Printable View
It's like one of these, just wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-conte...stity-belt.jpg
That would be when a business doesn't own the land they operate on, and the lease agreement they have is not exclusive. Yet they put a chastity belt on the single best pow pow location in the land.
Go look out a window or something, it is within your rights to overlook this thread.
Maybe you could explain
Where in Alta's Conditional Use Permit with USFS is there a stipulation that concessionaire must allow users on any non-motorized snowsport apparatus to use its lifts?
Or does the CUP allow concessionaire to use its judgement in its operations so long as their actions do violate state or federal law?
Or are you saying Snowboarders are a protected class?
This is a false premise. That sentence's question doesn't need a response to resolve the dispute in the courts or with the USFS.Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
As stated above they are allowed to impose restrictions provided they are agreed to with the USFS. Their permit application has to call out the restriction because of the nature of the CUP, from what I gather.Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
This has already been covered. I'm not going to comment aside from no, I don't believe snowsliders should get enhanced equal protection under law. Enhanced is for those at risk of serious injury like minority blood/skin, religion, sexual orientation, etc. From my perspective it dilutes the debate and just serves as rhetoric. Equal protection is guaranteed or noted as a right of everyone, not just members of a protected class. Fundamentally you have to ask the question:Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
- Should ski resorts operating on public land with heavily subsidized taxpayer leases be allowed to arbitrarily restrict customers? To be arbitrary it must lack merit in terms of a causal factor like protecting business, ensuring safety for customers, etc. From my perspective, I contribute to the pool that subsidizes Alta's operations and relatively low cost tickets. There isn't a safety reason or economic reason for Alta to continue the ban, it's simply an arbitrary decision to exclude 30-40% of the skiing public. If you're private like Deer Valley, the ownership grants greater leeway on business constraints. Alta has a legitimate gripe on the brand thing. Being skier only is a draw and they never lack for visitor days. So then you have a substantial burden being absorbed by a tax paying user base and a private operator with a minor, ultimately trivial, intellectual property claim. Which problem should be realized to alleviate the other?
Quantify an individual taxpayer's burden in this case so we can judge how substantial it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Is this any different than women only gyms (which I also have no problem with)
I'd like to lease a bunch of NF on the cheap in Utah and ban Mormons, for aesthetic reasons.
USFS forfeits a few million a year ya doubting Thomas!Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Merit lacks merit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Quote:
Being skier only is a draw and they never lack for visitor days.
0% equals 30-40%?Quote:
exclude 30-40% of the skiing public.
Where is the forfeiture money coming from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Think Aaron, think.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
See as religion... = protected class... snowboarding, desipte what those that participate in it might think, its not a religion (though even if it were it wouldnt be any worse/better than any other religion).Quote:
Originally Posted by highangle
And exactly how does that happen if Alta never lacks for visitor days and actually limits the number of skiers some days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
And how are these leases heavily subidized? Are there other competing uses for the land that will bring in more money? Are the leases way below rates for similar private leases? Like for instance what Powdr was paying UPCM for the upper part of PCMR, before they forgot to renew?
And curious, how will allowing snowboarders increase government revenues? Does Alta's lease give USFS a percentage of their gross revenues? Any idea of the rate?
I have thought about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
^^^Will the USFS make more money and relieve our substantial tax burden if Alta allows snowboarders? We wanna know bro?Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
Mormonism and snowboarding are both choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
Respect though. You have to be a good athlete to miss that point.
My bad mistake whole lotta live for convenience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiLKT5rPHBA
USFS forfeits millions per year because their purpose is to promote recreation with economic subsidies. Below explains how.Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...rding-ban.htmlQuote:
Based on a congressionally mandated formula, Alta paid the Forest Service between $305,000 and $474,000 each of the past five years.
Alta has something like 400k skier visits per year. That has a market value of about $20-30M/yr in visitor revenue if managed properly. Alta pays the USFS ~0.5M/yr for use of the mountain. Across the ridge Vail pays Talisker $25M/yr to operate Canyons/PC land.
It's not my contention that any change in snowboard policy will have an impact on revenue. 2nd question, yes roughly 2% of revenue. $570k or so last year documented in the article.Quote:
And curious, how will allowing snowboarders increase government revenues? Does Alta's lease give USFS a percentage of their gross revenues? Any idea of the rate?
Being wrong is one thing, but being stonewalled by horseshit and being backed by the government is irritating.
Quote:
Under a 40-year permit issued to Alta by the Forest Service in 2002, the ski area is allowed to restrict any type of skiing device that creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers.
The Forest Service said it agrees with Alta that the way snowboarders slide down the slopes is a legitimate safety concern for skiers. In a filing last week, Alta attorneys explained that skiers find the slopes at Alta more peaceful, safe and enjoyable because they don't have to worry about being hit by snowboarders whose sideways stance leaves them with a blind spot that can make their wide, sweeping turns a danger to others on the slopes.
"These differences create safety concerns that can be avoided or minimized by not allowing snowboarders," Forest Service lawyers wrote in the new filing.
same article as above
Meanwhile, nobody has empirical data to support this, but there is data to suggest that skiers are more likely (x per 1k skiers) to get in a collision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
So, this has nothing to do with snowboarders at Alta. You're mad that the USFS hands out cheap leases to ski area operators and they could be making more money thus reducing our tax burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
No, thats not really the point at all. I acknowledge the public benefit of these arrangements. Its a big reason why Brighton can return enough margin on a relatively classic ski area experience. The problem I see with the handling of the subsidies is that the USFS is obseqious to the resorts on bargaining. They have the ace of spaids with the lease/permit granting authority. But they are total pushovers in development negotiations.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
So, your beef has nothing to do with Alta not allowing snowboarders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
There's a big fuckin difference between the nature of the leased assets at The Canyons (dirt, lifts, utilities, buildings and other improvements) and the bare dirt at Alta. And I'm pretty sure you know that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
To toss out another comparable that is equally stupid, Powdr was paying UPCM $12K per year to lease the dirt at PCMR - before they forgot to renew
For Apples-Apples, Powdr pays USFS $500-600K per year to lease the Mt Bachelor site - 3500 acres compared to 2K for Alta, and 400-500K skier days for the Bach. I'm too lazy to research all the other USFS leases with ski resorts, but my guess is they are all gonna fall within the same range of rates.
So again, how will the allowance of snowboarders at Alta bring in MILLIONS more for USFS? Oh wait, you already backed off that bold statement. So exactly what is your contention here about snowboarding at Alta and US fiscal policy? Or are you trying to say that because Alta is leasing the land from the USFS, snowboarders should automatically be allowed to ride Alta's lifts? What about sledders? Saucer boys?
Backed off what bold statement? They leave millions on the table at Bachelor too, it is USFS policy to not charge market rates as a means of incentivizing business and recreation. Quote the claim or drop it, its a red herring.
Re: Canyons, we both know it is 50x the Alta lease. Fifty. Commercial rares are higher. With public money come public service demands.
Powdr was an outlier due to the original agreements age.
How the fuck do you figure USFS is leaving millions on the table? Are there bazillions of people begging USFS to let them have the land leased by Alta, et al for gaxillions more so they can then install all the infrastructure on their nickle? Where are you coming up with "market rates"? The Canyons is hardly a comparable rate