LValleyGirl. Technically the Nuttings own the lodge and can do what they want with it, which currently is to neglect it. I do know that someone maintains it in Winter, but he has been doing that since Somerset Trust assumed it. Since it is a blighted property as is, I would think they might want to spruce up the outside just a little... I'm just sayin'.

But I echo LHC's comments above. I hope the Nuttings interest is genuine in reopening Laurel and will congratulate the Nuttings when and if any effort is made in the rehab of a truly special ski area. However, it will be very frustrating to me to see that area sit idle for yet another winter.

To be honest, $8.0 million invested in Laurel Mountain is hard to justify from a business standpoint. If the State is picking up $5 or $6 million of this, it may make economic sense. Of course if 7Springs owns the developable lots in the village, then the $8 million may make sense. I cannot see how you would generate enough revenue from the ski area operation to cover an $8 million debt.
I know I am going to hear some complaining about my statement, but, reality is reality. That is not to say that I don't want LM to open, I do! I would love to ski there.

Snowsmith, this forum/thread is all about opinions and as always, yours is a welcome one. There are aome people who feel the way you do, and in some of the deeper recesses of my mind, I probably do too. But to spend a day skiing there and watch a sunset is priceless. I can't think of a better way to spend taxpayer money and let all who choose to enjoy do so. And in this economy, that taxpayer money would be spent creating/maintaining both short term and long term employment in the beloved Laurel Highlands.

They do own the developable lots in the village.

I sent an email to Seven Springs about 2 weeks ago asking what the current plans are and still haven't got a reply. I am watching the Village lots. They need to put some (a lot of) money into water and sewer to develop it. I am getting tired of waiting to see what is going to happen. I am getting ready to hire a private party to do perk tests on some of the lots. My opinion and this is only a guess is that the Pirate man bought it for pennies to keep competition out.

Snowsmith, the money from the State isn't expected to be recouped in a traditional business manner. Revenue generated by any PA State Park operation doesn't go back into State Park budgets nor does it go to retire specific debt. Any revenue generated by State Park operations goes into the general budget. That is my understanding. Since Laurel will be leased to a private operator the only income to the State would be from the lease. I can imagine that an agreement could be made to base the lease on a percentage of gross income or some other standard but I doubt the lease revenue would be expected to retire the debt. The State is investing in an infrastructure that will be used by a private operator. This is done all the time in most States. Payment back to the State comes in job creation which produces income tax, sales tax and, no doubt, a host of other fee that are not accounted for in a traditional business model.

Seven Springs could make a nice profit from real estate development with the ski area as the magnate without too great an investment risk in the ski facility. I'm sure there would be an escape clause for 7S if ski operations were not profitable.

The latest on 7 Springs and development of Laurel Mountain. It sounds like DCNR has finally approved the operation. 7 Springs is going up next month to look over the resort an see what is needed to determine if it will be open this winter. As far as the Village goes, Jenners Twp. is trying to get a $1,000,000. grant to connect the sewage system to the main system. If the grant is given, they should know by August. Jenners owns the water and sewer and there is still no building permits. Hopefully we may know more by August.

rj, I hope you're right about that. Director Norbeck indicated that an agreement was expected. I've not talked to anybody concerning Laurel for a while, a furnace fire in my home and the pending sale of my folk's house has consumed my attention.

What still has me worried is the proposal to close 35 State Parks due to the Pennsylvania budget shortfall. I don't know how that will effect Laurel or Linn Run State Park which are both under the same State Park manager. Here's a link to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story from May 15:

Budget shortfall could shut at least 35 State Parks

Wow. I hadn't seen that article. This is the part that concerns me the most:

"The state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources said it would need to close at least 35 state parks for the summer and reduce public access to state forests under a state Senate budget plan passed last week that slashes departmental appropriations."

It's about time for a revolution in this country/the state of PA (many other states, too, I am sure). How could budget shortfalls possibly lead to reduced access to State Forests.

In Forbes State Forest (at least the section around LM) the "State" can't even stop petty thieves from breaking into cars. And I have never seen a ranger (or whatever they are) set foot out of their truck. So what critical services is the State providing in a State Forest?? Oh wait, that's right, they're timbering and profiting from the land. And eliminating the whitetail herd. And fencing in sections (that ironically look suspiciously like the non fenced in sections) to see what happens if the deer (they already eliminated) don't eat saplings.


A State Park may be a different story, but don't you dare try to limit our access to State Forests. Unbelievable.

Here's more follow up to the threat to close PA Parks and Forest. Please note, Linn Run/Laurel Mountain State Parks are on the list of parks to be closed. This could kill Laurel for good. Please act.

PA Residents, PA Parks and Forest Needs Your Help