On 5 Dec 2002 at 11:39, Benjamin Kulas wrote:

> Quoting Skip King <[log in to unmask]>:
> > Canadian and
> > Provincial governments would effectively buy lifts for
> > private ski areas.
> Oh, kinda like government handouts, eh? ;-)

'Zackly.  Don't get me wrong, Young Luke, I wasn't saying
the US gov't should do the same. Merely pointing out that
not far over the border, a different set of rules applies,
which makes it considerably cheaper to operate.
> > Real estate is a very cyclical industry -
> But what about when a ski area has sold all it's property, and there
> remains no land to be developed?

Then the value of the land already built tends to go up,
assuming that there's demand.   This isn't unique to ski
areas, by the way. In coastal locations all over the country
you see multi-million dollar teardowns.  Econ 101.  But this
is somewhat beside the point, because there are ski areas
that have operated profitably for years with no real estate
(and no intent of developing any).  Certainly, at buildout,
some of the more marquee resorts may lose a bit of luster
to their current owners.
> >because it [Sunday River]
> > essentially pre-sold its real estate before building, and as a
> > result wasn't carrying inventory and the associated debt.
> Wouldn't ski areas generate greater long-term profit (and stability?)
> if they leased their real estate instead of sold it?

Hmmm.. this is a bit outside of my area of expertise, but I
suspect the answer is no, because most second homes,
as with most primary residences, are financed.  Real
property is just that, and I suspect that banks would be
less likely to finance a house built on land one doesn't

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit