Canada sticking it to ski resorts

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/corbella-sunshine-ski-resort-owner-gets-unfair-offer-he-cant-refuse-from-feds#Echobox=1548251325

This is so unfair to Sunshine.  It’s a great resort for experts but despite the name is not at all sunny.  Might be the worst visibility I’ve ever experienced on snow.

Never been there, but, from what I have seen in pictures, a really beautiful place that is also a national park. I'm guessing its like having a big ski resort in the middle of Yosemite or Glacier. So, you know, thank God Canada is controlling and limiting use of those places to a certain extent. Its not as though they owned the land in the first place, so whining about  the impermance of a 45 year lease is a bit much. Let the grandkids make the next deal.
I mean, here in America, we have drilling companies basically deciding the fate of our gems, and, the other operations are being starved by mean old white men who hate beauty in nature.

Z wrote

This is so unfair to Sunshine.  It’s a great resort for experts but despite the name is not at all sunny.  Might be the worst visibility I’ve ever experienced on snow.

It is unfair, but there's 42 years in which it can - and likely will - change.  Especially with a change in government.

I lived out there for a few years.  It's no more, no less sunnier than anywhere else.  Much of it is above the treeline, so the light can get really flat.

Benny Profane wrote

Never been there, but, from what I have seen in pictures, a really beautiful place that is also a national park. I'm guessing its like having a big ski resort in the middle of Yosemite or Glacier. So, you know, thank God Canada is controlling and limiting use of those places to a certain extent.

It's spectacular, and the Nat'l Parks rules are pretty strict.  There's a lift on the front side of Louise that's above the treeline.  They painted the towers different colors to blend into the environment.  Dark green (below treeline), light green (sparse trees), gray (above treeline).

It’s a contract they have to sign.  That can’t be easily changed in 40 yrs once signed

We visited Sunshine Village a couple of summers ago and hiked around the ski area. It is absolutely beautiful.

The Scurfield family, who own the Ski area, have always seemed to arouse a load of hate, partially deserved, partially undeserved. This lights up the masses as they are wealthy and seem to be doing well as owners of the ski area. They sometimes behave as if they are above the law.

The parking problem has been around for a while and rears its head about 40-50 days per ski season. When we where there there was nothing but a huge open parking lot. It seems that Parks Canada (They run Banff National Park) wants them to build a $30-$50million parking tower (for 500 cars) on the existing parking lot. The Scurfields want to build a smaller lot and add a remote lot somewhere near the highway about 5 miles away. This is also tied to the skiing lease lasting only another 42 years and some other disagreements of expansion.

I cannot imagine trying to build a huge parking garage so far from any concrete or steel supplier. Driving 10,000+ loads of concrete on that 5 mile road will destroy the road and increase diesel fumes by a huge amount. How can that be good for the park?

I have a feeling that Parks Canada is pulling rank and giving them a take it or leave it ultimatum due to the bad blood and that is unfortunate. The Banff Park is promoted around the world as a must see area and then, when the people show up, they are making the wrong decision on how to handle the crowd. Building a 500 space parking tower is the wrong answer.

Are Canadian National Parks experiencing the same problems with crowds as the US NPs? Its getting ridiculous here, to the point that visitor numbers have to be controlled. Too much love, which is a good thing, the WH doesnt dare screw with a popular asset, but, man, its getting bad. I couldnt imagine a destination resort in one of ours.