In the real world, the notion of an upgraded chairlift or two serving as magnet to hordes of new skiers is, well, absurd.
Too bad this isn’t what the legal case between Park City Mountain and the municipality is really about, lost in other weeds.
Oh, the four citizens who would stymie improvement on Park City Mountain, along with the Park City Planning Commission abetting, have earned their scorn. I’d say they also earned their praise from supporters, but there’s little praiseworthy here. This is an empty suit.
No one can show how upgrading a chairlift would be a Field of Dreams scenario for a ski resort — build it and they will come, flooding in like World War Z.
But Third District Judge Richard Mrazik noted that Park City Mountain hasn’t shown how this couldn’t happen, so therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to do what all ski resorts routinely do. This isn’t a criminal case. Sensible consideration of evidence doesn’t apply. Still, huh?
The case was never made that the ski company should be prevented from acting on a basic business decision. But there is ample real-world proof against the assertion that upgrading a couple of chairlifts would have anything to do with adding to congestion on the mountain or the roads around it.
For decades, skier numbers for an entire industry ran relatively flat, even declining on a per capita basis, while the general population swelled and chairlift improvements surged.
Lifts over the years have only gotten bigger, better, safer, and much, much faster. Meantime, U.S. skier numbers from the mid-1980s to 2020 didn’t budge much from the low to mid-50 million range in annual skier days, spiking some years to the high 50s, even to 60 million in 2007/08, as counted by the National Ski Areas Association since 1978.
What does boost numbers? Well, snow. Good winters attract more skiers. The rise of the Epic and Ikon passes certainly made a difference for their companies’ resorts. Mainly COVID, though, judging by the spike from 2021 through last winter.
It’s hard to believe the four who appealed an administrative approval for Park City Mountain to improve the lifts, and the Planning Commission that sided with them, did so out of some esoteric consideration of fine print in a development agreement between the mountain and municipality. Or that any party seriously thinks that upgrading a couple of chairlifts could violate an algorithm for what the mountain considers its “comfortable carrying capacity.”
How many on the mountain at a time is too many? Who gets to decide? Ski resort leaders? Local politicians? Me, I’m with Yogi Berra: “No one goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.” We’re hardly forced to go skiing or riding, in other words. Plenty of other choices if the experience falls short.
It’s easier to see the appeal of the administrative blessing, and the judge’s ruling, at heart as a protest of other factors in the COVID era, which though waning still persists. Park City Mountain had a horrible 2021/22 season in terms of service, which did nothing good for the timing of their bid that season to upgrade those chairlifts, even if they had a terrific rebound in 2022/23.
What this isn’t about at all is parking, though that is a wrinkle in the agreement. The ski mountain was supposed to show the city it had considered the impact of improving chairlifts on parking. But when the lot fills, it’s, um, filled, right? Reserved, paid or whatever. Will they paint more stripes? No? Fine. There’s a checked box. Done.
At stake in the legal case is whether the ski mountain’s carrying capacity number for skiers, and how it is formulated, is proprietary information for the business or should be public information. That’s what this court theater seems to really be about.
Hah, this very point has frustrated me at my newspapers at each ski town stop. “How many people on the hill today?” “Can’t say.” “What do you mean you can’t say? You run the place.” Every ski mountain gets dodgy here. Like this — this! — is their most sacred secret. Like all would be lost if anyone outside the snow-sliding priesthood knew.
That’s why I was pretty sure there would be no answer when I asked, maybe a little mischievously, at Deer Valley’s announcement in August about more than doubling their terrain with the Mayflower portal: “How many more skiers will that mean on the ski mountain when it all opens?” Sure enough. A smile, some talking around the fact, then a straightforward “I ain’t telling you.”
Deer Valley has long limited daily skiers — last I saw was 7,500 at a time in 2017 — and Vail Resorts announced in September 2022 they would limit skier numbers at their resorts, as well. Though of course no actual numbers were disclosed.
Just me, but why bother being coy in court or anywhere else at this point?
Clinging to confidentiality about the daily limit has to be at least as silly as suggesting that a chairlift upgrade has a thing to do with attracting bigger crowds. A court hearing basically focused on this number only doubles down on ludicrous.
Hence, the empty suit, more Seinfeld than Third District.
Seriously, in the era of Epic and Ikon, never mind existential planetary concerns that ski resorts can only exacerbate (sorry), there is nothing to hide in revealing “comfortable carrying capacities” — the numbers themselves as BS as the euphemism.
So enough with the courtroom and all the legal fictions. Just be real and proudly state the limit, reap the marketing reward, and let’s get on with upgrading those chairlifts.
Don Rogers is the editor of The Park Record. He can be reached at [email protected] or (970) 376-0745.