 |
| click image for full size trail map (photo credit: Mammoth Mountain) |
Thanks to numerous tipsters for informing Ski, Esq. California's June Mountain will not open for the 2012-2013 season or for summer activities this summer.
June is owned by nearby Mammoth Mountain and many locals enjoyed visiting June on days when visibility at Mammoth was reduced by one of the Sierra's famous blizzards. For years, the two resorts offered a common pass. Unfortunately, it appears this niche was not enough to sustain June, which according to a statement issued by Mammoth had lost money every year since 1986.
Mammoth issued a press release which, in part, read:
Mammoth purchased June Mountain in 1986 with the idea of significantly increasing the size of the resort by building new facilities, extending new runs to the June Lake Village, and fostering additional developed ski areas along the San Joaquin Ridge, resulting in a connection between Mammoth and June Mountains. For a number of reasons, these plans were never realized and June Mountain has, in turn, suffered from an identity crisis that has both stifled its ability to achieve its full potential and required substantial financial subsidy from Mammoth on an annual basis. Cessation of operations will help the company dedicate its focus to a new future for June Mountain. Mammoth will be working with its partner the U.S. Forest Service to reach the best possible result in this endeavor.
The resort has no indicated what its future plans for the resort may be. However, from a lawyer's perspective, the press release was clearly worded in such a way as not to make any promises that it would ever reopen.
*********************************
I've have a question for the wise ski attorney. As a tenant with the Forest Service, does a ski area operator have an obligation to operate?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jamie
Jamie,
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent question. It would depend on the specific provisions included in the agreement between the Forest Service and the ski resort operator. You used the word "tenant" to describe the relationship between the Forest Service and resort, but more precisely the relationship is that of a licensor and licensee. The Forest Service generally grants a license/permit to a resort to operate ski facilities in the Forest.
Whether or not a resort would have to operate would likely be spelled out in each resort's specific use permit. I have no way of knowing with certainty, but my gut reaction is "no." It is doubtful that the resort would be required to operate. However, failure to operate might well trigger the revocation of the license.