OCR Text |
Show REVIEW, PARK CITY HEROES AND VILLIANS (Continued from page 1) t - A2 April 28, 1966 WHICH IS WHICH ? ' t The Other Side Now these people are losing money - and many, small Investors, dont have the financial reserves to last them through a long dry period. And some of them are mad. One is Mrs. June Johnson, owner and operator of the remodeled New Park Hotel. While Mrs. Johnson may express an extreme view, she represents the feeling of many Park City investors. United Park City lured the investors Her complaint in with promises of full beds and great things to come, and hasnt followed through with enough of an investment or the right kind of management or promotion to fulfill the promise. The company's answer - were putting all we can afford into die area. Her response - then get out and let someone else take over. will come in here with Their reply - wed like to but ne Utahs liquor laws as they are. United Park City readily admits that they would be pleased to sell the recreation part of their operation to someone who could put more capital into it, or would be glad to join hands with financial ability and experience. Mrs. Johnson claims interested parties have come in but that the company asked too much, or didnt make their terms A no-o- clc&r Mr! Ivers maintains 4 that some discussions have gone on, but unsuccessfully, and that any previous offers made were not sufficient. He also claims - quite reasonably - that his company shouldnt have to take a loss on what theyve put Into the hill. Whos Going Broke? In Park City similar expression Is voiced by Dr. William Orris, president of the Chamber of Commerce. "The little people are going broke up here. Dr. Orris has a flair for dramatics. Last Monday he asked the company to keep the townspeople Informed of what they were doing. Mr, Ivers said he thought it would be a good idea for file company and the townspeople to get together to discuss their problems more often. The onstage melodrama Monday night had a friendly tone to It but the undercurrents were there. The play was produced in two acts. During the first act all file stage lights were on...,.Dr. Orris sat in the background (stage left) while other chamber representatives, city council members and Mr. Ivers spoke. After file intermission (soda pop but no popcorn served in the lobby) the stage lights dimmed, and Dr. Orris stepped up (stage front) to speak before soft red and blue silhouette lights. The effect was dramatic, contrasting with Mr. Ivers nd further conreserved constrained representation fused the question as to whos the villian and whos the hero. No back room stuff for me, noted the Dr, 'Lets get It out in the open where we can fight it out. But on another stage 6000 miles away another fight was about to take place - another dramatic presentation, which might make a difference to the way everyone would look at the situation. Utahs Olympic delegation was about to make their valiant but unsuccessful bid for 1972 in Rome. It just might change the complexion of everyones thinking. o (I A H by side telling of the transition from - ng Promotion Problems The claim is also made that the promotion was badly and badly executed. Mr. Ivers counters that it there arent doesnt make much sense to enough facilities - including beds to handle a large influx of skiers. Mrs, Johnson replies "we cant fill the beds we have here. Mr. Ivers counters - there must be enough ,io take care of really large crowds. The better the facilities - he maintains - the more tourists youll draw. In a free economy a company's first responsibility is to its stockholders, as United Park Citys must be. But, claim Park City investors, the company has a responsibility to us. Their investment they say, lured us here.....and besides the fact erf a federal loan - from tax money - gives them a public responsibility. Every businessman must assume risks - and Park City hotel investors are no exception. Mr. Ivers doesnt deny responsibility - but he claims that conditions arent right for his firm to do any tiling more than theyre doing. They cant pour any more into it than they are, and they would be happy to get out or take a partner if they could find a willing planned one. What Direction? Park City investors and townspeople claim bad management of tiie recreation area by United Park Citys management. The real problem is that the weekend business is fine but to make a go of it the area must attract weekday business -and that means out of town tourists. Whose fault? Everybodys and nobody's. If Park City really wants a tourist business the mining company must get cm the ball...but so must townspeople. In many spots rejuvenation has begun. But in many other places the same dirty, ramshackle buildings still stand. One resident who loudly protests the mining company operations owns a piece of property on the city's Mam Street with a tattered fence tollen on its side in disrepair all around the property. Many old-tiPark City residents have never been overjoyed with the tourist business anyway... ..but Park City is a town in a state of rapid change - and both residents and the neec to mae more excitingdecisions than - me mining to recreation : H J w 'V I . v A IhitSl AV . A third element in the city of some considerable tance are the miners. They have just concluded a labor agreement with the company, which avoided a strike but which, according to Mr. Ivers means well have less funds for recreation development. The miners are naturally influential in city government, a situation which doesnt make for natural chuminess with the company and the town. But progress is approaching in good relations here - from the standpoint of recreation development. And to prove it council members and executives recently took a trip to Aspen to get some ideas. But the investors still aren't happy.,...and theyre asking some embarrassing questions like Why were considerable sums put into a tunnel to take skiers up when a lift would have been much more attractive to skiers .....and Why hasnt a once promised 18 hole golf course been developed instead of a nine hole one we have? Mr. Ivers answers, but his answers dont quite seem to satisfy. The mine tunnel is there as a unique tourist attraction - the golf course Is expensive, requires land (which, it turns out the city is willing to provide in a trade) ana besides as a private profit-makiconcern we have to pay taxes on tiie course. United Park City Mining Company is in a pickle in Park City Recreation, They say theyd like to get out or take on a partner, and they blame the lack of liquor over the bar. But, others say, that's a scapegoat. Land development, proper promotion and good management would do the job. At me time plans were announced for substantial land development In the area - for some reasons plans weren't followed up as promised. AT f 111 lmpor- - and the modern.side - The Settlement i -- The ramshackle A Few Details mentioned was a sign ordinance, and serious consideration to curing some of the citys major problems - Including parking and cleanup. As Mayor William Sullivan noted We can be come one of the biggest tourist attractions anywhere. Hd added, referring to a $600,000 water sewage bond passed last year, lf It werent for the mining company we never could have passed a bond of this size. J ' M new boom on an unsure footing -- Engulfed by the dramatic controversy were other events at the meeting less spectacular but important. ParkCitys planning commission revealed the development of a master plan - centered la rgely around attracting tourist dolla r s . For a town like Park City caught in the transition of a mining to a tourist economy - a masterplan Is a major development, particularly when carried out by professional planners. Also Sir . VU X '' |