Sorta funny

[Ski]

So the Scranton Times-Tribune editorial staff did everything in their power to block the sale of Montage to Sno Mountain LLC. They wrote ENDLESS editorials, siding with scumbag Washo and calling it a back room deal, despite knowing it was not. The editors knew for a fact that the commissioners voted to allow Cordaro to negotiate the deal privately, then turned around and called it illegal.

 

The editors of the failing newspaper, which had to fire half it's staff because it folded one of it's editions and is broke, just didn't understand that small ski areas have been going out of business at an increasing rate and it was just short of a miracle that Montage was saved by SM LLC.

 

So we thank the snow gods that the newspaper failed. They couldn't convince the people of Lackawanna that losing a million dollars a year was a good thing. The newspaper lied and slandered honest people, all with the supposed protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Which brings me to the funny part, as the Times-Tribune published a self-congratulatory article today regarding national awards it won for editorials about "the Lackawanna County commissioners

[Old Geezer]

Sorry, I disagree with this rant of yours. If anything, I don't think the Scranton paper did enough to expose the background of the main buyer in the deal. The main buyer was much, much too close to the pay-to-play politics in Philadelphia, (was investigated by the FBI, went to trial, twice I think, and was acquitted). And I wonder, did anyone who followed the story in the Scranton paper know this?

 

The only reference I've ever seen to that less shady background is in this one article: http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news....16046&rfi=6. The Philadelphia Inquirer mentioned it, and questioned it, more times that the Scranton paper did.

 

The part I do agree with is that the county pols did understand (the real question, how could they not know this) that county government should not be in the ski area management business over the long term. They facilitated the growth of the mountain as part of a bigger plan to increasing economic development in that particular location, and it worked well. Now they turn it over to private ownership.

 

But shame on them for their choice of the private owners, the main person in the group they decide to sell to is a person with a very questionable background. Anyone who follows the legal scene in Philly will tell you that it was only by a very thin margin that this individual got off, and they'll also tell you that the decision should have gone the other way.

[skidude]

I thought it was sold?

[Sno Mountain Skier]

I thought it was sold?

It is.

[Ski]

Sorry, I disagree with this rant of yours. If anything, I don't think the Scranton paper did enough to expose the background of the main buyer in the deal. The main buyer was much, much too close to the pay-to-play politics in Philadelphia, (was investigated by the FBI, went to trial, twice I think, and was acquitted). And I wonder, did anyone who followed the story in the Scranton paper know this?

 

The only reference I've ever seen to that less shady background is in this one article: http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news....16046&rfi=6. The Philadelphia Inquirer mentioned it, and questioned it, more times that the Scranton paper did.

 

The part I do agree with is that the county pols did understand (the real question, how could they not know this) that county government should not be in the ski area management business over the long term. They facilitated the growth of the mountain as part of a bigger plan to increasing economic development in that particular location, and it worked well. Now they turn it over to private ownership.

 

But shame on them for their choice of the private owners, the main person in the group they decide to sell to is a person with a very questionable background. Anyone who follows the legal scene in Philly will tell you that it was only by a very thin margin that this individual got off, and they'll also tell you that the decision should have gone the other way.

 

First off: Bullshit. The corrupt Philly cops misled the Feds ALL THE WAY TO A COMPLETE ACQITTAL. And, yes, we all knew this. Jesus Christ, if you have a large company and some asshead in accounting does something wrong, yet you are fully exonerated, you shouldn't allowed to invest in a ski area? Should we check your background before you buy a lift ticket?

 

How f*cking un-American to have someone FULLY exonerated in a court of law, then say he shouldn't be allowed to SAVE a failing ski resort. Commissioner Washo's motivation was only to stand in the way of anything the majority commissioners proposed. Washo voted against the sale of Montage, just like he voted against the veterans memorial...yet he showed up for the grand opening. What a dickhead. That's the kind of person you align yourself with?

 

Thin margin? Wrong! Dead wrong. You have some personal gripe (either real or imagined), because a post verdict survey showed the government's case was lost due to "shoddy and overreaching investigation" that was just "headhunting".

 

You're an expert on this with a strong opinion, yet you don't even know the outcome of the case!

 

Oh, and let me quote you: "They facilitated the growth of the mountain as part of a bigger plan to increasing economic development in that particular location, and it worked well."

 

Now let me educate you about Montage:

 

They were losing a MILLION DOLLARS a year for the county.

The top to bottom lift ran three days in the last two years.

Broken pipes caused the entire left side of the mountain to be shut down for the last two years.

Taxpayers that were saddled with double-digit property tax increases wanted to shut down Montage.

Snowmakers were down to just 23 working guns (instead of a needed 150 guns).

Good employees were leaving for better pay and more secure jobs.

 

 

All this winter, we'll be skiing/boarding and having a blast while losers like Washo and haters like you are off finding some other project to spread sunshine over.

 

Bottom line: we WON.

[kragan]

Hmmm, how long is this thread going to make it?

[Tyler]

Now let me educate you about Montage:

 

They were losing a MILLION DOLLARS a year for the county.

The top to bottom lift ran three days in the last two years.

Broken pipes caused the entire left side of the mountain to be shut down for the last two years.

Taxpayers that were saddled with double-digit property tax increases wanted to shut down Montage.

Snowmakers were down to just 23 working guns (instead of a needed 150 guns).

Good employees were leaving for better pay and more secure jobs.

All this winter, we'll be skiing/boarding and having a blast while losers like Washo and haters like you are off finding some other project to spread sunshine over.

SNO to the rescue! I didnt realize it was this bad...

[Ski]

IDK, Kragan, but I will add to it that the case against Mr. Carlson involved one thing: he allowed Philadelphia City Treasurer Corey Kemp to stay at his vacation condo. Period. The feds threw Mr. Carlson's name into the trash as part of a sweeping indictment of everyone involved with a corrupt city treasurer.

 

Mr. Carlson did NOTHING wrong. He was being a nice guy. He expected nothing in return and he received nothing in return. And that's why cops need to be careful; they have all the power in the world on their side and can ruin innocent people when they are wreckless with indictments. Ever hear the term "You can indict a ham sandwich"? That's a refernce to how easy it is to get an indictment. Only the prosecution gives evidence to the Grand Jury. It's totally one-sided.

 

Mr. Carslon was clearly shown to be not guilty during trial.

 

SNO to the rescue! I didnt realize it was this bad...

 

Yep! And according to the current commissioners, the previous administration had faked the books to show Montage had been turning small profits, when it had actually been losing money all along.

[Old Geezer]

Sonny, do you know what you're talking about?

 

That minority commissioner was not against the sale of the mountain, he was against selling to Sno Mountain. That is the issue, you're confusing it.

 

By whatever means, you've been lead to believe that what is good for political insiders (the Sno Mt investors and probably some Lackawanna politicos) is also in the best interest of skiers and taxpayers. But that is not so.

 

Increasing economic development is clearly not measured by how many snow guns are running or how often the lifts turn. Jeeze. Twenty years ago that area was raw land, except for Montage. Now businesses are all over the place, and there's a lot of residential development. All of which provide tax revenue, jobs, and increase the value of real estate that once was barren land. No matter how you measure it, Montage accomplished economic development in that area. A few lifts not turning and skier days missed matter little in the bigger picture. And if the facility was losing a million $ a year, it should have been shut down.

 

The Phila cops didn't have anything to do with the cases against the Sno Mt people, the cases were handled by the corruption and white collar crimes sections of the the Justice Dept, a federal agency. And yes the acquittals were on a very close margin. Check the records and ask legal observers if you doubt this. BTW, you're saying that because these individuals were acquitted, there were innocent as angels in the process. Most definitely not the case.

 

Let me straighten you out. There were two things of significance that happened here, 1) the group purchasing the mountain did so because they have a history of giving money, both above board and below board, for a long time to whatever party was in office to get their financial work approved by local and county governments. And they they were paid hugely above market rates for the financial work (remember that the next time you have double-digit tax increases). The politicos in Lackawanna county definitely knew this, and will be rewarded with future good-will payoffs when they next need money for their parties, their campaigns, or their own jobs in the private sector. This is how it works.

 

2) the place was sold for a whole lot less that it could have fetched by some bigger real estate development organizations (based on the future value of the land that could be developed), had there been a cleaner put it up for sale process. Selling to a ski company (a company supposedly interested in the skiing) was one of the lowest uses that could come out of this, but in so doing the the county also gave away development rights (after five years) that have a huge future value irregardless of the ski area. Remember this also the next time you complain about double-digit tax increases. I can say this without mincing words, the new owners bought the ski area, but that's not what they are interested in. They're interested in future real estate and land development, and they only bought the ski area because they that's what they had to do to get the rights to the land five years out. And they managed to tie up the land development rights so no one else can get to it before they do (i.e., they did it so development rights do not go on the open market and be sold to the highest bidder).

 

If you are that interested in lifts turning and snow making above all else, watch five years from now and see how well the ski area is being maintained as compared to how much money and effort is put into real estate development. Lackawanna County gave away something for nothing, and you've been lead to believe it's a good deal.

[Shadows]

this whole sno mtn situation is way too long and way too confusing. loaded with so much bs. did it sell? yes. end of story.

[Schif]

my $0.02

A few lifts not turning and skier days missed matter little in the bigger picture. And if the facility was losing a million $ a year, it should have been shut down.

In the bigger picture of the area's economic growth, I guess not, but we're the hardcore, diehard local skiers, we care ALOT. I guess if everyone took that approach, no where in the world would ever improve anything. Why build a new rollercoaster when 15 restaurants and a Wal-Mart came to town over your park?

 

And yes the mountain was shown to have been losing a million a year. The county cared enough about us skiers/riders to not just shut it down on us.

 

2) the place was sold for a whole lot less that it could have fetched by some bigger real estate development organizations (based on the future value of the land that could be developed), had there been a cleaner put it up for sale process. Selling to a ski company (a company supposedly interested in the skiing) was one of the lowest uses that could come out of this, but in so doing the the county also gave away development rights (after five years) that have a huge future value irregardless of the ski area.

 

Again, we're the skiers of the area. The mountain was sold with the stipulation that it remain a ski area. Forget the condos and development we're talking skiing/riding on a skiing/riding website we don't want land development we want to ride. The commissioners understand this. Everything isn't always about making tons of money and building on every square inch of available land.

 

If you are that interested in lifts turning and snow making above all else, watch five years from now and see how well the ski area is being maintained as compared to how much money and effort is put into real estate development. Lackawanna County gave away something for nothing, and you've been lead to believe it's a good deal.

 

So you're telling me that they're going to build a new lodge, expand the old one, put up a new lift, new snowguns, a ton of other improvements now, and then in 5 years say "forget about it, lets build houses!" I don't think so.

And yes it is a good deal. Mostly because (i'm not sure if you could tell already), but we're the skiers and riders of the area. They're improving somethign we absolutely love to do and you think we should have a problem with this.

[Ski]

Sonny, do you know what you're talking about?

Sonny? Are you old or are you a hillbilly?

That minority commissioner was not against the sale of the mountain, he was against selling to Sno Mountain. That is the issue, you're confusing it.

Wrong. Washo voted against earlier sales, as well. Washo has waited to hear the majority commissioners position on every issue and voted against it over 90% of the time. He openly stated that he felt it was his obligation to oppose the majority--RIGHT OR WRONG! So it's not me confused. Those are facts.

 

By whatever means, you've been lead to believe that what is good for political insiders (the Sno Mt investors and probably some Lackawanna politicos) is also in the best interest of skiers and taxpayers. But that is not so.

I don't give a crap about Lackawanna taxpayers or Lackawanna political insiders. I live in Wayne County. I care about the ski area and my friends that work there. Again, you are wrong. I also have some background in ski area management, since I'm currently a part-owner of a ski hill. What's your background that gives you better insight?

 

Increasing economic development is clearly not measured by how many snow guns are running or how often the lifts turn. Jeeze.

 

Stability of a ski area is DIRECTLY measured by how many snow guns are running and how often the lifts turn. It is EVERYTHING.

 

Twenty years ago that area was raw land, except for Montage. Now businesses are all over the place, and there's a lot of residential development. All of which provide tax revenue, jobs, and increase the value of real estate that once was barren land. No matter how you measure it, Montage accomplished economic development in that area. A few lifts not turning and skier days missed matter little in the bigger picture. And if the facility was losing a million $ a year, it should have been shut down.

 

Look around at the NELSAP pages and they are filled with ski areas tucked among thriving commercial districts. Let's see, for example...take Bell Mountain in Lambertville, NJ. It shut down despite being in a Mercer County, NJ, right on the Hunterdon County line. Million dollar homes everywhere and Bucks County, PA, across the river. And then Mt. Tom in Holyoke, MA...it shut down because the owners wanted to concentrate on their thriving adjacent quarry. Montage had NO effect on the cinema or any other business in the plaza. It hardly matttered to the hotels, since so few people bought the ski/stay packages. Montage was NOT a destination resort. Montage was an ammenity, but it was underused and not appreciated.

 

The Phila cops

by Philly cops, I wasn't referring to street cops or meter maids in Philadelphia, but the Philly FBI Bureau and other Feds BASED in Philly. They don't jet in from Washington, they have offices in Philly

 

didn't have anything to do with the cases against the Sno Mt people, the cases were handled by the corruption and white collar crimes sections of the the Justice Dept, a federal agency. And yes the acquittals were on a very close margin. Check the records and ask legal observers if you doubt this. BTW, you're saying that because these individuals were acquitted, there were innocent as angels in the process. Most definitely not the case.

 

Hahahaha...so you read verdicts as Guilty, Innocent, and A Little Guilty? Yes, in the rule of law, Mr. Carlson was INNOCENT AS ANGELS. In fact, he was found innocent of ALL wrongdoing and all charges. He was 100% free to go. No civil charges followed; not a thing. Cops wrong and Carlson right; no ifs, ands, or buts. Denis Carlson Sr. was found NOT guilty. If you need to look it up to believe it, then knock yourself out.

 

Let me straighten you out. There were two things of significance that happened here, 1) the group purchasing the mountain did so because they have a history of giving money, both above board and below board, for a long time to whatever party was in office to get their financial work approved by local and

county governments.

 

No, the verdict was NOT guilty. You are wrong. Your premise is based on a verdict that did not happen. So have I straightened that out for you? NOT guilty. Mr. Carlson did NOT bribe anyone, according to a jury of his peers.

 

And they they were paid hugely above market rates for the financial work (remember that the next time you have double-digit tax increases). The politicos in Lackawanna county definitely knew this, and will be rewarded with future good-will payoffs when they next need money for their parties, their campaigns, or their own jobs in the private sector. This is how it works.

 

Well, luckily there is a tin foil hat smiley for that Must be difficult to be a mind reading paranoid...relax, dude...

 

2) the place was sold for a whole lot less that it could have fetched by some bigger real estate development organizations (based on the future value of the land that could be developed), had there been a cleaner put it up for sale process. Selling to a ski company (a company supposedly interested in the skiing) was one of the lowest uses that could come out of this, but in so doing the the county also gave away development rights (after five years) that have a huge future value irregardless of the ski area. Remember this also the next time you complain about double-digit tax increases. I can say this without mincing words, the new owners bought the ski area, but that's not what they are interested in. They're interested in future real estate and land development, and they only bought the ski area because they that's what they had to do to get the rights to the land five years out. And they managed to tie up the land development rights so no one else can get to it before they do (i.e., they did it so development rights do not go on the open market and be sold to the highest bidder).

 

Wrong again. The property was advertised for sale in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and other national outlets a few years ago. AND NOBODY WANTED IT. Oh, except Snowtime offered to take it over for FREE, in exchange for them keeping the operation from completely falling apart. Yeah, the same great guys that Washo tried to use to ruin the SM LLC deal. And the land CANNOT be developed. There's a 10 year clause that I won't waste time going through again. Maybe in a perfect world it would be 100 years, but that would give you one less thing to cling to.

 

If you are that interested in lifts turning and snow making above all else, watch five years from now and see how well the ski area is being maintained as compared to how much money and effort is put into real estate development. Lackawanna County gave away something for nothing, and you've been lead to believe it's a good deal.

Yep, they could have ripped out the lifts, subdivided, and sold it for much, much more. Poor Lackawanna County non-skiers. I feel so bad for them. The idiots bitched when they found out they were losing a million dollars a year, then they bitched that it was sold at a lower price because it had to be maintained as a ski area. You poor suckers can't win!

[Ski]

One final thought...

 

People like Washo and other anti-Sno Mountain sale people have come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories about the motivation of Sno Mountain LLC. They are so bitter from their loss, that some have continued to write slanderous letters to the T-T editors, as well as come here to attempt to trash the reputation of Mr. Carlson.

 

Montage wasn't purchased to chop it up and subdivide it. It wasn't purchased to "flip" it, the way Snowtime flipped Windham.

 

Montage was purchased by someone not unlike a lot of us on this MB: a dad of a racer that has his own passion for skiing. Anything else is bullshit, plain and simple.

 

I have no ties to Sno Mountain, other than as a customer, but attacking the integrity of the Carlson family will have you answering to me and, hopefully, the rest of the people that believe in the spirit of Pennsylvania Ski and Ride.

[Sno Mountain Skier]

Hey old geezer, in point 2 you make the dumbest statement possible. The land ISNT DEVELOPABLE. It would cost 2 million to get utilities to the top of the mountain, and much of the lower half of the mountain is to steep for development.

[Schif]

Hey old geezer, in point 2 you make the dumbest statement possible. The land ISNT DEVELOPABLE. It would cost 2 million to get utilities to the top of the mountain, and much of the lower half of the mountain is to steep for development.

 

What are you talking about SMS? You're ruining my plans. In 10 years I wanted to buy some land up there. You know, cantilever my house off of lightning and have the sweetest yard in the world.

[riderossi]

What are you talking about SMS? You're ruining my plans. In 10 years I wanted to buy some land up there. You know, cantilever my house off of lightning and have the sweetest yard in the world.

 

Looking for roommates?

[Ski]

What are you talking about SMS? You're ruining my plans. In 10 years I wanted to buy some land up there. You know, cantilever my house off of lightning and have the sweetest yard in the world.

Ha, but then you'll have the problem of keeping me and Sno from racing from your kitchen, through your den, and off your deck. You'll have ruts in your living room carpet...but if you can live with it...

[AtomicSkier]

Ha, but then you'll have the problem of keeping me and Sno from racing from your kitchen, through your den, and off your deck. You'll have ruts in your living room carpet...but if you can live with it...

 

[Schif]

Ha, but then you'll have the problem of keeping me and Sno from racing from your kitchen, through your den, and off your deck. You'll have ruts in your living room carpet...but if you can live with it...

 

Simple solution. I'll put down that artificial snow stuff as my carpet. You guys are welcome anytime.

[AtomicSkier]

Simple solution. I'll put down that artificial snow stuff as my carpet. You guys are welcome anytime.

 

Ski up bar with yuengling on tap, as well?

[Schif]

Ski up bar with yuengling on tap, as well?

 

If you insist.

[Papasteeze]

WOW WOW WOW... Finally, someone else knows the things I know ........ LOL!!

 

FIRST AND FOREMOST I HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO SKI THERE, BUT LET"S BE REALISTIC![/size]

 

Mr. Carlson did NOTHING wrong. He was being a nice guy. He expected nothing in return and he received nothing in return.

 

Bla bla bla..... There is not an influencial successful business man anywhere that doesn't flirt with the edge of disaster. He wasn't convicted, but I bet he was scared crapless. It's all about who can afford the fanciest lawyers or who can continue to buy influence. Google his name, hell the FBI recordings are available to the public. Influence peddling is an every day thing. no biggie..

 

 

I can say this without mincing words, the new owners bought the ski area, but that's not what they are interested in. They're interested in future real estate and land development, and they only bought the ski area because they that's what they had to do to get the rights to the land five years out. And they managed to tie up the land development rights so no one else can get to it before they do (i.e., they did it so development rights do not go on the open market and be sold to the highest bidder).

 

HEY! I called it first. Honestly, I think this guy bought it for his love of skiing first, but secondly he is smart, he bought knowing that he can get out in a few years and still make a profit on his deal.

 

 

So you're telling me that they're going to build a new lodge, expand the old one, put up a new lift, new snowguns, a ton of other improvements now, and then in 5 years say "forget about it, lets build houses!" I don't think so.

 

Wouldn't surprise me one bit at some point that is exactly what happens. Whether he builds or he parcels off areas to a developer or he sells the whole project. Remember, this group has the whereforall to invest a million in just feasibility. They certainly can start the subdivision process an increase the net worth of the land at any time they want. Donating millions for parks, lodges, sewer treatment plants, snow guns, roads etc etc is par for the course in the developing business. I feel strongly that for the long term of Montage Ski Area that selling it to snow time would have been in it's best interest of it remaining a ski resort.

 

 

Montage wasn't purchased to chop it up and subdivide it. It wasn't purchased to "flip" it, the way Snowtime flipped Windham.

 

Montage was purchased by someone not unlike a lot of us on this MB: a dad of a racer that has his own passion for skiing. Anything else is bullshit, plain and simple.

 

I believe that first, I also believe as mentioned above that if it doesn't cash flow he will start the sub-division process. Geographically that is prime real estate. It is money in the bank as developable land. To continue to operate that 400 acres as a profitable ski resort is rediculously risky and really ballsy at best.

 

 

Hey old geezer, in point 2 you make the dumbest statement possible. The land ISNT DEVELOPABLE. It would cost 2 million to get utilities to the top of the mountain, and much of the lower half of the mountain is to steep for development.

 

 

HAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA - you should see the 5 million cubic yards of rock that we are currently moving. sure there are steep slopes, but the top of that hill is prime. That ground, at the cross roads of 2 interstates is gold for 50k per acre was a great investment, especially since ticket sales will probably cover the note for the ski improvements. IT's not like it is non-income producing raw ground.

[Schif]

 

HAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA - you should see the 5 million cubic yards of rock that we are currently moving. sure there are steep slopes, but the top of that hill is prime. That ground, at the cross roads of 2 interstates is gold for 50k per acre was a great investment, especially since ticket sales will probably cover the note for the ski improvements. IT's not like it is non-income producing raw ground.

 

Is it really feasable to try to build there? Sure the top of the mountain, and the area around the lodge would work, but the majority of the land is still severly sloped. I can't see any economical way to develop the North Face. Maybe if you put something on the flatter sections between headwalls up top, but thats about it.

 

If they really want to make money off of this why not just build at the top? Offer slopeside living or condos or whatever. There is a ton of room past the slopes on the top of the hill, go for it there, I'm sure you can make a ton of money and you can throw in the fact that you live on a ski hill for good measure, kind of like a Northridge type deal.

[Papasteeze]

Is it really feasable to try to build there? Sure the top of the mountain, and the area around the lodge would work, but the majority of the land is still severly sloped. I can't see any economical way to develop the North Face. Maybe if you put something on the flatter sections between headwalls up top, but thats about it.

 

If they really want to make money off of this why not just build at the top? Offer slopeside living or condos or whatever. There is a ton of room past the slopes on the top of the hill, go for it there, I'm sure you can make a ton of money and you can throw in the fact that you live on a ski hill for good measure, kind of like a Northridge type deal.

 

Guess work.... Sno knows what they are doing. They should be able to figure out what is the best scenario. Slope side residences is one route that would make sense if they have great ticket sales over the next few years.

 

Anything over 20% is typically prohibited slopes in PA. There are so many factors. Feasibility depends on what the market can bear. I don't know the median house price in that area or the major businesses that support the economy there. I also don't know the other typical demographics in that area that well to make an educated guess on what makes sense 5, 10, 20 years from now.

 

The US population went from 200 to 300 million recently, it is expected to take half the amount of time to reach 400 million. That is a prime location due to the interstates. There are a ton of pros going for that location and few cons in my eyes.

[Ski]

Rob and Old Geezer are on the same page: both are full of crap. Yeah, they are building new lodges and wave pools in order to pull out the lifts and sell it (in 10 years) for housing lots. Yeah, it's a big conspiracy. How much more idiotic can you be?

 

If Rob and Old Geezer would like to post one single thing Carlson has ever done to indicate he wants to do anything but run a succesful resort, LET'S HEAR IT.

 

But neither of you can offer one shred of evidence. You're just a couple of haters that lost.

 

Now Rob's version is a bunch of "if business is bad, then..."

 

Now you want to slander Mr. Carlson?

 

Denis Carlson was exonerated and the judge chided the prosecution for bringing trumped up charges against him. The Feds spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring charges that were full of holes. It was a ploy to try and force Carlson to tesify against a very corrupt city treasurer. But Carlson wouldn't lie about the situation. He cooperated fully and the judge thanked him for his testimony. Read the transcript yourself. Mr. Carlson did absolutely NOTHING illegal or in any way shady. He's just a nice guy that let someone use his vacation condo and even the Feds found no payment or favor in return.

 

And, Rob, has it sunk into your thick head that Snowtime bought then FLIPPED Windham? They didn't want to run it and they didn't want to run Montage. Keep shooting your mouth off about slopes, feasibilty, and demographics!

 

The mountain was purchased by a race dad who has a passion for skiing.

 

Get over it. We won and you people lost.

 

*edited for personal attacks*

Edited November 22, 2006 by freeridintre