly invalidate this claim as a legally bound contract. it is unlikely a judge will even allow this arguement to be made in a courtroom.
Maybe the Muellers could sue under Quasi-Contract for restitution damages, but that wouldn't really get them anywhere.
The bottom line here is the idea of altering a lease of state owned land for private benifit. The state is scared about the type of precedent that it could set, hence people are frightened of it not just because of the fact surrounding the case but also because of what this precedent could mean for all of their state owned land....
i'll leave it at that for now.
Little background on where I'm coming from. I was born and raised in the area. I know it well. I've worked with conservation organizations in the state, including the SPNHF, which helped set up Sunapee state park. I'm a skier. I'm a conservationist. I think it is as important to preserve land for its environmental value as well as its value in protecting cultural heritage of a given rural area. But i also think the Muellers have done a great job with Sunapee, so far (this expansion thing aside).
Politics.
in 2004, when lynch was running for governor, one of his campaign positions was that the Sunapee lease should not be altered. Lynch won, ousting an incumbent governor after only one term for the first time in roughly 100 years in NH. Not saying it was all due to the Sunapee position, but the surveys I conducted in 2004 for a conservation PAC showed that NH citizens did not support the expansion. the resisitance was even more fierce locally, with multiple local organizations being created and getting involved, the largest of which is the Friends of Mount Sunapee. Here in NH, we believe that if its yours, you should be able to do what you want with it as long as it doesn't have a huge effect on everyone else. However, the land in question is not the Muellers land. If there is one thing people in NH hate more than the Yankees, it's out of staters telling them what they should do with their land. The muellers suing the state over this is a terrible political move, but it seems they never had much state sympathy for the project in the first place, so they don't really give a s@#$ if it pisses people off even more. If the Muellers build all their condos on teh side of the mountain, when fully occupied, it will nearly double the population of the town of Goshen. Just think about that for a minute. the plan the Muellers have is for real estate purposes, not for enhanced ski experience. All the new trails they wanted to cut on their land in Goshen, and crossing through state owned land, would service condos. That is their pupose. The purpose is not to create new trails on challenging and new terrain. The trails and lifts they want to install go to and from the condo complex. in order to connect it with the rest of the ski area, they need to go through or over state land that is not included in the lease. This is the contention. The Muellers claim that the state promised them that they would consider changing the lease, but the state never said it would change the lease.
The arguement that it would help the area economically is complex. Basically, if the Muellers only hire local contractors to build them, there may be a short term economic boost, but probably nothing long term. And that's assuming the Muellers hire local contractors, etc.
Lynch has never been aggressively attacked politically by the republicans for his stance on the Sunapee lease because they know its not a winning issue with state residents.
The Lawsuit.
To the Muellers, Good luck with that. In the discussion around the signing of the lease, the state never said that they would change the lease agreement, they just said they would consider it. well, they considered it. It's state land and the people in the state don't want it to be changed.
"Higgins said ..... Lynch himself gave a verbal thumbs-up to the project during a meeting with the Muellers and leaders in the Legislature in February 2005, telling them, "This is an excellent plan. Who could possibly be against this plan?""
First of all, this arguement is not supported by any public statement Lynch has made. This is the exact opposite of anything lynch has said publically. Not to mention this arguement will not be admissable in court because the Statue of Frauds requires that all contracts related to the sale, lease, transfer of land has to both be
a) in writing and
b) signed by the parties
The Statute of Frauds would clearly invalidate this claim as a legally bound contract. it is unlikely a judge will even allow this arguement to be made in a courtroom.
Maybe the Muellers could sue under Quasi-Contract for restitution damages, but that wouldn't really get them anywhere.
The bottom line here is the idea of altering a lease of state owned land for private benifit. The state is scared about the type of precedent that it could set, hence people are frightened of it not just because of the fact surrounding the case but also because of what this precedent could mean for all of their state owned land....
i'll leave it at that for now.
...and to think that some folks want the Mueller's to operate Cannon as well.....
Robert Goulet
New member
Don't get me wrong, I think the Muellers have done a commendable job with Sunapee, but this expansion thing is rediculous.
Cannon got a new director and saw a decent profit last winter for the first time in a long time. With the Democratic majority in NH house and senate and a Democratic Gov., I doubt Cannon's getting leased anytime soon.
I'll be interested to see if Cannon can continue its profits under the new director in the coming years.
Cannon got a new director and saw a decent profit last winter for the first time in a long time. With the Democratic majority in NH house and senate and a Democratic Gov., I doubt Cannon's getting leased anytime soon.
I'll be interested to see if Cannon can continue its profits under the new director in the coming years.
Tin Woodsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,148
- Points
- 63
This seems like a reasonable and balanced summary. I am curious, however, at your characterization of the proposed West Face expansion. From what I had seen, those trails were not simply feeders for the planned real estate (though obviously that's the end game), but were rather exactly the type of intermediate cruising terrain that Sunapee is known for. It looks like about 1000-1200 vertical of genuine skiing could be had, so there is a valid skiing component to the plan.
Also, while it would double the number of homes in Goshen, would be likely to double the number of residents? These would primarily be second homes after all, right? Wouldn't local municipalities generally be in favor of the types of residential construction which result in a significant increase in the tax rolls w/o a similar increase in school aged children or usage of utilities?
Finally, I really don't buy the "thin end of a wedge" comments that this would represent some sort of precedent. Whether the Muellers are right or wrong (the few facts I've read seem to indicate the latter), how many direct parallels could be drawn with State parks that are being leased to private enterprise?
Also, while it would double the number of homes in Goshen, would be likely to double the number of residents? These would primarily be second homes after all, right? Wouldn't local municipalities generally be in favor of the types of residential construction which result in a significant increase in the tax rolls w/o a similar increase in school aged children or usage of utilities?
Finally, I really don't buy the "thin end of a wedge" comments that this would represent some sort of precedent. Whether the Muellers are right or wrong (the few facts I've read seem to indicate the latter), how many direct parallels could be drawn with State parks that are being leased to private enterprise?
Good summary Goulet.
My first response is "bring on some development", but I don't know enough to stand by this statement.
I would say the Muellers have done a great job with Sunapee. The place was pretty beat when the state ran it. After being "away" for quite a few years, I was pleasantly surprised with how it has been transformed.
My first response is "bring on some development", but I don't know enough to stand by this statement.
I would say the Muellers have done a great job with Sunapee. The place was pretty beat when the state ran it. After being "away" for quite a few years, I was pleasantly surprised with how it has been transformed.
Rushski
New member
Did not get an S-O-S pass this season. Big part of the reason is that I was getting lazy and stopping at Sunapee instead of driving another hour+. Plus it gets old pretty quickly.
Really can't blame the Muellers for pursuing this. Locals seem to be completely split on this topic, though if doen right would be good for the surrounding towns' economies as there is very little lodging in the area.
Really can't blame the Muellers for pursuing this. Locals seem to be completely split on this topic, though if doen right would be good for the surrounding towns' economies as there is very little lodging in the area.
What my question would be is what are the other options for economic development in the area outside of privatized development on state park land? I honestly don't see much and if you've ever driven through Clairemont, you know the area needs all the help it can get.
Robert Goulet
New member
Have any of you guys seen who works at ski area development complexes? They aren't locals. you should know that.
Robert Goulet
New member
Where have you ever read that locals are split on this topic? The few surveys I've seen and helped conduct show otherwise, though to play devils advocate, the only ones I've seen have been conducted by organizations opposed to the plan.
but I still haven't seen anything that shows that locals are split. Plus, on top of the locals thing, we are talking about State land. Numerous statewide surveys show that new hampshire residents don't want the lease changed (though I haven't seen any since '04 when it was a big political topic).
I don't understand your question.
I've worked at four resorts in my lifetime. Each one utilized local labor for operations and new construction. Real Estate build out management was in some instances brought in from a national office.
These areas I worked at include:
Okemo - all local everything to the best of my knowledge
Stowe - no on mountain development when I was there 1995 and 2000
Snowshoe, WV - 100% local outside of national oversight of real estate sales and development - 5 employees
Wisp, MD - 100% local
At Sunapee, I would imagine all the jobs would go to locals just as they have over the course of time with Okemo's development.
riverc0il
New member
Often time, local areas (especially those that are already economically depressed) don't have the companies, operations, equipment, and technical know how so outside groups are called in to do the work. Doesn't happen everywhere but it happens quite frequently.
My company recently performed a renovation on my location. The overall contractor was from halfway across the company. They sub-contracted to companies as far away as MA to do the specialty work and then hired three local hands to do the grunt work that was less skilled labor. It was interesting to see the operation in action and the dynamics involved with the various levels of contract work.
I would be surprised if most ski areas were able to employee even a quarter of local labor to pull off a massive scale project such as proposed at Sunapee. I would be surprised that that area would have enough companies with the equipment and tech and man power for that large of a project.
Bottom line is the Muellers rolled the dice on a maybe and the state said no and no the Muellers are throwing a hissy fit and wasting tax payer dollars by throwing the issue into a long drawn out court battle. Number one rule when you operate a business for the state is don't piss off the organization that re-signs your contract. The state is not in violation of the lease... the Muellers just need a dictionary and to get their facts checked. Nothing need more be discussed. The Muellers could have made a very convincing case in business friendly NH that Sunapee expansion would have created long term economic development in the region. It might have taken a few years and perhaps a chance in administration, but they could have made the case. A law suit definitely does not earn them any sympathy, especially when they don't have a leg to stand on legally.
My company recently performed a renovation on my location. The overall contractor was from halfway across the company. They sub-contracted to companies as far away as MA to do the specialty work and then hired three local hands to do the grunt work that was less skilled labor. It was interesting to see the operation in action and the dynamics involved with the various levels of contract work.
I would be surprised if most ski areas were able to employee even a quarter of local labor to pull off a massive scale project such as proposed at Sunapee. I would be surprised that that area would have enough companies with the equipment and tech and man power for that large of a project.
Bottom line is the Muellers rolled the dice on a maybe and the state said no and no the Muellers are throwing a hissy fit and wasting tax payer dollars by throwing the issue into a long drawn out court battle. Number one rule when you operate a business for the state is don't piss off the organization that re-signs your contract. The state is not in violation of the lease... the Muellers just need a dictionary and to get their facts checked. Nothing need more be discussed. The Muellers could have made a very convincing case in business friendly NH that Sunapee expansion would have created long term economic development in the region. It might have taken a few years and perhaps a chance in administration, but they could have made the case. A law suit definitely does not earn them any sympathy, especially when they don't have a leg to stand on legally.
This all is true and legally the Meullers don't have a leg to stand on in terms of a lease. I agree with you. That said, as now one of those taxpayers that will be footing the legal bill, I think it should go to court. The Muellers have a concept that will create a positive economic impact to the town. I'm sure it will further fatten their wallet too. Really though, things shouldn't have to be talked about in court. Community and State leaders and the Muellers should be working together for what is best for the community. It sounds like the State doesn't want to play ball.
From my experience having a home in Ludlow from 1987-2003 and following the growth of Okemo starting in 1982 when we were frequent visitors to the town, the Muellers were very reasonable in excepting conditions from the town in terms of investment in the community that would not benefit them individually. They bought land and donated towards construction costs of low income housing as a concession for allowing certain developments on the hill. They also ,contributed towards improvements in waste water management that their development would require. Much of the condominium and home construction on the mountain was done by the company that built our house. Without their efforts, Ludlow would be a far more economically depressed community. I look at the Sunapee / Clairmont region and see an extremely economically depressed area. Ludlow was quite similar when we first visited in my youth 25 years ago.
What I see is a resource in the Mountain and vision of strong business minds who have a proven track record of success. They want to invest. The area needs investment and no other business in the past twenty years has done in any way close to what they propose now . A compromise should be reached and deal done to start investing. Provisions can be made that local labor will be utilized for development. That was the case in Ludlow.
The project will benefit the local community. Inaction does nothing for an area that needs something. Legal or not, I'm glad the Muellers are pursuing what they are.
Robert Goulet
New member
The name of the town is Claremont, for the record. Sunapee is not poor. Sunapee is quite wealthy for NH standards. Sunapee borders other wealthy towns that are doing better than fine, including New London (VERY wealthy) and bradford.
Claremont is 3 towns away. It takes as much time to drive from claremont to sunapee as it does to drive from claremont to west lebanon, which has far more oppertunities. The idea that a condo development will help the claremont region (not sure I know what you include in the region) in any meaningful way seems to be a stretch at the least.
Assuming that there is a provision to use local labor, it's most likely going to come from contractors from the sunapee region who are used to building modern, high end condos and houses, not from Claremont from contrators who are accustomed to building for the needs of the lower income regional market.
I'm still not sure why you are ok with the Muellers bringing a baseless case to the court and having the taxpayers pay for it. If you think that it is important to weight the pro's and con's of the development and to start a statewide dialogue over the lease, fine. Do it by getting your local rep. to bring it up in session, or start to rally a grass roots movement to do something. Or like you said, maybe it's time for state officials, local officials, and the Muellers to come together (again) and try to work something out and have them submit a bunch of different plans and proposals and have state residents weigh in on them (like they do for Forest management plans through the National Forest)
I guess what I'm saying is that there are many outlets to start this dialogue. Don't make the taxpayers pay for your baseless lawsuit just so you can make a political statement.
Claremont is 3 towns away. It takes as much time to drive from claremont to sunapee as it does to drive from claremont to west lebanon, which has far more oppertunities. The idea that a condo development will help the claremont region (not sure I know what you include in the region) in any meaningful way seems to be a stretch at the least.
Assuming that there is a provision to use local labor, it's most likely going to come from contractors from the sunapee region who are used to building modern, high end condos and houses, not from Claremont from contrators who are accustomed to building for the needs of the lower income regional market.
I'm still not sure why you are ok with the Muellers bringing a baseless case to the court and having the taxpayers pay for it. If you think that it is important to weight the pro's and con's of the development and to start a statewide dialogue over the lease, fine. Do it by getting your local rep. to bring it up in session, or start to rally a grass roots movement to do something. Or like you said, maybe it's time for state officials, local officials, and the Muellers to come together (again) and try to work something out and have them submit a bunch of different plans and proposals and have state residents weigh in on them (like they do for Forest management plans through the National Forest)
I guess what I'm saying is that there are many outlets to start this dialogue. Don't make the taxpayers pay for your baseless lawsuit just so you can make a political statement.
ski_resort_observer
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,423
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Waitsfield,Vt
- Website
- www.firstlightphotographics.com
All the info I have points to the local community in a "over our dead body" mode. If the gov changes to a more sympathetic state opinion leader I see an angry mob of Goshenites with expensive garden implements marching in protest in what is still supposed to be a NH state park.
In addition to the lawsuit the Muellers have been busy as bees in the last 3 years in rounding up support in Concord from both the legislature and the state recreation regulators. They appear to care little about the good people of Goshen. A few condos is one thing but 250 which can equate to 1000 additional beds is a huge jump. They deserve to have a say in such a big change to their quality of life especially in this cirumstance.
In addition to the lawsuit the Muellers have been busy as bees in the last 3 years in rounding up support in Concord from both the legislature and the state recreation regulators. They appear to care little about the good people of Goshen. A few condos is one thing but 250 which can equate to 1000 additional beds is a huge jump. They deserve to have a say in such a big change to their quality of life especially in this cirumstance.
Last edited:
sorry for my mis-spelling of 'Claremont'. Didn't know we were splitting hairs at that level. :roll:
I fail to see how not allowing the investment / development is the better alternative than getting a deal done in moving forward. That's my opinion. If someone can point me to one ski town in New England where the development has been more a negative, than a positive for the local economy, I'd like to hear about it. I'm sure some will blurt out Killington. I disagree
Outside of localized pockets of wealth centered around Universities, the economic opportunity for most communities in northern new england centers around tourism. The areas that have invested the most in this....Manchester, Ludlow, Stowe, North Conway, Bethel....seem to me to be the most prosperous and offer the greatest opportunity for locals ..
That's what I've seen.....seems like the Muellers see the same, so I stand behind their plans.
I fail to see how not allowing the investment / development is the better alternative than getting a deal done in moving forward. That's my opinion. If someone can point me to one ski town in New England where the development has been more a negative, than a positive for the local economy, I'd like to hear about it. I'm sure some will blurt out Killington. I disagree
Outside of localized pockets of wealth centered around Universities, the economic opportunity for most communities in northern new england centers around tourism. The areas that have invested the most in this....Manchester, Ludlow, Stowe, North Conway, Bethel....seem to me to be the most prosperous and offer the greatest opportunity for locals ..
That's what I've seen.....seems like the Muellers see the same, so I stand behind their plans.
ski_resort_observer
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,423
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Waitsfield,Vt
- Website
- www.firstlightphotographics.com
Goshen is a very small community with nothing in common with Ludlow or any of the other ski/resort towns you mention. It's in a summer resort area but most of the commercial businesses are in Sunapee Village and Newbury not Goshen. With all due respect it sounds like you have never been there.
Also, contractors would be more likely come from Newport than Claremont. Which is between Sunapee and Claremont. I worked as a carpenter for a longtime building contractor in Newbury who was my roommate in college and best man at my wedding so I have spend alot of time over there in the last 30 years. The idea that you or the Muellers know what's better for the folks of Goshen then they do is an absudity.
Last edited:
Is that a bad thing? The town of Newport could use the help more than Claremont.
I would think that Sunapee drawing more people off of 91 would bring business to both Claremont and Newport as they went to and from the mountain.
skied there last spring
drove through there and back a couple of times this summer on the way to visit my parents in Ludlow. Maybe it's more the Newport and Claremont area that I think could utilize more jobs and my understanding of the what the town of Goshen needs is off. I do not have nearly the background in that area as you do, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. Even outside of the towns that I listed, ski area development has brought positive economic impact to the surrounding towns wherever it has occurred in New England. I can't think of one example where such development has been a negative. It's for that reason and the fact that it's doubtful any other business is proposing development in the area that would have equally as strong an affect that I support the Muellers.
Similar threads
