Belleayre

The war begins.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 27, 2008

ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, DAVID B. DONALDSON, IS CALLING ON ULSTER RESIDENTS TO BOYCOTT ACTIVITIES AT HUNTER AND WINDHAM MOUNTAIN SKI AREAS

Ulster County Legislature Chairman David B. Donaldson is urging local residents to show their support for Belleayre Mountain, one of the largest tourism attractions in Ulster County, by boycotting Hunter and Windham as their festival season begins and into their ski season if they continue. Donaldson’s stance is in response to Greene County officials and ski center operators non-stop attacks over the past year on Belleayre Mountain and its status as a state-owned and operated ski center.

“These attacks on Belleayre, which has always been state-operated and was created before Hunter and Windham, are unfounded and unjustified,” Donaldson said. “Any cuts to Belleayre Mountain would seriously affect Ulster County’s tax base and revenues as well as impact employment opportunities for Ulster residents. I am urging Ulster County residents to stick together and defend Belleayre against unjustified criticism and if they continue, I urge Ulster residents to boycott Hunter and Windham.”

Donaldson said it is unfortunate that State Sen. Seward, Interim Greene County Administrator Daniel Frank and Greene County Legislature Chairman Wayne Speenburgh, along with the operators of Hunter and Windham, have worked to get a bill passed in both the Assembly and State Senate to establish a blue ribbon committee to examine unfair competition in the outdoor recreation industry.

"This bill is targeted at Belleayre Mountain Ski Center, a state facility mandated by the New York State Constitution and re-affirmed in an amendment passed by the voters of the State in 1987. If this legislation becomes law, it calls into question the State’s right to provide low cost recreation for its citizens. Are they going to study the impact of Jones Beach? Bethpage Golf Course? State Campgrounds? And how about local parks, pools and the like, that receive State funding? When they finish studying the impact of State recreation outdoors - will they then study the impact of the State University system on private colleges? The State has legitimate interest in operating recreation facilities and does it well and in line with its mandates. The study being proposed is a waste of time and money, so make no mistake this is aimed directly at Belleayre,” Donaldson said.

“Private interests in Greene County are looking for a competitive advantage by attacking Belleayre. New York State is mandated by the Constitution to operate Belleayre in a manner that benefits its citizens and provides an economic catalyst for the local community. It is succeeding in both. Real estate interests in Greene County do not trump the will of the people of the State of New York and the economic interests of Ulster County.”

Donaldson urged Gov. Patterson not to sign Sen. Seward’s bill and protect the right of the citizens of New York to provide public recreation at a reasonable price for all its citizens – not just the rich. “Belleayre makes skiing affordable to everyone,” Donaldson said, “and it provides a tremendous product that everyone should be able to continue to enjoy. Ulster County does not intend to allow anything to occur which will damage Belleayre’s right to operate a reasonable, first-rate ski area.”
 
That's real mature.
Click to expand...

Hah. That's what I was thinking as I read it.

Attempting to use position power to stifle an informational survey/analysis. He must be very afraid of the information/results.

The question being at what cost and to what level should Gov't entities go in promoting vs providing such things (a bit clearer in the education realm I would think than in running ski areas and golf courses).
 
Personally, I do not think the state should run ski areas. However, it seems that extracting Belleayre, Gore & Whiteface from NY ownership would be quite difficult. Probably should lease them like Sunapee in NH.

I might agree there is a bit of a fixed pie of skier days for the region. However, I do not think letting Belleayre languish is the answer - like it did for most of the 80s/90s. They should go ahead with improvements.

Highmont. It would be nice to see them in operation - it's a nice little area.


The biggest sweetheart deals are the real estate related ones. However, skiing generally needs the infrastructure. So the question of who gets the contract is perhaps the most relevent one - versus why there is any real estate development.
 
jamesdeluxe":1gukv4fu said:
EMSC":1gukv4fu said:
I've actually skied Highmount when it was open. (nothing thrilling, not horrendous, and rather small - even for NYS).
Click to expand...

I put these pix on TGR, but can't remember if I posted them here -- a series of shots from my second run down the main trail at Highmount on Valentine's Day 2007. Even though it's not much by non-EC standards, annexing and reopening those trails would be a nice addition to Belleayre. They're not "thrilling," but are fun blue runs with good views.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pics. I used to go to races there.

I remember when they got that chairlift used from Jiminy Peak. Looks ancient.
 
ChrisC":1wp6d1lj said:
I remember when they got that chairlift used from Jiminy Peak. Looks ancient.
Click to expand...

Sutton, Quebec still has two of those lifts in operation and I remember seeing one in pix from Baldy in southern CA.
 
Probably should lease them like Sunapee in NH.
Click to expand...

If I recall my NYS education, the state can't. Part of the 'forever wild' lands constitutional language forbids the leasing of Catskills Park or Adirondack Park lands owned by the state (Again I'm fully sure of that for ADK lands, and believe it's also true for Catskills).

Maybe they could get around it by calling someone an operator and the land itself is not "leased"? But doubtful anyone would want to be that operator in such an instance. Just like at Winter Park (or Sunapee), owned by Denver, but leased to Intrawest. Intrawest wants to make improvements, significant maintenance/replacements, etc.. . that requires that they must have a long term lease of that land - not just "managing operations".
 
I agree with James, Hunter and Windham need to share profit / loss / skier visit numbers over the past few years. VT resorts are always publishing their skier visits. VT increased their skier visits by 500,000 this year. That is just their increased skier visits, which is 3 times Belleayre's numbers.

I have friends and relatives that live in Delleware, Greene, and Ulster. You have to realize the politics involved here is all about real estate in Greene County versus new real estate in Ulster and Delaware Counties. Real estate investors from Greene county put up the money to hire the lobbyists to fight the Belleayre deal. . :roll: As for the locals living on a fixed income or young families just trying to get by, I think NY State should try to make sure nobody gets hurt in any county. Improving the economics in Delaware, Greene, and Ulster would be highly desirable as long as the hard working families trying to get by don't get hurt. As for the top 1 percent owning lots of real estate, I could care less. On the other hand more tourists money flowing into the Catskill region from MA, NJ, PA, CT, DE, and MD should help lower the local taxes, which is okay by me.

Recent editorial from Freeman article that you may not have seen.

Freeman: Can't We All Get Along
 
Can somebody explain to me why New York State is feeding money to a state-owned ski area when there are plenty of nearby ski areas that are viable as private businesses? Is there something unique about Belleayre or could the state just lease out the ski area the way New Hampshire does to the Muellers at Sunapee?
 
Gee "Geoff," can somebody explain to me why we should we should ski at "viable private businesses" that in reality are just a Cartel trying to control prices by destroying a lower cost competitor? You can whine all you like about so-called level plaing fields but when it comes down to it that's what it's all about--who you kidding. I shop at Costco, not Saks; I used to ski at all three, but not after this. I will never ski at The Cartel anymore. I will spread the word far & wide what they've done. THEY CROSSED THE LINE THIS TIME. And by the way, can someboby also explain in the first place why private ski areas would want to situate themselves near a state run area that already was in existence years & years before they ever came along? Check your history. It's like people who buy near a school & then complain about the traffic. Get real.
Geoff":300ls7kt said:
Can somebody explain to me why New York State is feeding money to a state-owned ski area when there are plenty of nearby ski areas that are viable as private businesses? Is there something unique about Belleayre or could the state just lease out the ski area the way New Hampshire does to the Muellers at Sunapee?
Click to expand...
 
SkiSaver":zzdfur8l said:
Gee "Geoff," can somebody explain to me why we should we should ski at "viable private businesses" that in reality are just a Cartel trying to control prices by destroying a lower cost competitor? You can whine all you like about so-called level plaing fields but when it comes down to it that's what it's all about--who you kidding. I shop at Costco, not Saks; I used to ski at all three, but not after this. I will never ski at The Cartel anymore. I will spread the word far & wide what they've done. THEY CROSSED THE LINE THIS TIME. And by the way, can someboby also explain in the first place why private ski areas would want to situate themselves near a state run area that already was in existence years & years before they ever came along? Check your history. It's like people who buy near a school & then complain about the traffic. Get real.
Geoff":zzdfur8l said:
Can somebody explain to me why New York State is feeding money to a state-owned ski area when there are plenty of nearby ski areas that are viable as private businesses? Is there something unique about Belleayre or could the state just lease out the ski area the way New Hampshire does to the Muellers at Sunapee?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I asked why Belleayre needed to be subsidized by the state when there are examples of state governments leasing ski resorts to private entities. After filtering out the flames and rhetoric, you answered that New York State should be running ski areas because the nearby private ones are too expensive. If that's the best you can do, Belleayre is doomed.
 
I've posted on Alpine Zone with the same rap, but here it is again...

a) Like most ski areas, all three of the three Catskill hills in question (Hunter, Windham, Belleyare) operate at peak capacity on weekends/holidays and all three are semi-ghost towns on weekdays.

b) People who choose to ski at Hunter, Belleayre, or Windham (and Plattekill) do so not because of price (unless they get a comp or reduced ticket through an offsite shop), but because each has a completely different feel and terrain. Windham is aiming for the more upscale Stratton crowd, Hunter for more aggressive skiers, and Belleayre for families and normal folk just out for a day of skiing.

c) Decades ago, New York residents voted into the state's constitution their desire to operate Belleayre as a state-owned entity to draw people to the area, which has been down at the heels economically for years. At this point, with all of the players and special interests involved, attempting to change the constitution to allow for a private company to operate Belleayre would be an ugly, protracted exercise.

I absolutely agree with one of the AZ posters that some of the labor/insurance rules should be amended to make it easier for the privately-run places to operate, but let's cut to the chase... this ain't about lift ticket prices; it's about real estate. Hunter and Windham are trying to protect their real estate investments and don't like the fact that a large upscale resort is going up nearby that will draw people away from their holdings. Why don't nearby private golf courses on Long Island bitch about the state operating FIVE 18-hole courses at Bethpage -- one of which is a top-of-the-line layout that has hosted the U.S. Open?

I understand part of what Geoff is arguing, but here's the short answer: it ain't gonna happen.

Somewhat off-point: why hasn't NH allowed Cannon to be run by a private operator?
 
jamesdeluxe":3411x98w said:
Somewhat off-point: why hasn't NH allowed Cannon to be run by a private operator?
Click to expand...

It's been talked about for years. Hard to get someone interested when there's zero chance of real estate development.
 
Geoff, What is unique about Belleayre is that it has a protected status enshrined in the "forever wild" clause of the New York Constitution (article XIV, sec. 1). The citizens of the state have spoken, reaffirming its status several times. Thus, choking off funding for the facility effectively circumvents the will of the people. Beyond that bottom line status, Belleayre acts as an economic engine in a region that needs it, providing jobs at the facility itself, as well as feeding economic benefits to local businesses like restaurants, hotels, pubs, merchants, tradesmen, artists, craftsmen, etc. State funding for Belleayre guarantees its permanency, so that it not go the way of other privately owned ski areas in the Catskills that failed (e.g. Cortina; Phoenicia; and Plattekill for a time). Additionally, Belleayre provides affordable and accessible winter activities to a segment of the state population that otherwise could not participate. At Belleayre many inner city folks have learned of the joys of winter sports that the rest of us have enjoyed for so long. Denying funding denies these people. It would be surprising if Governor Paterson's administration is not well aware of this aspect of the discussion. Belleayre also has made a commitment to providing services for adaptive skiing, again providing something that may not receive much priority at some profit-driven private areas. Finally, taking the "private v. public" argument to its logical extreme would mean the closure of municipal swimming pools, state and county beachfront parks, municipal golf courses, county campgrounds, in short any and every public facility within a region where privately owned "competitors" exist. One could only imagine the kind of backlash that would engender. Privatization only goes so far--witness Wall Street last week. Below you will find a link to an editorial which sheds further light on the issues. Thank you for opening up the forum to a topic important to all citizens.
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.c ... 2701&rfi=6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top