drjeff
Well-known member
Some is business related for sure. But others are permit related too. Hence why Alta on forest service land has closed for the season now while immediately next door on private land, Snowbird is still spinning their lifts.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Gas Price
- Thread starter gmcunni
- Start date
Some is business related for sure. But others are permit related too. Hence why Alta on forest service land has closed for the season now while immediately next door on private land, Snowbird is still spinning their lifts.
Fair enough. Though I don't really understand an anti-sprawl perspective coming from someone who has a vacation home. Do you take the bus to your 2nd home?
I just think advancement in innovation should be a proactive development, not a reaction to high oil prices.
Rooting for $5 gasoline is essentially rooting for a recession. I don't think that's right given the millions of citizens who have and still are suffering in this crap economy over the past three years. Things are barely starting to get back on track. Any progress that's been made would grind to halt with $5 gas.
ctenidae
Active member
Not really rooting for a recession so much as weighing the pros and cons, and finding the pros worth the cons.
As for proactive innovation, there's no innovation that's ever been successful that couldn't make money. You could have a 4000 mpg car, but if it still cost you more per mile to drive than a gallon of gas, no one would buy it over a gas engine. If you want pure research without a commercial target, you have to go to government funded R&D, which I don't consider to be a bad thing.
Sprawl = living further waway from work than necessary. Vacation home = getting as far away from work as you can.
Letting the government take more in taxes is never the answer. Sounds like a good idea but the money never goes where it is supposed to. Look at SS, heck the tax i pay on smokes more than off sets the increase risk that I pose to the health care system. Problem is they are using that money to build bridges. The money realeased by OBAMA for the infrastructure projects, have you looked at it? Less that 40% was spent on rebuilding america. The credits for windmills was taken by foreign companies, pulled back into there home offices and is now building windmills in countries other than the US.
I think the vast majority of people make that decision based upon housing costs. I don't think people 'like' sitting in massive traffic jams to get into the city for work.
I'd love to have a home in Back Bay and walk everywhere. It ain't happening. On my salary, I could afford a modest home in Dorchester. That ain't happening either. :lol:
hammer
Active member
I've seen similar problems at the local level...trash fees meant to just pay for trash collection and to encourage recycling end up in the general fund and get spent on items that (deductible) property taxes are meant to be used for.
+1
I wouldn't move down to Burlington or Woburn just to be closer to work...and with a kid in college in the fall I sure don't have the $$ to move to Lexington or Bedford.
ctenidae
Active member
A home in Dorchester would cost more in gas- Sherman tanks aren't all that fuel efficient.
Housing costs and public transport are another set of questions entirely. $5 gas would probably lead to some sort of adjustment there, but it probably wouldn't be cheaper city living.
billski
Active member
I see it all the time in Eastern Mass. between 5 and 10 cents a gallon differential some grades had a higher differential. Stop and shop offers 2 cent gallon discount when you use their affinity card. Select locations.
There used to be this gas station in Boston, corner of Charles and Cambridge that jacked up their prices by 20 cents a gallon after 11pm. That's back when gas was $1.20/gallon.
Black Phantom
Active member
That station was run by Whitey et al.
SkiFanE
New member
Well...with our 2 commutes to work and weekly commutes to ski house, we still may consume less gas than those that travel 50-100m/day to/from work, since we don't live far from our jobs (have a small/modest home in the high tech belt to afford to live here).
But my main point was public transportation. In my town there is a commuter rail that stopped in the late 70s/early 80s and was turned into a bike path. If this train existed, I could be in downtown Boston in 30mins or so. Now, with the other public option (bus to subway), it's well over an hour. Driving it's a minimum of 40 mins on a good day. If the train option was available, I'd take it, as it is I have to drive into Boston weekly and it's a big PITA trip, much rather take public. Those are solutions we need, not necessarily cars that burn less gas.
Gas is up to $4/gallon right now, you really think $5 would send us to recession? It seems this argument is always used, but each time gas goes up the $ to recession does too..I recall $3 was the recession point a few years back, as gas was going over $2.
Seems like banks giving out bad loans does more damage to the economy than gas prices (LOL).
ctenidae
Active member
More truth to this than you think. Seems to be pretty decent evidence popping up that home ownership isn't such a great thing- it may slow the velocity of money, it makes the workforce much, much less mobile, and it can lead to exagerated swings in consumer behavior.
I'm 35 min from work (about 25 miles). it's great. I used to go to Boston which was 50 + miles, plus the crappy traffic, so normally at least an hour and more like an hour and a half. Life is so much better now.
you'll get no argument from me that bad loans is a much worse situation. But to suggest that $4 gas doesn't have a major impact on people's spending simply isn't true. I saw more restaurants close summer of 08 before the banking meltdown than at any point in the past 5 years. Those aren't meaningful GDP type jobs, but it's real. You take that up to $5, especially with the effect it will have on heating oil? People are going to go out to eat way less, buy much fewer large ticket items, hold onto cars longer, etc.
St. Bear
New member
I would argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing. Too many people got accustomed to getting a new car every 3 years and eating out on a weekly basis, when that should be a luxury for the (moderately) wealthy, not middle America.
ctenidae
Active member
I should point that theat the US uses about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year. So, a $1 change in price can some impact. More importantly, though, is the psychological impact. Of course, that wears off- we got used to $1 gas, we got used to $2 and $3, $4 can be handled, we'll deal with $5, etc. It's the changes that have the effect, though.
campgottagopee
New member
Ding, ding, ding.....we have a winner!!!
Could you imagine where our country would be if the banks 'forced' us to be financially responsible...what a thought.
Remember the days when you needed 20% down on a house??
Remember when you needed cash down to buy a car???
Why??? Cause it was a bank requirement.
Now people owe 15g's on a car that's worth 8, and it's my fault...., no, the bank gave you the damn money...not me.
We're slowly getting back to that, or at least from what I see. It used to be banks would loan 150% LTV on an auto loan...that it crazy, just crazy!!! Now, depending on one's credit it could be as low as 80% or as high as 130%....IMO, it shouldn't be any higher than 100%. Never happen, would hurt (at first) if it did, but in the long run our economy would be better off because of it.
I have never even looked for a loan if it did not seem affordable. I think you would have to also include the real estate agents, mortage brokers, attorneys and car salesman as the culprits as well. Shouldn't they have a professional responsabilty to inform their ustomers? I say yea, but the buck stops at the stupid asses that signed on the dotted line.
campgottagopee
New member
100% agree...not pointing fingers at all.
My point being just imagine if "we" all did what you do, can't afford it, don't buy it.
Like Donald Trump?
riverc0il
New member
If that were true, there would be no poor and middle class communities in metro areas, especially those near public transportation. But excepting certain neighborhoods, there are plenty of poor and middle class neighborhoods in metro areas, say within the I-95 belt all the way up to the doorstep of Boston. People sit in traffic by choice of where they live, often times defaulting to where they grew up. You might not get as big of a house or maybe no yard or maybe you have to buy into a condo or whatever versus a newish colonial on a generically created "Tree Type" + "Geographic Feature" Road with suburban sized yard. But those are choices. And then there is always renting as well. There are options and choices and maybe folks exercise the choice to live close to work or use public transportation.
As far as rooting for high gas prices equating to rooting for a recession.... who knows, maybe domestic innovation caused by transportation cost influenced inflation could kick start the economy in new and exciting directions. I don't know. I think there are bigger issues at work in the recession than gas prices. And for the vast majority of folks, an extra buck in gas equates to not getting a coffee at DDs every morning. Inflation of consumer goods pricing due to increases in gasoline is not a great argument. Lots of consumer goods are cheaper now than they were a dozen years ago when gas was a buck a gallon. Some prices will go up, others will go down due to innovations and competition. Crazy world.
