abc
Well-known member
"The point" of the brand being eroded, aka "de-valued" is NOT the same as the value of the property being reduced!What you are missing is that people used to pay a premium for the experience of some of these resorts that are now much more crowded with IKON. Two prime examples: Deer Valley and Aspen. Anecdotally, there are MANY second-home owners at those resorts who are PISSED with the crowds of folks who are at the areas to "use their days" while locals who only want Aspen or DV pay a premium to ski there (DV still commands $2,000 pp or so at last check). So if you invested in a second-home at these areas, and have been paying a premium for a top-shelf experience, now that has completely been undermined by folks who show up with their $599 or $999 IKON passes and crowd the slopes. Folks with those passes are NOT going to buy high-priced realty.
I think Jim's larger point is that the value of SOME of these resorts, in terms of brand, is being eroded.
Let's say, hypothetically, the property value at Aspen or Deer Valley will come down by ANY amount, I and many others will jump right in and buy it as rental investment property! Them being on IKON means there will be many visitors who would need a place to crash at the end of the day. The supply are limited. So the value have to go up if more visitors are visiting, even for a few days!
So, if a home owner got sick of the crowd and wants to cash out, they'll probably be making a killing rather than losing money!
It's perfectly fine to put one's money where it will derive the best happiness for oneself. Just be very careful about using fictitious justification that don't stand up to logic and economical reality.
Last edited: