VAIL SUCKS

[cdskier]

True. But that is part of this rub, isn't it? The board had previously APPROVED Vail's lift upgrades even with that agreement in place. 4 individuals were able to basically swing the board to reconsider and then yank their previous approval. Now, for all I know, the board now and the board that approved had been changed out to some extent in elections. Still, Vail is falling prey to multiple municipalities granting different projects in different regions the approval and then yanking it just prior to shovels meeting dirt. Sorry if I see a bad precedent (s) forming here.

Reading the articles, this isn't my interpretation of what happened. The Planning Commission board did not approve (or need to approve) the project. That was handled by city officials. The board only became involved because there was an appeal saying the city officials shouldn't have approved it in the first place because they didn't properly validate that the project was in line with the existing agreement on capacity limits.

I don't really see this as a "precedent". I think this is a unique situation due to that agreement that puts caps on changes that can be made to the capacity of the resort at PC. It is an odd agreement for sure...but it was there when Vail took over PC. If Vail thinks the upgraded lifts still are in line with the terms of that agreement, then they should ultimately prevail and get this project approved as they fight this.

And if we want to look at other projects to see whether this is really a trend or not, look at the new chair at Stowe. Locals TRIED to stop it (which was stupid), but their claims were appropriately dismissed.

 

[deadheadskier]

True. But that is part of this rub, isn't it? The board had previously APPROVED Vail's lift upgrades even with that agreement in place. 4 individuals were able to basically swing the board to reconsider and then yank their previous approval. Now, for all I know, the board now and the board that approved had been changed out to some extent in elections. Still, Vail is falling prey to multiple municipalities granting different projects in different regions the approval and then yanking it just prior to shovels meeting dirt. Sorry if I see a bad precedent (s) forming here.

DHS, I'm curious how your Stowe friends saw or felt about the resort back in the single chair days. How about when the original Forerunner went in during that era of the resort. Yes, it stinks that resort towns continue to get more and more expensive. But then we all want the sport to grow in popularity. The reality is if wealthy folks enjoy the sport, they have the means to buy into second, third, etc homes to enjoy it more. It certainly isn't directly the resort company's fault if they buy single family homes outside of the resort's immediate offerings. I would actually say it is the town governance's fault for not tightening zoning ordinances, etc as the area develops. Maybe that's just me.

I haven't spoken with them too much about that far back, but it's really the last 20 years that's been the problem. I moved to Stowe in 95 and lived there on and off for a decade. Back then there still was some affordable housing in town. There was still very affordable housing in Waterbury or Morrisville. There were lots of long time locals with kids in the schools etc. Things changed big time after 9/11 and accelerated more after the Spruce development started. 9/11 saw a moderate influx of NYC executives move to town. The Saabs and Subarus around town were replaced with Range Rovers. Then with Spruce, more and more uber expensive second homes and tear downs of existing affordable homes as there was only so many units being built up at the mountain.

My best friend coaches lacrosse for the high school these days. He says almost none of his players are from "native" families. They're all wealthy imports. He himself owns a restaurant in town and can't afford to live there. He had to buy out in Elmore. He had three siblings go through the town school system and all of them left the area because there's just such limited professional opportunity in the area for how expensive it is. The earnings vs cost of living math doesn't work.

Is it all attributed to the mountain? No, but a lot of it is. So, I really think these large developers in tourist towns need to be treated like developers in say Boston. You want to add a new skyscraper with luxury condos? Well, you have to allocate a certain percentage of the development to workforce housing. The ski areas should have to do the same. Vail should have to massively invest in employee housing prior to product investments designed to grow traffic even more.

 

[Smellytele]

I don’t want the sport to grow. Like it where it is. Growing actually shuts out the little guys or so it seems. I guess what do you mean by growing. Does growing mean places getting bigger and consolidating or does it mean more people skiing?

 

[machski]

I haven't spoken with them too much about that far back, but it's really the last 20 years that's been the problem. I moved to Stowe in 95 and lived there on and off for a decade. Back then there still was some affordable housing in town. There was still very affordable housing in Waterbury or Morrisville. There were lots of long time locals with kids in the schools etc. Things changed big time after 9/11 and accelerated more after the Spruce development started. 9/11 saw a moderate influx of NYC executives move to town. The Saabs and Subarus around town were replaced with Range Rovers. Then with Spruce, more and more uber expensive second homes and tear downs of existing affordable homes as there was only so many units being built up at the mountain.

My best friend coaches lacrosse for the high school these days. He says almost none of his players are from "native" families. They're all wealthy imports. He himself owns a restaurant in town and can't afford to live there. He had to buy out in Elmore. He had three siblings go through the town school system and all of them left the area because there's just such limited professional opportunity in the area for how expensive it is. The earnings vs cost of living math doesn't work.

Is it all attributed to the mountain? No, but a lot of it is. So, I really think these large developers in tourist towns need to be treated like developers in say Boston. You want to add a new skyscraper with luxury condos? Well, you have to allocate a certain percentage of the development to workforce housing. The ski areas should have to do the same. Vail should have to massively invest in employee housing prior to product investments designed to grow traffic even more.

Agree, but it is the communities and governance that have to push those types of regs and then enforce them. Stowe is unique in that Vail does not control the lodging situation, that is still AIG. So who pays for what part of employee housing? Because I'd that is based off say Spruce Village, well AIG need stop pony up, not Vail in that case.

 

[jaytrem]

Hmmm, the new Eagle would replace 2 triples. Since that would be similar capacity, maybe it should have been approved. Not sure exactly how they calculate though, vert and length might be involved.

 

[drjeff]

One thing to add though...how many resorts other than Park City have actual agreements with towns regarding caps and limits on their comfortable carrying capacity? That agreement is what appears to be the major sticking point here where the people appealing were arguing they were not abiding by that agreement. If it wasn't for that agreement, I don't know that the board would have really had any actual grounds to stop this particular project.

I think that Park City is one of the few, if not the only major ski area where it's base area facilites (on the Park City side of the resort atleast) are literally in the middle of what actually constitutes a small city verses just a casual ski town, so I can see why this arrangement is in place

Hmmm, the new Eagle would replace 2 triples. Since that would be similar capacity, maybe it should have been approved. Not sure exactly how they calculate though, vert and length might be involved.

Capacity casmacity..it's all about the chairlift tourism now!!

 

[drjeff]

I don’t want the sport to grow. Like it where it is. Growing actually shuts out the little guys or so it seems. I guess what do you mean by growing. Does growing mean places getting bigger and consolidating or does it mean more people skiing?

Gotta get more people into the sport, especially given how many Boomers make it up right now, and they're quickly aging out often due to physical limitations of the aging process.

Plus the reality is that so many ski areas now do have the infrastructure to handle more skiers/riders than say 20 years ago.

I get the selfish side most of us have where we would love to have the shorter liftlines at so many ski areas we all enjoyed in the past. However if we all do love the ski industry, we should be rooting for busier ski areas for their economic well being, which ultimately benefits us all

 

[Newpylong]

As selfish as I can be, the more people riding the better. Ski areas close and stagnate due to lack of demand. The Epic boom for Vail resorts has pushed longtime riders to others areas who now benefit. They've constructed a trickle down effect.

 

[FBGM]

Town hates what Vail has done and finally told them they have final say. They said you don’t need more people movers you need to fix traffic and parking before anything.

Old Park City had plans in place for 5 story parking garage in upper base lot and Woodward in first time lot. But that all vanished once Vail took over.

Vails new plan is to get rid of 60% of current parking to do dick head real estate shit. No way city let’s that happen at this point.

80% of that town hates Vail. Best thing that could happen is town starting to revolt like
This. Good for them

 

[thetrailboss]

This move could be anti-Vail by the commission (and a warning shot to Alterra as well) but IMHO sets an ominous precedent in terms of municipal boards and resort investments. We are not talking about new terrain with these halted projects, simply lift replacements. Yes, they are upgrades in the case of Silverload with a bit more capacity but the other project replaces two existing lifts with a single lift (yes, again a bit of an overall caacity increase). Between the Cottonwood issues and seeming roadblocks by various groups towards trying to improve access up those and now this, I would say destination skiers are going to start taking notice. Trailboss, maybe you will see reduced visitation and crowding out there soon.

The key factor here was PCMR’s agreement with PC as to capacity.

 

[snoseek]

Let's not forget how vail got into park city to begin with

 

[FBGM]

Let's not forget how vail got into park city to begin with

Town hates Vail for it. They don’t care that old owners messed up, they care that Vail came in and changed it all up.

Vail single-handedly ruined the town and ski area of Park City. The town didn’t know at first and was to late to see and react. And they could only do some much. Finally they are getting some traction.

The Vail effect on the ski area, town, people and employees is horrible. There were many reasons why I sold and left, Vail and ruining town was one of the many.

 

[machski]

The key factor here was PCMR’s agreement with PC as to capacity.

Probably true, but that didn't seem to play into the interconnect Gondi or any of the new lifts for that whole thing. Hopefully, the Town now speaks with one voice and one board doesn't approve one thing only to have the council side with a few complaints and rule another way.

With all the noise in PC and the Cottonwoods, wonder how the idea of another SLC Olympics is going over out there? It was contentious as I recall last time.

 

[ss20]

Probably true, but that didn't seem to play into the interconnect Gondi or any of the new lifts for that whole thing. Hopefully, the Town now speaks with one voice and one board doesn't approve one thing only to have the council side with a few complaints and rule another way.

With all the noise in PC and the Cottonwoods, wonder how the idea of another SLC Olympics is going over out there? It was contentious as I recall last time.

I don't think it will happen or should happen. There's a lot of problems that should be resolved before spending billions on Olympics. My apartment out here was a temporary move til I could find a small house or condo... wanting something big enough for myself and an extra bedroom for guests. Those are starting at about $290k and no real selection til you're above $320k. That's a problem, IMO. The summer gig I picked up has quite a few kids just out of college and they're all struggling and considering moving back to wherever they're from. I'm certainly in far better shape than them and still the goal of home ownership here is daunting.

SLC is also pretty small compared to where the Olympics have been held recently or are upcoming. SLC is not on par with Paris, Los Angeles, or Milan.

 

[FBGM]

I don't think it will happen or should happen. There's a lot of problems that should be resolved before spending billions on Olympics. My apartment out here was a temporary move til I could find a small house or condo... wanting something big enough for myself and an extra bedroom for guests. Those are starting at about $290k and no real selection til you're above $320k. That's a problem, IMO. The summer gig I picked up has quite a few kids just out of college and they're all struggling and considering moving back to wherever they're from. I'm certainly in far better shape than them and still the goal of home ownership here is daunting.

SLC is also pretty small compared to where the Olympics have been held recently or are upcoming. SLC is not on par with Paris, Los Angeles, or Milan.

I think the Olympics should 100% come back there for a few reasons.

1 - all facilities and infrastructure are there, built, being used and fine. Don’t need to spend billions building more.

2 - it might kick the state and ski areas in the ass some to improve some traffic flow and roads all some of the traffic shit.

3 - airport is new and SLC can handle some temp influx of people and staff and whatnot. Ski areas can’t, but SLC has enough beds.

Down fall is traffic even worse, prices will be even worse, Vail will fuck something up with it, the Mormons will fuck something up with it

 

[thetrailboss]

I think the Olympics should 100% come back there for a few reasons.

1 - all facilities and infrastructure are there, built, being used and fine. Don’t need to spend billions building more.

2 - it might kick the state and ski areas in the ass some to improve some traffic flow and roads all some of the traffic shit.

3 - airport is new and SLC can handle some temp influx of people and staff and whatnot. Ski areas can’t, but SLC has enough beds.

Down fall is traffic even worse, prices will be even worse, Vail will fuck something up with it, the Mormons will fuck something up with it

You took the words out of my mouth. I'm in favor of hosting another one. The facilities are all ready to go. And, like 2002, the Mormons will have to compromise on some of their weird shit in order to make people feel welcome. Such as not feeling like a criminal when getting a drink.

 

[jimmywilson69]

I mean that winter would be a complete shit show, right?

 

[FBGM]

I mean that winter would be a complete shit show, right?

Couldn’t be any worse then Sundance. Maybe it would feel like an extra few weeks of Sundance. But most weekends feel like that now anyway so??? Send it.

 

[thetrailboss]

I mean that winter would be a complete shit show, right?

Not necessarily. I would think that Vail may not be interested, so that venue may move.

BCC and LCC are out due to avalanche issues and only one route out of each.

 

[thebigo]

All the skiing events are going to be at snowbasin and deer valley? What is the plan for downhill?