Ski town real estate

[x10003q]

We did something that avoids some of the issues raised but would probably work for very few. Over the course of several years we used tax refunds to buy five acres, excavate a driveway and then build our ski cabin. It's tiny and lacks what many would consider necessities. It's not slopeside or more accurately not adjacent to lifts - it's about 10 minutes from Gore and five minutes from 100,000 acres of wilderness.

The big advantage for us is that, we owe nothing on it. If it was a "real home" and I'd had a mortgage on it, we'd have been forced to sell at a loss in the last few years when our income dropped dramatically in the recession.

In 2007 I calculated TOTAL cost of skiing, to include lift tickets, plowing, taxes etc and it came out to $6000 for 30 days of skiing. That's $200 a day to ski, so it's pretty cost effective.

Yeah we are tied to Gore for lift-served skiing, but it's in a great spot - hiking, wilderness, alpine and nordic skiing, rafting etc. It works for us.

Re slopeside... I'm 53 and when our daughter is older, we're going back to our nordic roots and enjoying a lower key lifestyle. Slopeside is REALLY convenient when you are lugging all that kid gear around, but in the long run, my plan is to spend more time in the woods. A commitment to slopeside is not my thing.

Nice.

Gore is a great choice. It is 20 miles off the I-87. I get to Gore in a little over 3 hours from north NJ. The mountain is never crowded even on holiday weekends. There is a better variety of skiing than S Vt. There is hardly any development, but North Creek is a real town. You can find affordable housing in town which is about a couple hundred yards from the lowest lift access and about 1.5 mile from the access road to the main base area. There are a few townhouses (maybe 125 within 5 miles) and some vacation houses in the area. You can buy a sesaon pass that includes access to Whiteface (about 80 minutes north of Gore). Gore does not have any slopeside at the moment, but there are plans and a few models to see.

You should at least spend a weekend at Gore to see if it works for you. It is way different than S VT.

 

[Paul_M]

Gore has a lot of positives.

 

[tipsdown]

So many factors to consider....I've considered buying at Sugarloaf but have held off due to concerns regarding appreciation...It's a world class ski mountain but with second class amentities and it's a bit one dimentional..

Saddleback, or Rangeley, is intriguing due to it's uniqueness when you compare it to other 4k ft. mountains. I have a friend that bought there in 08. He uses it year round but also rents occasionally year round. He pays about $3200 a yr in condo dues for a 4 bed heat ($2,500 yr??). Taxes are almost non-existent since it's technically on a plantation (as opposed to in Rangeley). All the expenses are covered..(I'm not sure about the mortgage situation). It's the last "undeveloped" gem out there. It probably stands by itself in New England in terms of raw potential. Plus there's water everywhere inside a 15-30 minute radius. Whether it's ever realized is anyones guess....There's no doubt proximity to markets with big money is a challenge but the raw potential is there. He said that it just appraised for $35k more than the purchase price. This is a good example of every mountain/area having their own micro economy. They're in growth mode, so despite the bad ecenomy values are appreciating. If they weren't, values probably wouldn't be appreciating and I wouldn't be interested...So although I agree that generally speaking you can't time the market, there are unique circumstances where you can and that can dictate how you approach real estate opportunities. If this were 1975, I'd probably be buying at Sugarloaf or Stowe and would have done well.....

 

[steamboat1]

I still kick myself in the butt for not buying a condo at Sugarbush back in 93-94 when everyone thought the place would go bankrupt & close. Could've picked up a nice ski in ski out place for around 20K. The old saying could've, would've, should've.

 

[SkiFanE]

Not a matter of making money or saving money.....it's a matter of comfort. Staying in a run of mill motel w screaming kids, uncomfortable beds, and questionable restaurant food gets old quick.

Exactly. When we thought about being a "skiing family" without a true home mountain, it sounded tough. The kids would probably get 1/3 of as many ski days, and the hassle of lugging stuff up/back, packing for condo/hotel and dealing with day tickets sounds tiring. Just having your own place to go to saves 75% of the effort of skiing as a family, IMO. You can certainly do it the other way (our neighbors do)...but it all depends on your passion I suppose...I NEED TO SKI ALOT lol...so the best way to do that with a family is buying a place, or a seasonal rental. A few weekends and a then a big trip out west every year would not do it for us. Our entire family has between 40-50 ski days this year, and that's not as many as last year. Can't imagine not having that many...or being day trippers/weekenders getting that much.

 

[deadheadskier]

My folks did a seasonal rental for two seasons before they bought. Looking back, my father wishes he would've just rented all those years. He rents now for the summer months and perceives it as a better value than when he owned.

Unless you get lucky with the market, the only real advantage to buying vs. renting is making the place "yours."