http://www.mammothtimes.com/articles...es/mammoth.txt
Interesting article. Comments from the peanut gallery.
Printable View
http://www.mammothtimes.com/articles...es/mammoth.txt
Interesting article. Comments from the peanut gallery.
For those too lazy to click on the link:
Mammoth Mountain - Who Will Get Chosen to Buy and Why
By Wendilyn Grasseschi
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:41 PM CDT
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Times Staff Writer
When Mammoth Mountain executives makes their final decision about who will take over the Mountain, it could come down to a choice between two very different types of potential buyers - and between two very different visions for the community's future.
According to Rusty Gregory, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area CEO, the Mountain is actively listening to the community right now, hoping to get a clear sense of the direction of the general plan, which is right now under revision. In fact, Gregory even said that the direction the community chooses could determine the kind of company the Mountain chooses.
This is how and why.
"At its most simple, there are basically two kinds of investors out there," Gregory said recently. One you could call "income investors." The other, you could call "growth investors." Income investors are going to want to buy the company in order to take the profits and invest them somewhere else, another business, etc. the mountain is making a good profit, so it is appealing to an income investor just like it is. A buyer like this would probably see the Mountain as a "finished business" more or less, although they would also go ahead and try to grow the Mountain more in the direction it is already going as much as possible. In other words, an income investor would try to grow the weekends and the holidays to capacity, rather than focusing on mid-week growth."
This group would also look at downsizing operations as much as possible, in an attempt to increase profit to operation ratios, meaning more lay-offs at the Mountain, Gregory said.
"A second kind of investor, growth investors, are in it for the long haul," Gregory said. "They tend to take profits and re-invest them in the company, much as Dave McCoy has done up to this point with Mammoth Mountain. They are not looking for really fast paced growth, but rather, at creating a long-term growth, by investing in capitol projects in their business.
"I tend to believe that it is much better for Mammoth to sell to a growth investor, but I am not sure if the Town is on the same page, and that is why we are watching the general plan process very carefully."
So, given the above information, why is Mammoth Mountain even considering selling to an income investor, regardless of what the community general plan looks like?
When asked why the Mountain was even thinking about selling to an income investor, thereby going against what Gregory has repeatedly said would be better for the community, and against what McCoy has repeatedly said he believes in as well, he said, "Income investors are offering significantly more money - up to 20 to 30 percent more - than the growth investors. Selling to a growth investor is thus a financial loss, and if the community does not want to move towards a mid-week increase and what I call a true destination resort, including a functioning airport, we would be wary of selling the mountain for less than we could get for it. The fact is, buyers are also paying close attention to what is happening in Mammoth right now. Growth investors are not going to be eager to buy into a community that wants to limit growth as much as some community members have stated they want."
Gregory said that the Advocates for Mammoth group, pushing for a referendum on the general plan that would significantly decrease the amount of building and density in Mammoth at buildout, is a real issue.
"If the community goes this way," he said, "I think it is making a mistake. This 'let's stop everything' is not wise. If we do slow down, lose our developers because they cannot build here, who is to say that we will be able to build anything better than we are looking at right now. Why would another three years or more of planning make a better product? Compromises are best reached when both sides know they need to compromise, when there is a deadline approaching like now, when there is intense development interest in Mammoth. That's when you have the leverage to compromise. The Advocates have more leverage right now than if they obstruct the process past the community's tolerance. They - and we - should be looking for the compromises that will build a better project, not trying to stop development."
John Walter, spokesperson for Advocates for Mammoth, said that he and Gregory actually agree on more things than it seems.
"We both want a good, solid community, a working, sustainable community based upon a resort corridor," he said. We are not against density per se, but we believe it needs to go in a few carefully chosen areas only" (for a list of detailed Advocates proposed policies, see past MT articles on this issue).
Walters said that he would like the proposed Intrawest projects for the North Village area, another 1,200 units, to go forward, if only because it is already under an adopted development agreement and not subject to reductions. He also agrees that some increased density near Juniper and Canyon is a good
idea. Advocates would, however, like to see most if not all, of the proposed thousands of units and their increased, attending population for the four corners area on Meridian and Main near Whiskey Creek, dropped. They would also like to see proposed growth for the college area go slowly, and as needed. They are still prepared to bring their plan to a public vote if the Mammoth Lakes Town council does not.
It is the possibility that the community might chose this vision of the Advocates that hedges Gregory's words as he talks about selling the Mountain to an income investor, rather than to that which he is philosophically more aligned with, a growth investor.
"I believe that the community will make a decision that supports a destination resort growth pattern," he said. "But it is true, the time that the general plan is adopted and the time frame we have for selling the mountain are getting closer together." -MT
what's frustrating is there is no mention of which investor is more likely to raise season pass prices more and which investor would open up more terrain :D
Is it me, or have the last 3 Mammoth Times "Mammoth Mountain Sale update" articles said almost exactly the same thing?
Come on Super Walmart! Mammoth needs you BAD!
Grow, grow, grow!
Become the Aspen of the Sierra's, where no working stiff can afford to live. Seriously, I like the idea of MM getting bigger. Makes buying some property in Bishop now very attractive, to me. It's just driving the sherwin grade everyday that would get to me.