How to Save a Ski Town

Is lack of housing really the problem? The resorts themselves are already far too crowded, and it's not like there's a unlimited amount of skiiable area to expend to. Not to mention how awful dense housing would be in a supposedly remote area. It would turn it into "only some can access this area" to "everyone can access but no one can enjoy it."

> And that's tax on all your income.

I (strongly) suspect that will not stand up to judicial review. Income that has no nexus in the state, let alone the municipality, is not going to be taxable for part-time visitors to the state.

Here’s a research position paper prepared for one state that touches pretty squarely on the issues and the Constitutional barriers to enacting what is proposed above: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssnonr.pdf

The problem is pretty simple; the stock of mountain resort towns has not kept up to satisfy demand.

Imagine 15 or 20 years ago, a trip to a somewhat remote mountain town had a lot of inconveniences like bad internet, unpredictable weather/travel conditions, etc. In the current year, it's very easy to book an entire trip to Vail/Tahoe in 30 minutes. The amenities and infrastructure are decent making it a viable place for remote work as well.

Building enough short term housing is difficult and many people can only afford it if they book as a very large group (15 to 20 people is not uncommon) which means that the local 'lodging' supply is insufficient which creates a market for vacation rentals.

The polices these places put in place to combat the housing crises aren't actually designed to provide affordable housing. The post common policy is limiting the occupancy of vacation rentals such that large >6 adult parties are no longer allowed.

IMO it's pretty obvious that the local lodging industry absolutely hated competition since those 15+ person family reunion style groups were paying half as much on a VRBO a few miles from town vs an in-town hotel/townhouse setup. The second big lobby/group is the wealthy people who want to own a vacation home/2nd home outright for there own personal use rather than personal+rent use. Does anyone really thing that these small mountain towns have the kind of jobs to support owning a 4000 sqft house as a primary residence without some supplemental income/wealth?

So what happens is the wealthy retires/2nd home buyers support and advocate for housing policies designed to make their homes cheaper while actually constricting the short-term lodging supply further which in turn means more affordable homes are converted to short-term rentals. It's very easy to assume that limiting the use of homes as vacation rentals would increase the housing supply but in reality it only increases the supply for the wealthy - not the workers in these towns.

IMO I think the only solution is to create more mountain towns and ski resorts. Otherwise the only solution is trying to limit* the number of tourists and visitors.

* If the market could build its way out of this, it already would have.*

Residential development isn’t a free market. The locals control who gets to build what. And very few locals want their single family home in the shadow of a new mid-arose condo.

Crested Butte was incorporated in 1880.

Crested Butte Mountain, the ski resort, opened in 1960.