HACKED BY CYBER-ATTACK - ALPERENBTN

[Johnny French]

Dang! I thought with all the hype and secrecy it was going to be Disney. Anyway, kudos to Nick Nelson for identifying the pig-in-the-poke. I'm confused, though. How is the leasing modus operandi described for Intrawest's resorts ("At Sandestin and at most of Intrawest's resorts, much of the retail space is leased to small businesses instead of chains or franchises. Intrawest Corp. spokesman Tim McNulty said most of the company's resorts have a pedestrian village in which most tenants are independently owned.") any different from a mall? Add condos and a golf course and it's just like Padre Isles. Except for the price tag and another middleman, how would this "resort" be any different from what Shexnailder threatened he'd do if he didn't get the beaches closed to vehicles? What's "world class" about that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_4334701,00.html
Island resort secret's out
Intrawest is big player in snow, sand

By Nick Nelson Caller-Times
December 22, 2005

Vancouver-based Intrawest Corp. is the company that intends to build a $500 million resort on Padre Island, several people familiar with the agreement have confirmed to the Caller-Times.

Early this month, Austin developer Paul Schexnailder announced that a major resort development company had signed a letter of intent to build the first phase of a $1.5 billion resort on the island. Schexnailder has declined to identify the company, saying that to do so would violate a confidentiality agreement with the company.

Now multiple sources familiar with the development have confirmed to the Caller-Times that Intrawest, acknowledged to be a leader in the field, intends to build the resort. Schexnailder would neither confirm nor deny the report. However, among local business leaders and city officials, Intrawest had become a poorly kept secret.

Intrawest spokesman Tim McNulty wouldn't comment on any development in Corpus Christi. He said federal law prohibits publicly traded companies from speaking publicly about such projects until a final agreement has been reached.

Schexnailder has said that the letter of intent, signed Nov. 30, signaled the beginning of a 90-day period during which the partnering company would determine whether the project is feasible.


Intrawest resorts

Blue Mountain
Collingwood, Ontario, Canada

Copper Mountain
Copper Mountain, Colo.

Keystone Ski Resort
Keystone, Colo.

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area
Mammoth Lakes, Calif.

Mountain Creek Resort
Vernon, N.J.

Panorama Mountain Village
Panorama Mountain Village, British Columbia, Canada

Sandestin Golf and Beach Resort
Walton County, Fla.

Snowshoe Mountain Resort
Snowshoe, W. Va.

Solitude Mountain Resort
Solitude, Utah

Squaw Valley USA
Olympic Valley, Calif.

Stratton Mountain Resort
Stratton Mountain, Vt.

Mount Tremblant Resort
Mont-Tremblant, Quebec, Canada

Whistler Blackcomb Ski Resort
Whistler, British Columbia, Canada

Winter Park Resort
Winter Park, Colo.
Source: Intrawest Corp.


At the end of the 90 days, the company then would have 60 days to resolve any issues before making a final decision about the development. Schexnailder is 50 percent partner in Gulf Shores Joint Ventures, the company that owns the land on Padre Island where the resort would be built.

About the company

Intrawest is a resort development powerhouse. The company owns interest in 14 resorts in the United States and Canada and specializes in adventure travel.

Earlier this month, the company announced it would pre-sell 318 luxury condos in Hawaii on Maui's western shore. The condos, which ranged in price from $500,000 to about $4.5 million, sold out in three days and netted the company $425 million.

The company reported record revenues of $301.8 million in the first quarter of its 2005-2006 fiscal year (beginning July 1) - up 47 percent compared with the same period last year. Net profits for the first quarter were $9.2 million.

A local business leader, who asked not to be named because of the possible legal implications of identifying the company, said the company is well established at the top of its industry.

"They are absolutely among the very best in the United States," the official said. "We would be extremely blessed to have that development in our city."

Most of Intrawest's destination properties are ski resorts. During the past decade, however, the company has gravitated from the slopes to the sand, investing in year-round resorts where revenues don't fluctuate as sharply with the seasons. In 1998, Intrawest bought Sandestin, a sprawling, 2,400-acre beach and golf resort outside the city of Destin on the Florida Panhandle, and has since begun a $300 million redevelopment project of the property.

In October, Intrawest sold all but 15 percent of its interests in Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in California - shortly before announcing the sale of the condos in Maui. And in early December, the company agreed to buy 56 acres in the Phoenix area for a resort development there.

At Sandestin and at most of Intrawest's resorts, much of the retail space is leased to small businesses instead of chains or franchises. Intrawest Corp. spokesman Tim McNulty said most of the company's resorts have a pedestrian village in which most tenants are independently owned.

"We try to have unique businesses," he said. "You're not going to necessarily see an abundance of chain stores and franchises. They are more entrepreneur-based."

Intrawest is an international public company traded as IDR on the New York Stock Exchange; its stock has gained steadily during the past year and closed at $28.44, down 17 cents a share Wednesday.

Padre Island Resort

Though only a fraction of the size of Sandestin, the 100-acre resort planned for Padre Island would be the largest residential development in the island's history.

The first phase would be built out over five to seven years and would include 1,000 to 2,000 residential units and between 75,000 and 150,000 square feet of office, commercial, restaurant, retail and entertainment space. Two more phases that are similar in scope and value are planned to follow, which means a total investment of about $1.5 billion. Schexnailder has said that the signed letter of intent is for the first phase only.

The development has generated controversy because Schexnailder has said the project is feasible only if the 7,400 feet of beach between Packery Channel and Padre Balli County Park is converted to pedestrian-only beach.

The City Council took what is anticipated to be the first step Wednesday, rescinding a recent ordinance that banned traffic along the 4,200-foot Padre Island seawall. The move clears the way for a new ordinance - possibly one that creates the 7,400 feet of beach Schexnailder says is needed for the resort.

A group of residents called the Beach Access Coalition circulated a petition following the previous ordinance that banned traffic along the seawall. The group has said it will start a new petition against any new ordinance the council passes to restrict traffic on the island's beaches.

Contact Nick Nelson at 886-3678 or HYPERLINK mailto:nelsonn@caller nelsonn@caller. com

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/contributors/article/0,1641,CCCT_879_4334696,00.html
Why should public give up valuable beachfront access?

By John M. Kelley
December 22, 2005

The value of something is said to be what you get for what you are willing to give up. That is a question that needs to be answered in light of the beach and channel waterfront that City Councilman Mark Scott and Austin developer Paul Schexnailder would like the public to surrender.

Make no mistake. No matter what they call it, this is the taking of a public beach for private development unless you are willing to drag your cooler, chairs and beach equipment a half-mile or more. The beach has a value, a dollar value created by the experience you are giving up for the one you are getting. Privatization means loss of that experience.

In Gulfport, Miss., waterfront property on the Gulf brings up to $800 per square foot. Mr. Schexnailder is asking you to give him free of charge one and one-half miles of beachfront, another half mile of channel waterfront on the south side of Packery Channel and the South Channel Jetty for the use of his resort.

The public beach runs from the water's edge to the vegetation line. At a minimum it is 100 feet wide. The cost of that land - plus the $30 million in improvements we paid for in Packery Channel and jetties - adds up to almost a half billion dollars, not counting the additional value it will add to Mr. Schexnailder's current holdings. This is a huge corporate welfare check for Mr. Schexnailder.

What Councilman Scott is asking you to do is surrender accessible use, which in the law is a taking without compensation. The reason he is asking for it is that the beach is not for sale, it is owned by the public - you, me and Mr. Schexnailder.

In exchange, we will get some temporary construction jobs, which we will get anyway, a lot of low-paying, taxpayer-subsidized service jobs and a few management positions, all to displace regular beachgoers who patronize local family-owned businesses.

Some argue we need jobs, any jobs. Corpus Christi currently has a 5.8 percent unemployment rate, low by any standard, with most of that being transitional movement between jobs. What we do have is a persistent poverty rate of 17.6 percent with 23.3 percent of our children living in poverty.

What that means is that most poor people in our community already work. Do we really need more low-paying jobs? If Mr. Schexnailder gets his way, we may have to import more poor people just to fill those taxpayer-subsidized jobs.

The public owns the beach. To limit access to two miles of beach, jetty and waterfront is a theft of one-half billion dollars of public property.

Any talk of a pedestrian-only beach as a compromise is the equivalent of catching a thief at the door with all of your valuables. There, with your shotgun pointed at him, he proposes to split the loot with you.

The reason Mark Scott, Jim Barnette, chairman of the Economic Development Corporation, and the real-estate agents are all supportive of this deal is they are waiting in the car as the getaway drivers, hoping to get their share of the loot. The reason is they know that once the City Council has given away beachfront for development reasons, there will be no legal ground to stop other developers from suing for the same right. That will set off a boom of speculation resulting in loss of all driving on the beach in the city limits.

The Beach Access Coalition has repeatedly proposed the compromise of bollard-separated pedestrian and vehicle sections of the beach, only to be ignored. We're willing to share our beach with them. Why aren't they willing to share our beach with us?

John M. Kelley is a teacher, writer, and surf fisherman. He is one of the spokespersons for the Beach Access Coalition.

Caller.com

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.caller.com/ccct/letters_to_the_editor/article/0,1641,CCCT_841_4334700,00.html
Letters to the Editor: 12.22.05

December 22, 2005

Haughty tone

Re: Editor Libby Averyt's Viewpoints Page column, Dec. 18.

I am appalled to see a journalist of high position with the Caller-Times take such a haughty position against the working families in our city and state. She is certainly not local enough to understand what "redneck" means, or what it is like to have to live in a trailer when you can afford no better.

Certainly the intense stereotype she renders in her article is meant to distract from the debate, which is preventing a local precedent that would weaken our rights under Texas Open Beaches Act.

I may not live in a trailer, but I won't forget my roots to kiss the feet of those who never have.

Bryan Dobson

Low-wage jobs

The tar on their new parking lot has not even set and our City Council is ready to restrict more of our beach access for the sake of resort developers.

I expect resort growth since the Packery Channel will soon be open, but we must not let them get away with this.

What about the Texas Open Beaches laws? They will continue to chip away at our rights, all the while praising the potential of 1,500 new jobs.

I admire anyone willing to work, but these jobs pay poverty wages. Is that all we have for the future employment of our children?

No wonder 90 percent of my high school class left this town and never looked back. What a shame.

Laura Dowley

[FlakMan]

You would think after seeing what happaned to the Mississippi resorts that were located inland behind barrier islands - that building a resort of this size at ground level (9-ft base flood elevation) on a barrier island is doomed for distruction.

What will become of any financial benefit after a Cat 4 wipes this resort away, debris filled storm surge moves up Packery Channel to distroy Flour Bluff and those high $$ homes along Oso Creek.

Here is a pic of the Beau Rivage-Biloxi. It was built on deep piers that allowed storm surge to move under structure. Still $200 million of damage (top of photo). The new Hard Rock Cafe next door (btm of photo) was built on ground level - GONE!

Image if there was a channel cut next door in the picture -??


_________________
Ahh sand between my toes!

[rabbit]

If you made the picture the right size you wouldnt have to go to a movie theater to read these posting or see the picture.

Thanks for changing the size
_________________
Fishing and Kayaking its a rough life but somebody has to do it.

[Guest]

that's what their world class resort is gonna look like some day

[Oz]

Good post Flak.
_________________
- Oz

eXtreme coast international