In a strongly worded response to Xanterra Parks & Resort's request for an injunction to remain in business past year's end on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park, lawyers for the National Park Service argue that the concessionaire is trying to thwart competition and feels its history on the rim entitles it to remain there.
Less than three weeks remain until Xanterra's current contract to operate lodging and dining facilities on the South Rim expires, and there is no temporary contract in place to ensure continued operation of the El Tovar Hotel, Bright Angel Lodge, Maswick Lodge, and other lodgings and restaurants beyond New Year's Eve.
On December 16 a U.S. District Court judge in Denver is scheduled to hear arguments over Xanterra's request that the Park Service be barred from closing the South Rim lodging and dining operations on December 31 and allow the concessionaire to remain in business there until a new 15-year contract is awarded.
Doing so, the federal government counters in its 48-page response, would not maintain the "status quo," but rather upset it, cause competitive harm, and prevent the Park Service from making concessions contracts more competitive as Congress directed it to through the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.
"In its Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Xanterra stresses that it has operated at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon for over a century, as though this history constituted an entitlement to continued operations," the government's response reads. "Xanterra has resisted the Park Service's efforts to enhance competition for the South Rim concessions, complaining, for example, that the Park Service's $100 million buy-down of its LSI was 'not requested nor welcomed by Xanterra.'
"In an effort to maintain its advantageous position, Xanterra now seeks a preliminary injunction that would allow it to continue operating nearly all of the South Rim concessions, deprive Delaware North of the benefit of its successful bid for a new contract that includes some concessions that Xanterra now operates, prevent the Park Service from entertaining bids from any competitors, and limiting the terms of a temporary contract to essentially the terms of Xanterra's expiring contract ' all for the duration of this litigation."
The clock is winding down on efforts to keep the El Tovar Hotel open past year's end/Xanterra Parks & Resorts
The standoff between the Park Service and Xanterra has been brewing for more than a year, and has laid open the problem of possessory interest, or "leaseholder surrender interest," in the National Park System. That interest essentially is built up as a concessionaire invests in properties it operates for the Park Service. If a new concessionaire is awarded a contract, it must pay the outgoing concessionaire the amount of LSI it has accumulated.
At the Grand Canyon, Xanterra's LSI was determined in 2013 to stand at $198 million -- "the highest amount associated with a single contract in Park Service history," according to the government's response to Xantera's request for an injunction. Park Service officials viewed that amount as a barrier to other companies that might be interested in operating the South Rim concessions, and a decision was made to 1) break the single concessions contract for the South Rim in two, and 2) buy down Xanterra's LSI by $100 million, a sum 88 park units contributed to earlier this year.
It was in 2013 that the Park Service announced that it would split the single South Rim contract into two, and both Xanterra and Delaware North bid on the smaller of the two. This past August the Park Service announced that it was awarding the contract to Delaware North. That left the larger contract, known as the "001 Contract," up in the air. That contract had been extended three times to Xanterra after the initial contract expired. The third extension, which runs out this Dec. 31, is the last one allowed by law.
It's the contractual expiration of the 001 contract that is the "status quo," the government argues, not Xanterra's right to continue to run the concessions. If the court grants the injunction, it would go against the status quo, the government contends. Granting of an injunction also would deny Delaware North the contract it rightfully won for the other concessions on the South Rim, the motion argues.
"...Xanterra fails to show that it will suffer irreparable harm because of any actions by the Park Service. Instead, the alleged harms are the result of the expiration of Xanterra's existing contract (which has already been extended for the maximum period allowed by law) and its failure to be the successful bidder on one of the new contracts," the motion reads. " In addition, the balance of equities favors the Park Service. In contrast to Xanterra, whose alleged injuries are not traceable to any NPS action and are therefore illusory, an injunction would prevent the Park Service from exercising its lawful authority to execute a contract with Delaware North.
"In the larger scheme, it would also thwart the goal of fostering competition among prospective concessioners, and would introduce uncertainty into the concession contracting process going forward. Moreover, an injunction would be adverse to the public interest, because it would stymie the competitive process that helps ensure satisfactory service to Park visitors and a fair return to taxpayers."
Park officials did not respond Thursday to an inquiry into whether they have a plan for managing South Rim concessions if the injunction is denied and if a temporary 1-year contract is not awarded. However, in the government's response park officials said they were working hard to negotiate a temporary agreement. Too, they denied that visitors to the park would be greatly impacted if there's a lapse in hotel and restaurant operations.
"Even in the unlikely event that the Park Service is unable to enter into a temporary contract to address the services covered by the 001 Prospectus before the existing contract expires on December 31, 2014, the Park itself will remain open to day visitors and tent campers, and the concessions under the new 003 (Delaware North) Contract would be available, including an RV campground," the motion notes.
"Visitors may be inconvenienced by restaurant and other closures, but only a small minority will have planned to stay in concessioner lodging, and given the time of year, they will doubtless be able to find accommodations nearby. Nonetheless, even a short interruption of some services in the Park is not a desirable outcome, and NPS is working hard to prevent this. However, it is not in the public interest to keep all of the South Rim concessions open at any cost."
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I've lived and worked in Grand Canyon National Park for nearly 20 years now, and have not seen anything nearly as heartless and absurd as the behavior of NPS regarding this contract. It is truly shameful that they have no regard for the lives they are affecting with this decision.
To my knowledge, not one person from NPS has been willing to look in the eye a single individual and explain to them why they think that they do not deserve to live in respectable housing, or why they believe those individuals deserve to be out of work. Many people here are anxious- some to the point of being ill. I've struggled with my own emotions as my own home is one that has been designated to the other concessionaire, which can't assure me if I worked them that I would be entitled to it. Yet, we still have to smile and pretend all is right with the world for our guests. Morale is incredibly low.
NPS claims that Xanterra is trying to block competition. If their solution is so good, then why are there not multiple bidders for this contract? Why is there a danger of services closing down the first of the year?
What business is going to be able to profit with NPS demands for such a large portion of receipts? Where are they going to find employees willing to work for them when they will not be able to offer a decent place to live? NPS's solution to have people live outside the park is simply not feasible. The small community just outside has it's own water shortage situation, and the nearest sizable community is 70 miles away. Rents in Flagstaff are simply outrageous, and travel in winter would be hazardous, and endanger lives. This crisis, which is a major portion of Xanterra's case, will be a problem for any concessionaire that takes over the contract. This circumstance is one of Xanterra's primary reasons for the lawsuit. (The homes lost in the contract process belong to families, and/or people who have been in the park many years.)
Furthermore, NPS is being heartless to both their own employees and the general public.Their investment of 100 million dollars in the park comes at quite a price. Their own employees have been told to expect layoffs, lack of seasonal hiring, etc. Programs to cut include children's programs, parking lot lighting, and preventative search and rescue. A water pipeline in dire need of replacement will continue to break, and the breaks will only get worse. If there is no water, the park would be forced to close, and that entire investment would go to waste.
As it is, NPS law enforcement does not operate 24/7. If my understanding is correct, this is due to budget. Need a law enforcement officer, or having a medical emergency at 2 A.M.? Better hope it's not too bad. We have to drag someone out of their nice, warm home. Not always an easy task. Excuses are abundant for not providing services at that hour. I can't imagine another community where law enforcement goes home and goes to bed!
(And yet Congress wants to create 7 new national parks? Where are they coming up with the money for that?)
Do I think Xanterra is perfect? Absolutely not. I do believe their brand and business model could stand a major overhaul. (That might be a bit easier if NPS weren't so controlling!) But is the solution to create an unfeasible business contract? Is it to tell hundreds of employees (without ever even facing them) that they no longer have homes and or jobs? Is the solution to enter into an unprofitable contract? Or for NPS to rob the parks of many of their treasured programs, and make cuts to those things that ensure guest safety? This does not seem logical.
I think the public deserves better than this. I think people that have dedicated their lives to this park deserve better. I've been here 20 years, and have never been so frightened! I think NPS's own employees deserve better.
NPS, Mr. Jarvis, Mr. Uberuaga, these are real lives you are affecting here!
As a 25 year resident of the grand canyon village I have seen many changes to the park.
This latest fiasco is but another of many.
The dis-mantling of the village has long been a goal here by the nature Nazis of the NPS. Now with their ax man in place, having freshly broken up those pesky
concessionaires at Mount Ranier, let the games begin.
The new visitor center is in place. It is a fine transportation hub with a movie and 2 story outhouses with no money spared to become complete. A true "vision to
the future". I have a vision of removing the village and hotels and restaurants in order to replicate this fine facility with a movie of the canyon and 2 story
outhouses and fine transportation to keep the visitor safely behind glass. There will be no loss of experiencing this park to the visitor who has an rv or a tent,
as the snow plows will keep your nature experience in tact. Bring 3 shovels you must. One for the snow, one for the campfire and a great big one for the crap being
spewed out by the NPS.
This sums it up pretty well. As a Xanterra employee here I can agree with what he says.
The above comment offers some important insights into behind the scenes issues that are "invisible" to park visitors, but which are very real to both concession and NPS employees.
Thank you for a well-written and heartfelt letter that deserves careful consideration.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the new business model throughout too much of America these days both inside and outside of gvvernment. Welcome to America's future middle class.
I still question, however, how much of the blame for this situation lies at the feet of either the NPS managers in GRCA or WASO and how much can be traced directly back to Congress.
Lee, you keep accusing congress yet you haven't once provided one example of how Congressional medling is involved or the cause of the problem. Sounds like empty accusations to me.
Let us not forget the deeper issue. When the National Park Service and/or its concessionaires start describing a national park in terms of a city, do you really have a national park in the first place? Is a national park supposed to be sprinkled with "villages" requiring so many resident "services?"
Once you allow that level of development, all bets are off. Employees will be subject to furlough just like in a city, and yes, some might lose their homes.
I sympathize, but the point remains. The model for a national park is all wrong. The South Rim is horribly overdeveloped in the interest of providing many things having nothing to do with preservation. And now there is the wind farm between Williams and the South Rim reminding us what global warming portends. Less development? No, even more of it. We Americans just can't get enough of the argument that we need more jobs and growth.
In that case, bring in the lawyers. As John Muir said, they are the last to divide up the spoils. But don't make this a victim issue. The only victim here is the park--what it was supposed to be and then never became once the developers got control of it.
Ya, get rid of all those dispicable Mary Jane Elizabeth Colter eyesores throughout the Park via the Fred Harvey Company. Kolb Studio and any reference to those rascally brothers that have so demeaned your utopian wilderness with no mention or connection to humanity and our history that deserves to be preserved and not just guided by pop culture emotion. Don't forget the El Tovar. I can hear the screams of "No, not the El Tovar" by the elites throughout NPS and partners. Ya, go for it.
ec - re: Lee's question about how much of this problem "can be traced directly back to Congress...."
An earlier story on this topic in the Traveler noted, "Sixteen years ago Congress, through its Concessions Management Improvement Act, basically handed the Park Service the tab for repaying concessionaires for the improvements they had made by requiring the agency to advertise concession contracts for open competition for the first time."
A second recent story noted, "....the predicament... can be traced to both the Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 and the somewhat limited number of concessionaires capable of managing operations as large as those in the Grand Canyon."
I don't have the time to try to analyze this Act or it's implications, but it seems possible this is at least part of the explanation for how the park got into the current problem.
The debate about how much development is appropriate for places like the South Rim will go on as long as there's a park there. I suspect most people would agree a view of the Grand Canyon is worth experiencing; if so, given the distance from the nearest towns of Williams and Flagstaff, and the limits placed by the lack of water on development closer to but outside the park, the challenge is how to accommodate visitors - and employees - at this park.
I've been fortunate to see the canyon a number of times, and due to the angle of the sun, the view is definitely at its best early and late in the day. Should we remove development from the S. Rim and either deprive visitors the chance to enjoy that experience, or tell them it's okay to enjoy the sunset, but then count on a 90 minute drive or more back to their room in Flagstaff?
In parks like Grand Teton, Great Smokies and Rocky Mountain, it's easy to put most of the "tourist development" outside the park. At Grand Canyon, the situation is a lot more difficult.
It is not difficult. The Europeans do it all the time. But then, they have first-class rail passenger service, both heavy and light rail. We Americans are the only ones always talking about the "drive."
And no, trailadvocate, we're not talking about the great cutlural resources that, yes, were built when the Santa Fe Railway "filtered" visitation to the rim. We are talking about the "drive" and our perpetual love affair with cars.
This is to expain why all of our hand-wringing about global warming is pointless, too. We just won't give up how much we love spreading asphalt in the name of "convenience." And now the Indians want to spread even more of it while building their cable car down to the river. Next up? Grand Canyon Casino? Count on it, because that is the real debate that no one wishes to address.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." (Pogo, 1969) It is all about me, me, me. Mary Jane Colter? None of us would want her designing the Grand Canyon today, because yes, she would be in favor of limiting cars and protecting silence. She would be in favor of art over spreading asphalt. Long ago, our nation fired the likes of her.
Alfred, you are the voice of reason here. I do think limiting development, even if it means tearing down all the "amentities on the South Rim" is what should happen, but unfortunately it won't happen. A high speed rail from phoenix to the canyon rim sounds sane as well. But, once again, this is America. We can be 20 steps behind other countries.
Jim,I think it is a good idea that the consessions be opened to competition. It seems more an implementation issue than Congressional mandate that is the problem - i.e. creating too high a LSI.
Actually, Gary, history is the true voice of reason. All of this we once had and threw away, including the commitment to slowing down that is necessary to making preservation through public transportation work. Years ago, I was a consultant to the Grand Canyon Railway on expanding light-rail services to South Rim. That is a strory for another day. Suffice it to say that the biggest opponent to the plan was TIME, as in not having enough of it, or making enough of it, work for preservation. All of the arguments came down to time--from the Park Service, from Xanterra, from the bus companies, from Tusayan, etc., etc., etc. If people can't see the Grand Canyon IN A DAY, and in their cars, most visitors just won't come.
And so you (and I) are forced to use terms like high-speed rail. Again, what's the hurry? How did we ever let ourselves--and our national parks--get boxed into the argument that speed is the be-all and end-all of life in the United States? One day "time" will run out for all of us. I wonder then how we'll think about "speed."
LOL
That is why everyone is flocking to "other countries".
Our existing passanger train systems can't exist even in high density areas without massive subsidies. We don't need more of these money pits.
BTW Roger - have you been to Maui lately. They have taken a magnificant island and ruined the view for at least half of it with a wind farm up the spine of West Maui Mountain. Talk about eyesores. A local said they were promised 15% reductions in energy costs - surprise, surprise, it never heppend.
It's a good question. I wonder if it has anything to do with the steady decline over the past few decades in the amount of vacation time for Americans.
Alfred - You make some good points, and I fully agree it's a shame for people to try to "see" the Grand Canyon in a day ... or less. However, if they're to have the chance to be there overnight, and experience those sunset and sunrise moments, and others in between, the reality is they have to have a place to sleep that's a lot closer than Flagstaff, etc. - and most of them won't be camping these days. Yes, the amount and location of development on the S. Rim isn't ideal, and if we were starting from scratch it could be done much better. However, tossing it all out isn't the answer - and the current system of concessioner contracts is certainly not working either. It's a complex problem.
EC, your opinion tends to conclude that our highway system fixes itself and doesn't require repairs and subsidies. I think it would be very smart to have a rail system between certain corridors in this country. One such corridor that goes from Phoenix to Vegas would be smart. LA to Vegas has been in the works for a while now, and it probably will occur in a decade or so. Anyone that has ever driven between LA and LV during a friday night or sunday afternoon would understand the need to create a high speed rail link.
And from this map, people just don't migrate to the US. Once again, self-awareness is a special thing. Get some'.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/how-not-to-desi...
Alfred-
Really? You are playing into the stereotype of environmentalists and wilderness advocates as fundamentalists who are indifferent to humans. The South Rim is certainly badly overdeveloped, but that isn't what is at issue here. There are a bunch of people about to lose their jobs and housing, they'll have to pull their kids out of school and leave town. If they were in this situation due to a proposal to remove some of the development, that would be one thing, a hard situation but needed in the long run. But that isn't the case. They are in this situation simply because a bunch of highly paid bureaucrats and managers appear to be failing at their jobs. Come the new year, the failures will still be employed no matter what, and the working people will be packing up to leave. We should all be able to spare some empathy for them, and disgust for the people who are screwing up. It is possible to care about both the park and the people who work there.
Gary - our highway system is not subsidized. It is payed for by gasoline taxes paid by those that drive on the highways and by car registration fees and taxes. There is some cross state subsidization as states like Colorado pay more into the system then they get back and other pay less. Ergo here in Colorado, more than 100% of our state and federal highways are paid by the users and there are no subsidies by non-users. Once again you pontificate upon a subject that you apparently have little knowledge of other than the false talking points the anti-oil crowd dispenses.
Just to add something that most would probably think not possible, we're headed, I believe, in that direction right now, incrementally. Certainly a break from the thread here but in the big picture.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/a-greek-island--yours-for...
"nature Nazis of the NPS"
Welcome to the discussion. That's a fine, level handed way of entering the discourse.
Ah, once again, Rick goes on the personal attack rather than address the issues presented.
EC,
I wasn't aware that we had to pay a toll for every federal or state highway we use. Am I supposed to be paying a toll that i'm currently neglecting?
Personally, I think anyone that thinks they are entitled to live within a national park is missing the point of the organic act. You shouldn't expect to ever have a permanent residence there, and that goes for even superintendents.
Well, Gary, that is better than "off the hook crazy." Yes, nobody should expect to stay in employee housing if they stop working. But in the meantime, people work for decades, raise their kids in employee housing, live their lives in these little park towns. As long as they are doing their job well, they have every right to be angry if they lose their job, and the housing that comes with it, to somebody else's mistakes. Remote western parks have some of the last company towns in this country. The power that gives management over workers' lives is unnavoidable, and people need to understand that when they go into that line of work. But it is still reasonable to expect management to do their jobs well, and to be angry when they don't.
Sorry, but you shouldn't expect to always have a house and home in a National Park landscape. I see it like renting. You live there, but once your lease runs out, you don't exactly have the upper hand. You don't own the house in which you reside. I'm not exactly a fan of the system that is setup in the Grand Canyon either, the more I see what is happening there. Call me a "nature nazi" but I dont think villages should be built in a national park to support hotels, restaurants and gas stations to increase tourism. I guess, i'm used to the "old school west" where you bring your own water and food.
Gary, try reading:
" It is payed for by gasoline taxes paid by those that drive on the highways and by car registration fees and taxes."
Noone said anything about tolls (though they do contribute). Now if you have a way to buy gas without paying a tax, let us know.
Gary-
Do you think the parks should be run entirely by transient staff, who get out when they want a family, or when some manager decides they'd rather have different transients? How long should a good employee expect to be able to stay? 6 months? 2 years? 5? Does your place of work get rid of good employees, or encourage them to stay? You do know that there are skilled tasks that need to be done in parks, right? That some familiarity with the park on the part of its employees is a good thing? Do you want to be drinking water that is treated by a revolving door of people who may or may not understand the system? If you were lost, would you want the people looking for you to be fresh in from some other park 1000 miles away? Even basic service jobs are better done by a stable workforce. To be hostile to peoples' desire for some small amount of job security just because they work in a park is a little bit odd to me (I won't say off the hook crazy).
I have a family, and I work in a NP, and view myself as a transient, even if i've been at the job for a little more than a few years. At any time something can shift and change, and which point i'll move on and adapt. All jobs are transient, and to think that a life time long term position should be granted to restaurant and hotel employees is not exactly a smart managerial decision.
I get that the Grand Canyon has water issues, and that developing towns and cities to support the infrastructure is not exactly feasible. But on the same token, I would like national parks to remain more off the grid, than on them. That's why they are special places, and if anyone hikes more than 10 miles off into the canyon, they should know what they are getting into, and not need to rely on a xantera employee for expertise.
Anytime I ever go into the desert, I carry my own water and food. It' just how I operate. It's nice that those amentities can be there, but it's not a necessity.
No, lifelong jobs shouldn't be granted to anyone. I don't think anyone said that, I know I didn't. There is a middle ground between jobs for life and complete chaos. The lifelong jobs are one of the biggest problems within the NPS. But clearing a bunch of people out at random, or because their boss didn't get their own job done, is an even worse management decision. If people are doing their job well, you keep them. If they aren't, you get rid of them. They are going to have concession workers at the Grand Canyon eventually. This is just people playing chicken. If they have some massive turnover because NPS and Xanterra management didn't do their jobs and come to an agreement, why should the people displaced by it not be angry?
'Pariah of the park' is mistaken. Dave Uberuaga did not break "up those pesky concessionaires at Mount Ranier..." He oversaw the park's plan to divide the former monopoly Rainier climbing guide concession held by RMI into equal thirds. When the dust cleared, RMI's share was increased to half, with the remainder split between two new concessionaires. The fact that Uberuaga sold his house to the owner of RMI for three times its value and lied about the transaction to investigators led the Inspector General's office to recommend him to the Department of Justice for prosecution:
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2011/10/former-rainier-park-chief-under...
A person of such questionable integrity should have been retired at the very least, instead of promoted to where he could cause the current mess. This makes Director Jarvis look to be lacking in integrity as well, especially considering his brother was a lobbyist for other Grand Canyon concessionaires.
re: "I believe Xanterra is in the transient employee business. All employees below Director and manager status are looked on as transient employees." That may be the way top management looks at it, and that's probably not unreasonable for employees like the entry level housekeeping and food service staff, but the reality for any organization the size of this one is that there is a great need for experience, skills and institutional knowledge at supervisory levels and sometimes the "worker bee level."
Example: maintenance functions (HVAC, electrical, plumbing, etc) in large structures are always subject to quirks, and even something as basic as knowing where shutoff valves and circuit breakers are located isn't learned overnight. Those concerns are complicated in old buildings such as the El Tovar hotel, where systems have undergone numerous changes over the years.
If I were taking one of the mule rides into the canyon, I'd certainly not want a "transient" wrangler in charge of the animals or the tourists. Plenty of other examples, but in order to run a quality operation that's as broad in scope as those at Grand Canyon, you've got to have experienced employees at many levels. If these employees are given the boot, it will be very hard to replace that knowledge by hiring off the street.
I have no personal insights into the contract questions, but it sound as if both NPS and company management have handled this situation very poorly.
Given the lack of takers for a new contract, the NPS should have gone ahead with an extension of the existing one, to allow everyone time to regroup.
Let us all take a closer look at what is being said here:
“...lawyers for the NPS argue...concessionaire...trying to thwart competition and (feels entitled) to remain there.” - The actuality is that all National Parks put their contracts up for bids every few years. This is standard procedure and the GC is no exception. The only difference is is that the grandfather company of Xanterra, the Fred Harvey company, was here long before this was a National Park and put in a lot of the historic buildings that make up the history of the GC. Whoever takes over the bid has to pay for them and no one wants to. Also, with the new bidder must pay the NPS a much larger chunk of the proceeds from sales than Xanterra has in the past which is intimidating to new bidders.
“...there is no temporary contract....” - There was; the NPS just yanked it out when Xanterra sued them.
“...the Park Services $100 million buy-down....not welcomed by Xanterra.” - That is because the amount was $157 million (the article states $198 million. Which amount is accurate is somewhere in their paperwork). The GC came up with the $100 by borrowing it from other National Parks who in turned raised their rates and the GC itself also raised its taxes and entrance fees (in other words YOU are paying for this whole situation). The main purpose of the buy out appears to be that the NPS does not having to share control of the Park with any other entity than its authoritarian self and does not like the clout that Xanterra has from owning the historic buildings and railroad. The reason for the Parks buyout in the first place is that no one else wanted to put forth that much money to take over the concessionaire.
“In an effort to maintain its advantageous position...” - Advantageous? In the deal with Delaware North the Park Service took away critical employee housing from Xanterra, the more populous concessionaire and gave it to themselves (they kept the nicest apartments at the Desert View site for their Rangers) and to Delaware North which, if imposed in the middle of winter, would leave many Xanterra employees out on the street, in unheated cabins or having to double up in already crowded facilities. It is more like the Park is playing favorites.
“Xanterra fails to show that it will suffer irreparable harm...” - Hundreds of employees thrown out of work and their homes during the Christmas Holidays in a remote area of the country, many of whom do not have transportation is not 'irreparable harm'? Losing the framework between t he major hotels, restaurants, train, tour buses, mule rides and information center of the whole South Rim of the Canyon is not 'irreparable harm?” Shall we let the whole thing collapse and see if the NPS and all the rest of the people involved in the Park do not also suffer 'irreparable harm'?
“...the expiration of Xanterra's contract...which has already been extended...maximum period allowed...” - That is because no other concessionaire would step up to take over the contract. The Park would have essentially shut down had Xanterra not stayed.
“...alleged injuries are not traceable to any NPS action...” - Does constantly limiting Xanterra and other Canyon businesses in many ways not have something to do with it? Outmoded streets not wide enough for buses, lack of sidewalks in major areas endangering pedestrians, unclear signage confusing already lost drivers, lack of restrooms in areas heavily visited by guests, refusal to update facilities for a growing number of visitors (we get 5 million a year now) while at the same time wanting the revenue thereof, inadequate lighting in crucial areas endangering guests and drivers, not allowing the building of facilitates to house the employees needed to run the Park (the same is a chronic problem at most National Parks) to name some of the short-comings.
“...they denied that visitors...would be greatly impacted....” - Hmm.... Hermits Rest shut down, no taxi's, no tour buses to the extreme west and east parts of the park, limited transport to the airport and the nearest town Tusayan, no historic mules rides in the Park, no daily train bringing guests from the transportation hub Williams, no restaurants and hotels except one that normally closes down for winter, no repair service for broken down guest's autos, no fire and safety, no security. OK, if you say so...........
It definitely took lawyers to come up with these complaints, or shall I say taxpayer-funded highly paid piranha who don't give a hoot what the real truths of the matter are. Here is what is apparently at the root of the whole problem:
Xanterra, the offspring of the Fred Harvey Company that began business at the Canyon DECADES before it was made into a National Park and instituted the majority of the historic businesses, sites, roads, trails and other attractions at the Canyon, owns the majority of what makes the GC what it is. The NPS is known for liking to have an authoritarian hand over its parks and does not like having to answer to anyone else, especially concessionaires. It looks like the Park would like to be rid of Xanterra because of its clout and influence on GC affairs and replace it with a number of smaller concessionaires who would be more malleable to its rule. In ousting Xanterra the Park has shown amazing coldness for an organization that prides itself on being the visiting public's 'friend in green'. At the very first hearing on the transfer of concessionship the Park took away a huge amount of Xanterras housing (which was already crowded) and gave to to the much smaller concessionaire. When Xanterra commented that this was not enough space to house their people the Park's literal answer in so many words was “That's your problem.”.
This won't be the first time the Park has kicked a grandfathered group out of its boundaries. In the early 1900's they evicted the Havasupai Natives out of Indian Gardens, a major hiking destination, an oasis in the midst of the barren inner desert and one of the few populated areas down inside the Canyon. The Havasupai had been living there for hundreds of years before the new landlord showed up. They also had to pack up and move on- no questions asked and no rebuttals tolerated.
Roger, re LSI figures, the Park Service and Xanterra agreed on a figure of $198 million. Under the new Delaware North contract for South Rim operations, that concessionaire agreed to pay Xanterra $41 million. The NPS buy-down of $100 million left a balance of $57 million, which Xanterra would be owed if a different concessionaire landed the outstanding South Rim contract.
As to whether Fred Harvey was operating for "decades" before the Grand Canyon became a park, that can be debated I'm sure. The El Tovar was built in 1905, Phantom Ranch in 1922. Grand Canyon National Monument was established in 1908, and it was redesignated a national park in 1919.
Also, the Railway came to the South Rim in 1901. There is such a rich Fred Harvey History at South Rim and the Southwest a "Retro-Branding" change in name and action from Xanterra to the original Fred Harvey would be welcomed by many, I believe.
And therein lies the root of the whole problem. The properties aren't worth $198 million.
ec, they very well might just be worth the figure. Most all of the Historic Village including El Tovar and Hopi House, Hermit's Rest, Phantom Ranch, Desert View Watchtower property and facilities plus housing. With a guaranteed 4+ million visitors a year it could well be worth more but that's what the holdings were agreed to after the appraisal.
I had stay brief and general befor and will need to do so here as well. If the canyon view visitor center has no view, if the new train station hub has no train, if the new recycling plant never put a chard of glass back, if the roads get moved befor ever opening up while others fill with debri at the slightest downpour...Then welcome to your NPS dollars at work. They will even feel like the true protecters of the park when you get service concessions without a concessionare.
If noone is willing to step up and pay the price, they aren't worth the figure.
Who in the world would do that? Pay for buildings and then not own them?
Exactly, Ec.
Within the last couple of years, NPS built a nice new townhouse complex for THEIR employees. Clearly, development is not the issue at hand when it is beneficial to their cause. If my understanding is correct, many of these townhouses sit empty. Why not share?
Well now, the private sector is just not pure enough in their altruism some would guess. Improvement in attitudes in both NPS and Xanterra would elevate everyone (a rising tide elevates all boats:). NPS doesn't have the will or the expertise to do what concessions do to accomodate the tax payers and internationals that come to the parks some might also surmise.
just,
NPS paid $8.1M for eight 8-plex apartment buildings that were finished in 2011(see pg 8). Note what the previous GC Superintendent said about housing being good for employee morale, recruitment and retention.
http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/GRCARptFinal20101223.pdf
Sara, yes, there was much done during the previous Superintendent's term to close out his career before retiring. Some enterprises were not of his choosing (desire) refering to Supai. Others were achieved via his distaste for history and the contributions by Mules to Canyon History and real Canyon experiences for those that were not able physically to experience the Inner Canyon any other way but by Mules. It is interesting that now several restrooms in the Inner Canyon are now handicapped accessable but there is a problem of getting the handicapped to them. It all sounds very glorious and I agree there were some very good accomplishments achieved but I see in places the previous Superintendent's most cherished accomplishment was vastly reducing mule rides in the Canyon (scrubbed from many news sites) and replacing most of the numbers with a ride by the sewer plant and along the sewer effluent to a site accross the road from the Abyss where they could walk accross the road avoiding tour bus and car traffic to view the Canyon for a few minutes and then return through the pine trees. Such was the respect your prince of the environment had for the huge history mules have had to the Canyon and the experience for around a milliion riders have had, sound and handicapped. Putting their trust in something other than their own two feet, transformational and for some unimaginable until they experienced it. The Kolb's history with the Mules. The Trail Crews over the years. It's endless what they have contributed. Completely ignoring and refusing to even recognize the Centennial Anniversary of the rides at the Canyon. Giving the public a sewer plant adventure is what he thought of real history and the padding of his resume going into retirement to please environmental groups and his future in politics.
A note on the 8-plexes, I know some that have requested historic housing over the very modern new additions. The accomplishments of the previous Superintendent were a mixed blessing at best particularly when considering his and his wife's involvement with the Hubbell Trading Post/Billy Malone assault and with the Intermountain Region Politics during his reign. What I've presented is a bit off topic but the macro is important in bringing the lofty down to earth and getting to real answers that NPS and Xanterra should be looking at. Thanks for posting, Sara.
Trailadvocate's post at 9:38 is especially interesting and relevant.
It reflects very accurately what is, unfortunately for all of us, an ever increasing tendency in businesses across America to treat employees as expendible resources.
And, if other reports here are accurate, this may well be something that is extending into the ranks of the NPS.
Is this a case of money becoming more important than people in the Great Scheme of Things?
Ron, is it possible that budgets, like most anything else produced by our lawmakers, are deliberately confusing?
If they were easy to understand, it would be a lot harder to fool voters into re-electing them. Gotta cover the ol' tracks lest their frauds be discovered.
Bingo, Lee!
Note:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1216-goldberg-gruber-obamacar...
Because they are. The purpose of a business or the NPS is not to provide jobs. Providing jobs is necessary to obtain their purpose.
He who repeatedly criticises the "great Amercian entitlement mentality" seems to believe that everyone is "entitled" to their job.
No, Ec, not entitlement. The country quote,"You take care of your cows and they will take care of you."
The look that someone observed and posted on here as to the uncomfortable expressions on some employees while giving service to visitors is the look of not being supported in their efforts to do their job. Use them up, there are legions of internationals or out of work Americans to take their place, for awhile. There are companies out there that recognize that it's good business to respect their employees with that respect being passed on to visitors. I agree that businesses have the choice and their subsequent rewards. Not the entitlement deal with me.
Pages