Oh, You Know the Dems Are Going to Go Ballistic Over Trump's Latest...
Jen Psaki's Faux Platner Outrage
More Platner Grappling in the Press; An ICE Shooting Has the Bulwark Gang...
Democrats Unanimously Opposed the Working Families Tax Cuts. Now They're Trying to Take...
250 Years After Independence, New Index Asks Whether Government Is Stifling America's Char...
Here's the Problem With Modern-Day Immigration, According to Milton Friedman
DOJ Sues Maryland Over Sanctuary Policies Blocking Immigration Enforcement
NH Casino Owner Pleads Guilty to Stealing $255K in COVID-19 Relief Funds
Boston Accounting Firm Owner Sentenced in $1.6 Million Under-the-Table Pay Scheme
The United States Is Still Talking to Iran After Big Strikes
West Virginia Woman Pleads Guilty to Stealing $160K From Disabled Veteran
This Canadian Woman Just Exposed the Fatal Flaws of Universal Healthcare
Boston Store Owner Sentenced After $7 Million SNAP Fraud Scheme
Susan Collins Already Defeated One of Her Possible Democrat Challengers
Talarico Has Another Tenet of His Fake Christianity
OPINION

Hardball at Yosemite National Park

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Hardball at Yosemite National Park

On Jan. 14, the National Park Service announced that Yosemite's iconic Ahwahnee Hotel will become the Majestic Yosemite Hotel on March 1. A news release explained that because of a trademark dispute with outgoing concessionaire Delaware North of Buffalo, N.Y., the Wawona Hotel will become Big Trees Lodge and Curry Village will become Half Dome Village. People readily saw a case of corporate greed. At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum posted a blog with a photo of company executives and the heading: "Meet the corporate suits who claim to own the trademark to 'Yosemite National Park.'"

Advertisement

The next day, Drum conceded his initial take was "probably wrong." The story is less of an outrage than "a fairly pedestrian contract dispute." It turns out Delaware North does have rights to its concession's intellectual property -- including names -- because the company had to buy those intangible assets from the previous operator. The National Park Service acknowledges this fact and values these assets at $3.5 million. Delaware North wants $51 million. The matter will be settled in federal court.

In other words, this dispute is like an ugly divorce, with the park-loving public as the children. The National Park Service is ready to walk down the aisle with a new bride. It is looking to its bright future, while the soon-to-be-ex-wife wants to make sure that she gets every dime to which she feels entitled.

Delaware North paid $61.5 million for tangible and intangible assets in 1992. Unfortunately, the old deal didn't stipulate what specifics -- trademarks, logos, mailing lists -- were worth. According to government documents, the new deal doesn't require the operator, Aramark, to pay fair value for them.

Advertisement
     
National Park Service spokesman Scott Gediman acknowledged that if Aramark pays bottom dollar for Yosemite's big names, taxpayers don't benefit. Aramark does. The public didn't have a dog in this fight -- until the park service announced it was dumping historic names. It was natural for people to assume that Delaware North was messing with California's favorite national park. But as Dan Jensen, once president of Delaware North Yosemite, told me, "We've never threatened to take the names." On Jan. 2, Delaware North sent the park service a letter stipulating that Aramark could use the old hotel names royalty-free pending a court decision.

       

Will Delaware North abide by whatever the court decides? "It's my understanding, yes," Jensen answered, before adding he is not a lawyer.

So why did the Park Service announce the name change when two weeks earlier Delaware North essentially begged the government not to? "It was a pre-emptive move," Gediman answered. I understand why the government might think Delaware North doesn't deserve buckets of money for maintaining park property, but that's for a judge to decide.

Advertisement
Monday, Delaware North filed a brief seeking damages for what it sees as a government attempt to "create a public outcry that would force" it to relinquish its property at a cut rate. Move over corporate greed, and make way for government overreach. The Park Service was playing the public with a gratuitous threat to benefit one side in a corporate dispute. There's still time to make up, Park Service. Keep the old names -- for the sake of the children. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement