How would a name change affect the draw of The Ahwahnee Hotel?/Kurt Repanshek
Would "The Ahwahnee Hotel" still be the grande dame of national park lodging if called by another name? Would you stay at the Old Faithful Inn no matter what it was called? How much is the name "El Tovar Hotel" worth?
Those questions arise in connection with potential name changes, and possibly a court battle, involving iconic lodges and even places in Yosemite National Park, where the current concessionaire claims it owns the longstanding names to lodgings and some places and won't relinquish them without compensation if it doesn't win an upcoming 15-year concessions contract in the park.
National Park Service officials currently are soliciting bidders for a long-term contract that would take effect in 2016. The Park Service in that contract places a $29 million total on possessory interest that would be due Delaware North Co., the existing concessionaire, if it did not win the new pact. But DNC has added another $65 million to that total. Most of that sum, $51 million, is ascribed by DNC to "intellectual property" tied to "virtually all of the place names within Yosemite National Park under which it operates Concession Facilities," according to Park Service documents.
The Park Service has not included DNC's intellectual property claims in its possessory interest sum, and so in the prospectus says it would allow a concessionaire to "choose to re-name (subject to approval by the Service) the Concession Facilities it operates, including The Ahwahnee Hotel, Badger Pass, Curry Village, Wawona Hotel, and Yosemite Lodge" rather than incur those claims.
Bids for the contract are being accepted through January 21. Whether any company has bid on the contract is unknown, park officials said Wednesday.
Also unknown is how much value a company hoping to land the lucrative contract places in the names "The Ahwahnee, Yosemite Lodge, Badger Pass, and Curry Village," and whether it would agree to pay $51 million to retain them.
"Under all future alternatives, facilities such as The Ahwahnee, Yosemite Lodge, Badger Pass, and Curry Village will continue to be available to all visitors for use and enjoyment, regardless of the place name," park spokesman Scott Gediman said Wednesday via email. "We cannot speculate on the interests of prospective bidders to retain the names of the buildings."
The Yosemite situation is just the latest concessions headache the Park Service is facing. At Grand Canyon National Park the agency opted to try to make the concessions contract for South Rim more enticing to companies beyond the existing concessionaire, Xanterra Parks & Resorts, by buying down $100 million in possessory interest, also known as Leasesholder Surrender Interest, owed the company.
That decision spurred a lawsuit by Xanterra and led to a temporary one-year contract for the company while Grand Canyon officials try to negotiate a 15-year contract to run the El Tover, Bright Angel Lodge, Maswick Lodge, Phantom Ranch, and other concessions on the South Rim. To come up with the $100 million, the Grand Canyon borrowed $75 million from 88 other park units as well as the Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Whether DNC might sue over the Park Service's decision not to list the additional $65 million in possessory interest it claims it would be owed if it lost the Yosemite contract is unknown. Gediman said Wednesday that the company has not notified the Park Service that it would go to court over the matter. He would not speculate on whether competing companies would place a lower value on the concessions contract if it had to change the various lodge and place names.
Also unknown is whether the Park Service would go to court to maintain the names without having to pay DNC for the right. Designed by Gilbert Stanley Underwood, The Ahwahnee Hotel was designated as a National Historical Landmark in 1987, as was the Wawona Hotel. Curry Village is on the National Register of Historic Places.
The situation also raises the question of whether other concessionaires in other national parks would make similar intellectual property claims when calculating their possessory interest.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Thank you DNC - that was quite informative. What I found most interesting is that the actual asset valuations - both tangible and intangbile are only estimates and not something that has been determined through arbitration as was suggested earlier. As I have said all along, those estiamtes apparently are too high and need to be revised downward.
I agree but apparently the courts didn't or the NPS didn't have good representation. Not only did they drop the ball in not citing at the beginning of the DNC's tenure that the names belonged to the assets for use by the operator during their term of operation but now the DNC ended up being the big winner here. One oddity about changing historic names I never got the rational for the 1970s era changing the names of the campgrounds from their historic numbers to the cloying and trivial names and the removal of those handsome craftsman style backlit entrance signs that were architecturally sympathetic to the craftsman style of the old valley park service buildings like the auto shop, the clinic (once called a hospital) and the post office next to a visitors center. The only campground that retained its historic name was Camp 4 favored by mountain climbers and serious regular campers. The NPS changed that to "Sunnyside" but those regulars raised so much cain the NPS knuckled and restored the original name. IN changing the others, they fixed what wasn't broke.
Can I give you a "like"?
Nobody had really thought of this before, so it's not surprising that they "dropped the ball" as you state. This simply isn't something one thinks of until it actually happens.