# How do you feel about Cannon?



## skiNEwhere (May 14, 2014)

I know this borders on politics, but seeing as we have global warming discussions, I think this is appropriate as it pertains to skiing and the ski industry in general.

I've read a little bit at www.taxpayersforcannon.com but I don't feel this provides a balanced argument.

I'm especially interested in how NH residents feel about this

Can of worms: Opened


----------



## Cannonball (May 14, 2014)

It is totally not worth starting this again.  The site you referenced is managed by a member of this forum. He has a very specific agenda that is politically motivated.  If you are seriously interested in understanding how people on this board feel about it do some searches and you'll find the massive threads that go back and forth for months.  I think they people who are familiar with it aren't really going to be interested in rehashing that again.  And definitely nobody else wants to see it.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2014)

Take your pick of these thread gems.......it's been discussed ad nauseam 

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...sill-Photos-(September-2010)?highlight=Cannon

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...sill-Photos-(September-2010)?highlight=Cannon


----------



## Puck it (May 14, 2014)

Can we at least talk about erosion?


----------



## skiNEwhere (May 14, 2014)

The issue with cannon, just like this site, is constantly evolving. 

I haven't seen a discussion in quite a while, and there are new people on this site since the last time this was brought up. 

I think you'd agree with me that the forums on here had been dead as of late?


----------



## skiNEwhere (May 14, 2014)

Feel free to merge if you want though


----------



## jimk (May 14, 2014)

As an out of state tourist from 500 miles to the south I like Cannon a lot.  The few times I have been in that corner of NH it was because of Cannon, not Loon, or WV, or BW, although I visited some of them too.  But Cannon was the draw that got me to come from far away.  I appreciate state owned ski areas.  I know they have issues with management, financing, infrastructure, etc. but most of them were opened long ago to help attract business to underdeveloped areas and all of the state owned ski areas I've been to in West Virginia, NY, NH, etc. still contribute to that goal IMHO.  
Sorry for dipping into the can of worms.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2014)

People are certainly free to discuss the topic, but there hasn't been much to discuss in a couple of years.  Threecy and some state reps pushed hard a few years back to have the state lease the ski area.  I actually went to the hearings.  They were shot down.  I occasionally read the snowjournal ski forum and the topic is still crowbarred in by threecy when he has the opportunity.

I imagine more discussion on leasing will pop up when/if the proposed changes to Mittersill happen.


----------



## bobbutts (May 14, 2014)

You won't get any useful info here.  Arguments devolve before that can happen.  Moderators here (esp DHS) encourage that.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2014)

No offense bobbutts, but you certainly like to take liberty in slinging mud at me whenever you get the opportunity.  And that mudslinging has never once been provoked by me with a direct comment to you. I typically just ignore it, but what gives?  You don't like me.  I get it.  No need to restate it for the umpteenth time.


----------



## Puck it (May 14, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> No offense bobbutts, but you certainly like to take liberty in slinging mud at me whenever you get the opportunity. And that mudslinging has never once been provoked by me with a direct comment to you. I typically just ignore it, but what gives? You don't like me. I get it. No need to restate it for the umpteenth time.




Maybe he just hates Ewoks?


----------



## skiNEwhere (May 14, 2014)

Well this thread went sideways, although I'm sure some will says that's the only direction this thread could've gone from the getgo


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 14, 2014)

Cannon:Live Ski or Die.


----------



## ScottySkis (May 14, 2014)

It one of my fa orite mountains in the east. i wish i was closer to Canon.


----------



## JDMRoma (May 14, 2014)

ScottySkis said:


> It one of my fa orite mountains in the east. i wish i was closer to Canon.



I Freakin LOVE Cannon.......how's that !


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2014)

I see no good fiscal reason why Cannon should be operated by the state of NH. 



From a cash flow perspective, it really comes down to a choice between whether it makes more sense for the state to earn a predetermined amount of lease revenue per annum, or to take on the operating risk of running the business. Not only does operating risk include accounting gains and losses (net income) but this also includes capital expenditures (improvements) that the state would not have to worry about, go through the budgeting process ad nauseum, etc. Given the two options, taking the guaranteed positive cash flow and running for the next ~40 year lease term is an appealing option.
Leasing ski areas appears to be a fairly common practice, e.g. IIRC, Boyne resorts entered into sale and lease-back agreements with one or both of their Maine ski areas and potentially many more. It's not as if leasing the property would create any waves across the industry due to its abnormality. Furthermore, a list of comparable leased properties/arrangements probably exists so taxpayers could be fairly well assured that the state would get a fair market rate for Cannon. Granted, the government can always screw this up, but it seems easier to trust them to get a lease agreement correct as opposed to getting the next ~40 years of mountain operations right.
I'm not as well versed in this one as I could be, but I don't see how the Mt. Sunapee lease has been anything but successful from a fiscal standpoint (and potentially even a "public good" standpoint). History, to some degree, is on the side of leasing.

Granted, it's been a while, but the only argument for government operations that ever resonates with me is that people don't want to run the risk of having an idiot come in and run the place in light of negativity toward ownership groups such as Peak, SKI and ASC. While I get the concern, it ultimately has no effect on whether or not the lease/no lease decision from a money perspective. Furthermore, the state seemed to pick a pretty darn good partner in the Mueller's (?) at Sunapee.

As a wild card food for thought, didn't someone post here that Intrawest was looking to acquire another eastern ski area?


----------



## Smellytele (May 14, 2014)

I could fight either side of the "issue". While I can see why people don't think the State should be in the business of business. I can also see that it is in the business to promote tourism in the region this is why is was developed in the first place well before any of the other ski areas in the area. Could they lease it now? Of course they could. My selfish issue with that is I used to ski at Sunapee when it was run by the state but have only skied it 3 times since the Muellers have leased it. It is more expensive and the clientèle has changed, as has the whole feel of the place. I must be in the minority with that because I believe they have way more skier visits now (maybe another reason I don't like it anymore). I could go on but may add more later.


----------



## dlague (May 14, 2014)

Well, I am a New Hampshire resident and we skied Cannon for the first time (more or less) and I have to say - we liked it a lot! Frankly, I am not going to entertain politically charged discussions!  BTW, I am ok with it all!


----------



## Smellytele (May 14, 2014)

eastern powder baby said:


> Furthermore, the state seemed to pick a pretty darn good partner in the Mueller's (?) at Sunapee.


Well the Mueller's did sue the state about some land issues. They wanted to build condo off the west side on some private property and wanted to connect to it.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...ski_resort_sues_state_over_its_lease/?camp=pm


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Well the Mueller's did sue the state about some land issues. They wanted to build condo off the west side on some private property and wanted to connect to it.
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...ski_resort_sues_state_over_its_lease/?camp=pm



What was the result? Who was ultimately fault? I think this refers to the west bowl expansion that has yet to materialize, correct? If the state really did re-neg on their promise, that's not on the Muellers, of course. It's ironic that the issue arose in '07. 

As a side note, I wonder to what extent real estate/trail expansion issues are mitigated by the area's location in US forest land.


----------



## Smellytele (May 14, 2014)

eastern powder baby said:


> What was the result? Who was ultimately fault? I think this refers to the west bowl expansion that has yet to materialize, correct? If the state really did re-neg on their promise, that's not on the Muellers, of course. It's ironic that the issue arose in '07.
> 
> As a side note, I wonder to what extent real estate/trail expansion issues are mitigated by the area's location in US forest land.



The State won - http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090420-NEWS-90420019. Well the case was dismissed by the Judge. It turned a lot of people sour toward leasing state property and may have saved Cannon from being leased.

The Muellers had another issue in CO with the locals and USFS as well about expanding Crested Butte onto Snodgrass Mtn. Not always as nicey nice as you suggest.


----------



## Puck it (May 14, 2014)

The Sunapee thing was a dispute over like a 100 yards of state park that needed to be added to the ski area lease in oorder to get to the new land for the west bowl expansion.


----------



## Smellytele (May 14, 2014)

Puck it said:


> The Sunapee thing was a dispute over like a 100 yards of state park that needed to be added to the ski area lease in oorder to get to the new land for the west bowl expansion.



Says 175 acres in the article


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Says 175 acres in the article



I've seen some conflicting reports on this. Some sources seem to call the 175 acres state land in need of approval while others refer to a smaller buffer zone between land the Mueller's purchased for $2.1MM and the existing resort footprint.


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2014)

Here's an example. My mistake. "Sunapee sued after Gov. John Lynch refused to present an amended lease for Mount Sunapee State Park - expanding the ski area to include the entire park - to the Executive Council for approval. *The buffer areas prevent Sunapee from connecting to property it purchased for $2.1 million in Goshen for an expansion.* The ski area cannot be expanded on the east because of an old-growth forest."

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130430/NEWS02/130439918

Generally speaking, this thing sure seems like a mess. Without knowing how this was represented in negotiations and to what extend the gubernatorial change affected the status of the relationship between the Mueller's and the state of NH, I find it difficult to identify culpability all that well. 

On one hand, the Mueller's and their representatives should have ironed this out earlier. On the other, the state had to know that building real estate at Sunapee must have been a huge priority to the Mueller's and that an attempt to block real estate development would be faced with serious hostility.


----------



## Smellytele (May 14, 2014)

Whomever is at fault it left a bad taste on the lease and the future lease of Cannon when that idea began to be raised.


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Whomever is at fault it left a bad taste on the lease and the future lease of Cannon when that idea began to be raised.



I'm sure there's a great deal of deal fatigue going on and that a Cannon lease is much less likely to be on the state's list of priorities as a result, but let's not loose sight of the bigger issue here. Cannon might not be leased for any time in the foreseeable future because the state botched its first try at a lease agreement, not because it doesn't have the appetite. 

I think of it like this. Imagine if you work for a resort manager and it's your job to pitch the idea of a Cannon lease to the powers that be at your firm. The pros are abundant and I don't need to get into them now, but you can rest assured that one of the most important questions you'd need to answer is "well, what the hell happened between the Mueller's and the state over at Sunapee?" You'd essentially have to argue that the Mueller's didn't read their lease agreement properly and got overzealous when they purchased an adjacent property to the tune of over $2MM on which to make their hay on real estate. 

The obvious fear from a developer's perspective is that the Mueller's made a lease agreement with one gubernatorial regime and that years later, Lynch runs on an anti Sunapee development stance, refuses to work with the lessee and essentially implements a scorched earth policy where he refused to allow the lessee to make the investments that they expected to undertake when they made the lease agreement. In addition, the fact that the two sides weren't able to settle would be very discouraging. 

Back to that initial framework that I set out, the Sunapee/Mueller issue comes down to whether the state entered into a bad agreement, or whether they ultimately picked a bad partner. On paper, at least, the Mueller's seemed like an excellent partner up until the land dispute, for what its worth.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2014)

I seem to recall a fair amount of local opposition to real estate development when this was going on.  Perhaps that influenced the position of the state on the matter at least a little


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I seem to recall a fair amount of local opposition to real estate development when this was going on.  Perhaps that influenced the position of the state on the matter at least a little



That's entirely possible. I grew up in the Portsmouth area and did my skiing in the MWV, so Sunapee matters were never of great relevance to me when this was going down. If that were the case, I'd have to chalk that up to the "bad partner/fit" side similar to the issues that Les Otten had trying to build a Grand Summit Hotel at Sugarbush before the town shot it down.


----------



## Not Sure (May 14, 2014)

Another 500 mile away skier, I do love Cannon but have not been there for some time, I'm planning on going next year, I am not a big fan of government involement in buisness, But some exceptions are Ok. 
Just thinking if it was leased they may not let people skin up . My local area doesn't allow it.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 14, 2014)

Cannon is part of one of the states jewels in Franconia Notch State Park.Can't see them letting a private entity get in the middle of that without even more of a political change that has already occured in the last 5 years.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 14, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I know this borders on politics, but seeing as we have global warming discussions, I think this is appropriate as it pertains to skiing and the ski industry in general.
> 
> I've read a little bit at www.taxpayersforcannon.com but I don't feel this provides a balanced argument.
> 
> ...





I don't think that our good friend threecy has chimed in yet.  He is very adamant on his POV--so much so that he does not consider other views.  

That said I disagree with him.  A lot of what he says is skewed to say the least.  I also heard that he is upset that he was not hired for a position there a few years back and has had a hard time working in the industry.  Maybe it is a factor, maybe not.  His intense feelings against Cannon seem to correspond time-wise with the rumored rejection.  

I understand his general argument that a state should not be in the ski business, but it ignores a longstanding policy decision made by NH now almost 80 years ago.  If he disagrees he can voice his view with his representatives and should understand if folks disagree with him.  

From what I've observed, DeVivo has done a fabulous job with what he has in terms of resources.  It is going strong.

Advocates for privatization just assume that the outcome will be a better ski experience and product.  While Cannon does not have the longest season or blow the most snow, it has been pretty consistent in terms of what they do in the past few years and at a pretty reasonable price.  That's worth something.  As we've seen in the past few years with POWDR and Peaks private does not always mean better.  In both of those cases folks grumble about sub-par skiing product and cost cutting measures that create more anger than enthusiasm.  Who is to say that a similar entity would not step into Cannon and make the season shorter than it already is?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 14, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> You won't get any useful info here.  Arguments devolve before that can happen.  Moderators here (esp DHS) encourage that.



I disagree.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 14, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I seem to recall a fair amount of local opposition to real estate development when this was going on.  Perhaps that influenced the position of the state on the matter at least a little



This.  

Though the buffer was only about 100 yards wide or so it ran the entire southern boundary of the area.  Hence perhaps why it amounted to 175 acres.  

Muellers were smart enough to buy the land next door and had it queued up for Okemo II.  But there were some conservationists who did not like the idea.  One guy in particular had some power....his last name was Lynch.


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I don't think that our good friend threecy has chimed in yet.  He is very adamant on his POV--so much so that he does not consider other views.
> 
> That said I disagree with him.  A lot of what he says is skewed to say the least.  I also heard that he is upset that he was not hired for a position there a few years back and has had a hard time working in the industry.  Maybe it is a factor, maybe not.  His intense feelings against Cannon seem to correspond time-wise with the rumored rejection.
> 
> ...



I'm certainly not going to speak for Threecy. As far as skewed-ness is concerned, however, we all have our views, so I don't quite understand why bringing up the fact that he happens to be skewed has any relevance to any conversation on this board. I equate that, in many ways, to how people point out that *gasp* Fox News leans conservative. We all have our angles. That's okay as far as I'm concerned- for instance, I very much enjoy DHS's points of view as an Okemo regular growing up and as a Seacoast NH resident. What's life without genuine points of view? Granted, I get what you're saying about Threecy's difficulty playing nice with others - it's too bad because he could have been an asset to certain degrees on this site and I do enjoy his work on newenglandskihistory.org.

As far as the longstanding NH State Government involvement in the ski industry point, my counterpoint is, as respectively as possible, who cares? Furthermore, who cares what Lynch's constituents have to say. At the end of the day, if there is reasonable deal to be made that earns money for the state of New Hampshire that is made with a good lessee, then it makes sense to make a reasonable deal.  I did allude to the POWDR (i think I said SKI by accident which was the ticker for ASC [?]), ASC, Peak aspect, and I would respectfully submit that I lived my entire ski life under ASC or Peak regime, so I'd tell those people to get over it - big brother isn't always your friend. That's life. 

I don't mean to come off as negative, but by the same token, I don't get what you/people on your wavelength expect. Peak is all to quick to shut Attitash down in favor of Wildcat, which I saw as a good business move because Wildcat has lower overhead for a day of operations (one lodge and one lift), has coldr weather, and is right down the street from Attitash and the MWV. 

If anything, Boyne (if they leased Cannon), might very well choose to shut Sugarloaf down early in favor of Cannon because it is twice as close to the Boston market, has northern exposure, and is at higher elevation. So, while I get that private companies might not run their areas as long as a public ones (if they continue to run at unsustainable losses), I really don't get your point here either. It sounds like you are saying that the taxpayers of NH would somehow benefit from going to Cannon en mass when it's unprofitable to run the place because "businesses won"t run the place unless they see a profit" Am I correct in that assesment, or am I missing something?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 15, 2014)

eastern powder baby said:


> If anything, Boyne (if they leased Cannon), might very well choose to shut Sugarloaf down early in favor of Cannon because it is twice as close to the Boston market, has northern exposure, and is at higher elevation.



Totally separate conversation and a hypothetical one, but I highly doubt Boyne would do that.  I would think Sugarloaf's huge bed base and regulars spending money off hill is the reasoning they keep it the last mountain standing for Boyne.  It does receive and retain a significantly larger amount of snow than Cannon does.   I think those reasons negate any positive gain they'd get from Cannon being closer to Boston.  Despite Cannon's easy access, they only get about 100K skier visits a season.  Sugarloaf being as remote as it gets for a major New England ski area gets closer to 350K skier visits a season.  I think that highlights the advantage of having a big bed base.

When you think about it regarding Boyne, if they felt that proximity to the Boston market is what's most important for late season operations, they'd already go for it with Loon.   If they wanted to, they could blow the hell out of Flume and connect it via downloading from base area lifts.


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 15, 2014)

Go Scott Brown!


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Go Scott Brown!


 Now that is political.


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Now that is political.



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


----------



## Cannonball (May 15, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Go Scott Brown!



Is he your type?


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 15, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Is he your type?
> View attachment 12622



Isn't that everyone's type?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

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


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


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


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


----------



## deadheadskier (May 15, 2014)

:lol:


----------



## dlague (May 15, 2014)

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

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


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

eastern powder baby said:


> I'm certainly not going to speak for Threecy. As far as skewed-ness is concerned, however, we all have our views, so I don't quite understand why bringing up the fact that he happens to be skewed has any relevance to any conversation on this board. I equate that, in many ways, to how people point out that *gasp* Fox News leans conservative. We all have our angles. That's okay as far as I'm concerned- for instance, I very much enjoy DHS's points of view as an Okemo regular growing up and as a Seacoast NH resident. What's life without genuine points of view? Granted, I get what you're saying about Threecy's difficulty playing nice with others - it's too bad because he could have been an asset to certain degrees on this site and I do enjoy his work on newenglandskihistory.org.



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



> As far as the longstanding NH State Government involvement in the ski industry point, my counterpoint is, as respectively as possible, who cares? Furthermore, who cares what Lynch's constituents have to say.



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



> At the end of the day, if there is reasonable deal to be made that earns money for the state of New Hampshire that is made with a good lessee, then it makes sense to make a reasonable deal.  I did allude to the POWDR (i think I said SKI by accident which was the ticker for ASC [?]), ASC, Peak aspect, and I would respectfully submit that I lived my entire ski life under ASC or Peak regime, so I'd tell those people to get over it - big brother isn't always your friend. That's life.
> 
> I don't mean to come off as negative, but by the same token, I don't get what you/people on your wavelength expect. Peak is all to quick to shut Attitash down in favor of Wildcat, which I saw as a good business move because Wildcat has lower overhead for a day of operations (one lodge and one lift), has coldr weather, and is right down the street from Attitash and the MWV.



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



> If anything, Boyne (if they leased Cannon), might very well choose to shut Sugarloaf down early in favor of Cannon because it is twice as close to the Boston market, has northern exposure, and is at higher elevation.



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



> So, while I get that private companies might not run their areas as long as a public ones (if they continue to run at unsustainable losses), I really don't get your point here either. It sounds like you are saying that the taxpayers of NH would somehow benefit from going to Cannon en mass when it's unprofitable to run the place because "businesses won"t run the place unless they see a profit" Am I correct in that assesment, or am I missing something?



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

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


----------



## EPB (May 15, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Totally separate conversation and a hypothetical one, but I highly doubt Boyne would do that.  I would think Sugarloaf's huge bed base and regulars spending money off hill is the reasoning they keep it the last mountain standing for Boyne.  It does receive and retain a significantly larger amount of snow than Cannon does.   I think those reasons negate any positive gain they'd get from Cannon being closer to Boston.  Despite Cannon's easy access, they only get about 100K skier visits a season.  Sugarloaf being as remote as it gets for a major New England ski area gets closer to 350K skier visits a season.  I think that highlights the advantage of having a big bed base.
> 
> When you think about it regarding Boyne, if they felt that proximity to the Boston market is what's most important for late season operations, they'd already go for it with Loon.   If they wanted to, they could blow the hell out of Flume and connect it via downloading from base area lifts.



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

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

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


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

dlague said:


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



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



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



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


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

eastern powder baby said:


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



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


----------



## EPB (May 15, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


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



I concur.



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



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



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



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



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



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




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



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


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

eastern powder baby said:


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


----------



## deadheadskier (May 15, 2014)

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


----------



## ScottySkis (May 15, 2014)

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


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

ScottySkis said:


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



Yeah you lost me there....


----------



## steamboat1 (May 15, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


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



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


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


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



Yep.  Money.  And the base areas.


----------



## Edd (May 15, 2014)

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


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2014)

Edd said:


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



That's interesting. I did not know that. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## dlague (May 15, 2014)

Edd said:


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



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


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## doublediamond (May 17, 2014)

Smellytele said:


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



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


----------



## moresnow (May 17, 2014)

ScottySkis said:


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





thetrailboss said:


> Yeah you lost me there....



Allow me to clear things up:

I understand where everyone is coming from with my love for Platty and how it has to compete with NY state owned Bellayre.


----------



## ScottySkis (May 18, 2014)

moresnow said:


> Allow me to clear things up:
> 
> I understand where everyone is coming from with my love for Platty and how it has to compete with NY state owned Bellayre.


You got the job that what i meant.


----------



## moresnow (May 18, 2014)

ScottySkis said:


> You got the job that what i meant.



Anytime

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


----------

