Assembly says no to Belleayre transfer to ORDA

Ausable skier gets his wish? Very interesting from the Watershed Post:

Not included in the New York State Assembly's 2012 budget proposal: Money for ORDA to take over the management of the Belleayre Ski Center, currently operated by DEC.

The Assembly has not yet passed its budget, but a press release from Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, who represents most of Ulster County and Rhinebeck in Dutchess County, claims that the budget proposal rejects the Belleayre transfer.

Cahill is quoted in the release:

The issue at Belleayre is funding, not administration. Putting it in an under-funded regional authority with little or no connection to the Catskills does nothing to assure the Ski Center will receive the resources it needs to thrive.

http://www.watershedpost.com/2012/assembly-budget-gives-thumbs-down-belleayre-orda-transfer

Is that sound I hear Nero fiddling?

Funding my ass. The problem is expenditure. Taxpayers supporting workfare for votes in the middle of nowhere.
Don't ever try to tell me that downstate doesn't support these upstate welfare programs.

as i posted so much that you are all sick of me this made no sense for either Bell or Orda - thank the higher power that some body in government had the good sense to realize this




though to Benny's post I doubt there are enough resource in NYS to ever have Bell make economic sense

Yes!!  Not for nothing but we need nothing to do w/ lower elevation anchors!  It may be 75 next week1!  But Benny, stick your private sector mantra up your arse!  

Here we go again!

Bottom line , the state should sell all 3 of their mountains.They don't belong in the ski business.

ScottyJack wrote

Yes!!  Not for nothing but we need nothing to do w/ lower elevation anchors!  It may be 75 next week1!  But Benny, stick your private sector mantra up your arse!

Fine. But don't come to me with rage and tears the next time your taxes go up, which, most assuredly, they will. Me, I've written off NY state a long time ago for my "retirement", or non working years.

To me the interesting thing is that from what I read it SEEMS like this was pushed for in the Catskills.  I could be imagining that - did anyone else get that from it?  If that is so they must be confident of separate funding. (?)

Harvey44 wrote

To me the interesting thing is that from what I read it SEEMS like this was pushed for in the Catskills.  I could be imagining that - did anyone else get that from it?  If that is so they must be confident of separate funding. (?)

If orda took it over

Bell will be subject to big cuts which their workers are going to resist and Orda would be stuck running a losing operation with less money to go around for the the real mission of Orda

this is best for all involved - really hope that they can pull off some form of running Bell at the county or regional level that get it off the NYS budget but they must stop the lift ticket price deflation and giveaways that hurt the private ski area operators in their area

Thank goodness.

JasonWx wrote

Here we go again!

Bottom line , the state should sell all 3 of their mountains.They don't belong in the ski business.

+1

Once again, for those who have an issue with the state operating a ski resort, do you also oppose state operation of parks, beaches, transit systems, etc, etc, etc?

If you believe there's a difference between a ski resort and say, a public beach or park ... why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I disagree with you, I'm just wondering about the consistency of the message.

Good point Face.  How many of us get to use the beaches on Long Island if we are up here in upstate NY?

I bet running a beach or park is low cost /low investment operation. No snowmaking or chairlifts to install or maintain.
You just need a handful of pimply faced teenagers to collect money for parking and beach passes . Food service consists of hotdogs /fries /soda and ice cream..Ok I forgot the dozen or so college age life guards..You get my point.
 

Face4Me wrote

Once again, for those who have an issue with the state operating a ski resort, do you also oppose state operation of parks, beaches, transit systems, etc, etc, etc?

If you believe there's a difference between a ski resort and say, a public beach or park ... why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I disagree with you, I'm just wondering about the consistency of the message.

Of course there is a difference. Parks, beaches are public owned, the government works for the public, and is given the task or running such areas. Transportation, well could go either way with that one. Ski resorts, although on public land are a business. Going by what you are saying, should the government also then run stores, factories and other businesses? Oh wait, that has happened, I believe it's referred to as socialism. Not that there is anything wrong with the concept, it's just not the one we're living under last I checked.

JasonWx wrote

I bet running a beach or park is low cost /low investment operation. No snowmaking or chairlifts to install or maintain.
You just need a handful of pimply faced teenagers to collect money for parking and beach passes . Food service consists of hotdogs /fries /soda and ice cream..Ok I forgot the dozen or so college age life guards..You get my point.

Feel free to Google the costs, shared by both the Federal and state governments, of rebuilding beaches eroded by storms. The numbers are staggering!

Taking your points individually ...

Funky Polak wrote

Going by what you are saying ...

I'm not saying anything, nor taking a position on the issue, of governments operating a ski resort. I already stated, that I don't necessarily disagree with you. There are ski resorts in other states that are on public land, but are operated by private interests. I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea at all.

Funky Polak wrote

Of course there is a difference. Parks, beaches are public owned, the government works for the public, and is given the task or running such areas ... Ski resorts, although on public land are a business.

So, based on what you're saying, there are no private beaches, that operate as a business, or no private parks, that operate as a business. I'm sure I can find numerous examples of both, with little or no effort.

JasonWx wrote

Here we go again!

Bottom line , the state should sell all 3 of their mountains.They don't belong in the ski business.

Yes, here we go again. The State CAN'T sell Gore or Whiteface without amending the State Constitution.

Do you know what's easier than amending the State Constitution?  EVERYTHING!

There are definitely privately owned beaches in nj. There are even private beach clubs with very significant membership fees. And of course when the army corps spends a billion to pump sand it goes to both public and private beaches.

I agree with Face that there is little difference between beaches, parks, ball fields, campgrounds and a ski mountain.

Tom

Here's a question. How many state owned ski areas are there? Off the top of my head I can only think of 4. 3 in NY and 1 in NH. Used to be 2 in NH until they leased out Sunapee .

JasonWx wrote

Here's a question. How many state owned ski areas are there? Off the top of my head I can only think of 4. 3 in NY and 1 in NH. Used to be 2 in NH until they leased out Sunapee .

I was wondering the same thing ... From what I could find, the answer is ... not too many. Winter Park, CO was owned and operated by the city and county of Denver until 2002, when they partnered with Intrawest. There's two or three other small ones in MT, ID and AK, and as you mentioned, Cannon in NH.