Thumbs Up,Thumbs Down

The Ahwahnee by any other name?

So how is it that a Buffalo, N.Y.-based company that won a concessions contract in Yosemite National Park less than 15 years ago now claims to “own” the names of such iconic locations as Curry Village and the Ahwahnee Hotel? We’re not sure. But we’re sure it’s something that’s worth fighting about in court - if it should come to that.

Whether it will be, however, is in doubt. According to recent coverage in the Fresno Bee, Yosemite officials are considering renaming the locations rather than make things more difficult for the next concessionaire. Bad idea. As park historians have noted, these names are not theirs to give away. They’ve been a part of the public domain for generations. The name of Curry Village dates back to 1899, and the Ahwahnee, the grande dame of America’s National Park lodges, dates to 1927.

Nevertheless, Delaware North Companies, the park’s concessionaire, contends that it owns the names and deserves up to $51 million if the park awards the concession contract, which is due to expire this year, to another company.

Delaware North may simply be playing games as it tries to ward off other suitors for Yosemite’s lucrative $120 million-a-year contract. But it’s definitely putting its own company name at risk in its efforts to hold onto these historic titles. National Park officials can’t afford to roll over on this one. What’s next? A new name for Old Faithful Inn in Yellowstone and El Tovar in Grand Canyon? Sometimes a good name is worth fighting for

A developing legal victory for Santa Rosa

Sonoma County cities haven’t had much to cheer about in their various legal battles with the state over the abrupt, and in many cases unnecessarily costly, way it put an end to the 400 redevelopment agencies across the state. But Santa Rosa appears to have won a key victory. As Staff Writer Kevin McCallum reported Friday, the city last month received a favorable ruling in its bid to recover $7.2 million in redevelopment loans that the state said did not warrant repayment by Sacramento officials.

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled that the state Department of Finance “abused its discretion” when it turned down Santa Rosa’s request to be repaid for the loans. It’s not clear if this ruling will hold up, but state finance folks deserve to their hands slapped for not following their own rules as well as sound judgment, in deciding how to wind down these agencies.

We supported Gov. Jerry Brown and state legislators when they opted to abolish redevelopment agencies three years ago. The system, which allowed communities to set aside property taxes to pay for infrastructure improvements and combat blight, had been abused in many ways over its 66 years, and the state needed the money to help address a $25 billion budget deficit at the time.

But the draconian way the state went about pulling the plug caused many more problems, and more lawsuits, than necessary. Sonoma County has seen its share of success stories with redevelopment including Windsor’s Town Green, Petaluma’s Theatre District and Boyes Hot Springs, where redevelopment funds were used to lend money to refurbish stores along Highway 12. It was loans like these that Santa Rosa made - loans that were clearly allowed under rules in force at the time - that is at the heart of this legal tussle, a battle the city should win.