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

221–230 of 298 posts

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#221

Post by sokoloff »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #182
sokoloff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

In both of those cases, that income has substantial nexus in the state, though, with the employer generally being located in the taxing state.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#222

Post by ryandrake »

hamolton wrote: post #110
ragnot wrote: post #3

With seasons seemingly getting shorter and/or worse (due to what I assume to be global warming) and the lines just getting absolutely ridiculous [1], I think I've accepted the fact that skiing/snowboarding is going to be a different experience for my kids. That experience probably won't be at a traditional mountain like Killington, Vail, etc. The lines will be too long, too expensive, just overall it will suck. Hones…

Purg, Wolf Creek, & Loveland haven't had big lines any times I've been there. My mother said Los Alamos, Santa Fe, & Taos lift lines are far better now on powder days than when she grew up thanks to more chairs on lifts + high speed lifts.

I liked what Vail resorts (and maybe others, dunno) implemented last year due to COVID: a reservation system to limit the number of people on the mountain. Lines during the middle few hours of the day were still pretty bad, but not the 30 minute logjams we've been seeing during the last decade. Early and late in the days, no lines at all. I wish they'd kept the reservation system this year. I fear we'll be back to the usual circus this season.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#223

Post by simonebrunozzi »

> For the right to change the covenants of a deed, Vail pays the homeowner 15 to 20 percent of the home’s market value—on average, about $69,000. The owner can collect that payout today, without selling their house. When they do eventually sell, their deed restricts eligible buyers to residents who are employed by an Eagle County business.

This is the key part of the article. Interesting short term solution; but I'm wondering what happens in the long term.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#224

Post by ryandrake »

neilparikh wrote: post #216
zz865 wrote: post #5

I quite like the rules in the Tirol - you can only own property if you live there. No second homes, no big hotels, no renting out houses. Just small owner operated hotels and locals.

Wouldn't this mean people who earn enough to rent, but not buy (ex. service workers) wouldn't be able to live there (since there wouldn't be a stock of rental housing they can rent), and thus would have to commute?

Why wouldn't there be a stock of rental housing? Nothing stops a full-time resident from owning rental property. If you want to own one (or more) houses there you have to live there. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I wish this could be tried in the USA, but voters (rich property owners) would never allow it. There are a lot of places (not just ski towns) that are ruined by rich people bidding up property and then leaving it vacant 358 days of the year.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#225

Post by newaccount74 »

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?

That doesn't help families who want to stay in the area at all. If they don't want to leave, the increased value of their homes is worthless.

It's worse because their kids can't afford to buy a home now and they have to leave.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#226

Post by ehnto »

emteycz wrote: post #218
ehnto wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an ultimatum where they had control over the outcome, the community was already changing around them, so they either live with inflated prices for everything and a fracturing community, or they sell and try somewhere new. You can see the writing on the wall in other words. You also have to be able to afford to not sell when where you live gentrifies, prices for everything go up, local taxes go up, restaurant…

Prices went up because real estate prices went up because people sold - not the other way around.

What are you expecting to have happened? The town to get together and everyone refuses to sell?

Like I said it wasn't an ultimatum people were given to sell or keep their town, it didn't just spring on them one day in a town meeting where they could vote to gentrify or not.

Some people are going to sell because they're moving on, some people die and their estate sells, it's just going to happen. Over time more of them get sold to holidaymakers and investors, and you can start to pick up on what's happening, but it's not like you have personal agency over the problem anymore. You could refuse to sell, but your neighbor might not. Prices are going up, the town is changing whether you like it or not.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#227

Post by emteycz »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #220
emteycz wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices went up because real estate prices went up because people sold - not the other way around.

When people don’t sell, market prices still go up: it’s called supply and demand, and in the situation you describe, there is very little supply.

But then it's the same people who wanted to "own their town" who are raising the prices for their neighbors, not some alien invaders pushing the poor locals away.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#228

Post by xyzzy21 »

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…

Pretty much has destroyed California as an entire state.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#229

Post by emteycz »

ehnto wrote: post #226
emteycz wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices went up because real estate prices went up because people sold - not the other way around.

What are you expecting to have happened? The town to get together and everyone refuses to sell? Like I said it wasn't an ultimatum people were given to sell or keep their town, it didn't just spring on them one day in a town meeting where they could vote to gentrify or not. Some people are going to sell because they're moving on, some people die and their estate sells, it's just going to happen. Over time more of the…

I don't expect anything, I just find the notion of selling without wanting to sell funny.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#230

Post by mmaurizi »

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?

Not if they're renters, or the children of current residents now forced to leave their hometowns.
Post reply on HN