Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
It's really hard--basically impossible--for private citizens to know if they are getting a good deal with any of these arrangements. I ski Wachusett regularly, and agree it's a great hill from a customer perspective. I don't doubt that Sunapee subsidizes Cannon.
But the thing that we do not know is how much quality/revenue is due to the private company compared to the amount of profit (or loss) they are taking from citizens/skiers--it's a complex question. That's why we need professionals/technocrats leading these issues, not extremists who can't even manage their legal bills or keep a well respected management team on the job
|
It's not quite that complex. In the case of Mt. Sunapee, it's structured as a fixed amount, plus a percentage of revenue. The state also has the right to look at the operator's books. The lease was developed by the state and elected officials (some who could probably still assist).
Not only did the state get a guaranteed revenue stream, but it no longer has the risk associated with bad winters and capital investments. Perhaps more importantly, the ski area was no longer tax exempt (meaning the towns, county, and state collect property taxes on the millions of dollars of lifts, buildings, snowmaking equipment, etc. installed by the operator).
The state lease arrangement has more oversight than government management. Mt. Sunapee's operator would never get away with putting a mid-mountain hotel on undeveloped public property in their master plan.