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

241–250 of 298 posts

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#241

Post by buttercraft »

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.

Prices also went up because the housing supply disappeared. There simply weren't any houses available to buy or rent for a while. People were willing to pay a ton of money for anything thay they could find. So, naturally, many land lords increased rent to force the old tenants out, and then rented to new, higher-paying tenants from out of town.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#242

Post by rjsw »

pcmoney wrote: post #62
rjsw wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other ski towns you build during the off-seasons and the construction workers live in the apartments that would be otherwise empty.

Crested Butte is not just a ski town. Most ski towns in CO are not just ski towns. But CB is especially popular with mountain bikers and is busy almost year round.

European ski and mountain bike towns tend to be only busy in winter and summer, they are empty in spring and autumn.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#243

Post by biztos »

xijingpooh wrote: post #193
asdff wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Lots of this in construction too, at least in Berlin.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#244

Post by overton »

Same story pretty much everywhere -- wealthy property owners can't be bothered to allow the minimum amount of development that would let the workers they depend on find decent housing.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#245

Post by thrawn0r »

Landlords being allowed to increase rent on existing tenants at will makes these shifts so fast. In Germany, you cant do that and therefor people with existing leases are not being displaced that easily.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#246

Post by buttercraft »

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.

Yes, it will take a while. I feel like the problem is that everything happened too quickly. The growth has been happening for a long time, but suddenly we got ten years worth of growth in one year. It will take a while to even out.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#247

Post by rjsw »

asdff wrote: post #181
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.

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.

The epic pass works in places outside the US as well so some Europeans buy it if they are planning one US trip and some days in the areas in the Alps that are covered.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#248

Post by geoduck14 »

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…

This sounds interesting! My sister worked in Park City, UT for several years.

How would you account for the J-1s (Brazilian immigrants in town ONLY for the winter season)? What about the families that need more than a 1 bed room?

My sister mentioned that the "poor class" extended up to a family whose dad was a lawyer. I'm not sure this is true, but I am sure the COL was pretty friggen high (there are, what, 2 grocery stores and one of them is a Whole Foods).

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#249

Post by refurb »

space_fountain wrote: post #174
gnarcoregrizz wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think part of the problem is that while maybe wages will be pushed up a bit, eventually the equilibrium is still a situation we won't like. Like long commutes and bad living situations.

But is it a bad equilibrium?

If someone is willing to trade the time and cost of a long commute, can’t we trust that they decided it’s worth it?

I keep hearing how we need to make the Bay Area affordable, but I’m also thinking “price is a signal” and people deciding to live elsewhere is exactly what we want.

I spent time in a developing country and the government is struggling to creating new economic centers but failing miserably (mostly due to poor people willing to sacrifice for higher wages). If they had their way they’d love to not have a metro area of 15M but two metro areas of 7.5M.

Not sure we should be accommodating everyone in the Bay Area (or wherever), people deciding to move to Austin is a good thing.

Re: How to Save a Ski Town

#250

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lmm wrote: post #200
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither is voting a law of nature, and nor is property ownership. So what's your point? That we don't have to do it this way? Well, sure. But what's the actual alternative?
Post reply on HN