Finally some public announcements. Now let's hope the economy doesn't kill the funding. Ok Governor Rendell, you got an experienced resort operator stepping up, you've got the support of local politicians and a skiing public ready to come home to Laurel, let's get this done.

A little more info...

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08341/933229-85.stm

I have faith.It may not happen soon but it will happen.

The Colonel noticed these comments by PA Taxpayer in the article Scott posted about the purchase of Laurel Mountain assets by Seven Springs. I figured it was appropriate to move these comments to this thread instead of the Hidden Valley thread.




I have a couple of thoughts on the above comment. There is no doubt that the other ski resorts in the state have a legitimate beef with the real possibility that the state is going to pump upwards of $6.5 million into Laurel and that Seven Springs will operate the ski area. Taxpayers have a right to complain where and how their money is going to be spent.

However, I can offer this analogy. When someone decides to move a business into an office building, the landlord will offer incentives such as renovating the office space to accomodate the business in order to lure the business into their building and ergo, rent payments are made to the landlord. The first few rent payments pay for the renovation and the rest of the rent payments, excluding taxes, is pure profit for the landlord. Its a win-win situation for both parties. Happens all the time.

In this case, DCNR is the landlord, Seven Springs is the business. If DCNR (PA) does come through with the upgrade money, Seven Springs operates the ski area. In the long run, it is probable the state recoups their investment with rent payments from Seven Springs, tax dollars generated by tourists pumping money into the local economy and tax money from employees on Seven Springs payroll at Laurel.

Both PA Taxpayer and hockeydave make good points.

If the re-opening creates permenant jobs then it surely has to be considered, but at what cost? The analogy to an office building is a good one except that we are talking about taxpayer money where there are many investment opportunities and not a landlord looking to lease some space. Remember that someone is likely borrowing the money (landlord or state), so the cost is always greater than just the initial investment.

I guess as The Colonel and hockeydave have previously said on this thread, it all comes down to the agreement with the DCNR and a heavy financial penalty for lease termination.

THE INFO I HAVE IS THE STATE AND THE SPRINGS ARE CLOSE TO A DEAL . THE DNCR WANTS TO GET BIDS OUT FOR WORK TO START IN THE SPRING 09. BUT KNOWING THE STATE IT WILL TAKE TO THE SUMMER TO GET THINGS GOING. WICH MEANS A MAD RUSH TO GET L.M OPEN IN WINTER OF 09 SKIBUM

I hope you're right, skibum. I've heard nothing encouraging lately but I've been too busy skiing. I would think that 7S wouldn't have closed with Somerset Trust if they didn't think the State would come through. On the other hand $1.5M maybe a cheap alternative to keep competition out of the market.

I'm still waiting to exhale.

It's not looking real promising if you ask me. The State can't afford salt for the roads this Winter. They will also run out of money to pay UC benefits in two months b/c the unemployment rate is the highest it's been in 25 years...I don't see the State shelling out $6.5M to do a State Park improvement right now, regardless of who's operating LM.

There's no doubt the only way the state could sell the funding of this project, at this point in time, is as an economic stimulus, both short term (assuming local contractors are used to perform the upgrades) and long term (jobs at the resort after reopening and tourist related income). If the proponents of the funding of Laurel don't sell the funding in this way to the taxpaying public, stick a fork in Laurel.

And what a shame it would be to have that lodge and ski area keep sitting idle. If Mr. Nutting could only find it within him to perform a public service (he was given a $250 million baseball field by PA taxpayers), then state funding would be a moot point. $6.5 million is not a small amount of money. But 7S could open Laurel w/o all of the proposed upgrades at a fraction of that cost. Whether it would be viable long term w/o the upgrades is another story.

Just a point of clarification here...the "state" may dole out the money, but they don't pay unemployment benefits. The taxpayers do -- more specifically, businesses. When a business lays off employees, their SUTA tax factor or percentage (which is paid on all of payroll) increases. So I believe the "state" should have an increasing cash flow to pay those unemployment benefits right now.

I don't know why I felt the need to clarify this...it's just that I hate when the government gets credit for paying for things. They don't pay for anything. WE pay for it all.