# The Dismantling Begins



## Johnskiismore (Jul 20, 2010)

On the way back from Crawford Notch today, checked to see if the dismantling of the Mittersill Double began, and it has!  I'm guessing they started yesterday.  Now... I'm wondering where all of the T-bar coilers ended up?

http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1262


----------



## orangegondola (Jul 20, 2010)

Wow, never thought I would see the day.  History in the making.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 20, 2010)

As much as so many bemoan lost areas in our somewhat morbid fascination with them, I truly feel sorry for those that have never and now will never be able to sample the unique flavor this area offered as a "lost" area. The terrain will pretty much remain the same minus some widening and thinning and the snow conditions will generally be worse due to increased traffic. But most significantly the feel for the area will never be the same again.

While many are looking forward to a "lost" area being reclaimed and again having an operating lift, it is truly sad to see the soul taken out of one of New England's best sidecountries. Indeed, it was an open area once. But it was a better experience hiking over the saddle, I am certain of that. I have skied most of New England's most well renowned terrain but the mystique of Mittersill still captures my spirit these many years later since I first hiked up the saddle and begin my journey of seeking turns and adventure by earning my way. 

Farewell to one of New England's most precious gems! Never will it be the same again though it won't stop me from pretending every once in a while. Other options will now be even better than before and with change comes opportunity. But my heart still grieves, nonetheless. 

:beer:


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 21, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> While many are looking forward to a "lost" area being reclaimed and again having an operating lift, it is truly sad to see the soul taken out of one of New England's best sidecountries. Indeed, it was an open area once. But it was a better experience hiking over the saddle, I am certain of that. I have skied most of New England's most well renowned terrain but the mystique of Mittersill still captures my spirit these many years later since I first hiked up the saddle and begin my journey of seeking turns and adventure by earning my way.



I imagine they won't be running the lifts there much early and late season. I think that will leave some opportunities for people to still hike over there in storms when the new lift isn't turning.


----------



## Rogman (Jul 21, 2010)

I'm thrilled to see Mittersill come back. Skied it as a kid and loved the place. There is plenty of other side country. Sorry, but lamenting the rebirth of a beloved ski area with so much history is just plain selfish.


----------



## dmc (Jul 21, 2010)

How will we survive...  May as well just end it all...


----------



## 4aprice (Jul 21, 2010)

Rogman said:


> I'm thrilled to see Mittersill come back. Skied it as a kid and loved the place. There is plenty of other side country. .



Sorry Steve but I am too.  I've never skied Mitt but am looking forward to it.  I have some old  Ski93  maps that I've stared at many times and imagined what it was like.  Gotta admit I not much into hiking for turns particularly in the east.(done a little out west)  My feeling is there is enough in bounds at most places to keep me entertained. Mount Washington will always be earn your turns.

Speaking of Ski93 I've heard Tenney may soon be another place to earn your turns as well.:sad:

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## bvibert (Jul 21, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> As much as so many bemoan lost areas in our somewhat morbid fascination with them, I truly feel sorry for those that have never and now will never be able to sample the unique flavor this area offered as a "lost" area. The terrain will pretty much remain the same minus some widening and thinning and the snow conditions will generally be worse due to increased traffic. But most significantly the feel for the area will never be the same again.
> 
> While many are looking forward to a "lost" area being reclaimed and again having an operating lift, it is truly sad to see the soul taken out of one of New England's best sidecountries. Indeed, it was an open area once. But it was a better experience hiking over the saddle, I am certain of that. I have skied most of New England's most well renowned terrain but the mystique of Mittersill still captures my spirit these many years later since I first hiked up the saddle and begin my journey of seeking turns and adventure by earning my way.
> 
> ...



I'm definitely sad that I never got to experience Mitt as sidecountry.  I really wanted to get up there this last season, but it just never happened.  However I'm also really stoked to see a lost area even partially reclaimed...

Thanks for posting the pictures Johnskiismore!


----------



## Puck it (Jul 21, 2010)

For us that hold season passes at Cannon, it is a big bummer, since the traffic at the whole area will probably increase too.  

There is a plenty of other hidden lines that it won't affect me too much.  I am looking forward to the lift but not the extra traffic.


----------



## snowmonster (Jul 21, 2010)

I will miss seeing that old shack and the liftline ramp. God knows what's been going on in that shack! 

For the sidecountry experience, well, there's still Tuckerbrook.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 21, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> As much as so many bemoan lost areas in our somewhat morbid fascination with them, I truly feel sorry for those that have never and now will never be able to sample the unique flavor this area offered as a "lost" area. The terrain will pretty much remain the same minus some widening and thinning and the snow conditions will generally be worse due to increased traffic. But most significantly the feel for the area will never be the same again.
> 
> While many are looking forward to a "lost" area being reclaimed and again having an operating lift, it is truly sad to see the soul taken out of one of New England's best sidecountries. Indeed, it was an open area once. But it was a better experience hiking over the saddle, I am certain of that. I have skied most of New England's most well renowned terrain but the mystique of Mittersill still captures my spirit these many years later since I first hiked up the saddle and begin my journey of seeking turns and adventure by earning my way.
> 
> ...



Is it really changing that much, I mean it's not like you are hiking back country, it's just a saddle which you access from a ski trail to get to another ski trail, it's not like it's some extreme hike to get over there.:razz:


----------



## Johnskiismore (Jul 21, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> For the sidecountry experience, well, there's still Tuckerbrook.



YES!!!!

:beer:


----------



## Puck it (Jul 21, 2010)

I heard they were thinking of a peak to peak gondola now with Mt. Lafayette.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Jul 21, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I heard they were thinking of a peak to peak gondola now with Mt. Lafayette.



And a zipline!


----------



## Telemechanic (Jul 21, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> I'm wondering where all of the T-bar coilers ended up?
> http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1262



Doppelmayr may have taken them for parts.  I heard they were interested.


----------



## bousquet19 (Jul 21, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> I will miss seeing that old shack and the liftline ramp. God knows what's been going on in that shack!
> 
> For the sidecountry experience, well, there's still Tuckerbrook.



:angry:
God does know.  And he's not happy about it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 21, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Is it really changing that much, I mean it's not like you are hiking back country, it's just a saddle which you access from a ski trail to get to another ski trail, it's not like it's some extreme hike to get over there.:razz:



put 10 times the skier traffic over there and yes it will


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 21, 2010)

You guys ribbing me might be thinking that my post was a bit over dramatic. But contrary to some opinions shared, the troubling reality is there is very little of this type of slack country around and there is even less true backcountry in the east.

In an over homogenized industry (especially the northeast US sector), any unique area that presents a different than standard experience should be treasured. Now its just another lift pod with minimal grooming, little to no snow making, and too many skiers for what the natural conditions allow. 

All that said, I can't wait for the first powder day this year when Mitty is mobbed and I'll be off tracking up Zoomer six ways until Sunday all by my lonesome and then off to other untracked goodness while the hoards are excited about this new lift and "new" terrain.

I'll always treasure my last powder run down CL last year. Can't wait to see how they ruin that area. As it existed prior to the lifts, it may have been my all time favorite non-technical non-tree run. After it gets scraped bare from a thousand skiers in one weekend? I fear it shall never be the same run again.



UVSHTSTRM said:


> Is it really changing that much, I mean it's not like you are hiking back country, it's just a saddle which you access from a ski trail to get to another ski trail, it's not like it's some extreme hike to get over there.:razz:


Maybe not to me or you but to overwhelming and vast majority of skiers at Cannon, that 5-10 minute hike might as well be the entire vertical of Cannon mountain. Maybe 1 in 10 Cannon skiers go over the saddle and even the vast majority of them only do it once a day at most. With a full hour cycle time counting the three lifts (assuming going all the way down), the most runs you could hope to get in a day over there would be 7-8 max. Very good for snow preservation and low skier density. The new chair will put over 1000 skiers per hour on the mountain. That is going to change things substantially.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 21, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> I will miss seeing that old shack and the liftline ramp. God knows what's been going on in that shack!
> 
> For the sidecountry experience, well, there's still Tuckerbrook.



I slept in that shack when I was much younger. It was silly cold that night too!

I've also probably smoked a quarter pound of weed at that spot.:beer:

That's all i'm saying for now:smile:


----------



## EPB (Jul 21, 2010)

Just think Riv, people will still be oblivious to all those stashes that only you and a select few know about.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 21, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> Just think Riv, people will still be oblivious to all those stashes that only you and a select few know about.


Maybe outside of Mitty. :lol: The stashes on Mitty proper really are not all that well hidden. It didn't take me very long to scout them all out. That is not even counting any "improvements" that Cannon undertakes to make the tree entrances even more visible and obvious than they already are. Who knows how much Cannon will put on the map.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 22, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Maybe outside of Mitty. :lol: The stashes on Mitty proper really are not all that well hidden. It didn't take me very long to scout them all out. That is not even counting any "improvements" that Cannon undertakes to make the tree entrances even more visible and obvious than they already are. Who knows how much Cannon will put on the map.


 
It just means that we will have to find other stashes.


----------



## threecy (Jul 22, 2010)

With the opening of the area, the only remaining CCC trail in which you'll be allowed to ski the old fashioned way (hike up/ski down) is the Tucker Brook Trail.  A member of the Cannon ski patrol confirmed the no-hiking policy (other than coming up from the saddle) will apply to Mittersill starting this year.

Some historic information on the Tucker Brook Trail, as well as the Taft Trail (which passes through Mittersill):

Cannon Mountain - New England's Alpine CCC Ski Trails


----------



## snoseek (Jul 22, 2010)

threecy said:


> With the opening of the area, the only remaining CCC trail in which you'll be allowed to ski the old fashioned way (hike up/ski down) is the Tucker Brook Trail.  A member of the Cannon ski patrol confirmed the no-hiking policy (other than coming up from the saddle) will apply to Mittersill starting this year.
> 
> Some historic information on the Tucker Brook Trail, as well as the Taft Trail (which passes through Mittersill):
> 
> Cannon Mountain - New England's Alpine CCC Ski Trails



There are ways around this.


----------



## threecy (Jul 22, 2010)

snoseek said:


> There are ways around this.



The impression I had from my conversation with the patroller is that they'll be clamping down on it this year.  From the top of the chairlift down will be considered the same as Cannon proper in terms of the ban on hiking (any time of the day they're around - even after hours, if someone catches you).  This was of particular interest to me, as Mittersill is (was) one of my favorite places to snowshoe.


----------



## bigbob (Jul 23, 2010)

I am working about a half a mile north of Mitersill off Rt 18. Swung in today after work and some tower heads were stacked up in one of the parking lots, which are now all roped off with ribbon. Forklift was parked next to the field office trailer and a roll of wire rope was near by. Will be back next week for thre or four days so if I find my canera I will post some pictures.
 I cannot see much activity from the street I am working at, looks right at the trails at the entrance. Been hauling up and down the top of Rt 18 for the last 3 days and only saw a Doppelmeyer pickup once. That is one steep road, 10% grade, using #3 on the jake in 4th gear going down, tryng to keep it around 25 MPH.


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 27, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> As much as so many bemoan lost areas in our somewhat morbid fascination with them, I truly feel sorry for those that have never and now will never be able to sample the unique flavor this area offered as a "lost" area. The terrain will pretty much remain the same minus some widening and thinning and the snow conditions will generally be worse due to increased traffic. But most significantly the feel for the area will never be the same again.
> 
> While many are looking forward to a "lost" area being reclaimed and again having an operating lift, it is truly sad to see the soul taken out of one of New England's best sidecountries. Indeed, it was an open area once. But it was a better experience hiking over the saddle, I am certain of that. I have skied most of New England's most well renowned terrain but the mystique of Mittersill still captures my spirit these many years later since I first hiked up the saddle and begin my journey of seeking turns and adventure by earning my way.
> 
> ...


 
Riiiiight.  Mittersill got more hiking traffic that many of the directly lift accessable spots at killington/pico that I ski.  Everybody would be up there.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 27, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> Riiiiight.  Mittersill got more hiking traffic that many of the directly lift accessable spots at killington/pico that I ski.  Everybody would be up there.


Right, it was certainly Cannon's worst kept secret and some weekends with good snow there were conga lines up the saddle. But it was still an exponential amount less traffic than when a lift starts running again.


----------



## billski (Jul 28, 2010)

Is that a new satellite picture on google maps?  Mitt trails look pretty cleared out.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 28, 2010)

billski said:


> Is that a new satellite picture on google maps? Mitt trails look pretty cleared out.


 

I do not see anything that looks different.


----------



## bigbob (Jul 28, 2010)

Took most of these about an hour ago.







New sign show $$ and contractors.






Haul rope has been cut.






Most of the mechanicals have been removed

.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




New tower heads.






 Sorry about the large picture sizes.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 28, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> On the way back from Crawford Notch today, checked to see if the dismantling of the Mittersill Double began, and it has! I'm guessing they started yesterday. Now... I'm wondering where all of the T-bar coilers ended up?
> 
> http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1262


 
Not sure about the T-Bar.  I can say that my sources tell me that a fair number of the old chairs ended up at Burke Mountain after Mitty closed for spare parts.  As to where they are now ??????


----------



## EPB (Jul 28, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Mittersill is far from being cleared out to its original layout.  Does anyone know if additional clearing will be done this summer on top of the lift installation?  Maybe I just don't understand the old layout well enough, I'm too young to really know.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 28, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Mittersill is far from being cleared out to its original layout.  Does anyone know if additional clearing will be done this summer on top of the lift installation?  Maybe I just don't understand the old layout well enough, I'm too young to really know.


Nothing has really been cleared out or widened. Last year they did a very small amount of work, most notably widening the saddle path and expanding parts of the Taft. I didn't notice any work done on the ski area proper. The area needs a serious brushing of the major trails though not too much as a lot of the taller vegetation adds a lot of character and many nice tree islands have grown. While no major widening or clearing work has been done, all of the trails from when Mittersill was open are all very much skiable without any additional work.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 29, 2010)

Great pics bigbob.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Aug 10, 2010)

Two towers down, meant to go up this evening to take some pics but ran out of time


----------



## andrec10 (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Took most of these about an hour ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow and I thought Hunter's lifts were in poor shape. I should reconsider my position!


----------



## rocojerry (Aug 11, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> All that said, I can't wait for the first powder day this year when Mitty is mobbed and I'll be off tracking up Zoomer six ways until Sunday all by my lonesome and then off to other untracked goodness while the hoards are excited about this new lift and "new" terrain.



Yep, more on mittersill hopefully means less on the frontside....      We'll see how this year plays out--  A weekday powder day at Cannon hopefully will still feel the same


----------



## dmc (Aug 11, 2010)

rocojerry said:


> Yep, more on mittersill hopefully means less on the frontside....      We'll see how this year plays out--  A weekday powder day at Cannon hopefully will still feel the same



Cool..  It's still going to be great!


----------



## Puck it (Aug 11, 2010)

andrec10 said:


> Wow and I thought Hunter's lifts were in poor shape. I should reconsider my position!


 

Are you being sarcastic?  That lift has not run in decades.


----------



## andrec10 (Aug 11, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Are you being sarcastic?  That lift has not run in decades.



A little, but some of the older lifts need some tlc. Actually, they are really stepping up to the plate this year and next with a new 6-pack and moving/rebuilding of the quad to the west side.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 11, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Are you being sarcastic?  That lift has not run in decades.



I was thinking that from the pictures it looks to be in surprisingly good condition considering how long it's been sitting idle.

It also had a cool looking drive terminal structure.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 12, 2010)

I have a house across the street from the new lift and as I've posted before,I have mixed feelings.I do think however that the compromise was fair.I stayed there 2 weeks ago and got a chance to see just what bigbob posted.Not much more to see.I know Steve is not happy about losing this great slackfest but really Steve,It's only a great slackfest because it had lifts in the first place.I'll take the wait and see approach.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 12, 2010)

*Removing the top terminal*

Check this out.I like how they just yanked the top terminal down in a few seconds.
http://www.cannonmt.com/vids.html


----------



## billski (Aug 12, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> I have a house across the street from the new lift and as I've posted before,I have mixed feelings.I do think however that the compromise was fair.I stayed there 2 weeks ago and got a chance to see just what bigbob posted.Not much more to see.I know Steve is not happy about losing this great slackfest but really Steve,It's only a great slackfest because it had lifts in the first place.I'll take the wait and see approach.


 
How have the crowds been at Cannon the past couple of years? Growing? Static? Long lines? I'm wondering if it will attract more people or just disperse the regulars.

My kids learned at Nashoba and Ragged, vacationed at Ascutney, developed and Cannon,  and now go where-ever they want to.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 12, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Check this out.I like how they just yanked the top terminal down in a few seconds.
> http://www.cannonmt.com/vids.html



I'm assuming they weakened the structure before they started pulling on it??


----------



## drjeff (Aug 12, 2010)

bvibert said:


> I'm assuming they weakened the structure before they started pulling on it??



Yup,  I'd guess that there was some pre-pulling blow torch work to those support columns the way they went down like dominoes


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 12, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> I have a house across the street from the new lift and as I've posted before,I have mixed feelings.I do think however that the compromise was fair.I stayed there 2 weeks ago and got a chance to see just what bigbob posted.Not much more to see.I know Steve is not happy about losing this great slackfest but really Steve,It's only a great slackfest because it had lifts in the first place.I'll take the wait and see approach.




Honestly, I would think of all people you would be the most stoked as your property value probably just went up big time.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 12, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> I have a house across the street from the new lift and as I've posted before,I have mixed feelings.I do think however that the compromise was fair.I stayed there 2 weeks ago and got a chance to see just what bigbob posted.Not much more to see.I know Steve is not happy about losing this great slackfest but really Steve,It's only a great slackfest because it had lifts in the first place.I'll take the wait and see approach.


That is like saying the human race is only advanced because we were once Neanderthals.  Its great because of what it became. Something better than from whence it came. Still, as noted in this thread and else where, I remain optimistic that this will create less competition in other areas and perhaps some local knowledge will stop expanding at the rate that it has been expanding. And.... there are some other perks as well. I will take the good with the bad and I am not narrow minded so much that I can not see some great opportunity here...


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 12, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> That is like saying the human race is only advanced because we were once Neanderthals.



The Neanderthals were a separate species from early humans. ;-)


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 12, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> The Neanderthals were a separate species from early humans. ;-)


Your superior knowledge of history has entirely blown apart my simile and resulting point. 

:dunce:


----------



## Puck it (Aug 13, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> The Neanderthals were a separate species from early humans. ;-)


 

Like this!!!!


----------



## mondeo (Aug 13, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> The Neanderthals were a separate species from early humans. ;-)


 


riverc0il said:


> Your superior knowledge of history has entirely blown apart my simile and resulting point.
> 
> :dunce:


 Actually, it's debatable:

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7117.long

And this was before DNA evidence of interbreeding between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthal, be they Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Interbreeding and producing fertile offspring is the classical definition of a species, which would tend to say they were a subspecies of Homo sapiens. In any case, both saying the "human race descended from" and "seperate species from early humans" are both incorrect, in that any member of the Homo genus is considered a human.

That's right, we're all Homos.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Aug 14, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Check this out.I like how they just yanked the top terminal down in a few seconds.
> http://www.cannonmt.com/vids.html



That takes care of that!


----------



## Puck it (Aug 17, 2010)

Some Mittersill stoke I found last night while being bored.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 17, 2010)

That video is interesting.  It is amazing that the building did not collapse on its own.  As to Mitty being reopened, I am happy.  I know that it was special as a closed area and I skied it a few times and really liked the experience.  But I think seeing an area come off of the NELSAP list and seeing this size expansion in an era of "less is more" at ski areas is truly exciting.  Cannon is a mountain to be reckoned with!


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 17, 2010)

I am 100% in agreement with Steve on this.  He articulates the points very well so there's no point in me rehashing it.  I do think it's interesting that all of the people who consider this a negative are devout Cannon skiers, while all of the positive comments come from those who say "I never skied there but...."


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 17, 2010)

Cannonball said:


> I am 100% in agreement with Steve on this. He articulates the points very well so there's no point in me rehashing it. I do think it's interesting that all of the people who consider this a negative are devout Cannon skiers, while all of the positive comments come from those who say "I never skied there but...."


 
I've skied Mittersill and I think that this is a positive change.  If this were a HSQ going in and major expansion then I would agree with you.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Aug 17, 2010)

Nice video!


----------



## Puck it (Aug 17, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> Nice video!


 

I missed that day due to being in the dog house. I am still upset by it.:smash:


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 17, 2010)

Great vid.  Now picture it with lift served crowds in every frame.

1-3-10 was one of the sickest days ever at Cannon.  We waited for that storm for 4 days and just kept stalling.  When it came it came hard.  I regret that I never pulled the camera out of my pocket that day, but we just couldn't bring ourselves to stop. I wake up every morning smiling, thinking about the overhead blower on Paulie's that day.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 17, 2010)

Cannonball said:


> Great vid.  Now picture it with lift served crowds in every frame.


EXACTLY. That middle section of liftline is a DREAM after fresh snow and a (rare be the day that it builds up enough) good base. I can not even imagine what lifeline will look like even after one day of lift serviced traffic volume. That particular section of trail I always avoiding unless there was fresh snow. Too bad they have to stay in the existing foot print cause the top of the liftline skis great, but that crux needs an alt route (aside from C.T.) for when conditions are bony. Seeing that video just reinforces my opinion that Mitt can not withstand lift serviced crowds without snow making.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Aug 17, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I missed that day due to being in the dog house. I am still upset by it.:smash:



I missed that day too because we went to Wildcat.  Let's just say that Wildcat wasn't Cannon that day.  Received many calls and texts stating 'Tell me you were at Cannon today'!  Yep, I need a beer now...


----------



## BLESS (Aug 18, 2010)

vid was cool, music was terrible.  who the hell thought that would be a good song to put on it?  jeez.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 18, 2010)

Spent the last weekend at Mittersill and progress is showing.The liftline has been completly cleared.The haul rope is gone and all the towers are down with some removed.The old bull wheel is sitting in one of the Mittersill parking pods.I'll have to see if I can get a schedule of the tower setting to make my own Mittersill Heli porn like DMC has of Hunter.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 18, 2010)

*It's too crowded,nobody goes there anymore*



Cannonball said:


> I do think it's interesting that all of the people who consider this a negative are devout Cannon skiers, while all of the positive comments come from those who say "I never skied there but...."



They don't come much more devout Cannon skier than myself having logged at least 1500-2000 days on 35 consectutive years of season passes.I do think this is a positive but understand the ties that myself and skiers like Steve have had to the ultimate slackfest in the east.Mittersill had quite a silent following,very much under cover for the first 10 years after it closed.We would go on many a secret cutting mission to make all the stashes that the masses look for today(including Steve I would guess).That's where I dislike sharing  our work.However,it has become more and more poular over the last 10 years and has lost some of that charm.It was inevitable so I say let's see what the future brings.


----------



## billski (Aug 18, 2010)

*CannonSays...
*

*With  the downed towers as a backdrop, we'll officially break ground on the  Mittersill Double Chair project this Friday at 9:30am. Governor Lynch is  expected to attend along with other dignitaries...the public is also  invited to attend. Cerenmony will likely be in the first parking pod  nead the former base terminal.*


I hope the lift turns better than they spell....


----------



## Johnskiismore (Aug 18, 2010)

A few more pics:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1266


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 18, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> A few more pics:
> 
> http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1266


 

VERY cool!  Thanks!  Maybe the NESM could get their hands on a few of those items for their collection.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Aug 18, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> VERY cool!  Thanks!  Maybe the NESM could get their hands on a few of those items for their collection.



That would be really cool, hopefully they will!


----------



## threecy (Aug 20, 2010)

In other news, after dropping $2.6M on a double chairlift, a state commission is now evaluating putting Cannon Mountain up for lease due to mounting budget problems.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> In other news, after dropping $2.6M on a double chairlift, a state commission is now evaluating putting Cannon Mountain up for lease due to mounting budget problems.


 
I doubt that it will be leased. There are some influential folks who would prevent that from happening. 

Did anyone go to the groundbreaking? 

NO POLITICS PLEASE: 

http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2010/082010-mittersill.htm

http://www.wmur.com/news/24700595/detail.html


----------



## threecy (Aug 20, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> I doubt that it will be leased. There are some influential folks who would prevent that from happening.



New Hampshire is dealing with rapidly growing excessive deficits.  The potential for Cannon to be leased in the next few years could soon be approaching an all time high.  The current leadership in Concord has already allocated tens of millions of dollars of revenue in the state budget from things such as sales or leasing of state property.

The commission has to issue its final report on January 1st, which is the day after the Mittersill load test.

It makes very little sense for the state to be in the ski business when it can't even afford to handle business as usual.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 20, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> A few more pics:
> 
> http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1266



John,I assume you took those pics?Did you see the bundle of pipe in the parking area?If so,what do you think it's for?Looks way to small for snowmaking.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 20, 2010)

I have backed off my extreme anti-lease stance somewhat. I am still against leasing. Being against leasing was due to being fearful that Cannon would become just like any other "resort" and you'd have lease holders trying to slam through land power grabs like the Muellers are trying to do with Sunapee. Bad things could happen. But at the ski area proper? I am not sure how much a leasee could do to destroy the product. The trails have already been widened and they mow the bumps down expect for a few token half groomed trails and the Hards. Mitty is lift serviced. The tram operations were cut back. I dunno.

I will say it would be a crying shame for the state to have invested so much in Cannon (snowmaking, new groomers, base lodge renovations, new pub, work at mitty, new lift, etc) when they could have had a leasee make those improvements. Quite frankly, it would be REALLY dumb to lease the place at this point only after the state invested all the money into enhancing the place. That is the type of stuff you stick the leasee with.


----------



## threecy (Aug 20, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Quite frankly, it would be REALLY dumb to lease the place at this point only after the state invested all the money into enhancing the place. That is the type of stuff you stick the leasee with.



I think the taxpayers of New Hampshire would benefit, so long as the lease agreement was put together in their best interest.  The state could put in requirements that trails not be widened, the tram operate 7 days a week, discounts offered for NH residents, etc.

The lease agreement could give the state guaranteed income each year (whereas Cannon would be unlikely to break even for the state in a bad year right now), sort of like an REIT.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> I think the taxpayers of New Hampshire would benefit, so long as the lease agreement was put together in their best interest.  The state could put in requirements that trails not be widened, the tram operate 7 days a week, discounts offered for NH residents, etc.
> 
> The lease agreement could give the state guaranteed income each year (whereas Cannon would be unlikely to break even for the state in a bad year right now), sort of like an REIT.


From a tax payer perspective, there is no doubt of the benefit. There is not a ski area ownership around that would not kill for guaranteed profits every year with no risk involved. It is more about what is right for Cannon itself and the region rather than tax payers. If you only look at the tax payer perspective, theoretically, in a long enough time line we should just eliminate all government all together which would be the most interest to the tax payer. The question is whether the state can provide something that private interests could not accomplish. I dunno. Cannon has been run more like a private business more and more lately. 

They couldn't possibly widen trails any more, discounts are already offered to NH residents. 7 day tram operation could be a benefit. What else? I just don't see the benefits out weighing the cons. I just don't see any benefits aside from guaranteed revenue for the state. And if that is your bottom line then let's just do away with taxes altogether. Cannon seems to be holding its own recently from a financial perspective. I just think there are bigger fish to fry if the state is that bad off financially... especially since part of making them bad off was their investment into the infrastructure. 

I just like the vibe at Cannon. I just don't want the place to feel like Loon. To me, that is what it all comes down to. Fear of the resortification of the place. Money can't buy me a better feeling mountain than Cannon. Would not want a single tax break if it meant killing the spirit of the mountain. I will fully admit almost any argument I could put up against Cannon is not going to seem logical from the perspective of a libertarian.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Aug 20, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> John,I assume you took those pics?Did you see the bundle of pipe in the parking area?If so,what do you think it's for?Looks way to small for snowmaking.



I did take the pics, and I have no idea what those pipes are for.


----------



## threecy (Aug 21, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> It is more about what is right for Cannon itself and the region rather than tax payers. If you only look at the tax payer perspective, theoretically, in a long enough time line we should just eliminate all government all together which would be the most interest to the tax payer.
> 
> The question is whether the state can provide something that private interests could not accomplish. I dunno. Cannon has been run more like a private business more and more lately.



I disagree - there are certain constitutional requirements in place that require some form of government.  The state has too many properties and not enough income...one could almost compare NH to the American Ski Company a few years ago - most properties and program can be argued by some to be successful in some way, but as a net whole, it's a big mess and something needs to give.



riverc0il said:


> They couldn't possibly widen trails any more, discounts are already offered to NH residents. 7 day tram operation could be a benefit. What else? I just don't see the benefits out weighing the cons.





riverc0il said:


> I just like the vibe at Cannon. I just don't want the place to feel like Loon. To me, that is what it all comes down to. Fear of the resortification of the place.



I wasn't so much talking about benefits as I was guarantees - in other words, making sure that people didn't see the state-owned product running out of control (your concerns in the second quote).  The state would need to be very specific in a lease document (especially spelling out that no footprint expansions could be made, or  that no real estate developments could be co-marketed, essentially in effort to avoid the mess created with the proposed Sunapee development).




riverc0il said:


> Cannon seems to be holding its own recently from a financial perspective


I don't think they've released 2009-2010 numbers, but the picture they've painted is not comparable.  Cannon was, in pushing for their overpriced lift, pointing at back to back profitable seasons, saying they had turned the corner.  In fact, those two seasons were two of the best for the New England ski industry in recent years.  Regardless of that, Cannon doesn't have to pay property tax or any sizable debt service, which are two of the largest expenses for many privately owned ski areas...it's almost like someone bragging about running a 5 minute mile, using their time for one lap around the track vs. everyone else doing a full mile.



riverc0il said:


> I just think there are bigger fish to fry if the state is that bad off financially... especially since part of making them bad off was their investment into the infrastructure.


There are, but the state has been ignoring these issues long enough that it now not only needs to fix many of these mistakes, but also needs a large financial infusion just to keep going.




riverc0il said:


> Would not want a single tax break if it meant killing the spirit of the mountain.


This is not about politics or tax breaks at this point - the state has added dozens of new taxes and fees in the past few years and yet is staring at the largest deficit in history.  New taxes - ones that will really harm the New Hampshire ski industry - are on the table right now, including an income and sales tax for everyone.  Even with those, the state would still not get the immediate cash infusion necessary to operate (nevermind the medium to long term drop in revenue they would produce).

The state needs to cut, cut, cut and simplify.  It's time to get out of one of the highest risk, lowest ROI industries in New England.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 21, 2010)

In looking at the mission statement of NH State Parks, I don't see anywhere where the parks are supposed to benefit tax payers monetarily.  

http://www.nhstateparks.org/who-we-are/division/mission-and-vision.aspx

In fact, NH is the only State in the Nation where the parks do not receive some state aid from general funds. The reality is that the parks of every state in the Nation run at a deficit and can't support operations through usage fees.  The fact that NH has been alone in not using general funds to offset operating expenses tells me that overall 'we' do a pretty good job of managing the system financially.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/792860-196/financing-state-parks.html

I'm not sure where the funds come from for Capital Improvements to State Parks.  So, the infrastructure improvements at Cannon could very well have come from the general fund.  As Rivercoil said, if we've already invested all this money in Cannon, why hand it over right now to a private business to profit from that investment?

I'm open to the idea of a lease to a private entity if the resident advantages of Season Passes are preserved.  Right now, Cannon offers one of the best value resident passes in New England.  I'd be all over that pass if I lived in the 93 Corridor. Did Sunapee offer the same when it was state run?  Best I can tell now is you can get an 'okay' deal on Sunday afternoon tickets.  

I'd be interested to see what they could lease it for compared to the potential liability for taxpayers in a bad year.  Ultimately whatever that dollar amount is will be 100% invested back into the operating budget of the park system.  If that means we can sustain the operating budget of the park system without using general funds, great.

This all said, if someone told me that $100 / random $$$ of my proporty taxes were going to support the State Park System I'd be perfectly fine with that.  It's par for the course in every state.  That's why we have Parks; for public enjoyment, not for tax revenue.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 21, 2010)

threecy said:


> Cannon was, in pushing for their overpriced lift, pointing at back to back profitable seasons, saying they had turned the corner.


 
I doubt that the state would have purchased a used lift. If they did, folks would be complaining because it might not last as long.  Besides, the price was not just the lift install, but the removal of the old lift, site work, etc. This was probably part of the federal stimulus package.


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 22, 2010)

As far as the used lift thing goes didn't they get a used lift a few years ago from Sunapee - eagle cliff chair. As far as discounts go at Sunapee after the lease there is only the Sunday afternoon thing. Price also went up 50% over the years since the lease as well - No benefit for the NH resident. As a libertarian myself I am so torn by the State owning a ski area. But as a cheap b@5t@rd I like it!


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 22, 2010)

One thing I can say is that I understand the price increases at Sunapee as the product was improved at a private business's expense.

At Cannon, the improvements are already in place.  If a private business comes in and jacks up the pricing to say Loon/Waterville levels, what is the benefit for any skier, not just NH residents?  I suppose you can never have too much snowmaking, so if higher ticket prices equals better snowmaking, great.  From everything I've read though, they have been doing a great job as it is in that department.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 22, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> This all said, if someone told me that $100 / random $$$ of my proporty taxes were going to support the State Park System I'd be perfectly fine with that.  It's par for the course in every state.  That's why we have Parks; for public enjoyment, not for tax revenue.



Your property tax in New Hampshire goes to pay town services.   Schools.   Roads.   Not much else.     New Hampshire gets 61% of their funding from property tax.   Vermont is a distant #2 at 42%.   That makes for an extremely lean state government.   Property tax does not go to pay for state parks.   Property tax does not provide Rivercoil his personal ski resort.   If you want extra services, you have to pay for them like everywhere else.   I'll bet you'd love a 6% sales tax, a 6% individual income tax, and the bloated state government all the other New England states have.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 22, 2010)

Yes, in NH, property tax is the primary source of revenue into the State's general fund.  In other states, income tax, sales tax etc make up a large portion of the pie.  Which tax the revenue comes from to support a particular State's park system is irrevelant to my point.

All I'm saying is that most State's Parks are subsidized with money from tax revenue.  NH is apparently the exception as it has been able to sustain it's park system for years with just usage fees.  If things have to change where by the parks due to need some funding outside of usage fees, I'd be fine with that.  In the case of NH it would come from my contributions at the liquor store and in property taxes.

I do not see NH having a sales tax or income tax anytime soon.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 22, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Yes, in NH, property tax is the primary source of revenue into the State's general fund. In other states, income tax, sales tax etc make up a large portion of the pie. Which tax the revenue comes from to support a particular State's park system is irrevelant to my point.
> 
> All I'm saying is that most State's Parks are subsidized with money from tax revenue. NH is apparently the exception as it has been able to sustain it's park system for years with just usage fees. If things have to change where by the parks due to need some funding outside of usage fees, I'd be fine with that. In the case of NH it would come from my contributions at the liquor store and in property taxes.
> 
> I do not see NH having a sales tax or income tax anytime soon.


Side note - NH has the 6th lowest government spending as a percentage of state GDP, and 4th lowest per capita. Only other states (or DC) to be in the bottom 10 for both metrics are Tennessee (10 and 2) and South Dakota (2 and 3.)

Vermont - 39/17
Maine - 30/6
Mass - 11/42
RI - 34/34
CT - 3/37
NY - 40/48 (And people wonder why everyone leaves Upstate...)
NJ - 17/41


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 22, 2010)

Geoff said:


> .....*Property tax does not provide Rivercoil his personal ski resort.*   If you want extra services, you have to pay for them like everywhere else.   I'll bet you'd love a 6% sales tax, a 6% individual income tax, and the bloated state government all the other New England states have.


:lol:

I am not sure if that is an Ad hominem or not. Regardless, pretty dumb way to put it and not useful as an argumentative tool. You'll have to do better than that, Geoff.

:smash:

As far as paying for extra services, if the ski area can sustain itself financially, we are not paying for it. So I fail to see your point. NH dug itself a hole with the lack of sales tax. It lived by it for years siphoning off sales from Mass, VT, and Maine. Now it is dieing by the lack of sales tax since the spending sprees dried up. NH did just fine without extra taxes during the lean years and NH residents had their cake and ate it too. Your suggestion of extra servicing coming at a cost would not have been valid in past years. I am always leery of arguments that only work because of what is happening in the here and now.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 22, 2010)

The data I've always read said that Cannon was poorly run and frequently ran at a loss.   

Here's one analysis point:

http://www.gofranconia.com/Tuckreport-1.htm

If Cannon were run as a real business, it would both pay lease money to the state and pay all the normal things businesses pay like unemployment insurance and workmans comp that the State of New Hampshire now picks up.


----------



## witch hobble (Aug 22, 2010)

I'm very much a new guy trying to find all the fun interstitial spaces and side country fun at Cannon.  Great mountain.  Apologies to those who have come before me yet may have to occaisionally ski in my tracks.:beer:

Anyway, the parallels to Gore Mountain are certainly there.  I am whole heartedly in favor of state-run ski areas!  During the real estate boom they were places that held a certain appeal for their stripped down, egalitarian and "skier's mountain " charm.  Now they are the places that spur interest(and lots of multi-page posts) during the real estate...uhhh.....slowdown?.....for having signifigant terrain expansions and surging popularity.

Call me a crypto-fascist, anarcho-sydicalist, knee-jerk bleeding-heart, but I could find many other offensive and horrifying things to bitch about as far as my tax dollars go than the promotion of skiing and these ski areas.  If I had been skiing and pruning at Mittersill for many years I'm sure I would have a different perspective.

I've also had a few beers and am posting on a ski message board @ 9:30 on a sunday night in August, so please excuse me if I edit this post somewhere in the future.


----------



## threecy (Aug 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> I doubt that the state would have purchased a used lift. If they did, folks would be complaining because it might not last as long.


I doubt most people would have known the difference.  Heck, instead of going for a modern refurbished lift, they could have gone with an older refurbished lift and made it fit the retro theme of Mittersill.



thetrailboss said:


> Besides, the price was not just the lift install, but the removal of the old lift, site work, etc.


None of the items totalling $2.6M in the bid summary mention removal of the old lift.


----------



## threecy (Aug 23, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not sure where the funds come from for Capital Improvements to State Parks.  So, the infrastructure improvements at Cannon could very well have come from the general fund.


The $2.6M comes from Concord's capital budget.



deadheadskier said:


> As Rivercoil said, if we've already invested all this money in Cannon, why hand it over right now to a private business to profit from that investment?


The state would have guaranteed income from a lease of Cannon, whereas right now the risk of running hundreds of millions of dollars in the red has been increased by adding another complex.

Another way to look at your question - Crotched, Jiminy Peak, Okemo, Sunday River...why would the owners of those areas, which have seen capital investments equal or greater than Cannon in the same timeframe, hand them over (i.e. lease) right now for Boyd, Fairbank, Mueller, Kirchner to profit?


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> The $2.6M comes from Concord's capital budget.


 
Which, truth be told, probably came from the federal stimulus I imagine.  



> The state would have guaranteed income from a lease of Cannon, whereas right now the risk of running hundreds of millions of dollars in the red has been increased by adding another complex.


 
Not necessarily.  I am not sure if there would be an operator who would want to run the ski area since there is limited if any avenues for the other sources of income a ski resort relies upon...namely real estate development.  The Muellers were banking on being able to build a real estate development near Sunapee and then there was a change in administrations in Concord and their plans got derailed.  With Cannon, the only real area nearby would be the former Mittersill Base Area, which is developed and privately held.


----------



## threecy (Aug 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Not necessarily.  I am not sure if there would be an operator who would want to run the ski area since there is limited if any avenues for the other sources of income a ski resort relies upon...namely real estate development.


You'd be surprised...Peak dumped millions into Crotched, for instance, and have yet to do any development half a decade later.  Certainly real estate development potential is a big plus in attracting operators, but not a requirement.



thetrailboss said:


> The Muellers were banking on being able to build a real estate development near Sunapee and then there was a change in administrations in Concord and their plans got derailed.


It's certainly been tough for the Muellers, especially since they had the private land ready to go for development and only needed to cross state property.

That said, money has been made running Sunapee as a leased ski area.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 23, 2010)

I think the key distinction between Cannon and Crotched and Sunapee is that Cannon is not as close to the metro areas and is considered more of a destination resort as opposed to a place to ski after work or for a day.  Crotched has the nightskiing business and Peaks saw it as being close enough to Manchester AND Boston so that the skiing business would work.  Look at Wachusett--same thing.  It is close enough for folks to ski there for a few hours.  

Sunapee draws from similar markets and is just close enough for a Saturday or Sunday trip from Boston.  

Arguably Cannon is an easy drive from Boston, but folks just don't see it as being a day trip place from Boston.  Plus it is competing against Loon/WV.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> The $2.6M comes from Concord's capital budget.
> 
> 
> The state would have guaranteed income from a lease of Cannon, whereas right now the risk of running hundreds of millions of dollars in the red has been increased by adding another complex.



There are numerous NH State Parks that run in the red.  Odiorne Point in Rye does every year.  What would you propose doing about that?  Sell it to a Condo developer?  It's 300 acres could probably be sold for HUGE money.  Probably enough to cover operational costs of the rest of the State Park system for a very long time.

As I stated prior, NH is the only state in the country whose park operations are funded entirely by usage fees.  That may change and in this economic climate, it may change soon where by some funding will need to come by the state / tax payers.  Right now that isn't the case. 

Cannon and the entire State Park system are not a contributing problem to the State deficit.  Why point the crosshairs where the problem is not located?


----------



## Puck it (Aug 23, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> There are numerous NH State Parks that run in the red. Odiorne Point in Rye does every year. What would you propose doing about that? Sell it to a Condo developer? It's 300 acres could probably be sold for HUGE money. Probably enough to cover operational costs of the rest of the State Park system for a very long time.
> 
> As I stated prior, NH is the only state in the country whose park operations are funded entirely by usage fees. That may change and in this economic climate, it may change soon where by some funding will need to come by the state / tax payers. Right now that isn't the case.
> 
> Cannon and the entire State Park system are not a contributing problem to the State deficit. Why point the crosshairs where the problem is not located?


 

Cannon has been in the black the last two or three years.  And Cannon also benefits from the lease on Sunapee.  I agree with the improvements made at Cannon.  There is no way they would lease it now.  And Lynch skis there and has said to the lease a numbers of times.


----------



## threecy (Aug 23, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Cannon has been in the black the last two or three years.


Most decent ski areas operated in the black in those two seasons.




deadheadskier said:


> There are numerous NH State Parks that run in the red.


There's a big difference between running a state park - ie bathrooms, camp sites, trails, etc. - and running a major ski area with multiple lodges, aerial lifts, snowmaking, etc.



deadheadskier said:


> Odiorne Point in Rye does every year.  What would you propose doing about that?  Sell it to a Condo developer?  It's 300 acres could probably be sold for HUGE money.  Probably enough to cover operational costs of the rest of the State Park system for a very long time.


You'll have to ask the Governor about that.  Leasing Cannon to a private operator is tremendously different than selling a state property for condo development.



deadheadskier said:


> Cannon and the entire State Park system are not a contributing problem to the State deficit.  Why point the crosshairs where the problem is not located?


Are you suggesting that Cannon had $2.6M in cash sitting in a State Park bank account?



thetrailboss said:


> I think the key distinction between Cannon and Crotched and Sunapee is that Cannon is not as close to the metro areas and is considered more of a destination resort as opposed to a place to ski after work or for a day.  Crotched has the nightskiing business and Peaks saw it as being close enough to Manchester AND Boston so that the skiing business would work.  Look at Wachusett--same thing.  It is close enough for folks to ski there for a few hours.
> 
> Sunapee draws from similar markets and is just close enough for a Saturday or Sunday trip from Boston.
> 
> Arguably Cannon is an easy drive from Boston, but folks just don't see it as being a day trip place from Boston.  Plus it is competing against Loon/WV.


I think you're missing the point - Cannon has no real estate, nor any real estate potential.  The areas I cited were recently transferred into REITs, with the lessees focusing on ski operations.  A lease agreement for Cannon would potentially be quite similar - in other words, it's not at all unheard of to see a lessee not leasing for purposes of real estate development.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> .
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that Cannon had $2.6M in cash sitting in a State Park bank account?


 

I thought the most of the money for this came from the Sunapee lease over the last two years.  I think I read that somewhere.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> Most decent ski areas operated in the black in those two seasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I see that, but the Boyne, Peak, and Triple Peak Properties that are in the REIT's (coincidentally, the same REIT if I am correct) all have substantial real estate businesses and "resort" infrastructure (think condos, hotels, pools, golf courses, non-skiing junk).  I do recall the Muellers saying something about wanting to get back into "running the ski areas" and did the REIT to not have to deal with the "resort" real estate headaches, but I think that there is a distinction between these REIT partnerships and the proposed Cannon Deal is that the latter has no resort infrastructure.


----------



## threecy (Aug 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> I see that, but the Boyne, Peak, and Triple Peak Properties that are in the REIT's (coincidentally, the same REIT if I am correct) all have substantial real estate businesses and "resort" infrastructure (think condos, hotels, pools, golf courses, non-skiing junk).  I do recall the Muellers saying something about wanting to get back into "running the ski areas" and did the REIT to not have to deal with the "resort" real estate headaches, but I think that there is a distinction between these REIT partnerships and the proposed Cannon Deal is that the latter has no resort infrastructure.



I'm not quite sure what you're getting at...a lot of the development at those areas is a done deal - ie sold and paid and thus not providing direct additional revenues.  Similar to the Mittersill real estate.

I would venture a guess that if the state offered Cannon for lease with similar provisions with Sunapee (and specifically named what they could and couldn't do), there would be suitors.


----------



## threecy (Aug 23, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I thought the most of the money for this came from the Sunapee lease over the last two years.  I think I read that somewhere.



Sunapee on average sends the state ~$500K per season - base fee around $150K every year, then 3% of gross.

Meanwhile, the State Parks division is in debt to the tune of 7 figures and has broken even very few times in the past two decades.  Taxpayers are on the hook for that.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at...a lot of the development at those areas is a done deal - ie sold and paid and thus not providing direct additional revenues. Similar to the Mittersill real estate.
> 
> I would venture a guess that if the state offered Cannon for lease with similar provisions with Sunapee (and specifically named what they could and couldn't do), there would be suitors.


 
I see where you are coming from--what I was saying is that the business models are different because Cannon has no condos or real estate developments while the others do.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 23, 2010)

For those interested, here is an article from the *Union Leader* along with an interesting photo:  







And one select quote:  



> Cannon Mountain General Manager John DeVivo said the acquisition of Mittersill, has brought the ski area "back from extinction and brought it to the forefront."
> 
> Bald also acknowledged that Cannon and Mittersill evoke a great deal of affection in the Franconia Notch area.
> 
> ...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> Sunapee on average sends the state ~$500K per season - base fee around $150K every year, then 3% of gross.
> 
> Meanwhile, the State Parks division is in debt to the tune of 7 figures and has broken even very few times in the past two decades.  Taxpayers are on the hook for that.



link regarding the debt / finances?

The article I posted stated that NH funds all State Park operations through usage fees, NOT through taxpayer funding.   Only State in the Nation where this is true.

I can see your beef with the 2.6M coming from tax payers.  You must be five times as mad about the Hampton Beach Redevelopment.  That project comes at a tune of 12.8M.


----------



## threecy (Aug 23, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> link regarding the debt / finances?



Burried in various PDFs and stuff.  The debt the State Parks carries is featured in a lot of their documents, as they apparently carry it forward as a deficit each subsequent year and thus call it out.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 24, 2010)

*Cannon Mt itself is profitable.*



threecy said:


> Meanwhile, the State Parks division is in debt to the tune of 7 figures and has broken even very few times in the past two decades.  Taxpayers are on the hook for that.



Almost any state park runs in the red.You are are arguing against yourself when you say  Cannon shows a profit in any year.Like most government run entities,its difficult to understand their numbers.For decades,Cannons profit/loss had been thrown in with the whole Franconia Notch State Park summer operations which are all in the red.The Winter operations at Cannon have almost always shown a profit.If you leased Cannon I'd bet the leasor would not have to absorb the losses of the summer attractions.


----------



## threecy (Aug 24, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Almost any state park runs in the red.


There was a counterargument here that taxpayers were not paying for the state parks.  Taxpayers are obviously on the hook for the debt.



SIKSKIER said:


> The Winter operations at Cannon have almost always shown a profit.


That'd be news to a lot of people...source?


----------



## drjeff (Aug 24, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> link regarding the debt / finances?
> 
> The article I posted stated that NH funds all State Park operations through usage fees, NOT through taxpayer funding.   Only State in the Nation where this is true.
> 
> I can see your beef with the 2.6M coming from tax payers.  You must be five times as mad about the Hampton Beach Redevelopment.  That project comes at a tune of 12.8M.



What it all comes down to is the PERCEIVED economic value that our legislators think(and I know that putting the words "legislators" and "think" side by side might be a bit of an oxymoron   ) will be brought to the immediate area and the state in general when they choose to fund "public" projects


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> There was a counterargument here that taxpayers were not paying for the state parks.  Taxpayers are obviously on the hook for the debt.
> 
> 
> That'd be news to a lot of people...source?



I've been friends with the last 3 mountain managers going back close to 15 years and heard it right from their mouths.Is that good enough for you?I doubt it.


----------



## threecy (Aug 27, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> I've been friends with the last 3 mountain managers going back close to 15 years and heard it right from their mouths.Is that good enough for you?I doubt it.



According to a report using state records published by Dartmouth College:



> Based on state accounting records, *during the five ski seasons* ending fiscal 2006, *Cannon’s winter operations* were profitable in three years, unprofitable in two, and *generated a cumulative loss of roughly $532,000* . Because earnings in positive years were modest, and losses in bad years – such as 2005-2006 – were severe, Cannon generated a cumulative deficit despite the fact that it was profitable in more than half of the seasons analyzed.


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 28, 2010)

*Okay what ever*

Let's move on to skiing instead of this useless battle because no one is going to change their minds so it seems.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 31, 2010)

*Back on topic*

I'll be at Mittersill this weekend and will post a progress report next week.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 31, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> Let's move on to skiing instead of this useless battle because no one is going to change their minds so it seems.


 
It's moot because the lift is going in as we speak.....


----------



## threecy (Aug 31, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> It's moot because the lift is going in as we speak.....



I disagree that it's moot...without diving directly into politics, there's a chance the Mittersill lift and Cannon lease could become an election issue this fall.

The $2.6 million came out of the state capital budget, not the state parks budget.

The capital budget is prepared by the Governor, who is running for re-election, and approved by the General Court, of which all seats are up for election.

With a budget shortfall in the hundreds of millions, serious consideration will be made to putting Cannon up for lease.  With a recommendation due in only a few months, this may draw some attention this election cycle.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

whooptidoo

so say they get 500K for it.  that's 10 state police cruisers.  By all means carry on, but the amount of focus you are placing on a drop in the bucket in terms of the state budget is really mind blowing.


----------



## threecy (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> whooptidoo
> 
> so say they get 500K for it.  that's 10 state police cruisers.  By all means carry on, but the amount of focus you are placing on a drop in the bucket in terms of the state budget is really mind blowing.



The first decade or so of the Sunapee lease gave the state $4.5 million in revenues.  In that same period of time, Cannon was costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in operation losses.  In addition, millions have been spent on capital improvements.  If you start putting those numbers together, you'll see the cost gap between the two state-owned areas in that time is over $10M.  Compare that to NH park system's carry-over $1.8M debt in 2009.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

threecy said:


> With a budget shortfall in the hundreds of millions, serious consideration will be made to putting Cannon up for lease.  .



These are your words.  

Hundreds of Millions.

500K is a drop in the bucket.  I find it completely amazing that you, one single tax payer, is so driven to see this go through for such a small amount of money in the grand scheme things.


----------



## threecy (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> These are your words.
> 
> Hundreds of Millions.
> 
> 500K is a drop in the bucket.  I find it completely amazing that you, one single tax payer, is so driven to see this go through for such a small amount of money in the grand scheme things.



I'm not sure what's not making sense?  The overall projected state budget deficit right now is nine figures.  The state park budget has also been in deficit, in seven figures.

To the state park budget, seeing a guaranteed source of hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue, as opposed to a potential risk of hundreds of thousands of dollars of losses, is huge.

To the overall state budget, not being responsible for millions in future capital budget investments is huge.  In addition, the possibility not being on the hook for annual deficits from the park serivce is helpful as well.

The state government is in very rough shape.  If one thinks Cannon, which has seen tens of millions of dollars of investments over the years without a reasonable ROI, is a drop in the bucket, I suspect s/he will be very surprised in the coming year at how many smaller items will come under scrutiny.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

Because it's a State Park.  I don't view State Parks as profit centers.  You've other state parks in the system that lose money every year.  Do I want to see Odiorne taken over by a Private Enterprise? I do not.  

Read the mission of the Park system.  NO WHERE does it say anything about the state making financial gains from the parks.  It's a slippery slope heading down that path that I don't want to see happen.


----------



## threecy (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Because it's a State Park.  I don't view State Parks as profit centers.  You've other state parks in the system that lose money every year.  Do I want to see Odiorne taken over by a Private Enterprise? I do not.
> 
> Read the mission of the Park system.  NO WHERE does it say anything about the state making financial gains from the parks.  It's a slippery slope heading down that path that I don't want to see happen.



Right now, millions of dollars are going to Cannon that could otherwise, perhaps, serve those parks.

While some in Concord may not be fans of Sunapee, virtually none can dispute how much the lease has helped the ski area, the local economy, and other state properties.  Lease arrangements can be very easily made to preserve the core and character of Cannon, while also helping the rest of the state.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 1, 2010)

please everyone stop fighting with this person - let it go PLEASE!!!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 1, 2010)

Folks argue that this slackcountry destination has been lost, but *almost coincidentally another one is opened.*  The universe is now balanced.  All is well.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 1, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> please everyone stop fighting with this person - let it go PLEASE!!!!


 

I agree.  He has his mind made up and won't change it.  So do not waste any bytes on him.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 1, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> please everyone stop fighting with this person - let it go PLEASE!!!!



I think Threecy, tb, and dhs all have some valid points here.
When it involves govt/politics it usually gets much uglier than this, so why not just let it run it's course?  I personally am interested in reading people's diverse opinions on the state of NH, it's ski areas, and it's parks.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> I think Threecy, tb, and dhs all have some valid points here.
> When it involves govt/politics it usually gets much uglier than this, so why not just let it run it's course?  I personally am interested in reading people's diverse opinions on the state of NH, it's ski areas, and it's parks.



I'll let my side of it go.  It's clear Threecy and I have two entirely different views and neither of us are going to change our opinion.  I'm against a lease.  It goes against what State Parks are about......for people's enjoyment, not profit centers.  Sometimes those parks run at a loss and tax payers need to pick up the bill.  I'm perfectly fine having my tax dollars go towards that.

that is all


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I'll let my side of it go.  It's clear Threecy and I have two entirely different views and neither of us are going to change our opinion.  I'm against a lease.  It goes against what State Parks are about......for people's enjoyment, not profit centers.  Sometimes those parks run at a loss and tax payers need to pick up the bill.  I'm perfectly fine having my tax dollars go towards that.
> 
> that is all



I agree with all of that and also think that a healthy park system returns $ indirectly by making NH more attractive for tourism.
I also agree that the budget is in trouble and we can expect the state to look closely Cannon however unpleasant that may be.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 1, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> I agree with all of that and also think that a healthy park system returns $ indirectly by making NH more attractive for tourism.
> I also agree that the budget is in trouble and we can expect the state to look closely Cannon however unpleasant that may be.


 
Lynch will never lease Cannon!!!


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 1, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Lynch will never lease Cannon!!!



http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100820-BIZ-8200366


----------



## Puck it (Sep 1, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100820-BIZ-8200366


 

I will say it again.  I will be surprised if Lynch does this.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 1, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I will say it again.  I will be surprised if Lynch does this.


yeah I would be too, I don't think it's 100% safe tho


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 1, 2010)

While respecting the no-politics rule, I think that some of Threecy's concerns stem from the fact that some feel that the state should not be competing with private industry in certain areas.  I know that threecy has worked for private ski areas and he can tell you how difficult it is to operate such a business and when the state enters the scene, operates a ski area that many feel is a very good area, and is allowed to deficit spend where private resorts would go under is not fair.  I get that.  But I agree with DHS that at some point the state, through its citizens, felt that it was a public benefit to have a ski area that was publicly owned and maintained.  Why are we not upset about Whiteface, Gore, or Gunstock?  They are all publicly run and owned.  But on the other hand, look at Blue Hills and Wachusett...which are public land that are leased by private operations.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2010)

Gunstock is owned by Belknap county.  I wonder if they've considered leasing it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 1, 2010)

I also think that some of the concern is that Cannon is a *viable* competitor to the larger private ski areas.  If memory serves me right, it has the largest vertical drop in New Hampshire, beaten only by Wildcat, which is hampered by the fact that it is surrounded by federal land that can't be developed.  That is another key fact--there is not much mountani terrain in NH not controlled by the feds for ski area development.  That only works to ratchet up the pressure on the "private" ski area competitors.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 1, 2010)

*Cannon will not be leased*

Repeat....Cannon will not be leased.Get over it.


----------



## billski (Sep 1, 2010)

Come to the October ACE Ski and Board meeting in Westford MA, we'll have a rep from Cannon on hand to give us a general update on happenin's in the notch.
http://www.aceskiandboardclub.org/
No admission fee, anyone can attend.


----------



## threecy (Sep 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm against a lease.  It goes against what State Parks are about......for people's enjoyment, not profit centers.



I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Sunapee's product now is inferior to when it was state run.  From an ski industry perspective, I don't see how Cannon would be damaged if it were stated-owned, yet operated privately.  Again, any critical things can be written into the lease, such as trail width, minimum operations, pricing, state discounts, etc.

Here's something interesting - it would cost me MORE to ski at my state-owned ski area than at Wildcat.  *Weekend/Holiday at Cannon:  $66*.  *Weekend/Holiday at Wildcat:  $65*.

I work Monday-Friday.  What am I getting in exchange for the millions of tax dollars invested at Cannon?  This is a question many taxpayers may be asking in the near future.




Puck it said:


> Lynch will never lease Cannon!!!



Without getting political, Lynch has been known to change his mind on bigger political issues (which won't be mentioned here, as to adhere to no-politics guidelines) in the past.  It's not out of the question for him to approve a lease, especially if November changes the makeup of the General Court in Concord.

Do note that Franconia does not recieve a dime from Cannon's land or facilities today.  If the area were leased, private investment would be taxed.  With towns struggling to balance their budgets, there may be additional attention from the north country.  The Sunapee lease has resulted in a significant amount of direct local tax revenue, where previously there was none.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Sunapee's product now is inferior to when it was state run. From an ski industry perspective, I don't see how Cannon would be damaged if it were stated-owned, yet operated privately. Again, any critical things can be written into the lease, such as trail width, minimum operations, pricing, state discounts, etc.
> 
> Here's something interesting - it would cost me MORE to ski at my state-owned ski area than at Wildcat. *Weekend/Holiday at Cannon: $66*. *Weekend/Holiday at Wildcat: $65*.
> 
> ...


 

Dude, we know where you stand. No need to beat a dead horse.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Dude, we know where you stand. No need to beat a dead horse.



this.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 1, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Folks argue that this slackcountry destination has been lost, but *almost coincidentally another one is opened.*  The universe is now balanced.  All is well.


Not sure I would call the Loaf slackcountry. It remains to be seen how much hiking is involved or whether this would just be a Muleskinner like traverse. I look forward to finding out in person and can only hope that at least part will require up hill travel involving ski removal. You might see me at the Loaf more than Cannon next season if the skiing over there is as fabulous as it sounds. On the flip side, I bet there are a lot of disappointed locals over there both with the short term and especially the long term plans.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> Here's something interesting - it would cost me MORE to ski at my state-owned ski area than at Wildcat.  *Weekend/Holiday at Cannon:  $66*.  *Weekend/Holiday at Wildcat:  $65*.
> 
> I work Monday-Friday.  What am I getting in exchange for the millions of tax dollars invested at Cannon?  This is a question many taxpayers may be asking in the near future.


Fair enough. There was a time, however, that Cannon was 10-15% cheaper than Wildcat. And I am honestly surprised that Cannon has finally inched a buck higher than Wildcat. I often criticized Wildcat that there were a fair bit more expensive than Cannon for what I would consider not as good of a product (in my opinion). And it is very true that Cannon offers no deals on the weekends. But in state weekend crowd is likely its biggest revenue source and what ski area offers deals on the weekends? I doubt other government run areas offer weekend deals.

All that said... let's talk Sunapee since we are comparing these two operations which are frequently compared. What weekend/holiday discounts do you get as a NH resident at state owned but leased out Sunapee? And how much does it cost to ski at Sunapee on a weekend? Last year, it was $64. Sunapee is a significantly inferior mountain (IMO) than Cannon but it still is essentially the same lift ticket price. Perhaps you as a NH resident get inherently discounted weekend lift tickets because of state operation. A private operator could be charging $70+ for Cannon for all we know. I am sure you will reply that that could be controlled in the lease. But if you keep putting in controls to make the leasor not change anything, it will not be an attractive offer....

I don't think this is worth discussing from a right/wrong perspective. The arguments are on the table. But it essentially comes down to what is accepted as the most widely held preference on how the government should run the state. It all comes down to preference and values and no argument pro or con is going to change that.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 2, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Sunapee is a significantly inferior mountain (IMO) than Cannon but it still is essentially the same lift ticket price.



Sunapee's has the location and snowmaking/grooming to satisfy the intermediate family.  What I'm saying is that for a big part of the market it may be more attractive vs. Cannon.  Lack of vertical and advanced terrain not a big drawback for plenty of people based on the crowds there.


----------



## threecy (Sep 2, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> All that said... let's talk Sunapee since we are comparing these two operations which are frequently compared. What weekend/holiday discounts do you get as a NH resident at state owned but leased out Sunapee?



I'm not sure how accurate or recently updated this is (my ski visits at Sunapee have all been industry comps), but here's a list of discounts (including NH resident discounts):  http://www.onthesnow.com/new-hampshire/mount-sunapee/lifttickets_guide.html.  Again, it should be noted that NH taxpayers have received millions from lease payments, and locals have also received large portions of real estate taxes - prior to the lease, these revenue sources were minimal and zero.



riverc0il said:


> Sunapee is a significantly inferior mountain (IMO) than Cannon but it still is essentially the same lift ticket price.


I haven't seen anything at Sunapee that could compare with Cannon's expert trails.  That said, Sunapee is an intermediate (as are most skiers) mountain and now (after the improvements from the lease) a very popular one.  I don't have the numbers handy, but if I'm not mistaken, Sunapee draws at least twice as many skier vists?  They also receive lots of praise for their conditions, which (though perhaps it's not fair to compare) is not something Cannon often gets, aside from epic White Mountain pow days.  Prior to the lease, this was not the case.



riverc0il said:


> A private operator could be charging $70+ for Cannon for all we know. I am sure you will reply that that could be controlled in the lease. But if you keep putting in controls to make the leasor not change anything, it will not be an attractive offer....



a)  Survey parties involved and find out what's crucial to keeping the skiing experience at Cannon authentic to the area.  I would suspect concerns about real estate, trail alterations, pricing, and current staff would be high on the list.

b)  Compile a sensible lease proposal and shop it.

c)  A lessee is found, the Cannon experience is improved without being negatively altered, and the state is able to replace financial risk with guaranteed revenue.  If a lessee is not found based upon the proposal, the ski area obviously stays under state control.  The state can then either alter the proposal, or at least know that it has attempted to explore possibilities.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 2, 2010)

C. is total bull shit.  

the state is not going to bargain.  You say over and over that stipulations could be put in place where by Cannon has to still offer the same discounts to residents as it always has and that overall pricing remains low.  

The state will look at the guaranteed revenue advantage and nothing else.  Cannon gets leased and the pricing will absolutely shoot up to Waterville and Loon levels.  It 100% becomes a privately operated for profit ski area on land the state owns just like Sunapee has.  Your foolish if you think it would be different.  That's exactly what happened with Sunapee.  What makes you think it would be anything different with Cannon?

further to C - what more do you want to see improved?  From all reports, the snowmaking and grooming is better than ever, the lodge has been expanded extremely well, Mittersill is now lift serviced and on the map (debateable of course whether that's an improvement).  I'm not a Cannon skier, but do follow reports of those who do frequent the mountain.  Short of miraculously bringing in 100 inches more a year of natural snow, I'd say the mountain has operated the best it ever has the last few years - during a recession!!!

Sunapee 'State Park' now essentially has ZERO resemblence to an actual State Park.  You have stated it now brings in 500K or so in revenue to the state.  What's the point of the State even owning it if it no longer offers a park experience to the residents and is operated like a private business?

Recognizing these facts, if I were charged with managing the state budget, this is what I would do.  I'd sell Sunapee all together to CNL / Tim & Diane Mueller for say 15 million.  I'd also let them develop all the land how they choose with they receiving the building revenue/profit of the development, the state receiving the revenue of the land transactions.  The combined ski area sale revenue and slopeside land sale revenue for resort development would probably equal 50 million at minimum.  Not only would your lease proposal take 100+ years to offer such a pay back, the annual property tax revenue alone from such development would make your 500K lease look like a 5 dollar bill to the state annually. 

If you have such a problem with the State deficit and how parks can help off set it, let's look at fully maximizing Sunapee.  Sunapee for all intents and purposes is private enteprise now and a vastly underperforming one both for it's owners and for the state compared to what the real market potential could be for the area.

My argument with you started with how ridiculous I think it is that you're so hell bent and focused on bringing in 500K a year towards a state budget that's 100s of millions in deficit.  It's a drop in the bucket.  Why focus on a drop in the bucket, when you can fill the whole thing with what's already been given away to private business in Sunapee?


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 2, 2010)

I doubt DHS is going to get much disagreement from threecy about completely selling off Sunapee to a private owner. :lol:


----------



## threecy (Sep 3, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> the state is not going to bargain.  You say over and over that stipulations could be put in place where by Cannon has to still offer the same discounts to residents as it always has and that overall pricing remains low.


Bargaining vs. keeping the character of the area are two different things.  I don't have a copy of the original Sunapee lease agreement, but I guarantee you there are restrictions in it put in place by the state.

The state will look at the guaranteed revenue advantage and nothing else.



deadheadskier said:


> Cannon gets leased and the pricing will absolutely shoot up to Waterville and Loon levels.


Cannon:  $66.  Waterville:  $67.



deadheadskier said:


> It 100% becomes a privately operated for profit ski area on land the state owns just like Sunapee has.  Your foolish if you think it would be different.  That's exactly what happened with Sunapee.  What makes you think it would be anything different with Cannon?


In order to generate a profit on a long term lease (I use that term, as Blue Hills in MA was under an annual lease for many years and was operated as such), the operator must produce a good product.  Sunapee's product is dramatically better than it used to be and as a result, hundreds of thousands of new-to-Sunapee skiers have visited.




deadheadskier said:


> Short of miraculously bringing in 100 inches more a year of natural snow, I'd say the mountain has operated the best it ever has the last few years - during a recession!!!


I can't comment on this without being political.  Many business owners in New Hampshire can tell you how that has happened.



deadheadskier said:


> Sunapee 'State Park' now essentially has ZERO resemblence to an actual State Park.  You have stated it now brings in 500K or so in revenue to the state.  What's the point of the State even owning it if it no longer offers a park experience to the residents and is operated like a private business?


Seriously?  Have you visited Sunapee State Park?  The ski area is a relatively small portion.


----------



## threecy (Sep 3, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I doubt DHS is going to get much disagreement from threecy about completely selling off Sunapee to a private owner. :lol:



I doubt the Muellers would want to buy Sunapee State Park.  The State Park is a big part of that area.  Selling Sunapee State Park should be a last resort.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

threecy said:


> Cannon:  $66.  Waterville:  $67.



That's pretty much irrelevant as the most valuable resident discount is for season pass holders.

Watervillle - $839
Sunapee - $959
Cannon - $729
Cannon NH resident - $546 (almost positive it's $475 for a renewal at end of season)

You're upset about the state budget deficit.  I just gave you a way to generate $100 million, yet you still think a lease that brings in 500K annually is the better option.  500k is NOTHING.  Even just letting the Muellers build 25 Okemo Mansions slopeside at Sunapee would bring in the same tax revenue annually as the lease you propose.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 3, 2010)

I get pretty good info from this site.  This thread is a great example.  From someone that does not have a dog in the race I am bein swayed by threesey.  Cheapy your rebuttles make sense but the person jabs you put out there draw attention from the point you are trying to make.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Sep 3, 2010)

Not to sound political or cold, but I have no problem paying a small nominal fee to something like Cannon.  I like the fact that my tax dollars at some point have contributed to Cannon.  Let's be honest as a tax payer I like seeing my taxes go towards something that actually affects me.  Well unless you want to talk about I89 being repaved for the 50th time in 10 years.  Boy now thats stimulus money at good work.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> I get pretty good info from this site.  This thread is a great example.  From someone that does not have a dog in the race I am bein swayed by threesey.  Cheapy your rebuttles make sense but the person jabs you put out there draw attention from the point you are trying to make.



yet, you throw a personal jab right back at me.  nice one imuscle

If you're on threecy's side, I would assume you'd also like to see Gore and Whiteface leased?  NY State has far greater deficit problems than NH



UVSHTSTRM said:


> Well unless you want to talk about I89 being repaved for the 50th time in 10 years.  Boy now thats stimulus money at good work.



right?  That must be best cared for highway in the country.  101 was repaved this past year even though the road was in perfect shape


----------



## Puck it (Sep 3, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Not to sound political or cold, but I have no problem paying a small nominal fee to something like Cannon. I like the fact that my tax dollars at some point have contributed to Cannon. Let's be honest as a tax payer I like seeing my taxes go towards something that actually affects me. Well unless you want to talk about I89 being repaved for the 50th time in 10 years. Boy now thats stimulus money at good work.


 

NH does have the best roads.  A lot better then MA.

Also, why don't we selling the naming rights to the park system.  

How does "Proctor & Gamble White Mountain National Forest" or "Raytheon Cannon Mtn Ski Area" sound?


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 3, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> yet, you throw a personal jab right back at me.  nice one imuscle
> 
> If you're on threecy's side, I would assume you'd also like to see Gore and Whiteface leased?  NY State has far greater deficit problems than NH
> 
> ...




Gore an Whiteface being leased?  I would think it being mulled over somewhere in Albany.  Not sure I would feel about it.  Wht I do know is neither of the hills you are talking about can hold a candle to Whiteface.:smash:


----------



## Puck it (Sep 3, 2010)




----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> Gore an Whiteface being leased?  I would think it being mulled over somewhere in Albany.  Not sure I would feel about it.  Wht I do know is neither of the hills you are talking about can hold a candle to Whiteface.:smash:



Would love to check out Whiteface someday.  Hard to motivate to travel so far when better skiing can be had 90% of the time on this side of the lake in the Northern Greens.


----------



## threecy (Sep 3, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Also, why don't we selling the naming rights to the park system.
> 
> How does "Proctor & Gamble White Mountain National Forest" or "Raytheon Cannon Mtn Ski Area" sound?


Actually, there is already an agreement with Eastern Mountain Sports for a form of corporate sponsorship in NH State Parks...http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=222cc74b-02bf-4f80-93ee-5c11509d96aa




deadheadskier said:


> You're upset about the state budget deficit.  I just gave you a way to generate $100 million, yet you still think a lease that brings in 500K annually is the better option.  500k is NOTHING.


How did you come up with that $100M?  What makes you think the Muellers, who have sold off most of their ski area assets, would spend $15M for land that they cannot touch?

It's not necessary.  Sunapee would be better served if Lynch et al would step aside and let them connect the state property to the hundreds of acres of private property they have awaiting development.  That development would increase lease payments, as well as dramatically improve the local job market and local tax revenue.

Again, prior to the Sunapee lease, the state owned and operated ski areas were in very rough shape.  The Sunapee lease has turned a money-losing, falling apart operation, into a perennial moneymaker that offers a much better experience for skiers.

Thanks in part to that lease, but more so to us taxpayers, Cannon's facilities have been improved.  Still, outside of good snow years, it loses money.  The state has enough budget problems right now - no sense having the risk of picking up additional debt from the ski industry.




deadheadskier said:


> 500k is NOTHING.


As of I believe two years ago, NH State Parks were $1.8M in debt.  $500K is HUGE.  This is New Hampshire, not Massachusetts - the population, revenues, and expenses are much smaller.  If one were to go through the budget and ignore everything they deem to be "nothing," they'd never figure out how to balance it.




Again, in a time in which the state is closing and selling long held assets, we the people are dumping millions into a state owned and operated ski area, at a time in which multiple taxpaying privately owned ski areas in the state are struggling to stay afloat.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

I would bet that the sale of slopeside state owned land plus the property taxes of those properties would equal 100 million in 15-20  years.  Your 500K lease would take 200 years to hit that figure. 

One $2.5 million slopeside Okemoesque mansion would bring in 20K worth of tax revenue. Just one house.

The Muellers might not want to buy it, but CNL probably would snap it up.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 3, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Would love to check out Whiteface someday.  Hard to motivate to travel so far when better skiing can be had 90% of the time on this side of the lake in the Northern Greens.



Now that is pretty silly. Isn't your home hill Ragged?

Changing the argument by attempting to build a straw-man does not make any sense.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 3, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Would love to check out Whiteface someday.  Hard to motivate to travel so far when better skiing can be had 90% of the time on this side of the lake in the Northern Greens.



95%.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 3, 2010)

Black Phantom said:


> Now that is pretty silly. Isn't your home hill Ragged?
> 
> Changing the argument by attempting to build a straw-man does not make any sense.


 
:blink:


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

Black Phantom said:


> Now that is pretty silly. Isn't your home hill Ragged?
> 
> Changing the argument by attempting to build a straw-man does not make any sense.



I ski 50% of my days there out of convenience.  My schedule allows for 5-6 days in the Northern Greens most seasons.  I lived in Northern VT for almost ten years.  

My point was it's 3.5 hours for me to get to Stowe/Sugarbush/MRG.  It's over 5 to get to Whiteface.  I ski pretty much weekends only.  It's relatively easy to do a weekend trip to Stowe.  Whiteface, not so much.


----------



## Mapnut (Sep 3, 2010)

Since this is now the Leasing Cannon thread, I have a question.  Who is out there who would actually want to lease a ski area and have the resources to do it right? If the Muellers were interested, I'd guess they might already be talking to the State about it.  I was surprised that all the former ASC resorts found buyers, who are doing a good job with Mt. Snow, Sunday River etc, but I expect they have their hands full and are not looking for new projects any time soon.  Who else is there?  I'm not saying this to be negative or argumentative.  Does anyone know of entities that already exist that might be interested? Or have an idea who might want to form a corporation to lease Cannon?


----------



## threecy (Sep 3, 2010)

Mapnut said:


> Since this is now the Leasing Cannon thread, I have a question.  Who is out there who would actually want to lease a ski area and have the resources to do it right? If the Muellers were interested, I'd guess they might already be talking to the State about it.  I was surprised that all the former ASC resorts found buyers, who are doing a good job with Mt. Snow, Sunday River etc, but I expect they have their hands full and are not looking for new projects any time soon.  Who else is there?  I'm not saying this to be negative or argumentative.  Does anyone know of entities that already exist that might be interested? Or have an idea who might want to form a corporation to lease Cannon?



I can't give specifics, but I think you'd have applicants.  There have been a lot of surprises in recent years with ski area turnover - whether it be a small-ski-area operator from the midwest taking over Mt. Snow, or a larger one taking over Sunday River, Sugarloaf, and Loon, or a mid-Atlantic operator taking over Blue Hills.  While those operators all probably have their hands full at this point, there were others interested as well.  There would be an advantage with Cannon vs. most of those listed areas, as the infrastructure is generally in better shape from the millions of tax dollars invested in recent years.

One theme with those operators, which would benefit Cannon's image greatly, is snowmaking, snowmaking, snowmaking.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 3, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> C. is total bull shit.
> My argument with you started with how ridiculous I think it is that you're so hell bent and focused on bringing in 500K a year towards a state budget that's 100s of millions in deficit.  It's a drop in the bucket.  Why focus on a drop in the bucket, when you can fill the whole thing with what's already been given away to private business in Sunapee?



Rational or not, it seems to me people are rabid over finance.
 They look at 500k differently than they did a short time ago.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 3, 2010)

threecy said:


> I can't give specifics, but I think you'd have applicants. There have been a lot of surprises in recent years with ski area turnover - whether it be a small-ski-area operator from the midwest taking over Mt. Snow, or a larger one taking over Sunday River, Sugarloaf, and Loon, or a mid-Atlantic operator taking over Blue Hills. While those operators all probably have their hands full at this point, there were others interested as well. There would be an advantage with Cannon vs. most of those listed areas, as the infrastructure is generally in better shape from the millions of tax dollars invested in recent years.
> 
> One theme with those operators, which would benefit Cannon's image greatly, is snowmaking, snowmaking, snowmaking.


 

And they have been doing that the last two years.  This is the reason the Tram does not run all week long.  That money was moved to the snowmaking budget.


----------



## threecy (Sep 3, 2010)

Puck it said:


> And they have been doing that the last two years.  This is the reason the Tram does not run all week long.  That money was moved to the snowmaking budget.



There's a difference between moving more money to an operational budget and overhauling the entire system.  Though certainly further north and having different weather, Cannon's snowmaking system isn't in the same league as the Triple Peaks areas (Sunapee/Okemo) or Peak Resorts' areas (such as Mt. Snow).


----------



## Puck it (Sep 3, 2010)

threecy said:


> There's a difference between moving more money to an operational budget and overhauling the entire system. Though certainly further north and having different weather, Cannon's snowmaking system isn't in the same league as the Triple Peaks areas (Sunapee/Okemo) or Peak Resorts' areas (such as Mt. Snow).


 

Point. Counterpoint. Black. White. 



They have been doing a great job with the snowmaking the last two years.  Cannonball (aka Profile) was skiing great last year and that trail was horrible before the new manager got there and is extremely difficult to cover well.

No go ahead and throw a stone in my pond!!!!!


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2010)

Threecy wont get over it, Ive already been through this with him. He doesnt like the lift or how much it costs, and just doesnt want it, no logic or reason will convince him otherwise, even other options that would make the state money. Fine, to each their own. 

That being said, Cannon has something going for it. Everyone who skis has at least heard of it. Its right on the highway, has a tram, now four distinct trail pods each with its own character (Mitt, front five, summit/hards, and Tuckerbrook - five if you want to consider the HSQ its own trail pod. For a mountain very similar to Whiteface, theyve got more to offer in terms of variety and aspect variation (albeit with less vert pretty much all around and excluding the slides which are open all of like 5-10 days a year).  Gladed terrain is solid both on and off map, and has seen consistent improvement under the new management team from snowmaking, to groomin, to base area and other mountain improvements. 

Pricing is still relatively modest. Cannon's state run operation still undercuts NY's both in season passes, and day tickets I believe (I havent paid window rates pretty much ever, but I think Whiteface/Gore are in the 70's on weekends). NH still gives in state discounts on passes, day tickets midweek, etc. 

Plus, theres room to grow. Profile lake leaves plenty of water to eventually build it into a real snowmaking powerhouse, for no cost in term of water. Pretty much everywhere else needs to at least build a pond, or shoot through hoops to get approval.

Cannon still has that old school NH vibe as well, which is made by the locals who ski there, not how sweet the lodge is, or a new lift on Mitt. I highly doubt those folks are going to make a mass exodus and start skiing Bretton Woods or Loon.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 3, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Threecy wont get over it, Ive already been through this with him. He doesnt like the lift or how much it costs, and just doesnt want it, no logic or reason will convince him otherwise, even other options that would make the state money. Fine, to each their own.
> 
> That being said, Cannon has something going for it. Everyone who skis has at least heard of it. Its right on the highway, has a tram, now four distinct trail pods each with its own character (Mitt, front five, summit/hards, and Tuckerbrook - five if you want to consider the HSQ its own trail pod. For a mountain very similar to Whiteface, theyve got more to offer in terms of variety and aspect variation (albeit with less vert pretty much all around and excluding the slides which are open all of like 5-10 days a year).  Gladed terrain is solid both on and off map, and has seen consistent improvement under the new management team from snowmaking, to groomin, to base area and other mountain improvements.
> 
> ...





Other than there lack of snow there is not much that Cannon can stack up to against Whiteface.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2010)

As I said, exclude the slides, cause they are rarely open, and Cannon has more terrain variety. I didnt say Franconia has more going for it than LP, or anything else, but for two mountains that have relative the same mountain shape (think mitt similar to new ridge terrain, gondi to tram, summit quad and high speed quad. 

Looking at just terrain variety, Cannon has the front five which Whiteface doesnt have, the beginner areas are moot, and Mitt offers more than burnt ridge at this time. Plus Cannon has the hards, which for two mountains that groom almost everything, the only thing that compares is Empire, and thats open about as much as the slides. At least the hards are open most of the season. Whiteface's glades are weak compared to Cannon. Noone goes to Whiteface for the glades, but there are some sweet off map ones, but nothing more sweet than what Cannon has. Very few areas have a glade like Kinsman. Whiteface doesnt have anything like Tramline, althouh the gondi line has been a sweet poach from time to time, just sucks getting out of there. 

Its a loose comparison, and I already admitted Whiteface has more vert going for it in pretty much every trail pod, but in terms of variety Cannons got it beat. Overall package, right now that still goes to Whiteface, which is the overall point of my previous post, that Cannon has a lot going for it, but its not quite there yet. Its probably a better comparison business wise to Gore in terms of where they stand now, as both areas are standing on the verge of greatness right now. Whiteface is a better comparo though when you look at just the terrain offered.


----------



## threecy (Sep 3, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Threecy wont get over it, Ive already been through this with him. He doesnt like the lift or how much it costs, and just doesnt want it, no logic or reason will convince him otherwise, even other options that would make the state money. Fine, to each their own.



Why should Cannon open a new base area operation (Mittersill double) when, as seen just a few posts ago, they've had to shutter the Tram a few days a week to save money?

Also, why does it cost $1 million MORE to install a brand new _double_ chairlift at Mittersill vs. a brand new _triple_ chairlift at Middlebury?  That sure seems counterintuitive, doesn't it?


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2010)

Dude, I dont care, Im for the Mitt expansion, you're against it. Get over it.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 3, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> As I said, exclude the slides, cause they are rarely open, and Cannon has more terrain variety. I didnt say Franconia has more going for it than LP, or anything else, but for two mountains that have relative the same mountain shape (think mitt similar to new ridge terrain, gondi to tram, summit quad and high speed quad.
> 
> Looking at just terrain variety, Cannon has the front five which Whiteface doesnt have, the beginner areas are moot, and Mitt offers more than burnt ridge at this time. Plus Cannon has the hards, which for two mountains that groom almost everything, the only thing that compares is Empire, and thats open about as much as the slides. At least the hards are open most of the season. Whiteface's glades are weak compared to Cannon. Noone goes to Whiteface for the glades, but there are some sweet off map ones, but nothing more sweet than what Cannon has. Very few areas have a glade like Kinsman. Whiteface doesnt have anything like Tramline, althouh the gondi line has been a sweet poach from time to time, just sucks getting out of there.
> 
> Its a loose comparison, and I already admitted Whiteface has more vert going for it in pretty much every trail pod, but in terms of variety Cannons got it beat. Overall package, right now that still goes to Whiteface, which is the overall point of my previous post, that Cannon has a lot going for it, but its not quite there yet. Its probably a better comparison business wise to Gore in terms of where they stand now, as both areas are standing on the verge of greatness right now. Whiteface is a better comparo though when you look at just the terrain offered.



Ok if you say so.  
Tramline is not open much at cannon.  Any more than the Slides?
The ghondi line is a stupid ski.  I dont know anyone that skiis it. usually some young and dumb kids do but other than that no one.  Just sayin

I


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

threecy said:


> Also, why does it cost $1 million MORE to install a brand new _double_ chairlift at Mittersill vs. a brand new _triple_ chairlift at Middlebury?  That sure seems counterintuitive, doesn't it?



Instead of asking this question, why not explain it for us?  You obviously have to know.  I mean if you know the inner workings of Cannon's finances, you must know the answer to the above question.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2010)

Dude, I was a passholder at both mountains, and my faith to Whiteface can be seen for years on this board. Relax man, Im not trying to bash anything. Christ, look at my name here, it says enough. Theres no need for a Whiteface is better, you suck attitude here.

Fair point though on tramline, so well exclude that and the slides and Cannon still trumps it on gladed terrain and the mitt expansion ..... at this point in time. LP is still the best ski town in the East, if not the country and the ADK smokes the Whites in terms of overall backcountry options. Snowmaking is probably better at Whiteface still, but Cannon's coming back from what Ive seen and heard the last two years. 

For two state run mountains its fair to compare terrain, and right now Whiteface is still the better hill, but Cannon's coming, its not a bad thing, and wont hurt Whiteface in the least, two completely different markets.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 3, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Dude, I was a passholder at both mountains, and my faith to Whiteface can be seen for years on this board. Relax man, Im not trying to bash anything. Christ, look at my name here, it says enough. Theres no need for a Whiteface is better, you suck attitude here.
> 
> Fair point though on tramline, so well exclude that and the slides and Cannon still trumps it on gladed terrain and the mitt expansion ..... at this point in time. LP is still the best ski town in the East, if not the country and the ADK smokes the Whites in terms of overall backcountry options. Snowmaking is probably better at Whiteface still, but Cannon's coming back from what Ive seen and heard the last two years.
> 
> For two state run mountains its fair to compare terrain, and right now Whiteface is still the better hill, but Cannon's coming, its not a bad thing, and wont hurt Whiteface in the least, two completely different markets.




Not bashing.  I like Cannon.   Where did I say cannon sucks?  

I said the Ghondi like is a stupid ski.   Did you take that as a Cannon bash?


----------



## threecy (Sep 3, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Instead of asking this question, why not explain it for us?  You obviously have to know.  I mean if you know the inner workings of Cannon's finances, you must know the answer to the above question.



Hint #1:  Ordering a brand new, rarely produced lift in May.

It's sort of like a family that's been planning their vacation for months, but never bothered to get a reservation.  Instead, they roll the dice and show up that night, and pay a handsome premium for a particular type of room.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

what's done is done.  no sense in worrying about it now.  You and I have both paid our $2 towards it.  Best $2 worth of tax money I've ever spent IMO.


----------

