VAIL SUCKS

[EPB]

The only way any of this changes is if regulations change making it cost prohibitive for investors and wealthy people from buying up real estate that isn't their primary home. This is kinda true everywhere in the country. Real Estate costs should be inline with local wages.

Ski towns need to get realistic about constructing (and designating on a permanent basis) affordable multi family units for people who work full time in the area. I’ve never been to Telluride, but i know it’s a tough topographical setup and a bad example. That said, my brother filled me in on a proposal to build multi family units next to the outlet mall in North Conway in the last couple of years. As I understand, it faced pressure from the condo development that would have been next door amongst broader pressure. I don’t think it ever happened.

Incumbent home owners hate new development. People will undoubtedly play the “what about xyz?” environmental concern card. If any town officials are truly serious about fixing affordability, they need to understand that their tenure will be short because nobody wants to hear a polite “I hear your concerns but don’t care. The status quo isn’t a viable option, and it’s too bad you don’t like it. Take your medicine.”

Most of the time, there are too many people chasing too few local units. I see no way the problem gets better short of waving a magic wand and seizing people’s second (or more) homes.

 

[deadheadskier]

Ski towns need to get realistic about constructing (and designating on a permanent basis) affordable multi family units for people who work full time in the area. I’ve never been to Telluride, but i know it’s a tough topographical setup and a bad example. That said, my brother filled me in on a proposal to build multi family units next to the outlet mall in North Conway in the last couple of years. As I understand, it faced pressure from the condo development that would have been next door amongst broader pressure. I don’t think it ever happened.

Incumbent home owners hate new development. People will undoubtedly play the “what about xyz?” environmental concern card. If any town officials are truly serious about fixing affordability, they need to understand that their tenure will be short because nobody wants to hear a polite “I hear your concerns but don’t care. The status quo isn’t a viable option, and it’s too bad you don’t like it. Take your medicine.”

Most of the time, there are too many people chasing too few local units. I see no way the problem gets better short of waving a magic wand and seizing people’s second (or more) homes.

All fair points. One of the challenges in developing affordable, multi unit inventory is there's little money to be made for the developers in building them. They'd rather build the luxury properties.

So what do you do? You have to subsidize those developers to incentivise them to build the less profitable product. How do you fund that? I think it has to come from the outside investors who are driving up the values in the first place.

 

[Whitey]

Interesting direction this thread has taken. A couple of years ago I took a job at a New England ski area. One of the larger ones. It came together kind of quickly and I had to scramble to find a place to live. No inexpensive places were available by then so I had to rent in a condo development near the mountain. After spending a winter there - it blew my mind how little usage most of those places got. Things would get busier on the weekends and of course on the holidays. But otherwise - hardly anybody. When I walked my dog around the place on a Tuesday night in February, there might be 6 cars parked around the development. The place had probably 100+ condos and was one of the more choice locations for off-mountain condos. There were many places that I saw get used only 2-3 times a winter.

It struck me then - the crazy irony of ski area real estate. One of the biggest issues is housing for the people who work in the area. Yet there are 100s of mostly unused residences all around those areas. I don't know how you would go about fixing that by merging those 2 issues without going full blown dictatorship level government directive.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Greatly restricting STR is the way to go. That's the #1 thing that's hammered affordability in vacation towns (not just ski, but beach and lake, etc... too).

If you graph the rise of AirBnb with the rise in housing costs you'll see an impressive correlation.

Some vacation towns have banned them altogether (e.g. Sanibel Island) in wink-wink fashion by mandating very long minimum stays like 28 or 30 days. Others have really cut down on them by making a reasonable, but still long minimum stay like 7 days (e.g. Captiva Island). And then some places like Steamboat banned them 100% outright, but I believe they did it in ex post facto fashion, which I'm not sure how much that's going to help them, I guess time will tell.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Interesting direction this thread has taken. A couple of years ago I took a job at a New England ski area. One of the larger ones. It came together kind of quickly and I had to scramble to find a place to live. No inexpensive places were available by then so I had to rent in a condo development near the mountain. After spending a winter there - it blew my mind how little usage most of those places got. Things would get busier on the weekends and of course on the holidays. But otherwise - hardly anybody. When I walked my dog around the place on a Tuesday night in February, there might be 6 cars parked around the development. The place had probably 100+ condos and was one of the more choice locations for off-mountain condos. There were many places that I saw get used only 2-3 times a winter.

It struck me then - the crazy irony of ski area real estate. One of the biggest issues is housing for the people who work in the area. Yet there are 100s of mostly unused residences all around those areas. I don't know how you would go about fixing that by merging those 2 issues without going full blown dictatorship level government directive.

Yup, this is the crux of the problem. Park City is a poster-child for this, as approaching 75% of inventory is currently in a vacant status (short-term rentals, investment properties, vacation homes). If you could unlock much of that inventory, affordability would return.

 

[EPB]

Greatly restricting STR is the way to go. That's the #1 thing that's hammered affordability in vacation towns (not just ski, but beach and lake, etc... too).

If you graph the rise of AirBnb with the rise in housing costs you'll see an impressive correlation.

Some vacation towns have banned them altogether (e.g. Sanibel Island) in wink-wink fashion by mandating very long minimum stays like 28 or 30 days. Others have really cut down on them by making a reasonable, but still long minimum stay like 7 days (e.g. Captiva Island). And then some places like Steamboat banned them 100% outright, but I believe they did it in ex post facto fashion, which I'm not sure how much that's going to help them, I guess time will tell.

This is definitely a HUGE contributing factor.

 

[EPB]

All fair points. One of the challenges in developing affordable, multi unit inventory is there's little money to be made for the developers in building them. They'd rather build the luxury properties.

So what do you do? You have to subsidize those developers to incentivise them to build the less profitable product. How do you fund that? I think it has to come from the outside investors who are driving up the values in the first place.

Not fully fleshed out, but step one would be to zone certain plots only for multi family housing for people with local employment. Of course, getting support for that is much easier said than done.

 

[catskillman]

You're telling me multiple times per week all season long, for years, they're working on sheaves on the same tower?

Skeptical cat is very skeptical.

View attachment 67157

Yep - down again now.....Holiday weekend after 8 to 14 inches of snow last night....

 

[jaytrem]

Challenger at Mount Snow was at least moving this afternoon. Slowly, but still, hopefully a good sign. It still needs all the cushions put on, but that's probably just 1 days work.

 

[benski]

The reason developers only build "luxury" apartments is it costs them almost nothing to go from minimally habitable to "luxury". Just spend a few hundred more on the appliances to get stainless steal panels, and maybe a grand more on countertops and your good because 80% of your competition is aging and outdated anyway.

Colorado ski towns are very adverse to zoning for multifamily. The state mandated places allow some multi family in certain places. One qualification was just there to avoid any of those zones falling in ski towns. Vail got into a big fight with the town of Vail over its workforce housing and lost.