# Powder Mountain, Utah Sold



## thetrailboss (Dec 3, 2012)

I just saw on their Facebook page that the current ownership has announced that they will sell the resort in early 2013 to the "Summit Series."  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenb...er-mountain-to-create-entrepreneur-community/

The Summit Series is a group of young entrepreneurs who have had annual events and looks like a network of millionaires/business folks.  

Powder Mountain has largely been a locals place with 10,000 acres of land and 500 inches of snow annually.  They have a lot of slack country and cat skiing.  The current ownership had plans of big development, as in thousands of homes, but the economy shut that down.

The plans are that the Summit group will sell house plots for a mere $1 million each. "The goal is to create a community of like-minded entrepreneurs who dig the Summit ethos of innovation, art and social impact with some hard partying mixed in."  
Forbes reports that the group "plans to operate Powder Mountain, a long-time local-favorite, for the public just as it has been since the 1970s. The new twist will be a member-only lodge (under construction now) and an event center atop the mountain, and expanded access to adventure skiing and hiking terrain."  

They want to build up to 500 homes.  

Powder Mountain's Facebook page with comments and videos/articles on this.  

The reaction is largely negative for two reasons.  First, folks like Powder as it is--affordable and no frills.  Second, the Forbes article mentions that they are going to turn this into a "entreprenuer country club" and it seems that they are either going to turn this into a private playground or at least piss a lot of locals off.  We know that private gated ski areas have recently failed--the Haystack Club, Bear Creek, and the Yellowstone Club.  So the idea just does not work.  

It just does not look good....hate to be negative.  Get there as soon as you can if you were thinking of hitting it because it may not be as accessible.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 3, 2012)

As long as they don't close it off or price us out it could actually not be so bad. They need infrastructure at the mountain and Northern Utah could use the money. Private facilities on a public mountain could work just fine and maybe the paradise lift won't take 20 minutes.

I've been in private club mgmt for a good long while now. They are definitely getting my resume.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 3, 2012)

Yeah I hope so snoseek.  Seeing lots of things online I need to sort out.  Some nonsense, some good things.  Price was $40 mill.  They got there by getting 40 investors to chip in $1 mill each.  They paid the hefty price for the land...10,000 acres.  There is not much there in terms of infrastructure or amenities.  

This is one article: http://www.sfgate.com/technology/bu...40-Million-Mountain-4086869.php#ixzz2E1IJT9Pa

They built a nest?


----------



## snoseek (Dec 3, 2012)

Definitely be watching this one closely. That place is near and dear to me, I hope for the best and remain cautiously optimistic


----------



## millerm277 (Dec 4, 2012)

Personally speaking, I see no problem IF things were to happen as described, it could be a really great fit. I'm sure the community is pissed at the moment, largely out of fear of either the experience being spoiled, or being shut out of the mountain, and they're certainly valid concerns.

But, that will go away quickly if they aren't lying and follow through with said plan in a decent manner. 

A private lodge seems like a good, logical perk that won't really upset anyone, although there is a bit of a question in my mind about how exactly it would work. You figure even with a couple hundred of these homes, most days that lodge is going to be creepily empty, but still needs to be big enough to accommodate a holiday weekend or when there's a big event. Tough to get the right feel, I'd think. 

Private lifts or private terrain, and you're going to have a very nasty relationship with the day/local skiers that's going to cause all sorts of problems, so it's good to see that doesn't appear to be proposed. However, with a place like Powder Mountain that's got a pretty limited number of skier visits (and with one of the big draws being exactly that for those who do go), funding improvements can't be very easy. A bunch of rich people paying a some nice fees every year solves that problem without you having to ruin what people love about the place. Doesn't mean you can't ruin it, but it does mean there isn't as much of a financial reason to do it.

Here's some video from the group apparently: http://vimeo.com/54669956

Light on substance and a bit too much with the flowery language for me, but it generally indicates about what I'd expect IMO. I'm settling on cautiously optimistic. I think it is worth remembering that it was for sale, and pretty much any company or group I could think of who'd be willing to pony up $40m for the place, would probably do worse things to the place. I'd rather a fancy lodge for the rich people and losing a bit of grit overall as opposed to seeing a relatively unique place turned into the same as everywhere else.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 4, 2012)

I think it could be a good thing especially for people of Ogden work wise. I hear it reminds people of Plaaty hopeful to find out soon.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 4, 2012)

I've watched the videos and agree that they are flowery in language, light on substance. The video of the group itself was interesting because they were talking about how awesome it is to get people together to learn from each other, network, help develop business, etc. They also mention helping non-profits...but I don't know of any specific things they've done. This sounds great and something I'd like as probably their target age demographic, but all the meanwhile they are saying that they are flashing images of people partying, swimming, fishing/scuba diving, drinking, doing yoga, etc. It seems like their events are for rich kids to go and party at and have fun. So the group sounds interesting, but I am skeptical. 

As to the promo video for what they want to do, the guy commenting says he is a local. I don't know if other folks from up there will recognize him or dismiss him as someone who came with their treasures and settled down in one of the gated communities and now wants to do something because he is bored. This video too is lots of hand holding, kombayah singing, and trying to espouse a utopian vision for the place (with the subtle mention of 500 mansion homes and a private lodge for members only). 

I've gone to college and law school with some of these folks who are rich new age and have this utopian vision. It makes me uke: personally because it is not grounded in reality and because they exclude others just like everyone else. The whole entitlement thing just pushes my buttons personally and I get that vibe here. 

I have two concerns. First, despite what they say, they will exclude people. I imagine their events are very expensive and aimed at including the "in-crowd." I can see them coming in and pushing the locals out because the yoga classes don't mix well with the dirtbag skiers and snowboarders who drive up in their rusted cars looking for pow. Their new "lodge," if it is what I think it is, sits right on the main access road by the main parking lot and dwarfs the very rustic daylodge (think Mid-Burke Lodge-esque). If you are coming up to ski and see that you will quickly get it that you are an outsider. And second, their utopian vision does not necessarily guarantee that they will be able to successfully run a ski area. Just because they have famous folks come and hang out with them does not mean that they have what it takes to run the place well.  As one of their videos says, the first thing that they did was not to announce a new lift or to add some snowmaking equipment; the first thing that they did was built a "nest" of sustainable material that was woven together so that you could climb up and take in the view.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?  :blink:

Granted I don't know much about these folks and am basing some of my comments on fear of the unknown, but I just am skeptical. The only comparison I can draw is if these folks bought MRG and then said they were going to do this. Locals, and diehards, would really be concerned.


----------



## Blizzard of Wahhs (Dec 8, 2012)

Resident troll does not approve of this sale


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 9, 2012)

Blizzard of Wahhs said:


> Resident troll does not approve of this sale




what do you care?  It's a resort with *gasp* lifts!!!!!   The sale has no effect on your BC Wasatch Gnar assaults with your own high speed quads.  Come on son.  You're way to heady to be concerned with ski resort ownership transfers.  pfft


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 9, 2012)

its funny how important maintaining local access and tying to not change the experience is. I truly enjoy the lines people have drawn for what is OK development and what is suspect and potentially harmful development. perception is better than magic, only to be outdone by believing your reality is the same as everyone else.

careful TB, you sound like one of those anti development nutjobs

rich people committing millions to a project for special access.  sounds like a win/win. 

I can think of another comparison that fits that mold too.


----------



## Blizzard of Wahhs (Dec 9, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> what do you care?  It's a resort with *gasp* lifts!!!!!   The sale has no effect on your BC Wasatch Gnar assaults with your own high speed quads.  Come on son.  You're way to heady to be concerned with ski resort ownership transfers.  pfft



This is true, call me a sentimental


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 10, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> its funny how important maintaining local access and tying to not change the experience is. I truly enjoy the lines people have drawn for what is OK development and what is suspect and potentially harmful development. perception is better than magic, only to be outdone by believing your reality is the same as everyone else.
> 
> careful TB, you sound like one of those anti development nutjobs
> 
> ...



Well, I think that there are some distinctions between this and Burke or Jay if that is what you are getting to.  

With the exception of Ginn, Burke and Jay are run by folks who know the biz.  Pow Mow just got snatched up by what I perceive to be a group of young rich folks who don't really know anything about ski areas, but want a place to have their meetings and gatherings.  And their plans are for several million dollar homes rather than ski development so that makes you wonder.  Burke and Jay have that junk too, but they are also focused on the ski aspect.  

And if they are going for the whole gated community thing then I can show you one, two, or actually three of these that have failed.


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 10, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Well, I think that there are some distinctions between this and Burke or Jay if that is what you are getting to.
> 
> With the exception of Ginn, Burke and Jay are run by folks who know the biz.  Pow Mow just got snatched up by what I perceive to be a group of young rich folks who don't really know anything about ski areas, but want a place to have their meetings and gatherings.  And their plans are for several million dollar homes rather than ski development so that makes you wonder.  Burke and Jay have that junk too, but they are also focused on the ski aspect.
> 
> And if they are going for the whole gated community thing then I can show you one, two, or actually three of these that have failed.



To be fair TB, I think you are projecting as to their ultimate wants and wishes with the place. 

I think you're reaching a bit on saying the place is going to lose "soul" so to speak. Pow Mow was sold to the lowest of the low dirt pimps in the mid  aughts and nothing changed. I dont see anything changing for Eden, Ogden, or Pow Mow for this sale either. 

From my industry contacts, it sounds like they might have some exclusive cat terrain, but nothing more.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 10, 2012)

AdironRider said:


> To be fair TB, I think you are projecting as to their ultimate wants and wishes with the place.
> 
> I think you're reaching a bit on saying the place is going to lose "soul" so to speak. Pow Mow was sold to the lowest of the low dirt pimps in the mid aughts and nothing changed. I dont see anything changing for Eden, Ogden, or Pow Mow for this sale either.
> 
> From my industry contacts, it sounds like they might have some exclusive cat terrain, but nothing more.



I think that's fair because I'm going off of what I have seen from their videos and promo stuff.  

Sounds like the buzz in the industry is nothing really changing for the ski side, but them doing something with the 10,000 acres for their homes, etc.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 10, 2012)

investing millions in non ski related development to enhance meeting and gathering.

Now I see the difference.

Curious, what's the percentage of money invested for ski related enhancement vs non ski related development that makes it a positve or negative? 

No need for gates anymore TB. You can just price the people you don't want out.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Dec 10, 2012)

I love Powder Mountain. 






Its the best imo out that way. Low key, relatively inexpensive, great area of the country. For the meets I do this has always been a favorite destination. 

I am not surprised that a conglomerate bought the place. Common sense would say that they would not ruin the atmosphere or feeling that has been existent for all these years...As long as they dont replace the blue bus Im ok with it lol...

The private members only lodge is no good. Thats segregation and usually indicates clique's which I could see spilling into any lift lines that may occur....Ive seen that at other places...

The bottom line is they can add their money to it and do what they conceive as positive. Along with that might come some negatives but regardless there is one thing they cant change..










Powder country!...


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 10, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Burke and Jay have that junk too, but they are also focused on the ski aspect.


You really think so? I'm not so sure...

I think kingdom-tele made an interesting point.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Dec 10, 2012)

Man, I love Powder Mountain, it's hard to think of the place changing!  Such a great place as is.  

We, my snow friends, will have to see what the development will bring.  Hmmm

Funny, just started making plans to go there in March


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 11, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> You really think so? I'm not so sure...
> 
> I think kingdom-tele made an interesting point.



No, he just carried his same anti-development stance, just framed it as a question. 

Again, PowMow was already under a real estate developers hands for the better part of a decade. Nothing happened. 

Summit has been in the fold up there for over a year now, didnt hear any complaints last year. 

In reality I think this is end effect. Private clubhouse with access to private cat skiing. Some trophy home lots will be sold, and PowMow will be maintained as it currently is.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 11, 2012)

AdironRider said:


> No, he just carried his same anti-development stance, just framed it as a question.



+1.  



> Summit has been in the fold up there for over a year now, didnt hear any complaints last year.
> 
> In reality I think this is end effect. Private clubhouse with access to private cat skiing. Some trophy home lots will be sold, and PowMow will be maintained as it currently is.



Didn't know that they were there for a year.  It will be interesting to see if this works out as they think it will.


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> +1.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't know that they were there for a year.  It will be interesting to see if this works out as they think it will.



I dont know the ownership details of when it officially transfered, but I know the group as a whole has had its events/presence there for over a year. Didnt seem to affect much, but thats just my experience from afar.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 11, 2012)

There were no negative connotations from me.  Merely a question?  The negative tone I read were from others, which I found curious, since my inclination about the JPR progression has been suspect as a local resident and avid skier of J. From my perspective pow mow and the J scene are different, but it still comes down to viability secondary to non ski related funding. I see very little difference in recruiting young millionaires or foreign millionaires to invest in a dominating percentage of non ski related development. I was just surprised and a little amused that some here found it potentially damaging to the pow mow experience.

so, why is it different?


----------



## snoseek (Dec 11, 2012)

I also agree they will build some big homes, a posh club and not much else will change.

As it is Powmow would be a great secluded place for the people they're after to actually get away. not too much going on up there, sorta pointless to make it private with all that cat skiing acerage and a sleepy resort. I'm also thinking there will be minimal improvement, which in the end is fine by me and I suspect a relief to regulars there.

The big question is can they run a profitable ski area? Is this gonna be back on the market two years from now?

A ski area on private land with that kind of snowfall, low angle cruisy terrain and a nice little valley below it could have easily sold to people with much bigger intentions. Honestly suprised Vail didn't swipe this up but glad. I think anyway...


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> There were no negative connotations from me.  Merely a question?  The negative tone I read were from others, which I found curious, since my inclination about the JPR progression has been suspect as a local resident and avid skier of J. From my perspective pow mow and the J scene are different, but it still comes down to viability secondary to non ski related funding. I see very little difference in recruiting young millionaires or foreign millionaires to invest in a dominating percentage of non ski related development. I was just surprised and a little amused that some here found it potentially damaging to the pow mow experience.
> 
> so, why is it different?



IMO its different because the funding is being utilized in different manners. 

Summit is an organization based on bring entrepreneurs together to talk, network, etc with big time speakers, etc. In the past they have done this at PowMow, on cruise ships, or what have you. This provides them with a "home base" so to speak to operate out of, and a more year round venue where smaller groups of members can keep on keepin on. 

Jay on the other hand has taken the EB5 money and used it to expand, develop, build a water park, buy Burke and so on. I would argue this has much more of an impact financially and to the local "vibe" so to speak opposed to Summit. 

Now it easy to be skeptical of both scenarios, but projecting worst case outcomes opposed to real world reality is not something to get worked up about.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 11, 2012)

real world reality.  you mean like carving out the forest to create an atmosphere more conducive for people not comfortable in the forest. 

again. summit wants a private club from the sounds of it.  that stirs up negative tones. JPR is catering to the money lined pockets at the expense of their gift.  that is considered essential.

its confounding.


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> real world reality.  you mean like carving out the forest to create an atmosphere more conducive for people not comfortable in the forest.
> 
> again. summit wants a private club from the sounds of it.  that stirs up negative tones. JPR is catering to the money lined pockets at the expense of their gift.  that is considered essential.
> 
> its confounding.



Exhibit A: Projecting.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> again. summit wants a private club from the sounds of it. that stirs up negative tones. JPR is catering to the money lined pockets at the expense of their gift. that is considered essential.
> 
> its confounding.



:blink:  What?


----------



## snoseek (Dec 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> real world reality.  you mean like carving out the forest to create an atmosphere more conducive for people not comfortable in the forest.
> 
> again. summit wants a private club from the sounds of it.  that stirs up negative tones. JPR is catering to the money lined pockets at the expense of their gift.  that is considered essential.
> 
> its confounding.





IDK but I've followed every piece of info I can find on this and can't find any evidence saying they want a private club other than people talking and speculating on message boards, social media, ect...


Think about it, the place hopefully gets a financial shot in the arm by people that aren't really skiers. I bet five years from now you'll still be seeing untracked lines for days off the Paradise lift. Maybe I'm be overly optimistic but I feel like this all is not that big of a deal.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 11, 2012)

snoseek said:


> IDK but I've followed every piece of info I can find on this and can't find any evidence saying they want a private club other than people talking and speculating on message boards, social media, ect...
> 
> 
> Think about it, the place hopefully gets a financial shot in the arm by people that aren't really skiers. I bet five years from now you'll still be seeing untracked lines for days off the Paradise lift. Maybe I'm be overly optimistic but I feel like this all is not that big of a deal.




nor do I. 

saying it was to be a private club was intended to highlight the fact the pow mow purchase will have very little effect on the current ski usage or access to the ski experience that is pow mow

meanwhile, another similar investment scenario (non ski interested investors) is having direct effect on the ski experience and local access.

/projecting.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> meanwhile, another similar investment scenario (non ski interested investors) is having direct effect on the ski experience and local access.
> 
> /projecting.



Hold on a second....

JPR's EB-5 investors did not call the shots as to the development at Jay.  They only provided the financing.  Jay, and its management team, decided what to develop, including ski related amenities.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Hold on a second....
> 
> JPR's EB-5 investors did not call the shots as to the development at Jay. They only provided the financing. Jay, and its management team, decided what to develop, including ski related amenities.



correct.

amenities to entice clientele that has a very different ideal ski experience. oe could even say completely unrelated to skiing.

without millions in pocket, how would this enhancement be different?

still wondering why the reflexive response to pow mow's purchase was so negative, it is clearly the shot in the arm any ski resort needs, right?


----------



## dlo55 (Dec 11, 2012)

I have never got out to Utah to ski, but I am hoping to get out there this year or next? What is the best mountain out there?


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> correct.
> 
> still wondering why the reflexive response to pow mow's purchase was so negative, it is clearly the shot in the arm any ski resort needs, right?



If you read what I have said you would see my point...in that it does not appear that they are focused on the ski resort's needs, if any.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I have two concerns. First, despite what they say, they will exclude people. I imagine their events are very expensive and aimed at including the "in-crowd." I can see them coming in and pushing the locals out because the yoga classes don't mix well with the dirtbag skiers and snowboarders who drive up in their rusted cars looking for pow. Their new "lodge," if it is what I think it is, sits right on the main access road by the main parking lot and dwarfs the very rustic daylodge (think Mid-Burke Lodge-esque). If you are coming up to ski and see that you will quickly get it that you are an outsider. And second, their utopian vision does not necessarily guarantee that they will be able to successfully run a ski area. Just because they have famous folks come and hang out with them does not mean that they have what it takes to run the place well. As one of their videos says, the first thing that they did was not to announce a new lift or to add some snowmaking equipment; the first thing that they did was built a "nest" of sustainable material that was woven together so that you could climb up and take in the view.




so why the above concerns?

You and I aren't so different it seems TB. only my version of amentities is not the cluster and carving up J is very efficiently getting done.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Hold on a second....
> 
> JPR's EB-5 investors did not call the shots as to the development at Jay.  They only provided the financing.  Jay, and its management team, decided what to develop, including ski related amenities.


oh COME ON. Like investors just hand over money without knowing HOW their money is being invested. No way. EB-5 investors are being given very detailed information on how their money is going to be spent. Jay may be making decisions but if they are not investing in a way that the investors think is financially prudent, the investors won't invest. They don't get their paperwork if their investments fails... so they want to ensure they are investing in a business plan that makes financial sense. There is a difference only in a small degree.

kingdom-tele agian makes a GREAT point that in both cases (at least as far as we can tell from the press release) that build up is happening on non-skiing related things. I have been somewhat critical of kingdom-tele's perspective on Burke and Jay but he is right to call hypocrisy here for those defending Jay but then also attacking the new planned direction of PowMow.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 11, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> If you read what I have said you would see my point...in that it does not appear that they are focused on the ski resort's needs, if any.


So they don't touch the resort, build themselves a private circle, and they don't effect the resort, and this is a problem, how? They certainly wouldn't buy the place and let it go to crap, that is their multi -million dollar private community on the line that will tank if the resort tanks, right? I just don't see the issue here based on what I have read so far. 

Don't get me wrong, I'd be concerned too if ownership changed at my favorite area. But if they just wanted to build a few private buildings away from the major activity and are going to keep the area open and policies the same and what not, I don't see the cause for anything more than general concern during a change in ownership. The response on here was akin to putting a high speed quad in a MRG.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 11, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> oh COME ON. Like investors just hand over money without knowing HOW their money is being invested. No way. EB-5 investors are being given very detailed information on how their money is going to be spent. Jay may be making decisions but if they are not investing in a way that the investors think is financially prudent, the investors won't invest. They don't get their paperwork if their investments fails... so they want to ensure they are investing in a business plan that makes financial sense. There is a difference only in a small degree.



Read KT's post. He said that the EB-5 investors were the ones who demanded, and drove, the changes at Jay. That's not true. Jay developed the plans for the investors to put their money into. Jay drove the plans. 



> kingdom-tele agian makes a GREAT point that in both cases (at least as far as we can tell from the press release) that build up is happening on non-skiing related things. I have been somewhat critical of kingdom-tele's perspective on Burke and Jay but he is right to call hypocrisy here for those defending Jay but then also attacking the new planned direction of PowMow.



Wrong again. For a guy usually so hung up on details you haven't even bothered to read what I said. My point was, and still is, that I am skeptical about this group and their plans. Mainly because they don't have any ski resort management experience. That is the key distinction between Jay and this group that you are ignoring.

And as to the other concerns, I drove up there in October and the clubhouse is RIGHT in the middle of the upper parking lot and within site of the main lodge, which is quite old and shopworn. I don't know how the locals and diehards are going to get along with these folks and their private lodge and gated community.  I don't know how these folks are going to react when their Yoga class is interrupted by the sound of a beat-up truck with kids looking to go ride the pow.  Maybe it won't be a problem...maybe it will.  This is just a discussion.  But these again are concerns I had raised that either you missed or are just not giving credit to. Instead, you indirectly call me a hypocrite, which makes me laugh because the real hypocrisy is that you try to nit-pick away at what I say and never even pay attention or even give credit to what has been said.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 12, 2012)

he did not say that.  apologies for cryptic word use. 

if it was the money lined pockets you are referring to TB, I was in reference to the uptick in skiers that demand more intermediate terrain at the expense of the wood skiing at J, see also my reference to carving up the forest for people who don't feel comfortable in forests.

A place like pow mow is unique, no?  Its not fancy.  On top of that they are keeping the fancy separated from the local usage. 

Jay is unique too, no? Burke even more so IMO.

So how much is losing what makes you unique worth in the name of resort profitability, not viability.

You rail me as an anti development quack, yet spout about the importance of a quality ski experience. You can't see the irony in your concern about pow mows secret society lodge  but are bouncing on the edge of the bed at hotel jay clapping with joy as their daily operating costs are gradually being driven sky high.  Your concerns for how a group of utopian rich folks can run a ski resort are similar to mine.  What happens when the EB well is dry- I have some hesitation thinking a group that is used to running  and living in a low key, no frills region really is performing an award winning service for the dirtbags here that your so concerned about utah.

I just found it amusing.

Best of luck pow mow.  I love it there and will be back soon.

dirtbags unite!


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 12, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> he did not say that. apologies for cryptic word use.
> 
> if it was the money lined pockets you are referring to TB, I was in reference to the uptick in skiers that demand more intermediate terrain at the expense of the wood skiing at J, see also my reference to carving up the forest for people who don't feel comfortable in forests.
> 
> ...



I've said what I've said.  It's here in black and white and folks have chimed in and added their two cents. You came in and have projected your views onto this thread and me. It's hard to have a discussion when folks don't pay attention to what has been said or attempt to reconvey it in such broad strokes. 

I honestly don't know what your beef is with Jay and don't really care. You complain about how hard it is to live, etc. and then bitch when someone proposes a multifaceted plan that would bring great paying jobs to the poorest part of the state (specifically the 500 or so high tech jobs that are coming to Newport). You also don't seem to understand, or want to understand, the realities of running a ski resort/area or making one successful. 

And to the point this thread is about Pow Mow and this recent purchase. It is a thread to talk about concerns, developments, etc.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 12, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I've said what I've said. It's here in black and white and folks have chimed in and added their two cents. You came in and have projected your views onto this thread and me. It's hard to have a discussion when folks don't pay attention to what has been said or attempt to reconvey it in such broad strokes.
> 
> I honestly don't know what your beef is with Jay and don't really care. You complain about how hard it is to live, etc. and then bitch when someone proposes a multifaceted plan that would bring great paying jobs to the poorest part of the state (specifically the 500 or so high tech jobs that are coming to Newport). You also don't seem to understand, or want to understand, the realities of running a ski resort/area or making one successful.
> 
> And to the point this thread is about Pow Mow and this recent purchase. It is a thread to talk about concerns, developments, etc.



Its a thread about concerns.  I thought the medium included everyone.  Apologies for intruding on the discussion with what I perceived to be a conflict in your stance on ski area viability. I was just surprised you would be so negative about an influx of money to a well worn ski hill.

With regards to  projecting.  I have never complained about living here. In fact I feel blessed to be able to earn a living here.  So I take exception to your judgement.  I am not anti development, I have said as much before.  I am not even against parcels of Jay's vision, I have also said as much before.  I am against businesses looking over the residents of its area to suffice its revenues in the name of false salvation.  I do not understand the ins and outs of ski resort operations. But, it doesn't take a phd in economics to realize when a place renowned for simplicity and glade skiing is sacrificing both they are rolling a red carpet for a different clientele. But bigger is better I suppose.

Whether its pow mow, burke, J, or some other simplistic ski hill under the gun of big money development its potentially another basic ski experience gone to the wayside in pursuit of revenue, not remaining viable.

whatever.  this is a terrible way to have a discussion. not even sure why I felt the need to respond.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 12, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> whatever. this is a terrible way to have a discussion.




There must be an echo in the room! :lol: Perhaps we can discuss Pow Mow rather than continuing on with the tangential broad mischaracterization and criticism over a particular point of view. That's why the discussion is terrible because of the insertion of crap that has nothing to do with the original topic.

Anyways, the new owners held a public meeting last week to introduce themselves and their ideas.  I will see if I can find anything on it....


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Dec 12, 2012)

It would be interesting to see what they will say. If they really have good intent then I think everyone would benefit. My concern would be...If they truly have good intent to "upgrade" for the use of a term, do they truly have the down to earth smarts to actually pull it off.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 12, 2012)

dlo55 said:


> I have never got out to Utah to ski, but I am hoping to get out there this year or next? What is the best mountain out there?



Lots to choose from!  Shoot me a private message and we can discuss.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 14, 2012)

Looks like management is responding to concerns:


----------



## crank (Dec 14, 2012)

too clever by half.  don't believe a word of it.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 14, 2012)

crank said:


> too clever by half.  don't believe a word of it.


Yea, this seems like Jay's "Unchangable" campaign which was ill advised and short lived. You can't make changes and say "look over there! we didn't change "everything" (yet)".


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 28, 2013)

Bump.  

This was in the SL Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56167412-78/summit-valley-ogden-eden.html.csp

Looks like they're off to a great start.  :roll:  Apparently they bought an "8,600 sq. foot house", spent a ton of money on it by adding steam baths and other things for their "gatherings," and are pissing locals off because they are partying the entire time in a residential area that is not zoned for their commercial activities...assuming that they are in fact commercial activities. They're just not being great neighbors.  The comment about making Ogden the "next Boulder" was pretty funny.  

The comments under the thread are pretty amusing.  

I'm still skeptical of these folks.  This is sounding more like a Ponzi scheme or something because it seems like they are spending other people's money on partying and not doing anything of real substance.  :roll:

#notimpressed


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 29, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Bump.
> 
> This was in the SL Tribune:
> 
> ...



Very strange. I hope this works out for Powder and people who enjoy the mountain. Guess will know more by end Wednesday, May 1.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 29, 2013)

Maybe I am being too negative, but it just seems like this group is a way for rich young people to hang out together, do some yoga, party, and talk about what they are going to do to save the world....and yet nothing gets done. It just seems fishy that they are raising all this money and the only thing they are doing is blowing it on parties.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 9, 2013)

Looks like they closed on the deal:



> SAM Magazine--May 9, 2013--Summit, the producer of the leadership conference Summit Series, finalized its purchase of Powder Mountain, Utah. Plans for the 7,000-acre resort include a sustainable residential community called Summit Eden, which will become the home base for the organization and its leadership and cultural events. Over the years, Powder Mountain has been targeted for large-scale development, with plans for 10,000 homes, golf courses and more than a dozen new chairlifts. Summit Eden, however, will focus on 500 sustainable homesites and a small residential village. In addition, small cabins will be available as rotating residences for artists, musicians, non-profit leaders and start-up entrepreneurs. As for the skiing and snowboarding, Summit founder and CEO Elliott Bisnow said, "Powder Mountain will continue to welcome ski guests like family, as Summit is committed to maintaining the beloved character of this resort."
> 
> The Summit organization was created in 2008 as a conference in Alta, Utah, for 19 entrepreneurs and non-profit leaders. Since, the Summit Series has grown into a community of thousands of multi-disciplinary leaders in the fields of business, non-profits, academia and the arts.



Get ready.....


----------



## ScottySkis (May 9, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Looks like they closed on the deal:
> 
> 
> 
> Get ready.....



I like this, thanks for posting that. Utah I be counting to I move out there.:beer:


----------



## crank (May 10, 2013)

My girlfriend and I have been considering Eden as our likely retirement spot.  Unfortunately, at 56, I am way too old to party with the summit group's 20 somethings.  I can only hope they don't ruin pow mow's relaxed atmosphere.

As far as the party house thing... Utah can be pretty freaking uptight so you have to take that stuff with a few grains of salt.  Still I am not exactly a cheerleader, nor could you say I am on board with this Summit Group's agenda.  Go ahead and build you enclave; please just don't change the place very much is all I can ask.


----------



## dlague (May 10, 2013)

kingdom-tele said:


> in reference to the uptick in skiers that demand more intermediate terrain at the expense of the wood skiing at J, see also my reference to carving up the forest for people who don't feel comfortable in forests.



I grew up skiing Jay Peak, 30+ years now!  When I first saw the new development, I was upset!  However, the town of Jay does not offer much to the folks who stay at the resort and "that" on its own made Jay Peak unattractive for many.  Our family has since taken advantage of many of the new ammenities and I will be the first to say that it makes perfect sense!  Lets face it we are not all glade skiers/snowboarders!  We are all not park rats!  We are not all ski racers! We are all not bump skiers/snowboarders!  We are all not groomer cruisers!  We are all not powder hounds!  And the list goes on!  

I love the glades at Jay Peak and since I have skied there, I do not see the glades getting carved up to serve an intermmediate crowd!  Unfortunately, todays ski areas have to be everything to everyone to survive!  Take a look around and see how many ski areas have zip lines, mountain biking, coasters, outdoor water parks!  So what!  Jay has stuff unrelated to skiing like the water park, an ice arena, arcade, bars and retaurants, a golf course, etc.  It gives people something to do when the lifts are not running is that so bad?  As far as increasing jobs - I lived in the Newport area and Jobs are welcomed.  The only bad part that I see now - people are moving to that area that never lived there before for the jobs!  The same thing will happen at Powder!

Powder - will probably change to some vision of the investors - they bought it!  For the locals - better off open then closed!   In fact, if any changes are significant - we shall see - then employment opportunities with grow.   I really do think that they will try to better the Ogden model.  As far as not being in the ski industry, well there happens to be a few top snowboarders and skiers in the mix and i am sure they will not be the folks running it - they will hire people for that!

We can agure amongst each other about points of view - the reality is - money chnages things and you just have to let go of the past and deal with the future - or - buy your own ski area and make it your vision!


----------



## ScottySkis (May 10, 2013)

dlague said:


> I grew up skiing Jay Peak, 30+ years now!  When I first saw the new development, I was upset!  However, the town of Jay does not offer much to the folks who stay at the resort and "that" on its own made Jay Peak unattractive for many.  Our family has since taken advantage of many of the new ammenities and I will be the first to say that it makes perfect sense!  Lets face it we are not all glade skiers/snowboarders!  We are all not park rats!  We are not all ski racers! We are all not bump skiers/snowboarders!  We are all not groomer cruisers!  We are all not powder hounds!  And the list goes on!
> 
> I love the glades at Jay Peak and since I have skied there, I do not see the glades getting carved up to serve an intermmediate crowd!  Unfortunately, todays ski areas have to be everything to everyone to survive!  Take a look around and see how many ski areas have zip lines, mountain biking, coasters, outdoor water parks!  So what!  Jay has stuff unrelated to skiing like the water park, an ice arena, arcade, bars and retaurants, a golf course, etc.  It gives people something to do when the lifts are not running is that so bad?  As far as increasing jobs - I lived in the Newport area and Jobs are welcomed.  The only bad part that I see now - people are moving to that area that never lived there before for the jobs!  The same thing will happen at Powder!
> 
> ...


Good info but how does it effect Powder Mountain in Utah?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 10, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Good info but how does it effect Powder Mountain in Utah?



Yeah what does this have to do with Powder Mountain? There is no real comparison as to what is going on....except on a real superficial level.  Jay is run by its longtime management that has been working to develop the resort.  Summit Group is a bunch or rich kids (my age) who have no real experience running a ski area.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 10, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Utah I be counting to I move out there.:beer:



Translation?


----------



## ScottySkis (May 10, 2013)

SIKSKIER said:


> Translation?



I will be moving to Utah sometime in the near future.:beer:


----------



## snoseek (May 10, 2013)

Coulda been Vail.

I mean this would have a perfect place for VR to enter the Utah market. The terrain is right up their alley and the acerage would have given them room to do their thing. We'll see what happens to pass prices and you'll get the idea i think


----------



## thetrailboss (May 10, 2013)

snoseek said:


> Coulda been Vail.
> 
> I mean this would have a perfect place for VR to enter the Utah market. The terrain is right up their alley and the acerage would have given them room to do their thing. We'll see what happens to pass prices and you'll get the idea i think



I think, as crazy as it sounds, that this is just too far out of the way for them.  Powder has had many recent owners.  Snowbasin is an awesome mountain, but it is not setting the world on fire with development or growth....


----------



## marcski (May 10, 2013)

They just don't have the penache of the canyon resorts.  Even with the olympics being held at Snowbasin.  IMHO, they also don't have the terrain...at least Powder doesn't.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 2, 2014)

Bump.  

Summit has released their plans for Pow Mow.  They bought it for $40 mill.  First time I saw a price tag.

http://www.saminfo.com/news/summit-powder-mountain-unveils-resort-development-plan


----------



## dlague (Jun 3, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Bump.
> 
> Summit has released their plans for Pow Mow.  They bought it for $40 mill.  First time I saw a price tag.
> 
> http://www.saminfo.com/news/summit-powder-mountain-unveils-resort-development-plan



Ya it will be skiing for the rich and famous!

thetrailboss have you skied Eagle Point?  That is in your neck of the woods right?  For a western ski area it seems small but has lots of acreage!  Just curious since I was researching how many new ski areas  started since 2000.


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 3, 2014)

dlague said:


> Ya it will be skiing for the rich and famous!
> 
> thetrailboss have you skied Eagle Point?  That is in your neck of the woods right?  For a western ski area it seems small but has lots of acreage!  Just curious since I was researching how many new ski areas  started since 2000.
> 
> ...



The only areas in Utah that I have not skied are Beaver, Pow Mow, Eagle Point, and Brian Head.  I have visited all but Eagle in the summer.  

And we have a new ski area being built right now....new as in new, new.  Not a revived area.  That place is Cherry Peak.


----------



## crank (Jun 4, 2014)

We were considering buying a condo in Eden for retirement after spending a week out there a couple season's back.  Pow Mow was so laid back and relaxed.  We are looking elsewhere these days.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 4, 2014)

crank said:


> We were considering buying a condo in Eden for retirement after spending a week out there a couple season's back.  Pow Mow was so laid back and relaxed.  We are looking elsewhere these days.



It is still the same as it was.  I would expect that things will remain so for another year or so.  I'm still skeptical of the new ownership and their ideas.


----------



## crank (Jun 4, 2014)

Yes still the same now, but not long term...unless they run out of $$$.  On one hand property in Eden may be a good investment, on the other hand it will not be the same vibe we fell in love with.  I am with you on the skepticism thing 100%.


----------



## dlague (Jun 4, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The only areas in Utah that I have not skied are Beaver, Pow Mow, Eagle Point, and Brian Head.  I have visited all but Eagle in the summer.
> 
> And we have a new ski area being built right now....new as in new, new.  Not a revived area.  That place is Cherry Peak.



I do not think we will ever see that again in the Northeast.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 4, 2014)

dlague said:


> I do not think we will ever see that again in the Northeast.


+1


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 4, 2014)

dlague said:


> Ya it will be skiing for the rich and famous!
> 
> thetrailboss have you skied Eagle Point? That is in your neck of the woods right? For a western ski area it seems small but has lots of acreage! Just curious since I was researching how many new ski areas started since 2000.



I spent a day there this past April.  The "steep side" was a lot of fun and the upper mountain was pretty flat.  You either get relatively steep or relatively flat, not much in between. Definitely lacking in the intermediate terrain department.  I was there on a Thursday powder day, and there were maybe 20 people at the most waiting for the lift to open.  The "crowds" did pick up a bit, but you could easily get fresh tracks all day it you ducked into the woods or were willing to do the short hike out from the very bottom.  The atmosphere was very laid back.  The guy selling tickets accidently gave a Snowbasin passholder a 100% discount, and was like "oh well, enjoy the skiing".  No doubt one of the weirdest layouts I've ever seen for a ski area.  To get from the bottom to the top you have to 1st hike, 2nd ride lift, 3rd ride bus, 4th ride lift.  Once at the top you could ski all the way to the bottom if you'd like.  Anyway, I had a great time there, it's my type of place, ZERO crowds.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 13, 2015)

Bump.  

The latest.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/f...ski-resort-that-crowdsourcing-built.html?_r=0

God save us :roll:



> “What Tesla did to cars,” Elliott Bisnow, a Powder Mountain owner, explained, wide-eyed, to the group visiting in January, “we’re going to do with towns!”


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 13, 2015)

Holy crap.  Not for me.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 13, 2015)

That aside, the place is still going and is largely unchanged.  They have pretty much just run it as it was and kept prices low and been (somewhat) good to the locals.  This organization still sounds like an organizer for rich people to get together and hang out and not really create anything substantive.   But I'd rather have that than have the place go under.


----------



## 4aprice (Apr 13, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Bump.
> 
> The latest.
> 
> ...



How is the village going to become the base area?  I was there in March and according to the trail map the village is going to be located on top of the ridge on the complete opposite side of the ski area from Timberline Lodge, and the current canyon road.  Roads for development are already in place from Timberline to at least Hidden Lake.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 13, 2015)

4aprice said:


> How is the village going to become the base area?  I was there in March and according to the trail map the village is going to be located on top of the ridge on the complete opposite side of the ski area from Timberline Lodge, and the current canyon road.  Roads for development are already in place from Timberline to at least Hidden Lake.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



I just looked at their trail map and noticed the same.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 13, 2015)

I guess my concern is whether or not this "vision" is a sustainable one - or if it's just jumping on a fad.


----------



## crank (Apr 13, 2015)

It is pretty flat up top there and I think there is already a road...may not be paved but there is a road/cat track.  We were thinking about buying a place in Eden for retirement; we fell in love with the old fashioned Powder Mountain's vibe.  I know nothing has changed yet...but it will.  We have eliminated it from our short list.


----------

