Canyons golf course still in sand trap - The Park Record

This article says that Griswold refuted (i.e. proved false) the claims that he has failed to convey land and easements he agreed to provide for the golf course. If he was actually able to prove these claims false, could the Park Record please provide information on the evidence he presented that refuted the claims? I thought the claims were still disputed - so where's the proof that they are false?

This is such a poorly written article that there is no way to even conclude whether any progress was even made. It seems that the reporter here has an agenda. I wish someone who does not seem to be hoping for the golf course to fail could give us the strait, unbiased version of what is happening.

Why is it that anyone that does business with Griswold winds up in court? He is the kiss of death to any restaurant in his building. He has been in court with the Canyons project since day one. Who would be so stupid as to do business with him?

And the beat goes on...

GSO - "I wish someone who does not seem to be hoping for the golf course to fail could give us the strait, unbiased version of what is happening."

The strait, unbiased version is the same as it ever was. Griswold will never give the land he promised. He is the reason, the only reason, the golf course is not finished. Did you notice that his attorney won't answer the county attorney's direct question why Griswold won't give the land he agreed to under contract. And you have to ask? Who cares what Kenny's opinion is of the golf course design - the design is not up to him - it's not his business.

Maybe the real reason the golf course is not built is that The Canyons Ski Patrol is understaffed and untrained. Oh, sorry. That was his last unhinged excuse and diversion from his responsibilities.

What a kook.

Mountain Local wrote:

GSO - "I wish someone who does not seem to be hoping for the golf course to fail could give us the strait, unbiased version of what is happening."

The strait, unbiased version is the same as it ever was blah, blah, blah.

Mountain Local, you are neither unbiased nor straight. Were you in the 6 hour hearing? If not, then you are likely an ASC plant trying to throw a red herring on the trail of what is really going on here. If you were at the hearing would know:

1. Griswold settled with the county in 2006, then the land went to the golf company. Griswold's suit is just to return the land to the county.

2. Even though Griswold has donated his land, several other land owners haven't even taken that step.

3. Peters' comment about mediation had to do with accelerating the land to the county and accelerating the performance required by ASC on the golf course.

4. ASC filed for dissolution, wiped out its entire shareholder base and had no money to develop a kids miniature putt putt course let alone a 71 hole resort quality course.

5. ASC then sells to equally broke Bistricier who had to borrow $71M @ 15% interest on a note that is due in 9 months. Now we have gone from the frying pan to the fire.

6. Neither ASC nor Bistricier have the money to build the course. That is what this is all about.

So there you have the straight scoop. You're welcome.

Kenny Griswold has proven that he will do anything to stall and deflect it is time that someone made him personally accountable for his actions. This article does not specify if he was at the meeting but sending his attorney to not answer questions is not acceptable.

Storm Trooper - Ah Jeez, that's just knee slappin' funny. Your response and Kenny's entire business enterprise is built upon "throwing red herrings."

I'm sorry, but did you say that Kenny has given the easements/road access that the other landowners were promised in order to build the golf course? Perhaps another description of your non-response would be – throwing red herrings?

From the article - "Because he is currently litigating against Summit County, Wolf Mountain Resorts attorney Paul Peters said he refused to answer many questions in a testy exchange with deputy Summit County attorney David Thomas and interim Summit County Manager Brian Bellamy.
What may be preventing the start of golf course construction is conveyance of a land easement by Wolf Mountain in the West Willow Draw area of The Canyons.
"What's holding that up?" Bellamy asked Peters.
Peters replied: "I believe a mediation between the county and Wolf Mountain would be a good start."

“But finding financing to complete an 18-hole course will be difficult without all the land, Guetschow (RVMA exec. Director) said, adding that Wolf Mountain Resorts is the only entity that has not met its contractual obligations.”

Perhaps Guetschow, Bellamy and Thomas are ASC “plants?”

1. During Griswold’s presentation, did he or did he not say he provided the promised easements/road access to the other landowners? Why would the other landowners give their land without the promised access?

2. Why would Guetschow say that Wolf/Kenny is “the only entity that has not met its contractual obligations”?

3. How do you know if Talisker/Bistricier is broke? Or of his intentions to build or not to build the golf course? Or the structure of Bistricier’s loan agreements?

4. If #3 is pertinent – Then is Griswold broke? Who really owns that land? What do Griswold’s loan agreements look like?

5. News flash! ASC no longer owns The Canyons. Kenny’s griping about ASC is no longer relevant. Talisker owns The Canyons.

It doesn’t take a “plant” to wonder about the obvious. In my last post I didn’t mean to get under your skin but was expressing my opinion gleaned from the article, which was the non-responsiveness of Griswold and his attorney, Peters.

But I can see, as a Griswold ‘plant’, your lawyerly opinion is quite biased. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what the County decides.

the postings on this article are rather interesting. I would not be surprised to see them subpoenaed. Guess then we will know who is full of dooky.

What's amazing is we are all trying to figure out what went on at that hearing. When will the Park Record write an unbiased, comprehensible article that gives us the complete story without forcing the reader to read between the lines? Come on Park Record - a twelve year old could give us the story better!

Mountain Local wrote:

1. During Griswold’s presentation, did he or did he not say he provided the promised easements/road access to the other landowners? Why would the other landowners give their land without the promised access?
2. Why would Guetschow say that Wolf/Kenny is “the only entity that has not met its contractual obligations”?
3. How do you know if Talisker/Bistricier is broke? Or of his intentions to build or not to build the golf course? Or the structure of Bistricier’s loan agreements?
4. If #3 is pertinent – Then is Griswold broke? Who really owns that land? What do Griswold’s loan agreements look like?
5. News flash! ASC no longer owns The Canyons.

Mountain Local,
Again, if you were at the hearing, you would have a much different perspective than your post implies. What I will give you is that the story was incomplete as to the facts that emerged from the hearing. Let's go back to the hearing again and set the record straight.

1. Kenny deeded the land per the original agreement in 2006 to the County who then gave it to the golf company. The golf company then changed the plans and required Griswold to deed property that was never part of the original agreement. As I understand it, Peters/Griswold's comment re: mediation implied that they were ready to work things out even though they were putting demands on them that were never agreed to.

2. This one is easy. Who is Guetschow and who controls them? They have obvious interests conflicting Griswold.

3. Talisker's loan agreements are the subject of public record. Bistricier's financial woes are well documented in the many court cases in which he is involved. Have you checked out the state of Tuhaye? Have you ever read the 8 claims that Vail has against Talisker/Bistricier and his fraud partner Mark Robbins. Those claims are well advanced and include a constructive trust on the ski operations.

4. Griswold owns the Wolf land. When you own land, you don't have loan agreements that you have to service, as I understand the world of finance.

5. Bzzzzz. Wrong again. ASC is the guarantor. If Talisker doesn't come up with the dough by March 2010, guess who is responsible for the ski operations? ASC, unless of course, by then Vail has perfected its constructive trust against ASC. That would actually be a pretty cool outcome to this whole soap opera.

Griswold didn't hide behind anybody at this hearing. To the contrary, he was front and center and appeared to me to be a stand up guy. I'm not a plant. I'm not an attorney. But I am biased. My bias is: I want to see The Canyons become the world class resort that it has the potential to be. Hopefully, for the good of all of us in Park City, this Canyons project can get on back on track again... soon.

GSO wrote:

What's amazing is we are all trying to figure out what went on at that hearing. When will the Park Record write an unbiased, comprehensible article that gives us the complete story without forcing the reader to read between the lines? Come on Park Record - a twelve year old could give us the story better!

+1.

Storm Patrol said- "My bias is: I want to see The Canyons become the world class resort that it has the potential to be. Hopefully, for the good of all of us in Park City, this Canyons project can get on back on track again... soon."

As someone who also cares about the community, I agree with you on that point. I also agree with what GSO wrote and you highlighted.

Unfortunately, Griswold has a very spotty record in this town. Most of his supporters I've come across are sycophants. Griswold's self-serving comments after last years in-bounds avalanche showed his true colors. His comments about Ski Patrol training and staffing on the day of the tragedy were beyond bad form and were out and out lies. Talk to the Patrollers and see what I mean. His fabrication, at the expense of the Ski Patrollers, was made to further his propaganda/litigation war with The Canyons and were totally out of place. So most of what comes out of his mouth, in my opinion, is drivel. That is my bias.

That being said.

1. From what I was told from others at the meeting - he is the only landowner holding this process back. I think the other landowners and the public deserve to know what credible reason he has for not providing road access - which is quite different from his opinion on whether there is a world class design or not. At some point I'm guessing we'll hear the County's opinion on it.
2. True. But are you saying their opinion doesn't' count or is not valid? I'd like to know why they are they against Griswold.
3. Again, how do you know Talisker's intention or ability to perform? If you are accurate concerning his loan I'm not sure you can project that Talisker is broke. I've heard no proof of this and it seems this line of Griswold's has always been a stretch. Ditto on the Vail angle. It's just my opinion, but I can smell Griswold's hand in obfuscating the facts on this one. Time will tell.
4. How do you know this? I own my home but still have a loan - so? More to the point, as I understand finance, just because I say I own land doesn't mean others are not involved or in Talisker's case, that I can't change the terms of my loan, change banks, or finance it all myself.
5. My understanding is that ASC is gone. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm sure someone holds the note, and I doubt they couldn't come to terms with Talisker. But in the case of a default you could be right and another operator may come into the picture. I'm just not sure Disney/Vail would be a desired fit for The Canyons or the community.

My final take is if this subject had better reporting and one had less of a need to read between the lines we would have much more with which to agree. In the end, I hope that becomes the case. Anyway, thanks for the joust.

Pat Parkinson is a joke. he completely mis-quoted people. The guy from Talisker didn't say anything about Kenny - didn't even mention his name. I was specifically waiting to see if Talisker's rep would say anything about Kenny and he didn't. Not only can we not get the real story from the Park Record, the "journalists", and I use that term loosely, have no respect for the sanctity of people's words. Good thing there's a public record so if necessary, the real story is available. Irresponsible journalism, as usual.
If it weren't for the 2-for-1 coupons The Park Record would be worthless.

can anything be done to make sure Vail can take over the Canyons?

How can I help?

i never burn bridges, but sometime i blow 'em up.

Chels wrote:

Pat Parkinson is a joke. he completely mis-quoted people. Irresponsible journalism, as usual.
If it weren't for the 2-for-1 coupons The Park Record would be worthless.

I couldn't agree more. Parkinson is a pathetic excuse for a reporter. He usually just writes down what people say and strings their quotes into what the Park Record considers a story. But now he apparently can't even get the quotes right. He STILL has not explained his statement that Griswold refuted the claims against him. Having thought more about it, I believe he may just not know what the word "refute" means. He has no writing skills, a limited vocabulary, and no insight into the situations he reports. We would get more accurate reporting if someone would just leave a tape recorder running and edit the results. And the Park Record recently solicited unpaid interns to come work for the Park Record in order to learn about journalism from the "professionals" - now THAT is funny! ROFL.

A previous post made a good point. If someone really had it in for the Park Record, all it would take to drop circulation by at least 50% is to print 2-for-1 coupons and put them in one of the free magazine racks. I personally would never get a Record if it weren't for the coupons. The 1 or 2 articles a week that are actually worth reading are online anyhow...

What dictionary are you using PC Taxpayer?

mediator wrote:

What dictionary are you using PC Taxpayer?

I use several - OED, Random House, Webster, American Heritage. Why do you ask? If you're looking for a recommendation, I have to say I like OED best - it gives much more in the way of background and variant usage. If you are just looking for the definition of "refute", all of those dictionaries say it means to prove to be false, to prove (a person) to be in error, to disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or countervailing proof. It is sometimes used erroneously by people who don't know the difference to mean "deny", just as some people erroneously use "infer" when they mean "imply". I just wish the Park Record had someone who knew the difference.