Some thoughts on the Park City impasse:
1. Calling PCMR’s failure to renew the lease a "clerical error" is like referring to the civil war as the "unpleasantness" of the 19th century.
2. It is unlikely that the economic sky will fall in either Summit county or Utah regardless of who prevails in this dispute. (a.) Even if PCMR were not to operate in 2014-2015 many of their patrons are likely to visit Deer Valley or the Canyons. (b.) If the highest and best use of the property is a ski resort this property will be a ski resort, not a mountain bike preserve.
4. The "hedge fund" appellation can reasonably be applied to the background of both parties in this disagreement.
5. It appears that PCMR is orchestrating a plethora of influential professional "advisors" to convince the public that they are the aggrieved party, the innocent victims of the predatory eastern money.
6. What was the level of the lease payment? There was no cry for PCMR to submit the lease payment amount to binding arbitration?
7. The record to this point appears to favor the Talisker position. Why would they submit to an arbitration process which need not fully respect their legal position.
8. The property belongs to the lessor, though PCMR would like to obfuscate this through their verbal onslaught.
9. The test here seems to be between the rule of law and the power of professionally generated umbrage.
Salt Lake City
Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.