Conflict heats up: Park City Mountain Resort served with eviction notice

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • joseywales Park City, UT
    Aug. 30, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    BSR- Less snow overall, but within a few inches every storm. Ya, that adds up to 100 inches over a season, but each storm the totals are close enough. Besides the powder in the bowls and trees being almost identical as Alta-bird (not in depth, true) the terrain parks at Canyons or PCMR are significantly better. So there is your reason. Maybe this will help too, I can have 3-4 runs in before most people make it up the mess of the cottonwood canyons. That is indisputable. Time is money, I can easily make up the difference in pass cost by saving myself tens of hours a month in commute time to the resort.

  • John Harrison Sandy, UT
    Aug. 30, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    Kralon has it right, except that Talisker probably didn't expect a payout until 2051, when the options to renew ran out. Someone at PCMR is unbelievably negligent to have:

    1 - Not purchased the land themselves.


    2 - Given that they failed to purchase the land and it was in fact purchased by a major competitor, they should have renewed the lease early and have followed the stipulations of the contract to the letter.

    This is a tragedy that some simple mistakes can have such catastrophic consequences. But unless something went on that we don't know about, there seem to have been some pretty amazing mistakes made.

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    Aug. 30, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    It sounds like a couple of the 1% are having a little tiff, essentially so they can gouge a little more from the 99%

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Aug. 30, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    Why anybody would ski anywhere in greater SLC besides the Cottonwood resorts is beyond me. Why would you want to ski worse mountains that get less snow and pay more money?

    Aug. 30, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    This is simple, Talisker bought United Park City Mines because they saw that in the future they could charge much more money for the lease. United Park City Mines sold because they entered into a fixed lease for a long time that probably seemed fair in the beginning but began to seem unfair as time passed. Talisker gave them an immediate payback cutting out at least 7 years of waiting.

    Park City Mountain Resort is probably reluctant to pay what Talisker is asking because they likely would lose money or make very little. With no agreement Talisker can take back the property and have all the $100 million in improvements and either run the resort themselves or rent it to Vail Resorts for a much higher return on their money.

    Not fair, but legal. Talisker invested their money on a long-term (> 7 years) payback which is about to come to fruition.

    Obviously Park City Mountain Resort should have had some type of 1st purchase agreement with United Park City Mines or ramped up the lease payments so United Park City Mines would not have had incentive to sell.