John:
I hope we aren't disappointed and spend all summer complaining on this website about the lack of water and lack of compliance.
Pete
I hope we all feel this way.
Then to the question.
I don't know Mr. Bass. I know people who, like you, have spoken to him about his hotel/restaurants.
What I've inferred:
He's a VERY good businessman. He owns a large lumber/bluestone operation. He owns a golf course/clubhouse. He has been successful enough as to secure what is said to be a $5,000,000 investment in his hotel/restaurants project.
Given this, the question is why do "The Hancock House"? In my mind I answer this with simply, "he thinks that this veture will make money". He is a great businessman; he must know what he is doing. I can only assume he has thought through everything and has come to the conclusion that IT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL.
To your question as to him "counting on fishermen"... This is where it gets a bit fuzzy in my mind. His decision to do this project was made sometime in the recent past, I would think. Within the last few years, anyway. What evidence would he have that he is going to fill his hotel with fishermen?
He made his decision to go forward at a time when the following was going on:
The new flow "plan" now several years old and was described as a disaster by some. He would have heard about the low water, warm water,fish kills and declining number of fishermen in Hancock. The future of the fishery seemed(seems) to be in doubt. Even TODAY, critics wonder about the viability of the fishery given a final resolution not being in place.
Did he have ANY evidence that once he built the Hotel, there would be any fishermen to fill it at all? KW, you said you were the ONLY one in the "best restaurant in town" the other day. Mr. Bass eats. I bet he eats at "the best restaurant in town" from time to time. Does the fact that it is deserted provide him with evidence that HIS two eateries would be filled?
Again, I have to believe that he has looked at everything out there and has decided it is a good investment. I have a hard time believing his decision could have been based on the idea that fishermen would fill this place. The jury is still out on whether or not there will be fishermen, yes?
Is he a gambling man? Was he willing to gamble 5 million on all the political entities involved, providing more water for the fishery some time in the future AFTER his hotel was built? That does not seem like a good business strategy. And I've already stated that he is a very good businessman.
Speaking of gambling, maybe his decision had more to do with NYS allowing gambling in the Catskills. THAT will certainly be bring MORE people up this way. There was more than enough evidence of that coming to fruition when he would have pondering his decision to move forward with this some years back.
So, when he was making his decision to build a hotel, fishermen being in Hancock was highly in doubt due to the proposed/new flow regime. So why did he decide to invest 5 million?
Great question indeed.