Jay, Burke and EB-5

raisingarizona wrote

snoloco wrote

If a mountain can't make money running lifts, they sure aren't making any money being a hike to ski area.  No one in their right mind will pay to have to hike half a day for one run when they can do it in the backcountry for free, and with better terrain.

The idea isn't about having a ski area that makes money, it's about getting money into the community with an attraction that barely costs anything to maintain.

The best model you have in the NE for that is Tuckerman, there are also a few models in the Adirondacks as well. There is the Thunderbolt in the south. Although skiing BC in the Northeast can be good, there just isn't enough snow consistently for it to be a big draw. Areas such as Hickory don't open many years. When there is a lot of snow, we have a lot of Avi danger. However even in the West on a bad snow year you can do a lot of BC and the terrain options are almost limitless. Yes - avi danger is there but you can usually find low angle terrain at lower elevations when avi danger is high.

snoloco wrote

You really think that a ski area without lifts and snowmaking would bring in any crowd that's big enough to help a town?  I think the town of Tupper Lake is doing really well now (not).  They have a ski area with lifts, but no snowmaking, and it doesn't bring in any money because it's closed a lot and doesn't have a big customer base (if it has one at all).

Burke has 2 HSQ's, 80% snowmaking, 217 inches of natural snow average, 270 acres, and 2,100 vertical.  They will have a bed base if a new owner pays off the debt to the contractors that built the hotel.  The debt is less than a new HSQ costs, and a new buyer could easily pay it if buying the rest of the mountain at a cut rate price from the feds.  Their current setup is going to bring in much more money to the community than a ski area with no lifts or snowmaking where you spend 95% of your day going up.  It won't cost the community anything to maintain either, since the owners of the ski area would be picking up the tab on that.

It was just an idea to help a town and it's locals if in fact the area can no longer sustain itself. From everything that I have read the ski area does not make money.

The market for that particular experience (back country) is indeed growing sno and I think an area like that could be a worthy investment. I would depend on snow reliability too but if it doesn't snow than you could focus on the mountain biking.


I like the idea of it and it would be a place that I would like to visit and spend some money.

snoloco wrote

If a mountain can't make money running lifts, they sure aren't making any money being a hike to ski area.  No one in their right mind will pay to have to hike half a day for one run when they can do it in the backcountry for free, and with better terrain.

On the flip side, no one in their right mind would have ever purchased Burke if they knew its history and challenges. Unless ulterior motives, perhaps? Who will buy it now? Come to think about it, most ski areas would never be purchased if people were in their right mind. But especially Burke.

Based on the reports, it would seem that Burke wasn't really purchased out of any interest in long term success of the area but rather just to keep the EB-5 money coming and produce more projects to offer to new investors. It ain't the first time Burke has been used by an investor trying to run a financial scheme that collapsed...

“Boom boom boom, bombs away,” [Ary] Quiros says.

“If I make a mistake here, I lose everything! I lose everything,” [Ary] Quiros says.

They [previous owners] didn’t care about Burke’s character, he says. They cared about money.

LOL

I agree that an earn turns place would fit with the hole mountain biking vibe for the Northeast Kingdom.

I'd like to hear Riverc0ils opinion. Can Burke be viable as a lift served resort?

I had always assumed that the problem was that there are other mountains with more natural snow closer to population centers. What is the issue?

Lol posted at the same time :)

raisingarizona wrote

snoloco wrote

You really think that a ski area without lifts and snowmaking would bring in any crowd that's big enough to help a town?  I think the town of Tupper Lake is doing really well now (not).  They have a ski area with lifts, but no snowmaking, and it doesn't bring in any money because it's closed a lot and doesn't have a big customer base (if it has one at all).

Burke has 2 HSQ's, 80% snowmaking, 217 inches of natural snow average, 270 acres, and 2,100 vertical.  They will have a bed base if a new owner pays off the debt to the contractors that built the hotel.  The debt is less than a new HSQ costs, and a new buyer could easily pay it if buying the rest of the mountain at a cut rate price from the feds.  Their current setup is going to bring in much more money to the community than a ski area with no lifts or snowmaking where you spend 95% of your day going up.  It won't cost the community anything to maintain either, since the owners of the ski area would be picking up the tab on that.

It was just an idea to help a town and it's locals if in fact the area can no longer sustain itself. From everything that I have read the ski area does not make money.

The market for that particular experience (back country) is indeed growing sno and I think an area like that could be a worthy investment. I would depend on snow reliability too but if it doesn't snow than you could focus on the mountain biking.


I like the idea of it and it would be a place that I would like to visit and spend some money.

Burke has been around since the 1950's.  It has to have been profitable for much of that time, or it would never have existed.  They've got the infrastructure already.  Make use of it and try to be profitable rather than ripping it out.  You think they'd demolish the hotel they finished in December just so they could be "old school".  It's also ridiculous to have a lift served bike park and no lift served skiing.  

As I can see it, it's not a small mountain and has potential to be better and more profitable.  They have a favorable exposure, so they hold onto the natural snow they've got, and they can also upgrade snowmaking.  It's never going to be a massive destination resort, but it can have enough skier visits to be profitable and they can also focus on biking more to be profitable all year.  Run both HSQ's in the summer and have beginner/entry level trails off the lower one and more advanced trails off the upper one.

There is also potential to add two new trail sections which would put the place more on par with the competition.

Ridiculous? Huh. According to who? That's just your opinion and it's based on nothing factual.

Well don't tell the folks over at Highlands bike park that. It would break their hearts to hear that their efforts have been for nothing.

https://highlandmountain.com/

What Rivercoil just explained in his post above is that it hasn't been working Sno. You have passion but if you want to succeed at business I think you have to sometimes know when to call it and think outside of the box.

As I have already mentioned, the fastest growing segment in ski retail is for the touring gear. There is a growing market and if somebody created the right experience somewhere I think it could be profitable and beneficial for a community. The ski area real estate model isn't sustainable for a ski area like Burke and it's never going to be able to compete with Jay unless maybe they get the most bad ass marketing guru in there working magical like skills.

The ski industry as a whole is trying to do a lot of thinking outside of the box, they recognize the shifting climate and are trying to come up with ways that they still can be successful and guess what? It's not all about snowmaking or even skiing.

I know of that place.  It used to be Snow's Mountain and had one double chairlift and a few trails.  It wasn't profitable anymore so they made it a summer only bike park.  However, there is no official ski area there in the winter.  No one pays to hike up.  You can if you wish, but you're on your own.  There is no rescue services, trail maintenance, etc.  

What you're proposing is an official non lift served ski area where you have to pay to gain access.  That's nuts, when you have a lift sitting right overhead.  It's especially true when that lift cost 5 million dollars.  I also don't get why any skier would be in favor of a ski resort closing down.  Maybe it's just entitlement mentality so BC guys can hike and have it to yourselves.  In a changing climate, there isn't going to be any skiing outside of a resort because all the snow will be manmade.  I thought you guys didn't want to see smaller mountains go under, but looks like RA is in favor of it.  Just because Burke was used in a Ponzi Scheme doesn't mean it is a bad ski area.  It was just run by corrupt, incompetent management.  Get a real ski resort operator in there and it would be so much better.

I never said that you would charge people money to hike up. Show me where I wrote that?

You could probably charge 5 dollars a day for maintenance. If it were just a back country area I wouldn't keep any lifts and I would naturalize the area. Maybe build a small rustic lodge like the ones ski areas used to have 50+ years ago. Or...maybe keep one lift for the bike park and have a lift ticket for the one chair in the winter but still have a focus on human powered skiing still? I dunno, just an idea.

I didn't say that I'm in favor of a ski area closing down. The thing for me is that if a ski area isn't sustainable than it's efforts to become profitable aren't going to be sustainable either and then it becomes destructive imo.

I was throwing out some different ideas for the mountain to explore other avenues and possibilities. That's all I was saying. It's like brainstorming for fun. In the end all I want is what is best for the community there, not the ski area operators.

If the climate changes to the point that most scientists agree it's going to there isn't going to be skiing on man made either in the not so distant future. Making sure that rich white people get to still recreate isn't going to be a huge concern in that world. Skiing just isn't that important in the big picture kid.

I hope to be dead by the time skiing is gone for good.

So you admit that you'd rip out all of Burke's lifts, 2 of which are still relatively young, just to "naturalize" the area.  I imagine you'd also demolish the entire hotel that cost 50 million to build as well.  There's a little thing called money and demolishing a very new building will not be happening.

If you want what's best for the community, I guarantee that it is not ripping out all of the multimillion dollar infrastructure.  It would be to use what's already in place and try to create the best skiing experience possible and bring the greatest number of visitors into the town as possible.  A smaller, but 4 season ski resort will do that.  A hangout spot for what, like 10% of the already small population that skis will do nothing.

Look how well it works in Tupper Lake.  That town's economy is in the doldrums because there isn't any draw for outside visitors.  No one is spending any money there.  Their ski area isn't operating anymore, and never operated consistently because of the lack of snowmaking.  Now I do not believe that they should've built a mega-resort there to try to compete with Lake Placid, but I think that some four-season development that could include more than just skiing would help greatly there.  Build it and they might come.  Don't build it and they won't come for sure.

raisingarizona wrote

As I have already mentioned, the fastest growing segment in ski retail is for the touring gear. There is a growing market and if somebody created the right experience somewhere I think it could be profitable and beneficial for a community. The ski area real estate model isn't sustainable for a ski area like Burke and it's never going to be able to compete with Jay unless maybe they get the most bad ass marketing guru in there working magical like skills.

The ski industry as a whole is trying to do a lot of thinking outside of the box, they recognize the shifting climate and are trying to come up with ways that they still can be successful and guess what? It's not all about snowmaking or even skiing.

You keep saying touring is the fastest growing retail market. I see those articles, too, with gaudy double digit percentage increases (27% - 36%). However, I have not been able to find any actual sales numbers. Maybe you have a link? My thought is that the while the percentage might be huge, the dollars are a drop in the bucket when compared to the bigger downhill only sectors.

Does anybody have an idea how many climb up/ski down skiers there might be in the Adirondack Park on a mid winter Saturday? Is it in the 100-1000 range?

Based on the logistics just to spend a day at a ski area, I do not think there will be much help from the touring market to increase skiers/boarders in reference to the long term health of skiing. The logistics are many times more difficult for touring with a much larger helping of danger vs a day at a ski area. The physical component of touring already eliminates most skiers.

I admire all the members here who are able to tour. It is just not for me. I would guess I am in the 98% on this one.

If it was truly profitable it wouldn't have had 75 owners in 50 years and countless bankruptcies. As usual:

 you don't know what you're talking about.

Ok, if it had 75 owners in 50 years, list every single damn one right here or you don't know what you're talking about.

snoloco wrote

I hope to be dead by the time skiing is gone for good.

So you admit that you'd rip out all of Burke's lifts, 2 of which are still relatively young, just to "naturalize" the area.  I imagine you'd also demolish the entire hotel that cost 50 million to build as well.  There's a little thing called money and demolishing a very new building will not be happening.

If you want what's best for the community, I guarantee that it is not ripping out all of the multimillion dollar infrastructure.  It would be to use what's already in place and try to create the best skiing experience possible and bring the greatest number of visitors into the town as possible.  A smaller, but 4 season ski resort will do that.  A hangout spot for what, like 10% of the already small population that skis will do nothing.

Look how well it works in Tupper Lake.  That town's economy is in the doldrums because there isn't any draw for outside visitors.  No one is spending any money there.  Their ski area isn't operating anymore, and never operated consistently because of the lack of snowmaking.  Now I do not believe that they should've built a mega-resort there to try to compete with Lake Placid, but I think that some four-season development that could include more than just skiing would help greatly there.  Build it and they might come.  Don't build it and they won't come for sure.

If a ski area is unsustainable than that infrastructure you favor utilizing is more of a burden. It costs lots of money to run a ski area Sno, plus you could sell it all off anyways. Again Sno, read slowly if it helps you, it's just an idea if the area were to close. I think a back country type area would be better than nothing or a ghost town of a resort. Some of us see unused ski runs as scars on the landscape and as a sad wasteful use of valuable natural resources.

That 10% population is growing, like you said......build it and they will come, maybe. Sometimes the market is already there and no one knows it until someone puts together the operation for that market. This takes a visionary/pioneer though and at this point I don't think that's you.

x10003q wrote

raisingarizona wrote

As I have already mentioned, the fastest growing segment in ski retail is for the touring gear. There is a growing market and if somebody created the right experience somewhere I think it could be profitable and beneficial for a community. The ski area real estate model isn't sustainable for a ski area like Burke and it's never going to be able to compete with Jay unless maybe they get the most bad ass marketing guru in there working magical like skills.

The ski industry as a whole is trying to do a lot of thinking outside of the box, they recognize the shifting climate and are trying to come up with ways that they still can be successful and guess what? It's not all about snowmaking or even skiing.

You keep saying touring is the fastest growing retail market. I see those articles, too, with gaudy double digit percentage increases (27% - 36%). However, I have not been able to find any actual sales numbers. Maybe you have a link? My thought is that the while the percentage might be huge, the dollars are a drop in the bucket when compared to the bigger downhill only sectors.

Does anybody have an idea how many climb up/ski down skiers there might be in the Adirondack Park on a mid winter Saturday? Is it in the 100-1000 range?

Based on the logistics just to spend a day at a ski area, I do not think there will be much help from the touring market to increase skiers/boarders in reference to the long term health of skiing. The logistics are many times more difficult for touring with a much larger helping of danger vs a day at a ski area. The physical component of touring already eliminates most skiers.

I admire all the members here who are able to tour. It is just not for me. I would guess I am in the 98% on this one.

The numbers as you mention probably aren't huge in comparison but the industry is paying attention. It's still in it's infancy and I think with the right kind of areas to visit the numbers will continue to grow. It's obviously becoming the thing out west here. It's wild how many people want to climb but don't want to or just don't know how to travel in avalanche terrain.I also think with ski areas becoming more and more crowded and ridiculously pricey lift tickets more people are finding the climbing option to be more attractive.  

The danger aspect is arguable. A well maintained bc area imho isn't any more or less dangerous than skiing in area. I think skiing crowded groomers with people going faster than their ability is a lot scarier than navigating the back country and much scarier than skiing some well maintained mid to low angle glades. Of course tho we all have different perspectives on what is dangerous and what is an acceptable level of risk.

You can't sell off a massive building that can't be moved.  You can sell off the lifts, but you're not getting very much money for them.  When Crotched bought Ascutney's HSQ, they spent 3 million on it.  I'll post the link where I found this so that ML keeps his mouth shut.

http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/NewHampshire/crotchedmtn.php

That lift was about the age of the lower HSQ at Burke when it was reinstalled, but had very few hours.  The upper HSQ at Burke is only 5 years old.  From the same site I got the previous information from, it cost 5 million to put it in.  Figuring that a lift lost half it's value in 10 years, it would lose 1/4th of it's value in 5 years.  They would be able to get 3.5-4 million for it.  They also have a 1986 FGQ which would likely cost similar to what West Mountain paid for the Poma triple from The Hermitage Club.  The cost to buy and install the lift at West Mountain was 1.5 million.  They split it into two lifts and only one has been installed.  They also bought an extra drive terminal from Sugarbush.  The installation and the extra drive terminal are included in that number, so the cost to buy the lift would've likely been around maybe 700-800k.  


I'll post where I got that number from just to make sure ML is really happy.
http://poststar.com/news/local/ski-center-inks-game-changing-deal/article_235d8129-a60e-5360-afe3-3dbf8ba194b6.html#utm_source=poststar&utm_campaign=hot-topics-2&utm_medium=direct

I really like the idea of a local community run back country area.

All you would need is volunteers in the summer or maybe goats? HA! Ya, hire some goats to keep the grass down!

And a small rustic lodge at the base. A meeting area like a club, it could be a byob and bagged lunch spot. Have a wood burning stove in there to heat the joint. The whole operation could have one or two employees running it every day. I imagine a really cool spot to get together with friend and family, tell ski stories and enjoy some cold beers.

This idea is more of a city park controlled by the community, it's not a ski area built to sell 130 dollar day tickets, sell real estate, or even make any money. It's just to enjoy and hopefully when it snows to bring in some visitors that spend some money at small local mom and pop businesses. I like it for it's purity, it's the anti-resort model and I think it's really cool.

It's not about entitlement or exclusion, heck even chunky city soft teenagers with poor cardio abilities from the tri-state region would be welcome.

Some ski areas just don't work though Sno. That's when it's good to know when to fold em.......

What would you do about the hotel that they just finished building?  I never got an answer previously.

If you said earlier that maintained ski runs look like a scar in nature, then why are you proposing trimming them?  They'd look the same whether or not they were groomed from a distance, well unless you want to try and re-seed all the trails, which would be very expensive.

There are reasons why Burke has struggled. I don't know what they are, but they do seem persistent. Any solution would have to address those issues. Hoping River will fill us in.