Killingtons Mission

[Coydog]

It is my understanding that SP Land threw the fit. I think it went something like this:

SP Land: “We bought this land which has an existing approval from the town for a 1500 sq ft log cabin. After careful consideration, we now wish to build a 5000 sq ft McMansion under the same approval issued 8 years ago. If you don’t extend that original approval, we won’t build anything at all."

Of course, even if the town extended the old approval, the state would probably step in given the magnitude of the differences between the previous and current plans.

[GoBigOrGoHome]

what about local establishment who are losing money does any one care about the people who take care of you when you go out please enough about your personal gripes think about the big picture and future of the town i would like to ski and make money into june

The complaint of the skiers - a shortened season - and your concern about the future of access road businesses are inextricably tied together. A shorter season means less business, and less business results in a town that will not approve a village any time soon.

As for granola cruncher's comment about the mission, he's right. Who cares? The vision, on the other hand, is important for the town in its consideration of the village.

Let me ask you something Bubba. The town refusing to approve a village anytime soon sounds to me like a kid throwing a hissy fit and breaking there own toys. They aren't getting what they want, so they won't let the mountain get what it wants.

Well, if everyone is so concerned about the town and its business owners well being why would you purposely depress the population?? Seems to me that a village will attract more people....more people buy more goods and services.... the town and store owners make out better in the long run. I see that right now it feels good for the town people to snub Powdr and SP Land (which they feel has not done right by them), but it is definately not (in the long run) beneficial for everyone involved.

I am not saying I like Powdr... I am saying that this course of action does not make a whole lot of sense.

I agree with you, to an extent. It is not in the long run interest of the town to block a village. Neither is it in the long run interest of KSRP to anger the town in the short term, which is exactly what they've done. You cannot reasonably expect that local businesses will willingly allow new competition in a market that has been intentionally shrunk by KSRP. KSRP must come up with a business plan that works for themselves as well as for the community, and until they do, and until they clearly and openly communicate, they simply will not get town support. They have, through their actions, taken a community that was pro-development and turned it neutral at best, at least at the moment. The ball's in KSRP's court to improve the situation.

I see your point that the market has been intentionally shrunk, but I don't see how allowing a village to be built increases competition. SP land is in the business of making homes, not strip malls. I would agree with you more if they wanted to construct a huge strip mall with dozens of new businesses, but I don't think that is their intention. I was under the impression they wanted to build more homes. More homes=more people=more business. Maybe KSRP's plan to achieve both the towns goals and their own consist of less weekend visit business, but more full-time resident business (just throwing that idea out there). Whatever it is, neither side wins by doing nothing....all they accomplish is shooting themselves in the foot (or breaking their own toys).

[Geoff]

what about local establishment who are losing money does any one care about the people who take care of you when you go out please enough about your personal gripes think about the big picture and future of the town i would like to ski and make money into june

The complaint of the skiers - a shortened season - and your concern about the future of access road businesses are inextricably tied together. A shorter season means less business, and less business results in a town that will not approve a village any time soon.

As for granola cruncher's comment about the mission, he's right. Who cares? The vision, on the other hand, is important for the town in its consideration of the village.

Let me ask you something Bubba. The town refusing to approve a village anytime soon sounds to me like a kid throwing a hissy fit and breaking there own toys. They aren't getting what they want, so they won't let the mountain get what it wants.

Well, if everyone is so concerned about the town and its business owners well being why would you purposely depress the population?? Seems to me that a village will attract more people....more people buy more goods and services.... the town and store owners make out better in the long run. I see that right now it feels good for the town people to snub Powdr and SP Land (which they feel has not done right by them), but it is definately not (in the long run) beneficial for everyone involved.

I am not saying I like Powdr... I am saying that this course of action does not make a whole lot of sense.

It's not a hissy fit. Permitting for the base village is the only leverage the town has with the resort. Once the permits are issued, the resort can operate the mountain however they want and the town is powerless to do anything other than crank up the local sales tax beyond the current 1% rate. They likely don't want to do that since 30% of the tax revenue comes from the other businesses and they don't want to chase away the tourist dollars.

If you vote at town meeting and selectboard elections, resident-property owners who own things off the lower Skyeship, at Sunrise, or at Pico certainly have a gripe with the reduced services. If you vote at town meeting and selectboard elections and you own or work at an access road business, you probably have an issue with the reduced skier visits, the alienation of some of your core repeat customer business, and the dramatically shortened season. If you are a resident of the town and they laid you off and offered you part time employment at a dramatically reduced wage, you'd certainly not be supporting the resort. If you're a retiree who had a lifetime pass and live at Killington (there are a lot of them), the added cost when you'd done your financial planning with a fixed income probably stings for some.

If you followed the ASC debacle at Steamboat, pretty much the same thing happened there a decade ago. ASC bought the place and went about their east coast-centric way of operating a resort and developing real estate. They brought in their own east coast guy to run the place. The net result was a Grand Summit where the units had to be auctioned off and a town up in arms against the resort. 7 years later, ASC was long gone and another owner who better understands the market is running the place with much more success.

I predict some changes over the summer. I don't see how they can go 6 months without announcing to the town that they had made some mistakes and will do better next year with some specific details on their plans. I expect a number of people to be ejected. Marketing and communications is awful. If the president isn't the appropriate voice for the resort, they need to get one. This is politics. All politics is local. I don't think they did a horrible job this year. I think their communication sucked and some of their operating decisions were totally arbitrary and didn't consider all the ramifications. It can be fixed.

[GoBigOrGoHome]

It is my understanding that SP Land threw the fit. I think it went something like this:

SP Land: “We bought this land which has an existing approval from the town for a 1500 sq ft log cabin. After careful consideration, we now wish to build a 5000 sq ft McMansion under the same approval issued 8 years ago. If you don’t extend that original approval, we won’t build anything at all."

Of course, even if the town extended the old approval, the state would probably step in given the magnitude of the differences between the previous and current plans.

I'm not talking about one cabin. I am talking about building a village. The benefits for the community come from the building of many homes, not just one large cabin (which is probably for on-mountain activities). Even so, why does the town care what the size of the building is? There is plenty of land, and all they want to do is build. This failure to come together over minor details is the problem. The town has nothing to loose (in my mind) by letting SP Land build whatever it wants. To me it sounds like a child saying i don't like him, if my actions help him (even if they will help me also) I won't do it.

[johnny the jibber]

gobig, there is no one here to buy homes or start up businesses in the new village. they cant even fill all the existing rental properties and rooms during the season...thats the problem...

[Coydog]

It is my understanding that SP Land threw the fit. I think it went something like this:

SP Land: “We bought this land which has an existing approval from the town for a 1500 sq ft log cabin. After careful consideration, we now wish to build a 5000 sq ft McMansion under the same approval issued 8 years ago. If you don’t extend that original approval, we won’t build anything at all."

Of course, even if the town extended the old approval, the state would probably step in given the magnitude of the differences between the previous and current plans.

I'm not talking about one cabin. I am talking about building a village. The benefits for the community come from the building of many homes, not just one large cabin (which is probably for on-mountain activities). Even so, why does the town care what the size of the building is? There is plenty of land, and all they want to do is build. This failure to come together over minor details is the problem. The town has nothing to loose (in my mind) by letting SP Land build whatever it wants. To me it sounds like a child saying i don't like him, if my actions help him (even if they will help me also) I won't do it.

The point is the property had a permit for "A" and SP Land wanted to use that existing permit to build "B". That doesn’t fly anywhere that has zoning.

The town did what it must and simply stated (rightly) that the original permit does not apply to the new plan. SP Land needs to submit their new plan to get town approval. This does not seem unreasonable. If they don't submit their new plan, how does the town know what they will build?

Again, even if the town broke the rules and extended the original permit, the state most likely would have stepped in.

[Bubba]

It is my understanding that SP Land threw the fit. I think it went something like this:

SP Land: “We bought this land which has an existing approval from the town for a 1500 sq ft log cabin. After careful consideration, we now wish to build a 5000 sq ft McMansion under the same approval issued 8 years ago. If you don’t extend that original approval, we won’t build anything at all."

Of course, even if the town extended the old approval, the state would probably step in given the magnitude of the differences between the previous and current plans.

I'm not talking about one cabin. I am talking about building a village. The benefits for the community come from the building of many homes, not just one large cabin (which is probably for on-mountain activities). Even so, why does the town care what the size of the building is? There is plenty of land, and all they want to do is build. This failure to come together over minor details is the problem. The town has nothing to loose (in my mind) by letting SP Land build whatever it wants. To me it sounds like a child saying i don't like him, if my actions help him (even if they will help me also) I won't do it.

The village includes both residential and commercial property. (Residential includes single family homes, time shares, condos and commercial includes hotels and retail space.) Both will compete with existing businesses in a market that has been intentionally shrunk by new ownership.

[GoBigOrGoHome]

gobig, there is no one here to buy homes or start up businesses in the new village. they cant even fill all the existing rental properties and rooms during the season...thats the problem...

If that is right (and you would know better then I would since you live in Vermont), then SP Land should pack their bags and chalk their investment up to a loss. Why build if there is no demand (which I have to assume is the main reason they initially made the investment in the mountain). That also means that despite the town's desire to pressure management, they really have no means by which to do it. They can't/shouldn't levy any more taxes and KSRP should have no interest in getting any construction permits. The only other option is try to get as much money out of on-mountain activities as possible. This still is a business and they still need to remain viable. Either way, I agree with you. If there is no demand.... that is a huge problem (which I feel inclined to add is a problem for both Killington and the town... one that can not be solved by both sides not communicating well with each other). JMHO

[GoBigOrGoHome]

It is my understanding that SP Land threw the fit. I think it went something like this:

SP Land: “We bought this land which has an existing approval from the town for a 1500 sq ft log cabin. After careful consideration, we now wish to build a 5000 sq ft McMansion under the same approval issued 8 years ago. If you don’t extend that original approval, we won’t build anything at all."

Of course, even if the town extended the old approval, the state would probably step in given the magnitude of the differences between the previous and current plans.

I'm not talking about one cabin. I am talking about building a village. The benefits for the community come from the building of many homes, not just one large cabin (which is probably for on-mountain activities). Even so, why does the town care what the size of the building is? There is plenty of land, and all they want to do is build. This failure to come together over minor details is the problem. The town has nothing to loose (in my mind) by letting SP Land build whatever it wants. To me it sounds like a child saying i don't like him, if my actions help him (even if they will help me also) I won't do it.

The village includes both residential and commercial property. (Residential includes single family homes, time shares, condos and commercial includes hotels and retail space.) Both will compete with existing businesses in a market that has been intentionally shrunk by new ownership.

I am not trying to start a fight, but if you look at it from a strategic managment perspective that plan sounds interesting to me:


Single family homes (good for businesses)
Time Shares (good for businesses)
Condos (good for businesses)
Hotels (good for businesses)
Retail Space (not so good, but that largely depends on what they will be selling. If a good is being sold that is not currently being offered in the area then it can have a negligable impact on businesses. It will also offer employment for some local people).

Point is, it sounds like they are trying to increase customer volume in the area (not ASC customer volume that was very price sensative, but affluent customer volume...... not such a bad play for both parties involved).... What they don't want are people like me who have their own ski house in a nearby town and don't spend a dime at the mountain besides their season pass. Guess what, I will still be here next year despite this because I love the mountain and don't give a hoot about all this off-mountain stuff. I just want to ride.

[Coydog]

I am not trying to start a fight, but if you look at it from a strategic managment perspective that plan sounds interesting to me:


Single family homes (good for businesses)
Time Shares (good for businesses)
Condos (good for businesses)
Hotels (good for businesses)
Retail Space (not so good, but that largely depends on what they will be selling. If a good is being sold that is not currently being offered in the area then it can have a negligable impact on businesses. It will also offer employment for some local people).

Point is, it sounds like they are trying to increase customer volume in the area (not ASC customer volume that was very price sensative, but affluent customer volume...... not such a bad play for both parties involved).... What they don't want are people like me who have their own ski house in a nearby town and don't spend a dime at the mountain besides their season pass. Guess what, I will still be here next year despite this because I love the mountain and don't give a hoot about all this off-mountain stuff. I just want to ride.

Well, maybe SP Land should submit an appropriate plan to the town if that's what they want to build. No plan, no approval.

[Bubba]

...I predict some changes over the summer. I don't see how they can go 6 months without announcing to the town that they had made some mistakes and will do better next year with some specific details on their plans. I expect a number of people to be ejected. Marketing and communications is awful. If the president isn't the appropriate voice for the resort, they need to get one. This is politics. All politics is local. I don't think they did a horrible job this year. I think their communication sucked and some of their operating decisions were totally arbitrary and didn't consider all the ramifications. It can be fixed.

I am in full agreement. The situation can be fixed - IF KSRP changes their approach.

[SPORE]

it's so enjoyable here when skippy's at his drill bit making job during the day.

It must be a real hoot on the factory floor in Bridgewater.

I get this Laverne & Shirley Shotz Brewery image.

I was completely unaware of what cutting edge did, until 3 weeks ago, when I got a job there! Its a huge company!!! We just shipped out an order March 30, bringing in over $400,000 !!!! Its really amazing to see everything in action. They operate 24 hours a day, its a big time, real deal factory.

Infact, its "The Most Advanced Bur Manufacturer In The World!"


http://www.ceiburs.com/default.htm

They are small time.

We shipped $4.1M in product alone yesterday and that it only one division.

[GoBigOrGoHome]

I am not trying to start a fight, but if you look at it from a strategic managment perspective that plan sounds interesting to me:


Single family homes (good for businesses)
Time Shares (good for businesses)
Condos (good for businesses)
Hotels (good for businesses)
Retail Space (not so good, but that largely depends on what they will be selling. If a good is being sold that is not currently being offered in the area then it can have a negligable impact on businesses. It will also offer employment for some local people).

Point is, it sounds like they are trying to increase customer volume in the area (not ASC customer volume that was very price sensative, but affluent customer volume...... not such a bad play for both parties involved).... What they don't want are people like me who have their own ski house in a nearby town and don't spend a dime at the mountain besides their season pass. Guess what, I will still be here next year despite this because I love the mountain and don't give a hoot about all this off-mountain stuff. I just want to ride.

Well, maybe SP Land should submit an appropriate plan to the town if that's what they want to build. No plan, no approval.

Agreed, they should submit the plan. I just think it would be in the town's best interest to go along with the plan. Like I originally stated, not going along with a plan that has benefits for both parties reminds me of a kid throwing a temper tantrum. Approval of the plan may even open up the lines of communication between the town and KSRP..... Solving problems, not just exacerbating them.

[Bubba]

It is my understanding that SP Land threw the fit. I think it went something like this:

SP Land: “We bought this land which has an existing approval from the town for a 1500 sq ft log cabin. After careful consideration, we now wish to build a 5000 sq ft McMansion under the same approval issued 8 years ago. If you don’t extend that original approval, we won’t build anything at all."

Of course, even if the town extended the old approval, the state would probably step in given the magnitude of the differences between the previous and current plans.

I'm not talking about one cabin. I am talking about building a village. The benefits for the community come from the building of many homes, not just one large cabin (which is probably for on-mountain activities). Even so, why does the town care what the size of the building is? There is plenty of land, and all they want to do is build. This failure to come together over minor details is the problem. The town has nothing to loose (in my mind) by letting SP Land build whatever it wants. To me it sounds like a child saying i don't like him, if my actions help him (even if they will help me also) I won't do it.

The village includes both residential and commercial property. (Residential includes single family homes, time shares, condos and commercial includes hotels and retail space.) Both will compete with existing businesses in a market that has been intentionally shrunk by new ownership.

I am not trying to start a fight, but if you look at it from a strategic managment perspective that plan sounds interesting to me:


Single family homes (good for businesses)
Time Shares (good for businesses)
Condos (good for businesses)
Hotels (good for businesses)
Retail Space (not so good, but that largely depends on what they will be selling. If a good is being sold that is not currently being offered in the area then it can have a negligable impact on businesses. It will also offer employment for some local people).

Point is, it sounds like they are trying to increase customer volume in the area (not ASC customer volume that was very price sensative, but affluent customer volume...... not such a bad play for both parties involved).... What they don't want are people like me who have their own ski house in a nearby town and don't spend a dime at the mountain besides their season pass. Guess what, I will still be here next year despite this because I love the mountain and don't give a hoot about all this off-mountain stuff. I just want to ride.

You're missing the point. Skier visits and overall traffic has been intentionally reduced this year by the resort. Instead of trying to fill beds, the resort went in the opposite direction and the town perceives the resort attempting to succeed at the expense of (or at least with little regard for) the community. Therefore, with existing beds unfilled and with at least some existing commercial establishments struggling, the existing businesses (whether inns, bars, shops or condo owners who rent) are looking at additional development as new competition. Once (or if) the community sees a trend of increasing traffic, attitudes will probably start to turn.

[Coydog]

You're missing the point. Skier visits and overall traffic has been intentionally reduced this year by the resort. Instead of trying to fill beds, the resort went in the opposite direction and the town perceives the resort attempting to succeed at the expense of (or at least with little regard for) the community. Therefore, with existing beds unfilled and with at least some existing commercial establishments struggling, the existing businesses (whether inns, bars, shops or condo owners who rent) are looking at additional development as new competition. Once (or if) the community sees a trend of increasing traffic, attitudes will probably start to turn.

This is true. Almost as if Powdr/SP Land has purposely reduced skier visits in order to put pressure on the town to approve the village in the name of economic revival. The town is thinking why should be approve a village if we already have excess capacity.