Quote:
Originally Posted by rocket21
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.
|
I agree with your qualitative description. But (and this was the point of my previous post), you have not included any numbers. Without the numbers, and a bunch of additional analysis, it's impossible to know if the deal is better or worse. I'm pretty sure the two of us would agree on that.
If we were leaving the analysis to experienced, rational professionals--former ski area and hospitality CEOs, bankers, etc--I'd be comfortable that they would evaluate this stuff appropriately, starting as you have above.
But the people on the commission today have shown themselves to be irrational and dogmatic. They appear to be eager to privatize for the sake of privatization--this is a recipe for giving money away to to the for-profit operators.