New Ski House for Rent

[Edd]

You said "owned and or managed". Vacasa doesn't own properties. If you realize they only manage them, then what's the point of bringing them up? It is still singular individual owners using Vacasa to manage the rental aspect of the properties. It doesn't negate a single thing I said about most STR being simply owned by average people using that as a means to afford to have a vacation home.

I’d wager that before the Airbnb rush many of these same folks were unable to afford that 2nd home. Therefore you had a greater supply of housing for the locals who grew up there and for the seasonal workers. If choosing to root for the 2nd home owner or the locals I’m going with the latter.

 

[cdskier]

I’d wager that before the Airbnb rush many of these same folks were unable to afford that 2nd home. Therefore you had a greater supply of housing for the locals who grew up there and for the seasonal workers. If choosing to root for the 2nd home owner or the locals I’m going with the latter.

I don't fundamentally agree with that. While I can't speak specifically to ski resorts from personal experience, I can talk about other popular 2nd home locations such as the Jersey Shore. A substantial number of those homes have been owned as 2nd homes using STR to make it feasible for decades (again...LONG before AirBnB or even computers and the Internet existed).

 

[deadheadskier]

You said "owned and or managed". Vacasa doesn't own properties. If you realize they only manage them, then what's the point of bringing them up? It is still singular individual owners using Vacasa to manage the rental aspect of the properties. It doesn't negate a single thing I said about most STR being simply owned by average people using that as a means to afford to have a vacation home.

I assumed they owned some because they have bought out numerous companies like Wyndham vacation destinations.

My point stands that some of these are owned by corporations, some by individuals who own many units. They aren't all just middle class families owning one property and trying to generate funds to assist with a second mortgage. They are businesses treated as hotels in many cases.

Out of curiosity, I just did a VRBO search in Stowe as someone who had lived there a long time. With just a casual view, I can identify at least a dozen properties that I know for a fact were LTRs including one I lived in myself with 5 other guys. There are without question many many more.

So say we average 3 people per property. That's housing for 36 local workers who now aren't in town. That's enough people to staff 2-3 small restaurants or even more small retail locations.

It's asinine to suggest that STRs haven't impacted availability of work force housing in a big way in resort areas. It's way worse today than ever before and only worsening.

 

[cdskier]

I assumed they owned some because they have bought out numerous companies like Wyndham vacation destinations.

My point stands that some of these are owned by corporations, some by individuals who own many units. They aren't all just middle class families owning one property and trying to generate funds to assist with a second mortgage. They are businesses treated as hotels in many cases.

Out of curiosity, I just did a VRBO search in Stowe as someone who had lived there a long time. With just a casual view, I can identify at least a dozen properties that I know for a fact were LTRs including one I lived in myself with 5 other guys. There are without question many many more.

So say we average 3 people per property. That's housing for 36 local workers who now aren't in town. That's enough people to staff 2-3 small restaurants or even more small retail locations.

It's asinine to suggest that STRs haven't impacted availability of work force housing in a big way in resort areas. It's way worse today than ever before and only worsening.

Are these LTR to STR examples owned by the same people? If not, then perhaps the original owners had the properties paid off and just needed enough income to cover the upkeep and taxes, etc. If you have new owners, then the new owners need to do what is best for them to pay their bills. I have zero issue with an individual owner doing what they believe is best for them personally. Providing LTR is not their responsiblity. Ultimately what the owner does with their property is their business (within reason of course...I'm not advocating someone that buys a home should be able to turn it into a factory). If they want to keep it for themselves, great. If they want to do LTR to help cover costs, great. If they want to do STR, great. Personally I wouldn't buy a 2nd home if I had to do any sort of rental scenario to cover the costs. But that's me. I tend to be rather financially conservative and risk-averse. But I'm also not going to sit here and preach to others what they should do. Were you this against people in the past that put their properties in a rental pool with a local real estate agency or management company? Did you consider those to be businesses operating as hotels?

Also asinine to bite the hand that feeds you... The same people in many of these towns that are against STR would also be against building additional housing to meet the actual demand for both tourists and locals. Population has grown (even in VT) and while housing units have largely grown at a similar rate to population, the overall number of people living per unit has actually gone down rather significantly compared to years ago...resulting in a net shortage of housing. But sure, continue to blame STR. Maybe we should just not allow non-locals to own property. Would that be better?

 

[deadheadskier]

The minutia does not matter. Inventory of LTR is down, demand is UP due to there being many more businesses in town today compared with 20 years ago. That means prices of the LTRs that remain are vastly less affordable than they once were. Supply and Demand 101.


No where have I argued that I think RE owners have an obligation to do anything at all with their properties. They can do what they want within the law.

I do however, think communities have a right to zone or set a quota for what they want their RE mix to look like. I think even neighborhoods have a right to push back against certain kinds of real estate proposals if they are going to impact their home values and / or quality of life. You see it all the time near me in Portsmouth, which is one of the most insane RE markets in New England. People buy single family homes to tear down all the time and replace with multiple units; not because they're altruistic and want to increase housing supply, but because they want to make more money. They often get push back by residents and permits denied. I'm fine with that.

 

[Smellytele]

Just pondering with these STR’s what is the percentage of the owners that stay in them at all? I understand owners who use the property 25% of the weekends and do a couple full weeks but I think people have an issue with owners who just buy and don’t use the property at all and just str them.

 

[snoseek]

When there's Noone to make your food, bump your chairs, pick up your trash and stock the shelves that quaint vacation spot won't be what it once was. It's unfolding before our eyes and it's been happening out west for years but the difference is out there kids will go to extremes to survive. Poverty with view. It won't fly back east.

Tax it to death and give the locals/ seasonal workers a chance. Noone gives a fuck until things start shutting then its too late.

 

[ss20]

When there's Noone to make your food, bump your chairs, pick up your trash and stock the shelves that quaint vacation spot won't be what it once was. It's unfolding before our eyes and it's been happening out west for years but the difference is out there kids will go to extremes to survive. Poverty with view. It won't fly back east.

Tax it to death and give the locals/ seasonal workers a chance. Noone gives a fuck until things start shutting then its too late.

I heard a lot of complaints the past couple years about Park City not getting stuff opened quick because not enough patrollers, then not beih able to run a few lifts even at peak times because not enough lifties.

Heck my first year at Alta if I hadn't been a first year I would've been offered to cross train with another department because there wasnt enough staff.

 

[snoseek]

I heard a lot of complaints the past couple years about Park City not getting stuff opened quick because not enough patrollers, then not beih able to run a few lifts even at peak times because not enough lifties.

Heck my first year at Alta if I hadn't been a first year I would've been offered to cross train with another department because there wasnt enough staff.

That's crazy considering it's Alta, there's housing and there's a giant population down the canyon. My time there was 40 hours a week with 2 consecutive days off. It's was a fucking dream coming from kirkwood honestly then again I didn't work for the actual ski area.

I bet Jackson is a nightmare these days. Sign up for a job and begged to work 7 days a week is the trend.

 

[ss20]

That's crazy considering it's Alta, there's housing and there's a giant population down the canyon. My time there was 40 hours a week with 2 consecutive days off. It's was a fucking dream coming from kirkwood honestly then again I didn't work for the actual ski area.

I bet Jackson is a nightmare these days. Sign up for a job and begged to work 7 days a week is the trend.

That is also what I've heard about Jackson. We had an instructor go up there for one season, then immediately come back to Alta. It's rough everywhere now, unfortunately.

I keep looking at Kellogg and Wallace up on Idaho. Cheap housing. Silver and Lookout Pass (could be a legit resort in a few years if their master plan works out). Plenty of snow. Not sure if I want to live in a hundred years old mining house with temperatures going negative every night and having to clear snow off the roof regularly.

 

[cdskier]

I do however, think communities have a right to zone or set a quota for what they want their RE mix to look like. I think even neighborhoods have a right to push back against certain kinds of real estate proposals if they are going to impact their home values and / or quality of life. You see it all the time near me in Portsmouth, which is one of the most insane RE markets in New England. People buy single family homes to tear down all the time and replace with multiple units; not because they're altruistic and want to increase housing supply, but because they want to make more money. They often get push back by residents and permits denied. I'm fine with that.

On this we mostly agree. But keep in mind that this works both ways and is also contributing to the housing shortage problem. Put too many restrictions on what people can develop and you don't end up with what you really need.

The one part I won't agree with though is excessive taxes or over-regulating specifically where STRs can and can't be within a town. Any policy should unilaterally apply to all residential properties in a town. I'm all for regulations requiring any rentals to have occupancy limits or meet fire/safety requirements, etc. But I'm against "taxing them to death" as others have suggested. I'm fine with taxing them with similar rates to other hotels and lodging though. That makes perfect sense to me. There's certainly no reason that STRs should be exempt from taxes like that. And if you want LTR tax rates to be lower, fine as well to incentivize that a bit. If someone suggests STR should be subtantially higher than hotel tax rates though...then you lose my support on the topic.

 

[Smellytele]

Crazy how someone throws in a piece of meat and we lions fight over it.

 

[1dog]

Some are Daniels tho- good post Smelly

 

[ss20]

Crazy how someone throws in a piece of meat and we lions fight over it.

Guess we scared off the op

 

[deadheadskier]

"Any policy should unilaterally apply to all residential properties in a town"

That's not practical. I think of Hampton, NH near me. The Beach? STR it up. It used to be not that expensive to have a year round property out there and even then just 15 years ago, very few year round takers. Why? Because it's rowdy and loaded with traffic 4 months a year.

2 miles inland? It's a sleepy town of 16k people loaded with quiet, residential neighborhoods. Those people don't want the rowdy in their neighborhoods. Can't blame them. So it's zoned against STRs.

Seems a pretty simple solution to keep both groups happy. The residents get to preserve part of town for a more year round community and the investors get to have their properties in the location of highest seasonal demand and financial return.

I think back to when I lived in downtown Stowe behind Shaws General Store in the late 90s. The entire village was year round residents. It's probably less than half that now. Talk to any old timer in town who hasn't been priced out and I bet most wished certain areas of town were zoned LTR only.

 

[cdskier]

Now we're back to disagreeing. I always get a chuckle out of how locals enjoy benefiting from the money tourists bring in, but then snub their noses at them at the same time. What happens if a "local" in the "quiet, residential neighborhood" falls on hard times and decides to STR one of their rooms in their own house out to make some money? Now the very zoning laws that were intended to "protect locals" all of a sudden start hurting them. Even without zoning restrictions, those areas further away from the "touristy" areas should naturally have less STR as it simply isn't as desirable to tourists.

Setting different rules for different residential neighborhoods is also walking a very fine line into becoming a discriminatory issue. A number of STR restrictions and zoning laws have been challenged in courts (with mixed results even up to the US Court of Appeals level with different circuits ruling in different ways). I wouldn't be surprised to see restrictions on STR at some point make it to the Supreme Court level in the future.

 

[deadheadskier]

Now we're back to disagreeing. I always get a chuckle out of how locals enjoy benefiting from the money tourists bring in, but then snub their noses at them at the same time. What happens if a "local" in the "quiet, residential neighborhood" falls on hard times and decides to STR one of their rooms in their own house out to make some money? Now the very zoning laws that were intended to "protect locals" all of a sudden start hurting them. Even without zoning restrictions, those areas further away from the "touristy" areas should naturally have less STR as it simply isn't as desirable to tourists.

Setting different rules for different residential neighborhoods is also walking a very fine line into becoming a discriminatory issue. A number of STR restrictions and zoning laws have been challenged in courts (with mixed results even up to the US Court of Appeals level with different circuits ruling in different ways). I wouldn't be surprised to see restrictions on STR at some point make it to the Supreme Court level in the future.

First off, I know you are a good guy and don't mean to come across in such a fashion, but your second sentence is pretty condescending. Oh yes, the local people and businesses should just be grateful the tourists are there to contribute to their means of survival. If you walked into any businesses in the MRV right now, what do you think ownership would say is there greatest challenge, revenue or staffing? I bet every one of them would trade a few less customers if it meant more local housing so they could staff their business. And I'm sure the teachers, policemen and public works employees are all ever so grateful to make a buck even though they now have to drive from Barre to the valley for work after their family had lived there generations. It's not just the local cooks struggling.

It's part of life, local economies change, but residents should have at least some controls over the direction of their communities. That's almost always done with zoning.

Which gets to your second point. What if your neighbor falls in hard times and says, "Hey, I have a half acre here, I could just turn this into a used car lot to help pay the bills." Just an example, pick any commercial activity you wouldn't want next to your residence. That's what STRs are, commercial enterprises.

This is pretty basic municipal planning type stuff. You allow one type of thing here, another there in an attempt to try and meet all stakeholders interests. It's never perfect, but it's a lot better than just letting people do whatever they want, wherever they want.

 

[cdskier]

This is again where we disagree. I don't view an STR as a truly "commercial enterprise". Why is STR commercial but LTR isn't? You're renting a room (or whatever) to someone that is temporarily living there. This applies to both STR and LTR. If you want to consider STR "commercial", then LTR should 100% be as well. You can't have it both ways. I would consider it differently if one person is renting 10 rooms. But a single owner renting a single room/unit...that's not a "commercial enterprise".

And perhaps my 2nd sentence is a bit condescending. I've grown up all my life hearing locals in tourist areas of my state talking about tourists in a condescending fashion and "celebrating" when summer ends and the tourists leave, so I'm sure that's a factor in my view. I'm not saying locals should be "thankful", but they also shouldn't treat tourists as evil outsiders. They're people. Many of them are property owners and pay taxes in those same towns (yet get no say in decisions at the local level...). Many of them are respectful. Not everyone that rents throws wild parties and makes noise, etc (and those are things that CAN be addressed through laws and restrictions). I'd have no issue at all levying fines on STR owners if that type of behavior occurs in their properties. There's several STR units in my condo complex in VT. Other than some renters having no concept on how to park properly in our lot, you'd have no idea that they're being rented by different people all the time.

 

[ss20]

@cdskier I would like to hear your thoughts on why affordable housing for locals in resort areas is now so high and if STR's play a role in affordability?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Interesting that some of you seem to think banning STR would magically fix the housing shortages. Housing prices might drop slightly, but not substantially enough to make a difference for the lower income brackets that need affordable housing.

Nationwide (which is how most housing figures are reported) it wouldn't have much of an impact.

In certain towns & areas, however, it would have a huge impact, and germane to this message board, mountain ski areas are one such place.

For instance, approximately 70% of all housing units in Park City are currently vacant., and the STR + 2nd home stock is huge. But even in little places, like southern Vermont around Magic or Stratton, I wouldnt be surprised if all the STR & ski home stock has a significant impact. Hell, before moving out west I was considering buying a house near Londonderry (this was before COVID19 caused the homes to spike approximately eleventy-billion percent).