We will attempt a balanced presentation and eye it from several viewpoints. It will not be totally unbiased, but it will not be straight opinion either. The latter will continue to be placed in Speak-Out. It will be partly staff-written and partly written by those most knowledgeable about the issue at hand. Readers are invited to suggest issues for SAM to probe and also to write for this section. We expect some topics will reappear frequently and will be treated on a continuing basis in Issues.
Community/Ski Area Relations
Background: In Winter SAM we ran a short piece by Scott Bowie entitled “The Darcy Dilemma.” It touched on Aspen Skiing Corporation president D. R. C. (“Darcy”) Brown and the undercurrent of feeling among his peers that some of the problems the ski area industry as a whole was having with Senator Haskell stemmed in part from the perpetual town vs. area battles in Aspen.
Understandably, the Aspen Skiing Corporation views matters differently, but before we air their side we want to go back some eight years. In 1968, when SAM was a part of the publishing stable that included Ski Magazine, a long article was prepared entitled, “Town vs. Mountain at Stowe.” It was interesting, more fair than not, and well-written. But it didn’t run. It was considered too controversial and potentially damaging to Ski.
That article would be very outdated today because, in the opinion of most observers, the situation at Stowe has changed—and very much for the better. (Read about the Stowe Carnival elsewhere in this issue.) While we will not run the outdated article, we will excerpt from the editor’s introduction which was to have led into the 1968 article. It is remarkably current:
“When the first “mountain companies” were formed in the late 1930’s and just after World War II, to develop skiing, the local rural populations more often than not were resentful, if not downright hostile, toward the commercial ski invaders. Later, as the ski development took root, as land values began to shoot up and as erstwhile farmers found winter employment and income from lodging, the resentment gradually turned into a grudging recognition that the new ski business had something to recommend itself. Then, as the ski development prospered further, this hard-won community approval tended to transform itself into jealousy. Right or wrong, the community felt that the mountain company was prospering more than the townspeople generally, or that the company was not bearing its fair share of the town tax load, or that it was not doing enough to promote the interests of local lodge-owners and businessmen. Yet, these criticisms did not tell the complete story of the townspeople. For, secretly, they loved their mountain and the sport of skiing. It was a classic love late affair.
“If this evolution sounds familiar to you, it’s because almost all ski resort developers have experienced some of these problems of community relations at one time or another. And, make no mistake, the problems can be serious. They can profoundly affect employee morale, affect local recruitment of help, affect tax rates on the area, affect the amount and quality of lodging around the resort and significantly affect the image projected to the skiing public by the area.
“As invalid as community attitudes may seem to ski area management, they cannot be shoved into a limbo in the hope they will go away, or that some sort of “higher reason” will prevail. Prejudice is a real fact of life. The ski area that refuses to recognize this reality is destined to experience continuing problems in its relations with the community.
“Perhaps more than any other area, Aspen has experienced the problem: resentment over insufficient lift privileges for local residents; controversy over the invasion of the community by outside “hippies”; attempts to unionize the ski patrol and ski school; attacks on the company by a proud, independent and highly articulate local newspaper editor; and finally the polarization of the hostility in one man—Aspen Skiing Corporation president D.R.C. Brown.”
One is tempted to say that not much has changed in the intervening eight years except that everything has enlarged. The Aspen Skiing Corporation has grown and prospered mightily; the town has grown roughly to its mandated limits; the reputation of its citizenry for high profile and high decibel politics has grown; and the problems have grown.
At this point we want to acknowledge a SAM error. In the Winter issue we misquoted George Madsen, Marketing VP for Aspen Skiing Corp. He did not refer to a local group (the Roaring Fork Citizen) as “a bunch of yahoos.” The correct quote was, “If these yahoos do it they’ll be hurting the whole damn town.” He was refering to threatened court action that would have prevented Aspen from meeting the deadline for inclusion in airline package-plan publications.
Madsen also had some comments on the overall situation in Aspen which we excerpt:
“I’m sure you realize that Aspen is a very unique community with a very unique political focus, particularly in recent years. Part of this uniqueness is the result of Aspen’s size. We can accommodate the largest transient population of any ski-destination resort, and these newcomers many of whom are highly educated and espouse a liberal political viewpoint, are now being actively courted by our equally well-educated and liberal politicians who are in power.
“I am one of those Aspenites who feel that our local politicians, to a differing but important degree, were responsible for the instigation of the following activities which have statewide and or national import: 1) Senator Haskell’s hearings, particularly the hearing held in Aspen; 2) The anti-trust suit filed against the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation and the Aspen Skiing Corporation by the Colorado attorney general’s office; 3) The formation by Colorado Governor Lamm of a ‘Citizens Advisory Board for Winter Resource Planning’, which has impact far beyond its purpose of protecting environmental quality; 4) The continuing ticket price hassle in Aspen; 5) The 7 per cent tax on ski tickets which was rejected last year by the Colorado legislature.
“It can be convincingly argued that every one of these measures can be directly tied to our present mayor’s re-election campaign and the county commissioners’ desire to provide funding for their dream of a light rail transit system between Aspen and Snowmass.
“From the above, you may be able to get a general idea of our local political focus. The emphasis is obviously on consumer advocacy rather than maintaining a strong economic base. Carried to its extreme (draw your own conclusions on how far this thinking has progressed), capitalism gives way to socialism. In short, egalitarianism rules. This philosophy, right or wrong, appears to be becoming a major factor in our national character, and Aspen, traditionally a liberal philosophical leader, has found its niche as the drum major in the popular political parade.
“Our main concern is that government intervention and bureaucratic red tape are seriously limiting the parameters by which ski areas can operate and, in particular, through profit regulation, are limiting capital formation, which is a necessary prerequisite for the expansion of new facilities. Future skier demand may never be met if this policital trend continues.”
Area community relations evolve, and obviously what they evolve from is going to make a big difference. On one end of the spectrum are those areas which were imposed on an existing town—areas that are principally in the lift business. At the other end of the spectrum are those developments that start with a cow pasture and create an entirely new community—areas that profit as much by real estate as by their lift business.
The first catergory presents by far the most difficult situation for a lift company to manage, and Aspen is a very visible example.
The tremendous and sudden growth that a ski area brings to an existent village can breed speculation and exploitation of uncontrolled land, and can dramatically overburden the housing situation, public services and the expertise of local government. Most importantly an area developer often must confront stiff opposition by a local citizenry that is wedded to the old flavor of their community.
As in the case of the Aspen Skiing Corporation, not a land developer at all, a problem such as employee housing can be particularly difficult to cope with. In addition, town chauvinism may preclude an invitation to help find solutions to its problems.
LTV, developers of Steamboat, did not wait for an invitation. Located in circumstances similar to Aspen, LTV recognized early that it was politic to become involved with its community and local government. The relationship has not been problem-free. A local merchant attests to a growing feeling that LTV is “turning Mickey Mouse—they’ve got what they want from the town and now Steamboat’s lost its charm for them.” Nevertheless LTV has managed to project a sense of partnership with the community and continues to work through channels of cooperation toward viable solutions to problems.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Aspen lies Copper Mountain, a small, totally self-controlled cluster of condominiums, support businesses and lift towers where once there was nothing. Unburdened by crusty local politics and antiquated public services, Copper Mountain, Inc. has been free to control its entire facility. To its credit the company realized from the outset that it had a responsibility to be sympathetic to the impact of the area on the county, the environment, and the labor force.
Working closely with Summit County, Copper master-planned the entire area and moved to meet all its own public service requirements including a police force. In addition the company planned 550 total units of subsidized employee housing for both renters and purchasers, not segregated but as an integral part of each condominium complex.
Through a variety of pass options and work benefits, Chuck Lewis, President of Copper, has forged a spirit of unity between the small community, the employees, and the development—a spirit that is conveyed to the tourist.
Bridging the gap between Aspen and Copper Mountain stands Vail, once total creator of its facility, now co-existing with its permanent, autonomous town.
According to City Manager Terry Minger, Vail Associates has been remarkably farsighted concerning the village it built. In 1966 recognizing that an expanding Vail needed independent local government and an end to the company-town atmosphere, Vail Associates urged, and financially aided, the incorporation of the town. Through the years the company has contributed large blocks of green space and property for the medical center; it has dedicated stream rights to the town and maintained an extensive season pass system for Vail’s employees. For six years now Vail Associates has also voluntarily paid 4 per cent of lift ticket revenues to the city for its operation.
Terry Minger speaks very positively about the relationship that still exists: “I think it can work to have a responsive operator and town government acting as an effective check and balance on one another. Sure, we have our disagreements—it’s part of living together in an explosive growth environment—but in the end the strength of Vail lies in the successful marriage of Vail Associates and town government.”
Clearly if Copper Mountain and Vail share a successful cooperative spirit with their respective communities, it has been in part due to their ability to create that community. If Aspen does not enjoy that spirit, perhaps it is partially a victim of circumstances. But in the words of Chuck Lewis, “You have to want to try.”
And where does the fault lie in Aspen? We give the last word to George Madsen: “It takes two to tango—and to argue.”
David Rowan with Scott Bowie
Issues—The Independent Instructor
Picture, if you will, this scene at the base area of a prominent ski resort. As skiers make their way toward the ski school building they are intercepted by a group of earnest young men.
“I’ll give you a private lesson for $15 an hour, all day for $50,” one says, approaching a middle-aged man. The young man is wearing a pin which pronounces him a certified ski instructor. His manner is professional and straightforward.
The prospective client, who had expected to pay considerably more than that at the ticket conter, agrees to the terms. Nearby, similar deals are consummated and instructors and students head for the lifts.
These instructors are independents — underground teachers, if you will. And if the scenario above sounds far-fetched, then you haven’t been keeping up with recent events in the courts and Congress. The underground instructor has been with us ever since someone invented ski school. But heretofore he has been largely a source of amusement or a petty annoyance, something most ski areas have controlled rather routinely.
But now the independent not only has come up to the surface, he is shouting from the rooftops. In a two-pronged assault through the courts and the legislative process, the independent instructor is seeking the right to operate whenever and wherever he pleases at ski areas on the public lands. And if he succeeds, the profit balance, price structure and overall administration of the ski school as we know it today will be changed.
Focal point of this controversy is, not surprisingly, Aspen, where a gadfly named Don Lemos has been twisting the establishment’s tail for more than a decade of independent instruction on all four mountains.
Lemos has endured harassment, arrest and ostracism — everything the Aspen and Aspen Highlands skiing corporations could throw at him. Now Lemos, an American and French-certified instructor who has taught in organized schools, is fighting back.
He seized the occasion of Sen. Floyd Haskell’s hearings on the ski industry to bend the Colorado Democrat’s ear on the independent instructor issue. At one point, he had convinced Haskell to introduce legislation prohibiting the Forest Service from granting exclusive ski school concessions to the ski area operator.
It now appears likely that certain industry voices, among them Waterville Valley’s Tom Corcoran, have succeeded in moderating Haskell’s thinking on the matter.
But still pending are two Colorado lawsuits which could effectively accomplish Lemos’ objections. One, currently under review in Denver District Court, would grant Lemos and other independents the right to teach at any ski area located on public land. This suit initially was decided against Lemos and in favor of the Forest Service. But, upon appeal, it was remanded back to the district court with the instruction to consider more specifically the broader anticompetitive and monopolistic aspects of the case. Attorneys for both sides have completed their arguments and the matter rests with the court to decide.
At the same time, the independent instructor issue is embroiled in a suit brought by the Colorado Attorney General against the Aspen ski corporations charging anticompetitive actions in the fixing of uniform lift and ski school package prices. In this suit, the state accuses the corporations of enforcing sanctions against independent instructors who may have violated the other’s rules.
While these matters are being litigated, the issues are this: On one hand, the independent claims the right to earn a livelihood as he sees fit. He points out the value of competitive pricing and varying philosophies of instruction and giving the student the right to choose among them.
Perhaps the most eloquent opposition statement comes from Corcoran, who points out that the customer, particularly the less affluent one taking group lessons, could wind up paying more.
In a detailed letter to Haskell, Corcoran pointed out that by skimming off the more profitable private lessons, the independent can upset the economic equation of the ski school. In this situation, it is not unlikely that class lessons would have to be raised to compensate for the loss of revenue. This changing balance would particularly influence the seasonal instructor who counts on the private lesson to augment his base salary. The area operator then would have to raise base salaries commensurately.
Corcoran also attacks the notion that choice of techniques is desirable. “Standardization of technique is an important element in achieving skiing progress,” he says. “You learn best in a system which goes from A to Z in a consistent and logical progression.”
As for the independent’s “right to make a living,” Corcoran points out that he has placed himself in this position “because they cannot abide by a normal employee/employer relationship. He is no different from a ski patrolman or a cafeteria employee or a parking lot attendant who can’t get along with his boss and wants to work in an independent fashion,” Corcoran says.
Corcoran abhors a situation by which a fired instructor could come back to the ski area and solicit customers among whom he would spread discord and bitterness toward the ski school.
He also points out it would be impossible to control solicitation at the ski area and the rancor certain to result.
There also is the very sticky matter of liability. What happens when an independent instructor, not under control of the area, leads students into dangerous situations and they become injured? One might expect that the bulk of injury claims will be directed, not at the independent instructor, but at the ski area, which has the capacity to pay.
Another problem involves certification. Adequate consumer protection would demand that the independent show some such guarantee of competence. But if certification is required of the independent, wouldn’t the courts demand the same of those attached to the ski school?
Again, Corcoran gets to the heart of the matter. “We could fire a certified instructor tomorrow for having repeatedly exercised bad judgment and he could be back on our slopes the day after with a permit from the Forest Service. And who would monitor his performance? The Forest Service? Someone else? Certainly not the operator who fired him for bad judgment in the first place. But he could be using our lifts and taking our customers on our slopes into areas of potential danger.”
Further, there seems an inherent unfairness when a company spends millions with accompanying risks to establish a facility, then must allow a competitor, who has invested nothing, to share it.
It is almost as if a businessman opens a shoe store, then is told he must allow someone else to locate a discount rack in the foyer.
Corcoran feels the best argument against the independent instructor is lack of need. “The independents have not shown that the publis has been ill-served by the ski school system as it exists now. They have not shown that there is widespread support among instructors for their own point of view or that the skiing public sees a need for independent instructors. “Is there really more to their claim than the fact that they cannot get along as employees with past employers?” he asks.
At least for the present, it seems that the answer lies in the courts.
