Dale Matson
Townsley Lake Yosemite
Here is a portion of the story by Mark Grossi and Carmen
George excerpted From the December 30th Fresno Bee. http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/30/4308146_historic-yosemite-names-on-negotiating.html?rh=1
Yosemite National Park
will take bids next month on a contract worth nearly $2 billion to run the
Ahwahnee Hotel, Badger Pass Ski Area and other retail outlets, but the
high-stakes jockeying is already happening.
Delaware North
Companies, the park’s concession operator for 21 years, last week announced
that its “intangible” assets — including names, such as the Ahwahnee Hotel —
are worth $51 million. And Delaware North
says that if a new company takes over the Yosemite concession, it’ll have to
pay to use the names.
The National Park
Service says the names of historic hotels and other properties are as much a
part of the park as Half Dome. But to protect other contract bidders from the
added cost, the Park Service is allowing the possibility that names could be
changed. It’s a hedge against a dispute later on, federal officials said.
I am not a lawyer but this seems to me to be overreaching on
the part of DNC. It also appears to me that the Park Service
needs better legal advice when negotiating a contract with vendors. How would
you understand this statement?
“Delaware North’s 1993 contract with the Park Service
required the company to acquire all assets — and to sell them all, if not
chosen for the next contract, Stellmack said. Delaware North said those
purchased assets include the names to the properties.”
What does “acquire all
assets” mean?
It makes sense to me that DNC could and did rename the lodge
in Fish Camp that they purchased from Marriott but they did not purchase any
structures in Yosemite nor did they pay the costs of adding to the existing
infrastructure in Yosemite.
“For now, the Park Service is not directly addressing the
issue over the value of a name, instead focusing on the bids. The contract is
expected to be awarded in mid-2015.”
I believe this is an issue that should be settled before the
Park Service allows any bids. Can you see the potential legal problems with
this strategy? I also believe it is foolish to suggest the possibility that the
names could be changed since the names belong to Yosemite and Yosemite was set
aside for and belongs to us, the citizens of the U.S. You don't have our
permission to change the names.
Will the "Yosemite Park and Curry Company" now retroactively sue both the
Park Service and DNC since they were not reimbursed for “all assets” when they
lost the bid to DNC? This is a no lose situation (financially) for DNC. Even
if they don't get the bid for the Yosemite concessions, they will still claim
they are owed $51 million dollars. The bids will not begin on a level playing
field if DNC does decide to bid since they will not have to front the extra $51
million dollars.
Both the Park Service and DNC need to reconsider their
positions. It looks like the contract extensions for DNC were simply kicking
the can down the road. Extending the contract six years beyond the original
expiration date was unfair to other potential vendors who may have underbid DNC
in 2008.
DNC needs to reconsider their position since much of good business is
good will. DNC is not expressing good will by appearing to make an unreasonable
demand of reimbursement for assets they never produced.
I also see a potential lawsuit coming from the Sierra Club
since the idea of vendors and vending machines in Yosemite is not something
they embrace anyway. This conflict would be the perfect time for them to make a point. I hope not. I hope they would offer constructive feedback also.