Blevins’ Corner: The Current State of Ski Resorts (Ep.343)

15 comments on “Blevins’ Corner: The Current State of Ski Resorts (Ep.343)”

1. As I listened at ~15:00, I couldn’t help but think “hmm, it seems that the University of Chicago econ department (home of Milton Friedman, Stigler, Becker, et al) might have infected Jonathan’s brain just a little”.

   Seriously, his point about the area being legally constrained to work with the union before raising pay is right, but what they did there is a classic way of using their flexibility to “pay off” nonunion workers in the short term to prevent collectivization in the long term. It was indeed savvy as Jason said. What those nonunion workers need to remember is that Vail can take those raises away just as easily as they granted them.

2. The upcoming new or to be redeveloped base Villages at Mammoth and the area formerly known as Squaw Valley are both huge real estate projects. Powder Mtn’s business plan is built on selling real estate. Vail might have moved to a different model but that’s a big part of Alterra’s business plan.

3. Well said Patrick, additionally they way I understood this is that Vail gave that raise to non union workers to head off organising efforts, and made me think of the data out there that shows when workers unionise that it benefits all workers in their sector, some how I don’t think Vail were just itching to give that raise!

   As far as Jonathan’s lines of thinking, there are times when I find myself almost ranting at the podcast at the lack of thought reflection or analysis, the self described “independent, not for either party” often comes off as attempting to split the difference to achieve a moral high ground when the reality (especially from an international, and genuine left wing view point) is often basically mainstream conservative views dressed in liberal corporate language, or a lack of much morality (I think back to the episode of him and Cody discussing the BLM protests and essentially saying “lets not say anything until we know more, everyone needs to calm down”. Nah, you can condemn structural racism without feeling like you sold out your “independent” high ground.

   • I think you’re being too hard on Jonathan there.

     Remember that he’s coming from the perspective of a small business owner (that’s what Blister is), and the resulting “scars” always color peoples’ viewpoints. I just couldn’t resist tweaking him about his alma mater.

     • Honestly, Patrick, I have no idea what you mean about my “resulting scars”? I also have no idea what specific comments (from … four years ago?) G Cranston is referring to. Anyway, Patrick, not everyone that who reads these comments will know that I spent 5 years at U of Chicago doing graduate work in ethics and the history of ethics in the philosophy department, and that I had nothing to with the econ department. So when we’re talking about and trying to sort out some serious issues, it’s maybe not the best time to make jokes that will likely mislead some people. (I also know, from all of your posts, that you are quite interested in getting the facts right, so this also is pretty off brand for you.) Kinda funny, too, that you acknowledge that was, in fact, pointing out the actual legal constraints of 1 scenario. My position: first, let’s try hard to get the facts laid out on the table. Once we do that, then we can start drawing conclusions and thinking about the best way forward.

       • I mean that in my experience people whose livelihood depends directly on the compensation-to-performance ratios of the people they employ often have a different (they might say “more balanced”) take on these labor-related discussions. In my experience those takes are often informed by having had to make very difficult decisions, sometimes involving people they view[ed] as friends, hence “scarring”. All of that leads to a very different lived experience and approach to management-vs-labor discussions like this than for those of us who work for faceless corporations.

         That is all.

       • BTW you and Cody have basically turned your U of Chicago philosophy background into a running gag on ‘Reviewing the News’ at this point, so that makes at least 100 readers who got the joke. I wasn’t _that_ far into the weeds there.

         • Also, I was careful to start the second para of my initial post with “Seriously”, which I think would clue any reasonable reader into the fact that the first para was intended as a joke, even if they didn’t have the context to get it. And as you says, the “serious” paragraph confirmed the factual accuracy of what you’d said, but built onthat to pointing out that the non-unionized workers would never have been “bought off” like that to begin with without the PC strike.

           For the record, I love what you do and have done with Blister, and I think that you’ve done an outstanding job of navigating the tradeoffs between needing to pay the bills (including your own) on the one hand while maintaining an admirable degree of “advertiser independence” on the other. I think you’re justified in being proud of what you’ve built, and of the fact that you continue to provide a platform for discussions like this.

4. Interesting Podcast.
   Especially the highly corporate view points for the international crows, since here in Europe most/all of the infrastructure seems totally different.

   Maybe for European coverage what the hell is going on with ski resorts here. Loads of tragedies already this season:

   https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp82yk6x3eko

   https://news.sky.com/story/ski-lift-collapses-in-spain-leaving-several-people-injured-13291261

5. Blevins for president!

6. Listening to Jonathan talk about Vail and the PC patrol strike kind of confuses me, he misses the point. This thing got so ugly because of Vail’s actions since they arrived in PC, causing the local community to turn on them. It is what gave the patrollers leverage to strike. The whole PC Patrol situation is just a symptom of the overall problem Vail has created in these communities. It is Vail Corps lack of interest in the local communities and how Vail doesn’t care how they effects the local population. They figure if they can donate to some local charities, they can suck all the profits out and not engage. As long as Vail can suck out every penny they can get, they are happy. This is why local communities like here in PC, Vail Corp is not liked at all.

   In Park City, PWDR Corp always seemed to care about Park City and was engaged. The Canyons was inconsistently run by ASC and Talisker, but at least they engaged the community and took care of the locals, supporting local events and local ski teams.

   Mike Rogge always posts this quote about how the locals are the soul of the local ski town, and the visitors are the lifeblood. It is clear that Vail Corp was only focused on the visitors, but now they are only focused on their profits and have given the finger to both the visitors and locals.

   On the positive, without Vail treating the local ski teams in Utah so poorly, my guess is this Utah Olympic Park expansion would never have happened. So there is that.

   https://www.parkrecord.com/2022/07/30/utah-olympic-park-expansion-to-help-train-future-athletes/
   https://liftblog.com/game-changer-utah-olympic-park-ut/

7. A few observations. First, agree wholeheartedly that we must never take for granted how incredibly wonderful it is to live in a stunning mountain town and enjoy the greatest sport on earth. Agree that economic diversification to reduce dependency on the ski area is a great goal, and this needs a lot of concerted planning. Every town is very different in this regard.
   In consideration of Jonathan’s attempt to be balanced in his view towards Vail, there is some significant co-dependence there. His business brings Vail’s resort there a great deal of free advertising and Vail welcomes and facilitates his flagship Summit event. He can’t be publicly objective concerning Vail as a corporation, even if there’s no direct compensation which I suspect there is in one business form or another.
   Finally, it’s great that it is noted that climate change shouldn’t be political. But these comments are woefully weak. The new administration is proudly promoting fossil fuels, proudly undoing every initiative the previous administration got underway to slow climate change, proudly leaving the Paris accords, proudly assuming climate change is a hoax. Why can’t you insist folks look at the science, look at the evidence all around us, and tell people, hey, you might absolutely adore Donald Trump but on this issue he’s dead wrong and needs to be opposed?

   • Hi, Jay – I don’t believe we know each other. And your comment here where you rather confidently explain why I “can’t” say this or that … is evidence that you don’t know me.

     The day we launched Blister 14 years ago, I put up on our About Us page a quote from Thoreau, “Say what you have to say, not what you ought.” That quote has been a guiding principle for me, still is.

     Maybe if you were in my shoes, *you* would feel like you couldn’t say or do this or that. But I’ve lived a life – and built this company – on a resistance to falling in line.

     You and everyone else are always welcome to disagree with something I’ve said or done. But I am always going to push back when folks start telling other folks that they understand the underlying reasons I might be saying or doing something. You’re welcome to ask me… but don’t assume, because you’ll often be wrong.

     Finally, with respect to climate change and politics. For years, we’ve talked about the serious issue of climate change, and we will continue to so. If you think our stance on these things is “weak” … I’d encourage you to look back at the numerous conversations we’ve had on this topic on this podcast, our CRAFTED podcast, and Blister Cinematic. (Start with my conversations with Paul Forward, Auden Schendler, and Jeremy Jones.)

     What you’ll find is that we’ve talked a *lot* about is *how to talk* to people who don’t currently see the need to elect leaders that will make systemic changes (at either the local, state, national, or international levels) to actually reduce carbon emissions. And I promise you … your advice to walk up to Trump supporters and tell them that he is “dead wrong and needs to be opposed” … will change literally nobody’s mind, change nothing, and have zero impact.

     So if the goal is to actually bring people together to affect real change — and not just feel personally, morally superior to other people — then no, what you propose is definitely not an effective way forward. Go try it and you’ll quickly see for yourself.

8. The ‘fewer new skiers’ problem has been created by the Epic pricing model which is great for me and most of your readers; we can ski all over the world all year and the cost for us might be $10/day if we ski a lot, while cost for casual skier might be $250 per day. The Epic pricing model has brought in stable revenue for awhile, but it’s pricing out lots of new skiers and casual skiers, which sucks.

   • I was going to give you the last word, after all it’s your website Sir Jonathan. But I felt your reply which cut the words “on this issue” before “he’s dead wrong” when you quoted me was a bit misleading. Moreover, there was nothing in my comment that implied I “feel personally, morally superior to other people” quoting your reply. I was merely stating facts, not judging. Why so defensive?
     Finally, I disagree that Trump supporters like myself will not accept the facts, the real truth, when confronted with it. Again, why so defensive? Certainly many of us are not so blinded by devotion that we can’t consider that the man might be imperfect. If I am wrong, the world is certainly a lost cause.