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

191–200 of 298 posts

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#191

Post by matsemann »

As someone growing up in a smaller ski town in Norway:

Yes, it's an issue. But it's often far too easy to blame the new people or the tourists. Hating them while happily taking their money or needing them to fill work. I mean, without being a tourist hotspot, the town I'm from would have died. Towns close by without the same skiing opportunities struggle with all young people moving to study and never returning. So the population is ending up being very old and declining.

With that said, there are of course issues. But I feel our zoning laws have worked great. An area is either for cabins or primary residents. Those for primary resident, must have someone living there. The cabins don't. Thus there are two markets, one for those wanting the convenience of their own place to stay when visiting, and one for those wanting to live their full time. A house for full time is also in a different areas than the cabins, so you won't have lots of empty hosues as your neighbors.

This is reflected in the prices. A cabin is probably 2x-3x as expensive as a similar house. But that helps on not pricing the locals out. Of course, someone externally could buy a house as an investment and rent it out longterm, thus pushing the price higher. But at least that doesn't take away some housing for people living there.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#192

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

buttercraft wrote: post #92

I was born and raised in a small ski town that was a "hidden gem" for a long time. This article covers the issues well. In one year, it all changed. Housing prices and rent increased drastically -- sometimes by 2x or 3x. Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. What does it say when a city's essential workers cannot vote on city issues anymore? The city is not legally al…

Presumably it should have made many o the old residents a lot of money, though, so it isn't all bad? The value of their homes increased threefold, after all?

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#193

Post by xijingpooh »

asdff wrote: post #177
chrissnell wrote: post #123

I lived in Park City, UT throughout much of the 1990s and early 2000s. My family had a home in Telluride, so I’m familiar with the situation there, as well. I have an idea for a solution that I’m surprised was not mentioned. It’s simple: impose a heavy tax on unoccupied vacation homes but offer an exemption for owners who house one local worker on the property year-round. The concept is that the owner of a big vacati…

They really should just have this on the business owners. Make them have to provide housing for the labor they require to make their money vs having homeowners who might not even be patronizing the business front this overhead of theirs. In places like Catalina Island where there isn't much housing, you will see job ads for the coffee shop offering employee housing along with the job. You want to open a starbucks in…

They're going to keep the labourers in crammed naval containers. At least that's what they do in Germany with seasonal labourers (in agriculture).

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#194

Post by midasuni »

matsemann wrote: post #191

As someone growing up in a smaller ski town in Norway: Yes, it's an issue. But it's often far too easy to blame the new people or the tourists. Hating them while happily taking their money or needing them to fill work. I mean, without being a tourist hotspot, the town I'm from would have died. Towns close by without the same skiing opportunities struggle with all young people moving to study and never returning. So t…

How is primary residence enforced?

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#195

Post by junon »

buttercraft wrote: post #92

I was born and raised in a small ski town that was a "hidden gem" for a long time. This article covers the issues well. In one year, it all changed. Housing prices and rent increased drastically -- sometimes by 2x or 3x. Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. What does it say when a city's essential workers cannot vote on city issues anymore? The city is not legally al…

This sounds like Snow Valley. Pretty much what happened.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#196

Post by ehnto »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #192
buttercraft wrote: post #92

I was born and raised in a small ski town that was a "hidden gem" for a long time. This article covers the issues well. In one year, it all changed. Housing prices and rent increased drastically -- sometimes by 2x or 3x. Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. What does it say when a city's essential workers cannot vote on city issues anymore? The city is not legally al…

Presumably it should have made many o the old residents a lot of money, though, so it isn't all bad? The value of their homes increased threefold, after all?

I imagine they would have rather kept their town than a bundle of cash. If it's just a matter of shifting suburbs in a big city that's one thing, but people who choose a ski town to live in do it for the community and way of life.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#197

Post by lmm »

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.

A second-home-owner who spends a few days a year in town is a "local inhabitant" but someone who commutes there every day because they can't afford the rent in town isn't? That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#198

Post by ehnto »

gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #149
buttercraft wrote: post #92

I was born and raised in a small ski town that was a "hidden gem" for a long time. This article covers the issues well. In one year, it all changed. Housing prices and rent increased drastically -- sometimes by 2x or 3x. Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. What does it say when a city's essential workers cannot vote on city issues anymore? The city is not legally al…

Sounds like a problem that'll fix itself if no businesses can hire. Unfortunately it will probably be on a long time frame.

Amazon and eCommerce in general is really well positioned to fill the gaps left in failing towns, which means the quaint stores that die off in the interim have a much different landscape to return to. Cafes and restaurants don't tend to have as much trouble, but small goods, homewares, boutiques and so on can really struggle to fit into the new paradigm.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#199

Post by lmm »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #152
jeffbee wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Switzerland I can walk out of my urban flat carrying my skis, get on a train, and get dumped at the base of a lift an hour or two later. One or two-transfer public transportation from city center to base lift. There's no reason you have to live at the ski areas.

For the skier, maybe not. How about the line cook who prepares breakfast at a hotel, diner or other restaurant? How about the people who work for the search & rescue or fire departments, or the police? How about the staff at the hardware store that sells to the cook, the police and the school teachers?

When you have proper public-service transport designed to accommodate varied work hours, those people can commute too. (Though building adequate housing in employment areas is still a good idea).

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#200

Post by lmm »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #153
lbarrow wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "free market" didn't give those activists the right to veto development, the political processes and rules of their communities did. It's silly to treat that veto as a natural result, it's just as contingent as any other political rule.

How did they get to be able to vote? As TFA describes, they could afford property within the incorporated propery of CB, unlike those forced to find places to live outside it. Their wealth gave them access to the vote, and they are using their votes to further their own interests. Being able to buy whatever you want for whatever price works for you and the seller sounds quite a bit like a "free market" to me.

Tying voting to property ownership is not some law of nature.
Post reply on HN