The Friends Of Alpine Meadows group did an admirable job sharing their agenda with a small crowd at their first public meeting yesterday. Roughly 30 people gathered for the event at the Tahoe Mill, including some long time Alpine Meadows families, a number of Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows employees, some reporters, and a couple of vocal naysayers.
Steering committee member Shanda Kenyon did a fantastic job of presenting a positive presence for FoAM. Over the course of the evening, she steadfastly reminded the audience that the members of the Friends of Alpine Meadows goal was to work positively with mountain management to not only better the guest experience, but also assure the mountain remains financially profitable for years to come. A review of the recent survey conducted online by FoAM revealed several key areas of concern, which were the foundation for the chart released by FoAM last month.
Much of the meeting was dedicated toward giving attendees a chance to talk about their concerns. There was spirited discussion of several issues, which were marred by the fact that two attendees continually interrupted other speakers and felt a need to make sure that people heard only their thoughts. I found it disappointing that some people had no interest at all in hearing what other members of their community thought. Whether people like it or not, Alpine Meadows is both a business and a community. Neither one of them will work well without the other.
Fortunately, the management at SquAlpine seems to be willing to listen. They have already responded positively to Friends of Alpine Meadows and seem eager to work on some of the issues that have been brought up. No promises have been made yet but we’re encouraged that they’re willing to work with the Alpine Meadows community.
It’s been interesting watching the development of the FoAM movement. There are a lot of different people involved with their own idea of how things should work. On one extreme are the people who will not be satisfied until the Village At Squaw Valley is burned to the ground and a blockade is set up at Alpine Meadows Road. On the other extreme are the people who suggest that we should bow down to our benevolent overlords that allow us to ski on their mountain. Somewhere in the middle are the many people that recognize there are some issues and just want to support the movement by wearing a button. Our kudos goes out to the FoAM steering committee for their perseverance and determination to work positively with SVSH to make Alpine Meadows better for everyone.
The full presentation of the survey results and notes from tonight’s meeting will reportedly be available soon on the Friends of Alpine Meadows website and Facebook page.
Update: Here’s the link
As always, thanks so much for the good info and update.
Except for the two people (one absolute loudmouth) who seem perfectly fine with the squallification of Alpine it was a good first meeting. I spoke to quite a few folks who couldn’t make it and the word on the street – minus a few jaggoffs, is wholly positive towards FOAM and it’s goals. Looking forward to the next meeting !
Tee May was there! Was she there pro bono or was it a paid attendance?
I liked the powerpoint presentation.Those were some very interesting results! That survey speaks volumes and I really hope KSL listens to some reasonable suggestions from this committee. Alpine is worth so much to so many!!
The fact that KSL people attended should be seen as the first victory. Nice job FOAM!!
While it is wonderful that ksl is participating in this at some point actions speak louder than words.
Ksl’s actions over the past 5 years speak to their behavior and their goals
I would count on nothing until you see them actually do something that matters
Until ksl actually feels some pressure their participation is cheap
when they spend $500,000.00 to shut you up you know you are getting somewhere
This isn’t really a recap of how the meeting went down. Why don’t you include the topics that came up in the discussion instead of complaining about numerous people voicing opposition to FoAM current strategy?
Voices from both sides were heard at this meeting. The main topic of debate had to do with whether or not FoAM should put less focus on Squaw valley ski holdings business & mountain operational practices, particularly pricing, & more emphasis on preserving the history of Alpine Meadows. Additionally several families who actually own homes in the Alpine Meadows community suggested that the FoAM name be changed to friends of alpine meadows ski area. The reason for this suggestion is because the current organization really has nothing to do with the residential community & the three home owners associations that make up the actual Alpine Meadows Community. Lastly, several Alpine Meadow loyalist were complaining about the host program implemented this year. They referred to the host program as being a ridiculous waste of money.
If FoAM wants to be taken seriously they really need to reevaluate their current strategy. Currently they hold the position of seeking change through positive feedback & preserving the cultural character of Alpine Meadows ski area, but that’s not really how this organization conducts itself. There is a consistent negative sentiment expressed on their Facebook page. “Keeping squaw over there” doesn’t suggest positivity or cultural diversity. For now to myself and others that oppose the current strategy of the FoAM organization, they remain an organization of disgruntled former employees & territorial locals opposed to the Squaw/Alpine integration. I will continue to follow this organization in hopes that they begin to move in a real positive direction and act more as a community watch dog should real concerning issues come to life.
Although we do support most of FoAM’s actions, UA is not FoAM. They have recapped the meeting themselves at the Foam website and we provided that link. As far as positivity, negativity…we experience the same issue at UA. As much as we try to keep a positive spin here – it’s not always possible. You have to be willing to say whats wrong before solutions can be found. The most important part of this article is to point out that Alpine Meadows is both a community and a business. The community needs the business to be viable and vice versa. Why anyone would want to squash that effort to work together is beyond me.
Mark, the way this article is posted makes it appear as you wrote it. I too believe having organizations like FoAM are important. My concern is that the approach this organization has taken is fundamentally flawed. Too much energy is being wasted on issues that won’t change and really have no effect on the cultural ski experience at Alpine Meadows.
More emphasis should be put on accepting the marriage between Squaw and Alpine and bringing the community and SVSH together to help ensure that the integration is completed in the best possible way.
Very limited commercial development, open boundaries to some of the best side country skiing in the country, Abundant hike & traverse accessed ski/snowboard terrain, & the laid back family culture are the traits that make Alpine Meadows a true skiers mountain & culturally different then Squaw Valley. Ensuring that this remains should be the focus of the FoAM organization.
Yes, I wrote this article. My point is that I am not FoAM. it is not my responsibility to report the full recap of every bit of what happened. In fact, this piece is labelled as an editorial. I would expect a more complete recap in Moonshine.
The group took a user survey and received over 600 responses to help guide their direction. How is that “fundamentally flawed”?
How do you know things won’t change unless you try?
Taking a survey isn’t fundamentally flawed, however one could argue that the survey taken doesn’t accurately depict how the community at large really feels, due to the highly concentrated survey sample limited to only those people whom follow FoAM on Facebook.
Focusing energy and efforts on business decisions like logo changes and prices that are dictated by supply & demand are examples of fundamental flaws.
Oh man they better change the name to Friends of Alpine Meadows SKI AREA! Otherwise everyone would assume that people are worried about the blatant takeover of the culture of the three alpine meadows HOA’s in the valley by KSL. I’m pretty sure no one has ever or will ever think that this group has anything to do with anything but trying to preserve the alpine meadows ski area and its culture. If you aren’t smart enough to figure that out you probably weren’t smart enough to catch that the first two sentences were sarcasm. There is no need for a name change.
“Focusing energy and efforts on business decisions like logo changes and prices that are dictated by supply & demand are examples of fundamental flaws.”
Anybody with any kind of marketing saavy would realized that two strong brands are better than one. Why they choose to merge the two brands and identities is mind blowing to me.
Speaking of supply and demand, lower priced ski areas such as Mt Rose, Diamond Peak and Boreal are all having good seasons whereas KSL owned Squawpine and their $119 lift tickets are losing their shirts.
Yeah! Two brands are better than one!
Alpine Meadows offers incredible ski terrain, however from as a business prespective history shows that the resort struggles to make money. Having been bankrupt twice one could argue that the alpine meadows brand isn’t really that strong on its own.
And that would show how little you know…. Alpine Meadows brushes with insolvency occurred way back in the 60’s as it struggled to build capital to build the resort. Some of that had to do with efforts to raise capital through real estate sales in the valley. Over the years, Alpine Meadows has almost always run in the black, even in difficult years. The sales of Alpine Meadows from private ownership to POWDR, then JMA, then KSL were never driven by lack of financial success.
Mark, I’m certainly not an expert in Alpine Meadows history and have never claimed to be. However it’s undeniable that the ski resort has had significant financial struggles in the past.
In the late 60’s alpine Meadows was financially upside down. Their finances were so bad that they couldn’t afford to pay their staff & ultimately had to let the entire staff go.
Mark & John do either of you have financial data to back up your claims that Alpine meadows has always been a profitable resort? My research, while limited, leads me to believe that AMOT Inc., Powdr Corp, & JMA all went through periods of financial struggle with the resort.
Twice bankrupt? Better recheck your facts.
Alpine Meadows combination of minimal infrastructure and over 200,000 skier visits annually makes it a very profitable ski area on its own.
On another note, whoever the angry guy was at the public meeting, that kept interrupting and ultimately left in utter disgust, needs to learn how to agree to disagree. It was a poor showing and that person should be embarrassed with his behavior.
Not that it matters much, but I think you may be missing a slight nuance here. It doesn’t have to be about a “strong” or “weak” brand on its own. Any business owner that wants to maximize their return on capital for every asset utilized, and they want a “strongER” brand when possible.
It doesn’t have to be a winner on its own (though I think we can all agree it is a winner in many ways). The real question for the management is: “Is Alpine Meadows going to provide a better return for investors/owners by consolidating all branding and resource management, or will it provide a greater total return by putting in the extra effort to run them in parallel with slightly different brands?”
I think many people here no matter what side of any FoAM, KSL, Alpine vs. Squaw, etc. discussion would agree that the two hills running with a decision making process that separates the two will add more value for all involved. Yes, there are additional costs, and no one has showed me their financial analysis, but I can only imagine the additional costs to manage two hills separately would be minimal compared to the potential/probable upside.
Well said AD
I was at the meeting and the recap is accurate. My question to you is why are you taking such umbrage that a group of passionate, generational AM skiers/riders are trying to create a momentum to preserve a culture that is uniquely AM? Is it because you are on KSL’s payroll? I found it quite difficult to listen and focus on what Ms Kenyon was trying to convey because of your and another person’s continuous rude interruptions. Had you have stayed, instead of storming out red in the face and shaking your head in disgust, you may have heard the rest of the conversations. This is a grass roots movement trying to create some momentum among AM loyalists. I would think all input is appreciated and considered. My suggestion to you is listen to what Mr Peters said, “learn to agree to disagree, ” you will gain more credibility and respect. Please don’t attend these meetings if you are going to come with a chip on your shoulder. Your behavior was distasteful and disrespectful. This group is obviously seeking input to come up with creative solutions to complex issues that have arisen since since KSL purchased AM…and that is a positive thing.
“My question to you is why are you taking such umbrage that a group of passionate, generational AM skiers/riders are trying to create a momentum to preserve a culture that is uniquely AM?”
Because FoAM and their supporters are going about it the wrong way.
“I found it quite difficult to listen and focus on what Ms Kenyon was trying to convey because of your and another person’s continuous rude interruptions.”
I made three comments which took up less then 30 seconds of the hour I was able to attend the meeting.
I left the meeting early because I had a photo gig I had to be at.
“Is it because you are on KSL’s payroll?”
I’m subcontracted by SVSH to photograph winter images of both Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows. If you want to believe that’s the reason I’m challenging the FoAM organization and their supporters be my guest. I don’t have anything to hide and I’m confident with my integrity.
“Please don’t attend these meetings if you are going to come with a chip on your shoulder. Your behavior was distasteful and disrespectful.”
Expressing disagreement is not disrespectful. You have some nerve …..that I not attend meetings held in a co-working space that I pay rent to hold a desk in.
So you work for KSL. That explains you allegiance and acceptance of their blatant disregard for Alpine’s 50+ year history.
John as I stated in my last comment, I’m subcontracted by SVSH to photograph winter images at Squaw Valley & Alpine Meadows. I don’t have an allegiance to anybody, but my family. I just simply disagree with you. If you want to be aggressive about it & attack me on a personal level go right ahead.
“Expressing disagreement is not disrespectful.” You are correct, it is not disrespectful to disagree, it was the delivery of your message that was disrespectful. I stand behind my statement requesting that you not attend the meetings if you have such a chip on your shoulder, regardless of the fact that you pay rent in
the space. Should there be a disclaimer at the Tahoe Mill saying that “meetings can only be held here if your philosophies align with the tenants that rent space here? ”
If you truly believe FoAM is “going about it in the wrong way,” perhaps offering some positive and constructive feedback might be more effective. I applaud the members of the FoAM steering committee for taking the time and the heat for attempting to make a difference. Facts are facts and it’s been a steady decline at AM since the purchase by KSL. I am not a disgruntled employee or jaded local. I have been both an employee and long term passholder at both mountains. My hope is to see AM thriving and vibrant once again while maintaining it’s own identity and not a homogenized blending of the two ski areas. They are both great mountains with unique identities. Let’s keep it that way.
I don’t have a chip on my shoulder. I’m passionate about these mountains and want the best outcome for both resorts. I live, work, & ski in Alpine Meadows so you better get used to hearing my opinions. I strongly disagree with you and I’m entitled to express my feelings at a public forum. I made 3 comments in less then 30 seconds. Please explain to me how that warrants you requesting me to stop attending these meetings? Clearly you take an issue with me challenging the FoAM organization & struggle with people whom don’t share the same views you do.
“Should there be a disclaimer at the Tahoe Mill saying that “meetings can only be held here if your philosophies align with the tenants that rent space here? ”
When did I ever state or imply anything remotely close to this nonsense?
I’d be happy to share positive constructive feedback. I’ll look forward to sharing my thoughts with you at the next meeting, which by the way I can assure you I will be attending!