2177 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Lawsuits?

[Victoria Watcher]

The worst business decision ever made was Ecoasis selling the hotel to raise some capital. They lost so much by this stupidity. They lost their parking lot, stair access from the hotel lobby to the pro-shop, no kitchen to provide food, no ability to offer stay and play packages etc. etc.
They did gain a bunch of lawsuits though.

Ecoasis, which bought Bear Mountain in 2013, has entered into what it calls a “working alliance” with businessman Raoul Malak that will see Malak take control of the Westin Bear Mountain.

Ecoasis will continue to own the resort’s golf and tennis operations and all developable lands.

Terms of the deal were not announced, but Ecoasis chief executive Dan Matthews said he expects Malak’s involvement will “elevate the overall customer service and experience.”

In a statement, Matthews said Ecoasis spent the past five years working to reposition the resort community.

“We are now at a stage in our business and growth strategy whereby we are actively entering into relationships with like-minded companies and individuals that have the passion and expertise in specific disciplines that make up a multi-faceted resort like Bear Mountain,” Matthews said.

Ecoasis laid the groundwork for the sale of the hotel in 2017 when it hired Jones Lang LaSalle to review the resort’s assets and to find a buyer or a partner.

At the time, Ecoasis pointed out it was not a real estate development company and was looking for the right kind of partners to tackle the job of developing another 2,500 units on the site, and enhancing the resort community.

Ecoasis said it would consider all options, including selling the site outright.

https://www.timescol...l-malak-4674393

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 June 2023 - 03:09 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Lawsuits?

Two here:

https://www.vancouve...erty-companies/

[LJ]

Lawsuits?

You betcha.

[LJ]

Ecoasis, which bought Bear Mountain in 2013, has entered into what it calls a “working alliance” with businessman Raoul Malak that will see Malak take control of the Westin Bear Mountain.

Ecoasis will continue to own the resort’s golf and tennis operations and all developable lands.

Terms of the deal were not announced, but Ecoasis chief executive Dan Matthews said he expects Malak’s involvement will “elevate the overall customer service and experience.”

In a statement, Matthews said Ecoasis spent the past five years working to reposition the resort community.

“We are now at a stage in our business and growth strategy whereby we are actively entering into relationships with like-minded companies and individuals that have the passion and expertise in specific disciplines that make up a multi-faceted resort like Bear Mountain,” Matthews said.

Ecoasis laid the groundwork for the sale of the hotel in 2017 when it hired Jones Lang LaSalle to review the resort’s assets and to find a buyer or a partner.

At the time, Ecoasis pointed out it was not a real estate development company and was looking for the right kind of partners to tackle the job of developing another 2,500 units on the site, and enhancing the resort community.

Ecoasis said it would consider all options, including selling the site outright.

https://www.timescol...l-malak-4674393

Yeah, didn't turn out quite like they hoped. The overall customer service and experience went straight downhill.

[GaryOak]

Looks like Langford will be looking at what they can do to open back up the trail. Motion put forward by councilor Kimberly Guiry.

Attached Images

• 

[Victoria Watcher]

Lol expropriation.

What a bunch of rookie idiots.

[Matt R.]

I’m sure they could make a cash offer?

[Victoria Watcher]

That’s the right play. I said that 67 posts ago.

You can’t expropriate without showing significant community need and good, balancing against the property owner rights.

This is so far from that, it’s silly. That councillor is an idiot.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 June 2023 - 10:29 AM.

[amor de cosmos]

as far as i can tell this is the section people want to use. $45 just to cross in front of a tee box seems a bit steep to me. ecoasis says they're charging it because of insurance considerations so i suppose they would rather not? how could it not be best for everyone if langford & highlands takes over this path to mt finlayson?

Attached Images

• 

[Victoria Watcher]

“Take over” by force or by permission (payment to the landowner)?

[amor de cosmos]

i just thought of something much simpler that wouldn't involve either city government. if hikers crossing in front of this tee box creates liability issues for the golf course they could just opt to not use it!!! such decisions are literally everyday occurrences much like changing the pin placement on the greens or how high to mow the rough etc. pretty much every other golf course might state somewhere how long it is "from the tips" but even in the case of PGA events doesn't usually use the back tees on *every* hole (or not every hole of every round) so why should this case be any different?
 

“Take over” by force or by permission (payment to the landowner)?

i suppose in a purely legal paperwork sense it might all be the same but iirc in other contexts such as building a highway interchange part of the budget is set aside for land acquisition and the government pays the market price for it

[lanforod]

How does Saanich handle liability issues with people walking the Cedar Hill chip trail around the golf course? Same issue. Multiple places where you can get whacked in the head with a golf ball.

[davidN]

i just thought of something much simpler that wouldn't involve either city government. if hikers crossing in front of this tee box creates liability issues for the golf course they could just opt to not use it!!! such decisions are literally everyday occurrences much like changing the pin placement on the greens or how high to mow the rough etc. pretty much every other golf course might state somewhere how long it is "from the tips" but even in the case of PGA events doesn't usually use the back tees on *every* hole (or not every hole of every round) so why should this case be any different?
 

i suppose in a purely legal paperwork sense it might all be the same but iirc in other contexts such as building a highway interchange part of the budget is set aside for land acquisition and the government pays the market price for it

Not sure why the owner of the land (golf course) should inconvenience their customers (by taking away the ability to use a hole to its maximum potential n anyway just so someone can cross their land (for free).

[amor de cosmos]

Not sure why the owner of the land (golf course) should inconvenience their customers (by taking away the ability to use a hole to its maximum potential n anyway just so someone can cross their land (for free).

it's not obvious to me that it would inconvenience their customers (straw man). even if it did, it seems they'd prefer to avoid this, assuming not using certain tee boxes would be enough to get their insurance company off their back. the city making it a public right-of-way would work too:

EcoOasis chief executive Dan Matthews acknowledged it has created an uproar, but said the fees and waivers are longstanding. He said adding the trails to the resort pass system was to mitigate its own legal risks on all of its private land on Skirt Mountain, also known as Bear Mountain.
 
“We held off on the trails because of COVID and the need for people to recreate,” Matthews said in an interview. “But insurance has changed since COVID and we have to follow best practices that our insurance company requires of us.” He said liability waivers are a commonplace for participation in recreational activities and are becoming industry standard.

https://www.timescol...p-words-7081768

[RPPB]

At Gorge Vale GC you have to cross the 17th fairway to access the veterans' cemetery. Access to the cemetery must have been a condition when the course was built. Why didn't Langford include a trail access provision when the Bear Mountain course was being planned?

[GaryOak]

Why didn't Langford include a trail access provision when the Bear Mountain course was being planned?

Because the developers were Stew's buddies and that would have taken away potential profit.

[Mike K.]

Because the developers were Stew's buddies and that would have taken away potential profit.

Because there was no trail until Bear Mountain was developed.

[LJ]

Not sure why the owner of the land (golf course) should inconvenience their customers (by taking away the ability to use a hole to its maximum potential n anyway just so someone can cross their land (for free).

They are not inconveniencing their customers, they are inconveniencing the hotel's customers, intentionally.

[davidN]

They are not inconveniencing their customers, they are inconveniencing the hotel's customers, intentionally.

No.It goes beyond that,

 

They are inconveniencing their paying golf course customers who pay to use the golf course, Taking a hole out of play in any way for the sake of non paying people who want to cross their lands.