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

201–210 of 298 posts

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#201

Post by myshoesareblue »

midasuni wrote: post #194
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?

they are taxed differently. you would not get the upper hand trying to live primarily in something classified in a secondary/fun/vacation home.

there's also the matter of your person registry information being wrong all the time (since it has to be tied to something zoned as a primary residence). would be death by a thousand cuts since so many services and programs refer to this registry to automate things.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#202

Post by sideshowb »

zwirbl wrote: post #167
SmellTheGlove wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you live there, and then you don't? Are you forced to sell? I don't have a house in a mountain resort area, but I do have one by the beach (not on it, but 5 minutes walking) in a town/area that gets significant summer tourist traffic. I have it because that's where I lived for a decade, but pre-COVID, I moved to the bay area for career reasons. I plan to live in it again one day, so I'd hate to have t…

While this is an edge case for most people, you are allowed to keep it, rent it out, whatever. The regulation doesn't work that well, as there are some loopholes and there are still significant numbers of mostly uninhabited second homes. A lot of places in the Tirol have issues with affordable housing for workers while at the same time new hotels are being built and existing hotels expanded, increasing the demand for…

Not that much of an edge case. Something like 30 to 50 percent of landlords in the UK are "accidental landlords" iirc

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#203

Post by sideshowb »

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.

Why not take a look at other holiday locations where this has been a problem for years to tell you whether or not that actually works? You could start with Cornwall.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#204

Post by mellavora »

asdff wrote: post #166
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #86

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…

>IMO I think the only solution is to create more mountain towns and ski resorts Not a great solution. The mountains are sensitive ecology, with poor access for the most part, and even the big mountain towns that do exist are under constant threat of going up in smoke in the summer.

Ok, then let's just create more mountains. :)

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#205

Post by reducesuffering »

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.

And a core tenet of government should be handling tragedy of the commons type situations that arise when every locality acts in it own self interest in a globally sub-optimal way for all of them.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#206

Post by luch »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #93

Outlaw shaped skis. Everybody has to ski on long, straight skis that can’t be wider than 65 under foot. Watch property values plummet in a week. Edit: accurate prediction of the future: https://youtu.be/qhuHuQ1Bu3o

Or better : outlaw ski lifts. You can still do some skiing or snowboarding, but you have to get to the summit yourself like alpine hunters.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#207

Post by matsemann »

midasuni wrote: post #194
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?

By people observing their neighbors are never there. In small communities everyone knows everyone, and it's in our own interest having a vibrant community, not lots of empty housing only being used during high season.

But mainly it's checked by seeing if any person has their primary residence registered at each address zoned to housing. Or by filling in a form saying it's rented out to someone living their temporarily, like seasonal workers, students at the ski academy etc.

But people do try to skimp around it by living there on paper while actually living somewhere else. But than at least part of their taxes paid goes to our county. County can force them to sell, though.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#208

Post by matsemann »

myshoesareblue wrote: post #201
midasuni wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is primary residence enforced?

they are taxed differently. you would not get the upper hand trying to live primarily in something classified in a secondary/fun/vacation home. there's also the matter of your person registry information being wrong all the time (since it has to be tied to something zoned as a primary residence). would be death by a thousand cuts since so many services and programs refer to this registry to automate things.

Many counties are actually fine with people living full time in their cabins. It's the opposite that's problematic, using normal housing as cabins. But as you say, it can be an expensive and troublesome way to live, compared to buying something zoned properly.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#209

Post by sumedh »

dustintrex wrote: post #49
mastax wrote: post #2

I imagine the Swiss have dealt with similar situations, I wonder what they would suggest? Pay employees way more is probably step one. I'm the "build more housing" guy, but it looks like the Swiss have chosen a different path?

Your typical Swiss ski resort village is stacked full of multilevel apartments, cleverly disguised as rustic chalets: https://chalet.myswitzerland.com/holiday-rentals/grindelwald... Superior public transport (quite a few villages ban cars entirely), much higher wages and ruthless exploitation of immigrant labor are also factors though.

> exploitation of immigrant labor are also factors though.

I thought Switzerland does not have lot of immigration.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#210

Post by emteycz »

ehnto wrote: post #196
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So if they would've rather kept their town, why the hell did they sell?
Post reply on HN