Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Save a Ski Town

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 298 posts

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#181

Post by asdff »

3finmunchousen wrote: post #119
boringg wrote: post #50

One of the biggest problems that is hitting ski towns is the hyper cheap season passes that everyone buys. The model has created a huge surge of demand for people to go skiing in winter which has put pressure on the local ski towns (more short term rental demands, second home buyers) and the resources at ski mountains (aka the insane lines on a good ski day now). It's interesting because it has allowed a lot more peo…

Been looking through the Vail annual reports. In FY 2010 Season/Epic passes were 35% of ticket revenue, FY 2019 it was 47%, FY 2021 61%. I think your theory has legs.

That's also because vail has been buying up mountains. The epic pass even works for the little podunk midwestern ski slopes I used to ride on, since vail bought them within the past decade or two.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#182

Post by lotsofpulp »

sokoloff wrote: post #84
cletus wrote: post #11

The principle I've long held is that cities and towns should primarily be for those who reside in those towns. In this case, only residents should be voting on things like ballot measures. This article talks about a few towns, some where I'm sure there are a lot of residents with multiple homes, some of which I'm sure that isn't the case. But nonresident owners shouldn't be dictating public policy, period. So the fir…

> 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…

Supreme Court denied hearing New Hampshire v Massachusetts on Jun 28, 2021, and basically told individual taxpayers to fight being taxes by states they have not set foot in.

I know quite a few people who have not stepped foot in NY state for nearly 2 years now and have been paying NY state income taxes the whole time.

https://www.sullivanlaw.com/news-The-Supreme-Court-Denies-Co...

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#183

Post by asdff »

dougmwne wrote: post #138
3finmunchousen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been looking through the Vail annual reports. In FY 2010 Season/Epic passes were 35% of ticket revenue, FY 2019 it was 47%, FY 2021 61%. I think your theory has legs.

It’s also an intentional strategy by Vail to shift sales into season passes. A day pass is incredibly expensive, $229 at the ticket window. For about $600 you might as well buy a season pass just in case you get to use it a bit. They are taking a page out of the gym membership model.

It's really the theme park model that they are learning from. Disney and Universal are in an arms race perfecting this science. A lot of people end up buying annual passes from Disney or Universal since you end up ahead after a couple visits. If you are local that's pretty easy to do. Suddenly you are in the park more often, in arms reach of their $14 entrees and merchandise shops in every corner. Having you in the park/skilodge more often means more chances they can upsell you on stuff they make some real money on, like $12 beer on a 10x markup. Even if you show up every single day and really milk your season pass to these sorts of places, the resort still ends up ahead due to all the other sales you might make for them. Gotta take a break for food at some point when skiing or going to disneyland no matter what.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#184

Post by masklinn »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #113
erikpukinskis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your hypothesis that it won’t snow anymore?

That there's going to be shorter seasons, and the snow line is going to move up. This is already starting to happen.

It’s been happening for a while really.

In europe, low-altitude ski resorts have been dying for a while and had to diversify into non-skiing activities (which also alters the busy season as that’s more of a summer thing), and middle-altitude resorts are starting to get hit.

Only the wealthiest stations have the means to cover the entire thing in artificial snow (some resorts are already 80% artificial snow at times) or helo down snow from higher altitude as happened last year during the very mild February.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#185

Post by asdff »

SwagGrocery wrote: post #39

There are a lot of comments about eliminating investment properties and providing subsidized housing. Why don't we let the market work itself out? Let's see how magical Crested Butte is in a few years with no intervention. I suspect you'll be able to get a nice ski-in/ski-out condo at a significant discount when there are no longer any businesses open in the town.

>I suspect you'll be able to get a nice ski-in/ski-out condo at a significant discount when there are no longer any businesses open in the town.

You won't see that. Vail already offers some housing for their employees. If ski town business owners can't net workers, these owners will end up getting some spartan accommodations together for their shift workers like what is done in a lot of other touristy, housing constrained areas around the world.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#186

Post by asdff »

adrianN wrote: post #165
elevenoh wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

source?

Have you tried googling yourself? For example https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-and/climate-sk... "Wobus, Small, and their coauthors simulated natural snow accumulation at 247 winter recreation destinations across the CONUS. They incorporated five climate models and two emission scenarios: RCP4.5 (moderate emissions) and RCP8.5 (high emissions). In this as in other studies, high-emission scenarios present…

A lot of resorts already rely on man made snow to get through a ski season, although you do need to be under freezing.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#187

Post by sumedh »

nitrogen wrote: post #137
lbarrow wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real "market" solution here would be to remove the ability of both out-of-town owners and locals to block new housing development. The article cites an example of a 200+ unit development in Brush Creek that was effectively vetoed by local NIMBYs; this in an area where only 800 people voted in the main Crested Butte elections.

The core tenet of democracy is that local inhabitants make local decisions. Doing otherwise is... I don't know what, but it's anti-democratic. If a small mountain town doesn't want outside investors to blow up the place, they have the right to make that choice.

> The core tenet of democracy is that local inhabitants make local decisions.

What if the local inhabitants pass a law saying certain race of people are not allowed to enter that area, would you still say they have the right to make that choice?

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#188

Post by asdff »

toast0 wrote: post #112
pomian wrote: post #26

We have seen this issue locally and traveling, North America and Europe. A very good solution, but requiring cooperation and strong town Council (and perhaps some retro-action) is that every single business in town, provides staff housing - alternatively builds staff housing above their business. Imagine if their was an apartment for every employee.

That works numerically, but having housing directly connected to your job is very prone to abuse.

Isn't that de facto what already happens? If these workers were fired with the status quo, they'd be unable to afford an apartment locally, and the end result is the same as if their employer fronted them an apartment. Plenty of people working in ski towns already do live in resort owned housing. Tons of jobs tie employment with living circumstances not just in this industry, it's not an unusual arrangement at all.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#189

Post by occz »

asdff wrote: post #172
davidw wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't build most buildings in Tirol in the US due to zoning restrictions. When we lived in Innsbruck, we had an apartment with no parking spot. Here in Bend, there is tons of parking, because people regard automobile storage as more important than places for people to live.

Not sure how you are going to convince people who live in a blizzardy mountain town to start walking to work en masse. Snowmobiles are popular in the winter at least.

With mountain biking already being quite popular in these places, it's not unthinkable to see some cycle commuting being done.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#190

Post by asdff »

drewpc wrote: post #125
chiefalchemist wrote: post #54

Simple question: Why can't the restaurants and such raise prices? And thus pay?? The non-locals drove up the price of housing and were still ready, willing, and able to pay. Why should that cycle stop there?

My partner has lived in Crested Butte for 18 years and I just came back from a weekend there. Restaurant prices are already high and each one has "help wanted" signs out front because nobody can work for minimum wage and not even afford to live there. Raising prices of a $20 cocktail to $25 does not allow the restaurant to pay hourly, local workers enough money to afford a house that's over $800k or rent that's over…

Resort towns should be considered more like cruise ships. I wouldn't expect a deckhand to afford a condo on a oceanliner, but if their labor is needed it seems its not an issue for the employer to provide housing. Plenty of industries provide housing for their workers. If housing is such an issue for labor to cover itself, capital should just pay for what its labor requires to exist. Somehow along the line we went from developing commercial properties with a second or third floor apartment along our mainstreets into properties devoid of any housing but perhaps plenty of space devoted to someone parking for twenty minutes. It's time we go back and enforce this stipulation on housing. Let's see the inevitable new starbucks in town manifest as a mixed use building instead of yet another drive through that bogs down another intersection.
Post reply on HN