Image provided by Wikimedia Commons
Jess Collen, writing for forbes.com, raises an interesting question surrounding the legal battle between PCMR and Talisker Land Holdings. If Vail Resorts does take over the land on which Park City has operated would it still be called Park City?
“That’s where this gets interesting. What if that happened? Would they try to call their part of the resort “Park City?” One side of the equation is that Park City is the name of the town. Calling a resort Park City Ski Area may be something that virtually anybody in town is able to do. They may not be able to use Park City Mountain Resort, but that name (and its abbreviation PCMR) is mostly just known to locals. So, were Vail to prevail in the dispute (the case may be tied up in appeals for a long time) they could try to extend the reach of the Canyons Resort with Park City as a separate mountain, but a connected area.
For the time being, the fact is that the existing Park City Mountain Resort does still own the rights to the land where its base lodge and certain lower mountain areas are located. So they would stay in that business, presuming they could find a way to make it feasible. Logic might dictate that the companies really have to find some realistic settlement to all of this.
But two Park City ski areas? It’s not impossible. If I were to take over new land in Park City, I would be thrilled to be able to use name Park City for the area. Canyonlands, though hardly a “poor stepchild,” is,de facto, the number three player in town behind Park City and the world-famous, deluxe Deer Valley ski area.”
Keep Reading @ Forbes.com