Operations at Mt High (complaint)

[Moose]

[Jason_5150]

What day did you go?

[Moose]

This last Saturday

Saturday, December 4. East.

[Tall Trees]

I went snow boarding for the first time at Mt. High today and had a blast!  The conditions were great and so was the instructor.  By the end of the day I was really performing well and look forward to next weekend.  I remember last week when I went skiing early in the morning and the lift chair was covered in ice and snow and it was not very pleasant.  I did not pay to much attention to it though because I always come home wet.

[Wildman]

[LasPulgas]

Perhaps this Forum will bring attention to their deficits and they will be amended over there...      Er, OR NOT.   

[MountainGrizzly]

I too, was waiting with my son Saturday at "Ghetto Mountain".  I agree with Moose, the staff could have done a much better job preparing the lifts, and telling us, the paying customers, what was going on.

I had the pleasure of skiing Snow Summit yesterday.  What a difference from Mt. High!  The facility looks and feels like a resort, not a surplus store.  The staff was pleasant, hard working, and ubiquitous.  Yes, they even brushed off the chairs before we sat down.

All this from a resort which gets less customers/year, and therefore less revenue than Mt. High.

It is obvious that Mt. High is pulling money from their customers, and not giving back in terms of putting a better resort together.

What a shame for Wrightwood, and the rest of LA, who spend our money there.

[Moose]

[Matt]

I think they have those little "rate your expirience" slips, over at the customer service section... or whatever they call it ...

Fill a couple out and hand them in, I think you would have better luck that way.

[Hillbillies]

[MountainGrizzly]

Let's not forget who "owns" Mountain High.

Right on their literature, in the corner of the map, it states:

"Operated under special use permit in the Angeles National Forest"

WE OWN MT. HIGH!!

Just like the concesion for Table Mountain Campground, the forest service has contracted with Mt. High's parent corporation to operate a Ski/Board Resort IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  We, the public, have a right to point out what kind of activities and behaviour are in our interest.

I think we need to start copying the LA County Board of Supervisors and the Forest Service with our safety and customer service related complaints.  It is pretty obvious that Mt. High management is not listening.

[Wrightwood]

Let's not forget who "owns" Mountain High.

Right on their literature, in the corner of the map, it states:

"Operated under special use permit in the Angeles National Forest"

WE OWN MT. HIGH!!

Mountain High is a Corporation that leases property under a special use permit and is not owned by the Forest Service. The corporation must follow provisions within the special use permit but the Forest Service does not dictate how Mountain High does business.

[MountainGrizzly]

Wrigthwood,

I agree in principle, no more than the Forest Service dictates how American Land and Leisure runs their campgrounds.  But both companies are sitting on public land, and their business is subsidized by the taxpayer, obstensibley for the good of the citizens. 

[monky6]

I bet if you contact Steve you will get results.  As far as Ghetto Mountain I think you are very wrong.  Besides if that is what you think of it why are you not going to another restort?  If you want to give Steve a try call 249-5808 Ext.  7805.

[MountainGrizzly]

I bet if you contact Steve you will get results. As far as Ghetto Mountain I think you are very wrong. Besides if that is what you think of it why are you not going to another restort? If you want to give Steve a try call 249-5808 Ext. 7805.

The problem with Mt. High is way above Steve.  It is in the way the resort  is marketed, the clientele they attempt to attract, and the results of having that demographic as customers.

My wife worked at High for several years.  A few years back, they took the family oriented resort out of their mission statement.  They are clearly catering to the 16-30 singles crowd.  Therefore you have the disrespect, trash, profanity, etc.  At the same time, this crowd is not as concerned with customer service and proffesionalism, so its not emphasized with the staff as much as other resorts.  Clearly this is a management decision that Mt. High made, it comes from the top.

Yes, I have tried other resorts, and they are much more professional, clean, safe, etc.  They are just alot farther to drive than Mt. High.  I just wish we could get the type of resort which would benefit the community most.  Wrightwood could really benefit from a change.

[TableMtn]

Wrigthwood,

I agree in principle, no more than the Forest Service dictates how American Land and Leisure runs their campgrounds. But both companies are sitting on public land, and their business is subsidized by the taxpayer, obstensibley for the good of the citizens.

What subsidies?  There is a prospectus, companies bid on the prospectus, and they run the concession.  They pay a percentage of their gate reciepts back to the government.  For "Granger-Thye" permits (where the government owns the improvements like Table Mountain) the concessionaire can do "fee offset" work where they can (agreed upon ahead of time in writing) to do improvements above and beyond routine maintenance back into the facility and this is deducted from what they owe the government.  The Forest Service prefers the money be invested back into the facility as opposed to going back to the general treasury.

For straight commercial operations, there is NO "subsidy" of the operation. They bring in a project proposal.  If the proposal is accepted, then they fill out an application.  The project proponent is responsible for all costs of environmental analysis (user pay philosophy) and start up costs.  It is a major investment for a company to do this.  The fees are determined on a nationwide formula.  I fail to see anywhere in the process that there is a "subsidy."   Can you explain?

[MountainGrizzly]

Wrigthwood,

I agree in principle, no more than the Forest Service dictates how American Land and Leisure runs their campgrounds. But both companies are sitting on public land, and their business is subsidized by the taxpayer, obstensibley for the good of the citizens.

What subsidies? There is a prospectus, companies bid on the prospectus, and they run the concession. They pay a percentage of their gate reciepts back to the government. For "Granger-Thye" permits (where the government owns the improvements like Table Mountain) the concessionaire can do "fee offset" work where they can (agreed upon ahead of time in writing) to do improvements above and beyond routine maintenance back into the facility and this is deducted from what they owe the government. The Forest Service prefers the money be invested back into the facility as opposed to going back to the general treasury.

For straight commercial operations, there is NO "subsidy" of the operation. They bring in a project proposal. If the proposal is accepted, then they fill out an application. The project proponent is responsible for all costs of environmental analysis (user pay philosophy) and start up costs. It is a major investment for a company to do this. The fees are determined on a nationwide formula. I fail to see anywhere in the process that there is a "subsidy." Can you explain?

What are they paying to lease the land?  Is it even close to the cost of actually purchasing the land?  Since the public owns the land which they are leasing, for the specific purpose of operating the resort in the public interest, don't we get a say in how our interests are being served?

[Hillbillies]

[AntiFltLndrs]

Does anyone have any info regarding the forestry new meters being read and the usuage.  ( i.e) camp ground usage and MH?

[Surfer_Dude]

April 24th is MT High "FREE DAY"
Somehow..I am not liking this idea.