At 03:24 PM 11/24/2007, Roger wrote:

>interesting to watch skip side with the government as it takes away 
>rights from the landowners/citizens
>i'd be a little more sympathetic towards the ski areas if they paid 
>property taxes on the land
>as it is, it seems they get to use land that i own, make money on 
>it, and keep me off of it, without paying a tax on the land
>seems like us citizens have a right to get snotty about it, and i'd 
>expect true conesrvatives to be the snottiest of all

1)  Didn't say that I sided with them. Personally, I think the 
decision is both intolerant and stupid.  I'm merely pointing out that 
behaving like a spoiled brat and claiming that you have a right to 
use the facilities because the ski area is owned by government is a 
waste of time - it might make you feel good, but it won't change a 
thing.  And yes, they do have the legal right to tell you not to.  So 
what if it's government property?  So are the ranger's quarters at 
Yellowstone.  Go ahead, walk in, grab a beer from the fridge and put 
your feet up. See what happens.

2)  Am no fan whatsoever of the concept of government 
owned-and-operated ski areas.  Thankfully, there aren't more of 
them.  In  theory profits are returned to the state.  That's not 
always what happens.  In one rather large northeastern state you've 
almost certainly heard of, an excellent case could be made that 
taxpayers are actually subsidizing the ski areas.  You can bet that 
yours truly holds no truck with that whatsoever.

3)  At minimum, for-profit ski areas located on public land pay user 
fees - several bucks per lift ticket sold, in many cases, and the 
businesses make all the leasehold improvements (trail cutting, 
maintenance, etc).  Government does effectively kcid lla and still 
collects money.

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

To unsubscribe, visit