Glens Falls Post Star Editorial About Tax Funds for ORDA

If you were going to build a village at WF the place would be up at kids kampus either in the KK lot or the bears den lot.  Its much more ski in ski out compared to the river lot

Its never going to happen but I think it would actually make the place better.  More options to eat, a ski shop or two, maybe even a outpost of the Lake Placid Brew Pub for post skiing beers.  WF does so much destination business it could easily support it.  Then take those proceeds and replace old lifts and including a high speed quad out of KK up to mid mountain.  Also could get snow making on Hoyts and cut that last trail in the Lookout terrian pod that is on the master plan.  That trail is supposed to be to the right of the Lookout chair as you ride up and will be a black with lots of glade potentials off both sides.

Only chance of it ever happening is if the two hotel owning family's on the orda board push for it and have the right governer to listen to it.  But as SnoWballs with a WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW says Pigs will soar before this happens.

I was late in adding my comments to the blog post, so I’ll add them here.  

When people talk about the possibility of privatizing Gore and/or Whiteface, they often assume that ORDA’s skiing venues are profitable and the non-skiing venues operate in the red.  That may not valid assumption.  While ORDA discloses revenue figures by venue, it does not disclose expenses by venue, so it is impossible to determine which venues (if any) operate in the black and which operate in the red.  What is known is that ORDA generated an operating loss of $13.7 million across all venues and events for the fiscal year ended 3/31/2011 (including depreciation charges of $6.9 million).  That operating loss was partly offset by contributions from the state and from the Town of North Elba in the amounts of $4.5 million and $900 thousand , respectively.  From the information available in the audited financials, in my opinion it’s a stretch to conclude that Gore and Whiteface actually generate a profit and that the losses are entirely attirbutable to the non-skiing venues.

But the real bottom line isn’t the $13.7 million operating loss.  The real bottom line is the positive economic impact to the region (estimated at $347 million statewide, $271 million in the 4-county region for the 07-08 fiscal year).  Furthermore, any privatization of some of ORDA’s facilities results in fragmentation of the tourism “product.”  Whiteface, for example, benefits from the attraction that the other Olympic venues represent, and vice versa.  That’s why Whiteface is consistently ranked #1 for off-mountain activities.  It’s an example of the whole being more than just the sum of the parts.  I think it would be difficult to pull off the same level of success if different parts of the Olympic “product” were owned by different entities.  Start eliminating “non-profitable” venues and soon you will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

I’m not necessarily opposed to privatization or some other financial model for operating the state’s winter sports facilities, I just haven’t seen any proposal that makes sense, constitutional issues notwithstanding.  In my opinion, ORDA does a good job overall for both skiers and taxpayers.

ausable skier wrote

Great rebuttal - did you get the GF paper to run it?

I agree that Harv’s blog post would make an excellent letter-to-the-editor.  The problem is most newspapers, including the Post-Star, require submissions to be signed.  You and I may (or may not) know Harv’s true identity, but to the outside world “Harvey44” is essentially anonymous.

if you look at the venues the only ones that make money are WF, Gore and the ice arena, all the others are losers.  This is an accepted fact around LP and you can just look at the parking lots to see that.

if needed I would sign my real name to that rebuttal and as a group i bet many of us would as well

ausable skier wrote

if you look at the venues the only ones that make money are WF, Gore and the ice arena, all the others are losers.  This is an accepted fact around LP and you can just look at the parking lots to see that.

The ski industry is full of examples of ski areas that have full parking lots yet still lose money.  Gross revenue does not necessarily equal "profit."  But the point isn't whether a specific venue makes or loses money.  That's taking a narrow view.  The broader perspective is that the overall economic impact makes the state's investment in ORDA worth it.  I suspect that's exactly why ORDA avoids disclosing profitability on an individual venue basis.

ausable skier wrote

if needed I would sign my real name to that rebuttal and as a group i bet many of us would as well

No doubt.  It's a well thought out and well written piece.  I agree with just about all of it, and I'd be proud to put my name on it too, if I had written it.  Not to speak for the Post-Star, but I suspect ghost-writing falls into the same category as anonymous letters to the editor.

Harvey44 wrote

ausable skier wrote

It funny that in the same sentence you say you be against a village on the parking lot and then say you'd think about buying one.

Gore is my home mountain now. What I was trying to say was that if Gore ended up with condos in the upper parking lot, I might consider relocating to another mountain.  I wasn't trying to say I'd buy one.

Harvey44 wrote

Personally I'd hate to see condos in the Gore lot. That would have me considering a new home mountain.  Wondering how others feel about condos at the base of Whiteface, Gore and Belleayre. If it meant more snowmaking and new lifts would you be for it?

Still would like to know what other Gore and Whiteface skiers would think about real estate in the upper lot at Gore or the River lot at Whiteface.  (What's the comparable lot at Bell?)

I'd stop going to Gore. The lack of condos, therefore, the lack of crowds associated with them, is the appeal for me. If I wanted that experience, I'd go to Killington (which I do, but, not on Saturdays, if I can).

Hasn't everybody learned form the great ski condo buildup of the last thirty years? Why does everyone think that the first thing a ski hill needs is ........ condos? It's like a disease. Look how it ruined the finances of scores of hills, and, still will into the future as the second home market sinks into oblivion with this real estate crash, which is still with us, you know. Ski hills have to find their niche, and, for me, and, I'll bet, many, Gore's is it's lack of crowds and ......... condos. Besides, there is a condo development close to the base of Gore. Some people can't give those things away for a decent price these days. Where's the market for more?

Benny

I thought you loved Kmart?  When i wrote a trip report back in March saying how icy and crowded the Big K was and how great Gore was the next day you went beserker on me.

Hate the crowds. But, if there's any kind of snow on that hill, I'm away in the trees all day.

Some Saturdays it's, as a friend once said, looking back up at that intersection of the Superstar lift, the Gondola drop off, and the Skyepeak quad dropoff, "Like skiing in Japan.".

The State can only do a land swap of Forest Preserve land by amending Article 14 of the Constitution.  This would require the approval of both houses of the Legislature, twice each, in two different years.  Then it would have to be approved in a state-wide referendum.  The chances of it happening to allow a development like that at Gore are slim to none.

I agree with Benny's points about the real estate model.  It's flawed in many ways. It provided a finite source of cash over a certain period of time, and then it dried up.  My point was that at the current time you wouldn't even get that initial blast of cash.

There was part of the "op-ed" that I cut, because I thought the piece was running long. I alluded to it in the last paragraph when I said "New York offers a different kind of ski experience..."

I think that the NY state ski mountains should stick with their brand.  The people I've met who ski Whiteface and Gore are looking for something different.  If you change the constitution, and build a bunch of condos (and somehow they sell), you could end up with something that looks like parts of Southern Vt with 100 less inches of snow. Not a super competitive product IMO.

I wish there was a way to (easily) look into the NY state books.  I tried last week, and I couldn't find what I was looking for.  I was trying to determine how much the state spends in each county of NY.

I did learn a few things. The biggest portion of the state budget (by a mile) is spent on education and healthcare. I also learned that over 70% of New York's budget is returned to local municipalities, while about 30% is kept to run state government and authorities.  

All of the money returned to the local governments in one way or another creates jobs - including the money spent on healthcare and education.  The remaining funds, outside of healthcare and education, are spent on all kinds of things.

I wonder if the mountain counties are getting a fair share of that remainder?  I couldn't figure it out.  It does seem logical to me that Article 14 restrictions on land development in the Parks could make it more difficult for the state to fund job creating programs in the Daks and Cats.

That's why I think that funding state run ski areas to the tune of 15 or 30 million (or whatever it is) isn't a bad idea.  If you want wild areas that are protected, with small vibrant communities down in the river valleys, you're going to have to pay something for it.  And when you look at the ROI that those funds deliver, in jobs and tax revenues - I'd be surprised if the state spends 30 million elsewhere more efficiently.

Like I said, I tried, but couldn't find the numbers. But the idea that that money is invested relatively well, doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

"I'd stop going to Gore. The lack of condos, therefore, the lack of crowds associated with them, is the appeal for me." said Benny Profane.

While I wouldn't stop going to Gore if they built more condos and the skier visits increased, I agree that one of the main draws for me is the lack of crowds.  I think that the only time I had to wait in line for more than several minutes was last year when there was an ice storm that closed pretty much all the lifts except the Gondola. Most people from my area (NYC region... no comments please) head to Snow and Stratton every weekend.  They all complain of enduring 30 minute lift lines even on non-holliday weekends.  I just don't see the appeal in that.

I don't want condos in the parking lot at Gore, or the river area at WF.  I head to these mountains to escape the crowds at home.  

Harvey44 wrote

That's why I think that funding state run ski areas to the tune of 15 or 30 million (or whatever it is) isn't a bad idea.  If you want wild areas that are protected, with small vibrant communities down in the river valleys, you're going to have to pay something for it.  And when you look at the ROI that those funds deliver, in jobs and tax revenues - I'd be surprised if the state spends 30 million elsewhere more efficiently.

Like I said, I tried, but couldn't find the numbers. But the idea that that money is invested relatively well, doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

+1

Benny Profane wrote

I'd stop going to Gore. The lack of condos, therefore, the lack of crowds associated with them, is the appeal for me. If I wanted that experience, I'd go to Killington (which I do, but, not on Saturdays, if I can).

Hasn't everybody learned form the great ski condo buildup of the last thirty years? Why does everyone think that the first thing a ski hill needs is ........ condos? It's like a disease. Look how it ruined the finances of scores of hills, and, still will into the future as the second home market sinks into oblivion with this real estate crash, which is still with us, you know. Ski hills have to find their niche, and, for me, and, I'll bet, many, Gore's is it's lack of crowds and ......... condos. Besides, there is a condo development close to the base of Gore. Some people can't give those things away for a decent price these days. Where's the market for more?

Gore is way underutilized. We all love this fact but it is a financial problem for Gore and ORDA and ultimately NYS. The mountain could easily handle another 50,000 visits (probably more) without issues. If there were additional visits there would be more reason to open the whole mountain mid week and maybe crank up the snowmaking more often. Maybe the gondola would run at 1100 fpm vs 850 fpm. Maybe major lifts would be updated sooner. Maybe they could take the outhouses out and put in some bathrooms and new food and bev locations.

Gore's main limiting factors are lack of parking, marketing and a base of beds. While the general consensus is condo buildup is bad, I disagree. Gore is at the other end of the spectrum. The lack of near mountain and on mountain housing has hindered Gore. The current RE market is obviously a big problem and RE sales suck in the North Creek area. However, more condos/townhouses/homes means more owners are going to be in the area. There does not need to be the over the top development of a Stratton to make Gore more financially sound.

Part of Benny's post "condos? It's like a disease. Look how it ruined the finances of scores of hills" is just not accurate. Where are these scores of hills? The only recent closing is Ascutney. Ascutney's problems had to do with bad ownership decisions and a shakey location and it is not like Ascutney was really a major hill. The townhouses at the bottom are still owned and occupied. Any other major ski areas closed due to the real estate crunch? Les Otten's SKI Ltd problems had more to due with finances than RE. All those places are open and seem to be doing quite well. Almost every other ski area in the Northeast has way more of a bed base than Gore and almost all have slopside housing. They all do not have 30 minute lift lines (something I have not seen on my non-holiday weekend visits to Stratton).

Gore continues to be my favorite mountain. I just hate taking a week off to ski Gore and finding big sections of the mountain closed because there are 100 people on the mountain. It makes my family look elsewhere for our vacations. Last year we spent a week at Stratton. The cost of the vacation was the same as Gore and we did not have to get in my car to start the day. I could also have more than 1 beer at the end of the day and not have to worry about driving. The whole mountain was open. The terrain is not as exciting as Gore but the snow was great, there are HS lifts covering the whole mountain and the rest of my family loved it.

I do not need Gore to be Stratton, but it certainly could learn a few other things from Stratton besides paid parking.

x10003q wrote

Benny Profane wrote

I'd stop going to Gore. The lack of condos, therefore, the lack of crowds associated with them, is the appeal for me. If I wanted that experience, I'd go to Killington (which I do, but, not on Saturdays, if I can).

Hasn't everybody learned form the great ski condo buildup of the last thirty years? Why does everyone think that the first thing a ski hill needs is ........ condos? It's like a disease. Look how it ruined the finances of scores of hills, and, still will into the future as the second home market sinks into oblivion with this real estate crash, which is still with us, you know. Ski hills have to find their niche, and, for me, and, I'll bet, many, Gore's is it's lack of crowds and ......... condos. Besides, there is a condo development close to the base of Gore. Some people can't give those things away for a decent price these days. Where's the market for more?

Gore is way underutilized. We all love this fact but it is a financial problem for Gore and ORDA and ultimately NYS. The mountain could easily handle another 50,000 visits (probably more) without issues. If there were additional visits there would be more reason to open the whole mountain mid week and maybe crank up the snowmaking more often. Maybe the gondola would run at 1100 fpm vs 850 fpm. Maybe major lifts would be updated sooner. Maybe they could take the outhouses out and put in some bathrooms and new food and bev locations.

Gore's main limiting factors are lack of parking, marketing and a base of beds. While the general consensus is condo buildup is bad, I disagree. Gore is at the other end of the spectrum. The lack of near mountain and on mountain housing has hindered Gore. The current RE market is obviously a big problem and RE sales suck in the North Creek area. However, more condos/townhouses/homes means more owners are going to be in the area. There does not need to be the over the top development of a Stratton to make Gore more financially sound.

Part of Benny's post "condos? It's like a disease. Look how it ruined the finances of scores of hills" is just not accurate. Where are these scores of hills? The only recent closing is Ascutney. Ascutney's problems had to do with bad ownership decisions and a shakey location and it is not like Ascutney was really a major hill. The townhouses at the bottom are still owned and occupied. Any other major ski areas closed due to the real estate crunch? Les Otten's SKI Ltd problems had more to due with finances than RE. All those places are open and seem to be doing quite well. Almost every other ski area in the Northeast has way more of a bed base than Gore and almost all have slopside housing. They all do not have 30 minute lift lines (something I have not seen on my non-holiday weekend visits to Stratton).

Gore continues to be my favorite mountain. I just hate taking a week off to ski Gore and finding big sections of the mountain closed because there are 100 people on the mountain. It makes my family look elsewhere for our vacations. Last year we spent a week at Stratton. The cost of the vacation was the same as Gore and we did not have to get in my car to start the day. I could also have more than 1 beer at the end of the day and not have to worry about driving. The whole mountain was open. The terrain is not as exciting as Gore but the snow was great, there are HS lifts covering the whole mountain and the rest of my family loved it.

I do not need Gore to be Stratton, but it certainly could learn a few other things from Stratton besides paid parking.

Be careful what you hope for. You think it's going to stop with just one little condo complex? Hey, I'm with you guys when it comes to ski in/ski out convenience, but, look at the mountain you use as an example. Stratton? ech. I lived in Saratoga Springs and wouldn't even think of going there, even with a cheap ticket deal. What a bore, and, yeah, you have to hang out with the A Hole Range Rover crowd. Like my least favorite mountain in Colorado that is condos-at-the-base on steroids, Vail. Gag me with a gaper. Can't stand skiing there. but that's what happens when your ski hill is run by a corporation that is a real estate developer first, and considers skiing an "amenity" to enhance "the mountain leisure and vacation experience". The CEO is a gaper who can barely ski, furcryingoutloud.

"Gore's main limiting factors are lack of parking, marketing and a base of beds."

And a place to drink and eat. Have you been on the Killington access road?

"Les Otten's SKI Ltd problems had more to due with finances than RE. All those places are open and seem to be doing quite well."

Dude, he drove that mountain, and his corporation, into bankruptcy, sucking all the cash out of Killington to build the Canyons and build his slopeside junky "hotels" at the other "resorts" he acquired, playing a real shell game with finances and, of course, making himself a zillionare in the process. Talk to any old timer at Killington, and they will probably agree that he was/is an evil man. Ski Corp was just fine before he bought that mountain, and now the new owners are bringing it back to life as a real business, not a time share corporation.

I spent a weekend last January at Stratton.  Two things surprised me. One, the quality and quantity of the snow.  It was excellent  Even in the late afternoon, it was not scraped off.  Two, the crowds.  I was there the weekend after MLK.  I could not believe how much time we spent in long lines for high-speed 6 packs on a non-holiday weekend.

Benny Profane wrote

Be careful what you hope for. You think it's going to stop with just one little condo complex? Hey, I'm with you guys when it comes to ski in/ski out convenience, but, look at the mountain you use as an example. Stratton? ech. I lived in Saratoga Springs and wouldn't even think of going there, even with a cheap ticket deal. What a bore, and, yeah, you have to hang out with the A Hole Range Rover crowd. Like my least favorite mountain in Colorado that is condos-at-the-base on steroids, Vail. Gag me with a gaper. Can't stand skiing there. but that's what happens when your ski hill is run by a corporation that is a real estate developer first, and considers skiing an "amenity" to enhance "the mountain leisure and vacation experience". The CEO is a gaper who can barely ski, furcryingoutloud.

"Gore's main limiting factors are lack of parking, marketing and a base of beds."

And a place to drink and eat. Have you been on the Killington access road?

"Les Otten's SKI Ltd problems had more to due with finances than RE. All those places are open and seem to be doing quite well."

Dude, he drove that mountain, and his corporation, into bankruptcy, sucking all the cash out of Killington to build the Canyons and build his slopeside junky "hotels" at the other "resorts" he acquired, playing a real shell game with finances and, of course, making himself a zillionare in the process. Talk to any old timer at Killington, and they will probably agree that he was/is an evil man. Ski Corp was just fine before he bought that mountain, and now the new owners are bringing it back to life as a real business, not a time share corporation.

I agree with a lot your post but Les Otten and his methods are not happening in North Creek. I am not talking about doing a Stratton in NC. I mentioned that almost every Northeastern ski area has slopeside beds, some (Mt Snow/Stratton/Okemo) more than others (Burke/Jay/Stowe). I thought I made that clear in my post. A larger base of beds will allow for more shops, food and bev (like your ref to the Killington access rd). It will enable Gore to increase  cash flow.  People like ski in/ski out. A little of this will help.

For all the condo/townhouse hate - there is nothing to worry about. North Creek/APA and various other groups will always find a way to delay almost all developments until the next downturn so very little is ever completed. Since 1987 there is 1 group 82 townhouses completed.

As for the Stratton ech - my wife is a shaky intermediate skier. She loves Stratton. When we ski Gore she is happiest skiing on the North Quad. Many times it is closed mid week which turns my wife into a person who wants to try someplace else. She will never have the passion for skiing that I have, but if she is happy skiing at Stratton then I am happy. Out of Stratton's 600+ acres I can always find some fun.

Well, that's why I sometimes ski at Vail. My girlfriend loves the place, along with her low intermediate group of friends. They spent an entire week there and wouldn't take my advice and even jump on the bus one morning to hit Beaver Creek, a far superior mountain. What are you going to do. It's popular as hell for a reason. They have their finger on something. Not for me though. I like somewhat remote mountains with good powder, which means no to low crowds cutting it up by 11am.

I was just thinking how Gore can be a wonderful classless experience, which may be it's best feature. As soon as you put one of those ski in/out condos in, you start creating a stratum of customers on the hill dictated by, well, money, of course. Those that can afford the condo, have a much nicer experience. Again, the mutated version of that is half million dollar quarter shares in Vail next to the bottom lifts, and, well, you get what you pay for as you move away from that easy life, to the bottom where locals are charged about 30 bucks to park an eighth of a mile away. As Harvey so well pointed out, for a relatively minimal cost spread out to all of NY taxpayers, we all get the same experience at a very nice ski hill. I like that. Except for that damn premiere parking thing they started a few years ago. Hey, reward the early risers with a spot up front, huh?

Benny you are so all over the map - you love kmart no you hate it.  How can you say Vail is not as good a mountain as BC.  BC is so much more the wall street range rover crowd and the back bowls rock.  BC gets so much less snow.  Vail does suck if all you do is stay on the front side but that is only for a warm up run and a ski out at the end of the day.

Gore would greatly benefit from my weekday business that a condo development would bring.  If management knew that 500 skiers were staying at the condos on a given night they would plan ahead to staff more lifts than they would otherwise. WF has a much larger bed base in LP so it wouldn't benefit nearly as much.

as a former Killington employee I agree with you - as the saying goes More snow and Less Otten.  He killed killington and what could have been a fantastic connection to Pico to build the Canyons.  The canyons is the worst ski area in Utah by far.

I think some ski in/out development would help gore. It would help draw skiers mid week which would be good for the hill as well as the town. Mountain financial problems are almost universally tied to too much leverage, not just RE development. When development is done stupidly (too much leverage) then you have problems.

I have also skied Stratton mid week and it's a great experience. Kid gets cold, walk back to the condo with mom. Want to ski bell to bell, no problem. The Stratton terrain is no match for Gore but as others have said, for a family it works well. You can also ski the whole mountain and if you want you can also ski a day at Okemo. WIth the mid week deals that are available, you can stay slopeside at Stratton for not that much more than having to drive to Gore. The excellent mid week deals available in VT contributes to Gore being empty mid week.  

tom

CONTENTS DELETED

Gore isn't open midweek because .... Gore isn't open midweek. That's the downside of a state worker establishing a schedule as though he/she is running a non profit, which, he/she is. So, it's another chicken and egg argument. Turn it into a private biz with condos, and people will come, some say. But, people have to come in order to substantiate the place going private. Anyway, like I said, start putting condos up, and I'm outta there. I could get that over in Vermont, and, the bars are better.

heh, as far as that midweek thing - My favorite story about Gore is going there one Tuesday and having to hike out of the North Side in the middle of a storm because I assumed, of course, those two chairs would be running with two feet of snow on the mountain. Well, at least one, right? That's the way it is at most private mountains, right? I asked a patrol person later that day why that side of the mountain was closed. "It's Tuesday" was the answer. "Yeah, but, but, there's like two feet of fresh over there......" I say. "It's Tuesday" with a stern stare, was the answer. "Oh, um, yeah............"