A 'cowboy ski town' where high earners can't afford a home faces housing battle

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/cowboy-ski-town-high-earners-cant-afford-home-faces-housing-battle-rcna140429

by mooreds • 2 years ago

37 82 2 years ago

nbcnews.com

recursivedoubts5• 2 years ago

I'm in a mountain ski town, same dynamic. If you want housing prices to come down for real you are gonna have to pop The Everything Bubble. Moderately not insane interest rates haven't done that yet. Maybe this time it's different.

Manuel_D9• 2 years ago

Interest rates aren't the issue. Many of these are all cash buyers as per the article. The issue is supply and demand. Building lots more housing in ski towns is what will bring prices down.

dog_boxer72• 2 years ago

The issue is wealth inequality - DINK households with 2 six figure incomes massively dwarf what’s possible for a regular American family (one breadwinner, 2.4 kids) - they’re the top 5% which isn’t Elon Musk territory, but as a group it’s distorting housing way more than a tiny amount of billionaires would

Fwiw I don’t think there’s anything inherently “wrong” with it, the market is a brutal mistress

recursivedoubts5• 2 years ago

That cash came from somewhere, and that somewhere is inflated asset values, and those asset values are from comically low interest rates for a decade.

qazxcvbnmlp• 2 years ago

I’m also in a mountain ski town (same one as you after some profile snooping).

Housing prices aren’t going to come down for a while, it’s gone from a happy little remote town to a nice-place-to-be.

jmclnx• 2 years ago

That seems to be a place that can be very prone to bubbles. Yes housing costs are very high almost everywhere, and rent even worse. But Steamboat seems to only survive on the Tourism Industry.

I think a place like Steamboat will have a big crash some day, so best people stay clear, which is happening. If I lived there and owned a house, I would sell and move elsewhere, especially if fully paid off. $1 million can help you a lot.

ghaff3• 2 years ago

Anecdotally, I've heard from friends that sort of thing happens with some regularity. A (especially second home) ski condo is one of the most optional large assets you can imagine and even more so if it's really inflated in price. (A lot of people probably also grow out of this sort of thing over time.)

As an aside, a second home is something that's never appealed to me. Neither the effort, the expense, nor the ties to a specific location seem like great tradeoffs for most people.

derefr3• 2 years ago

So, something I don't get: why would a home have any value at all, if it's located somewhere with no service economy, no schools, no hospitals, no firefighters, no sanitation workers, etc (because none of the people powering those services can afford to live there)?

People living there wouldn't be able to: get groceries, get a haircut, see a movie, get prescriptions filled, eat out or go out for drinks, visit (maintained) parks, use (maintained) sporting areas like baseball diamonds or tennis courts... etc.

At that point — other than maybe having electricity and running water — isn't living in a home there effectively the same as squatting in an abandoned home in a depopulated area?

FredPret2• 2 years ago

You can still winter there for a short stretch

karaterobot2• 2 years ago

I don't see where in the article they say there aren't schools, hospitals, etc. in town. I think the idea is that people who have jobs there but can't afford to buy homes would have to commute in from neighboring communities—sometimes a long way.

Shog92• 2 years ago

Yep. If you drive around through any of these towns, upon leaving in any direction you'll encounter a mobile home park down the road just a ways, tucked into a valley or next to a railroad, somewhere the views aren't as valuable and the roads aren't as good. Inexpensive manufactured housing or RVs on tiny lots (that still cost too much to rent for what you get).

That's where you'll live if you work most jobs in the town, if you're lucky; otherwise, you'll commute a lot further - potentially over dangerous mountain roads in icy conditions. Better hope I70 stays open...

Manuel_D9• 2 years ago

Services like sanitation still exist, they're staffed by people who live out of town. Like much of San Francisco's services.

Houses are expensive because the desire to live near a good skiing mountain is high. That, and the potential to rent it out.

adrr• 2 years ago

Its a ski town. Vacation homes is what is driving up the prices and they don't care about if they can get a hair cut or not or if the local school can hire teachers. Ski resort is either bussing in their employees or has employee housing.

StanislavPetrov• 2 years ago

Speaking from personal experience (having visited Steamboat dozens of times) it has a service economy, a school system, including a college (Colorado Mountain College Steamboat Springs), a hospital, firefighters and sanitation workers. It has grocery stores, pharmacies, parks, maintained sporting areas and every sort of amenity.

Don't get me wrong, housing is a serious issue for workers. Many of the large hotels and employers there have housing programs for employees.

https://www.steamboat.com/employment/housing

And despite being a "ski town" (and it certainly is), there is a lot to do there in the summer. The ski trails are used for mountain biking, with gondola rides available. There is also fishing, hiking, rafting, hot-air balloon rides and a variety of other things to do outside of the winter season. There aren't as many flights out to Yampa during the summer season, but a couple of airlines run all year round.

Highly recommend visiting in any season.

mynameisnoone4• 2 years ago

In the middle of nowhere, it's mostly sociopolitical where dumb money vies to belong to some trend or near celebrities. If you're not already absurdly rich, then trying to play that game is a fool's errand.

yencabulator2• 2 years ago

If you have a multi-million dollar extra home you use only for seasonal vacations, these really don't bother you much. And that is the problem.

get groceries, get a haircut, see a movie, get prescriptions filled, eat out or go out for drinks, visit (maintained) parks, use (maintained) sporting areas like baseball diamonds or tennis courts... etc.

Have a staffer drive in with all the fresh goods you want, just before you fly in. They'll also deliver some of your favorite clothes so you can travel light. You got a haircut last week before you flew in. You have a private movie theater in your fancy house. And so on.

TulliusCicero2• 2 years ago

dividing communities over how to rein in housing costs.

Have they tried letting people, y'know, make more housing?

Almost invariably, the answer is no.

When it comes to building more housing, residents have mounted opposition to some efforts over concerns about everything from traffic congestion to wildlife migration patterns.

...and there it is.

“Yes, we need affordable housing, no question,” Engelken said. “It needs to be smaller to start with”

Jesus Christ. "Yes we need more housing, but how about not that much more housing? Does that work?"

NIMBY mentality in the US is a disease.

FredPret2• 2 years ago

We have the same problem here in Canada. There should be a higher-level authority deciding how much municipalities should zone since housing is now a national problem.

thefaux• 2 years ago

Everyone has a bit of NIMBY in them. I don't think it's a useful or constructive pejorative at this point.

No doubt we need more housing, but not every growth plan is a good one and perhaps we'd get closer if we stopped the name calling.

TulliusCicero2• 2 years ago

No. A huge part of the problem is that people act like it's just normal to fight new housing in a housing crisis, that you're simply entitled to stop people from building houses in the city where you live.

Obviously not every development is good -- I don't want to be tearing up delicate wetlands for condos -- but if the problem is just "there'll be more traffic" or "we need more infrastructure", then we need to be asking how to support more people, not if we should support more people.

Normalizing NIMBYism is what got us into this situation into the first place.

Shog92• 2 years ago

This. It didn't start with the pandemic or WFH - in the two decades I spent in Colorado, I heard similar stories from just about everyone I met who lived (or more often, used to live) in the various ski towns.

I loved living in Colorado, but during the pandemic took the opportunity to sell and move out - it was clear to me that things weren't going to get better any time soon. And for folks talking about a "crash" or "correction" - that happened to some extent after 2008; it mostly just resulted in big investors snapping up a lot of property at a discount and holding onto it until they could sell at a profit - didn't really help at all for the most housing-constrained areas.

chizhik-pyzhik• 2 years ago

1. Desirable place has a lot of people that want to live there.

2. Residents refuse to change zoning laws, so very little new housing can be built.

3. Demand exceeds supply, so the prices go up.

State governments need to pass laws forcing cities to allow housing, or this will continue to just get worse and worse.

taberiand• 2 years ago

Is more people living in that area beneficial to society?

Manuel_D9• 2 years ago

Lower housing cost is generally beneficial to society. Making activities like skiing less exclusive and more accessible is also a benefit. One could argue that skiing doesn't directly benefit society. But by that logic there's not much benefit to art, entertainment, parks, and essentially anything other than food, housing, and healthcare.

piuantiderp• 2 years ago

This is my pet peeve. There is so much cheap land elsewhere but everyone HAS to live in Beverly Hills, 5th Ave, etc... etc...

Lots of places are just attractive because wealthy people live there and keep them nice. You densify it and it'll go to the drain quicker than anything.

paleotrope• 2 years ago

The subtext here is that the big seasonal employers can find anyone to work locally. And all the other businesses can't pay people enough to work on the lowest tier jobs. Pay people enough that won't hit their bottom line. So you really have the very rich and the somewhat rich fighting it out here. The solution would be temporary housing that is 20 miles away that they could bus in the workers but no one likes the way that would look.

derefr3• 2 years ago

This case is exceptional, though, as it's not a big city in demand for its big-city-ness (where NIMBYs living there are going against the spirit of what makes the place successful); but rather, this is an out-of-the-way place, in demand for its out-of-the-way-ness, where NIMBY interests are aligned with what makes the place successful.

The people and developers interested in building there, are only interested because of the rate-limiting being applied to new construction there — which guarantees them (and everyone else who moved there previously) the cachet of exclusivity, and the inherent privacy of big-secluded-SFH-lot zoning.

But if those same people and developers were allowed to come in and build whatever they liked, as fast as they liked, they'd just flood the market with new construction — which would make a quick buck for them, but would destroy the only thing that makes anyone want to live there. People certainly don't live in a place like this for the vibrant community, nor for the amenities, nor — as should be evident from the article — for the jobs. They live there as a Veblen good. Making a Veblen good cheap defeats the purpose.

These sorts of rich privacy-oriented NIMBY communities — Beverly Hills is a well-known example of one — are certainly a bit ridiculous when they're taking up space in the middle of a big city, space that could otherwise have been put to use to densify that city and serve far more people who want to live in the greater area.

But in this case, there's no big city. Just a small town, in the middle of nowhere, full of NIMBYs. I'm not sure densification is the right solution. Maybe just let them have it, and choose somewhere else to live?

FireBeyond2• 2 years ago

The problem is, "in the middle of nowhere" plus people who will throw down a million over asking all cash means that there's nowhere for people to live to bus tables, to run ski lifts, etc.

It's bad enough in SF with service workers commuting. The rich NIMBYs are going to find their idyllic paradise a lot less pleasant when they realize service workers aren't going to commute 3 hours each way from the nearest city just to bus their tables.

karaterobot2• 2 years ago

I see that. For mountain towns, there can be a practical constraint on the number of houses you can build, given the geography. The town would have to sprawl a long way, and people on the edge of town would be far away from all the services, and literally become marginalized. This is the complaint mentioned in the article about the proposed plan of building thousands of new houses. I don't know about Steamboat Springs, but this is a problem in other places I've been, where you've got a small, desirable town in a narrow valley between huge mountains: where will you build those new houses, 10 miles outside of town?

derefr3• 2 years ago

Seems weird that they'd want to build SFHs rather than condos. Ski towns love condos. The density keeps everything nice and walkable and touristy for the snowbirds — and they're easier to heat, too.

yencabulator2• 2 years ago

And also, the surrounding 10-200 miles outside of town is a National Forest.

These mountains towns are idyllic because they haven't been built up.

Kon-Peki2• 2 years ago

One of the components of the solution is a property tax regime that strongly favors occupancy. Not a homeowner’s exemption.

If a house is going to be built, it should be used. Don’t let them sit empty.

throwitaway2222• 2 years ago

Also one that favors ownership... 100% higher for winter properties, 400% higher for AirBnbs and rentals

asta123• 2 years ago

I see a lot of talk of this 'increase supply' in Australia where house prices are out of control. Personally I think insatiable demand is a bigger problem and no increase in supply will fix it. Over last couple of decades we have had financial deregulation and cheap money - 30 year mortgages are a norm (used to be 20 years), tax system favoring property investment (losses claimed as tax return), global economy where anyone in the world can bid for local housing (e.g. rules change so foreign students can buy property), huge liquidity in pension funds (superannuation) allowed to do leverage/borrow so investment property can be purchased - again policy change in last decade or so. This is without even talking about stock reduction due to temporary rentals. I see big part of the problem interest groups driving policy change, rather then people wanting to live in desirable places. (edited - typo)

fungi• 2 years ago

housing supply has outpaced population for a decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2023/dec/12/austra...

it's pretty impossible to take anything the media, lib/alp or industry say seriously when they got us where we are and are proposing more or of the same.

onlyrealcuzzo• 2 years ago

State governments need to pass laws forcing cities to allow housing, or this will continue to just get worse and worse.

Why would the state do that?

States are run by politicians voted in by the people, who want their house prices to go up.

It's working as intended.

lotsofpulp• 2 years ago

States are run by politicians voted in by the people, who want their house prices to go up.

Or people who are there don’t want more people to be there.

Ski lifts, trails, etc all have capacity limits.

Brian_K_White3• 2 years ago

In this case, and frankly most cases, it's perfectly correct for the existing locals to not give a fig about anyone new trying to get in.

If they are as dense as they want to be already, then anyone else has no right to demand they get denser. The newcomers have no right to anything.

It's a problem that outsider newcomers are outbidding locals, and I don't know what the answer is to that problem, but I know the answer is not "Allow the newcomer outsiders to turn the place into some other kind of place for the benefit of someone else and to the detriment of themselves."

Absolutely one thing is for sure, that state governments should not pass any sort of laws that force the creation of more housing than the locals want, only that there is no racial/ethnic/sexual discrimination and maybe some minimum required spread to allow at least some places for all classes. IE the rich or white or whatever can't completely take ownership of all the shared public space and all possible properties, but the overall density doesn't have to increase if the current residents don't choose to.

Everyone only has a right to equal access. No one has a right to "you need to allow a developer to build denser housing in your neighborhood because I want to move in". It's as ridiculous as saying you need to let me rent a room in your house.

glimshe• 2 years ago

But isn't a zoning law that prevents the denser building an artificial restriction? So why do they have the right to demand whatever density is in place there? Why are the current residents entitled to a restriction that didn't apply to them when they moved in - after all, there could have been an even more restrictive limitation in place that would have prevented the original owners from moving in.

I sympathize with both ends of the conversation. Sure, maybe we don't want to turn that town into Manhattan or Tokyo, but this line of thinking is what creates the major housing crisis in California.

tivert• 2 years ago

State governments need to pass laws forcing cities to allow housing, or this will continue to just get worse and worse.

Honestly, for places like this, they just need to pass laws forbidding anyone except bona fide residents of the community from purchasing a home in this area.

Already lived there full time for 5 years? Have a job offer at a recognized business in the area? Legitimate family connection? Etc? You're good.

Out-of-town millionaire? Have multiple homes across the country/world? Are an LLC? Get lost.

Sure it would prevent existing residents from cashing in on a boom, but who cares about that? I don't.

johnrob• 2 years ago

Any area that wealthy people are attracted to pretty much has this problem now. It’s the same exact story playing out in each locale. The core issue is important so on one hand I’m happy to see press coverage, but on the other it’s literally the same article that I’ve now read over 100 times. Will we ever do anything about it??

paulddraper• 2 years ago

Nothing to be done

arjvik• 2 years ago

What's a good ski town to retire in?

dboreham• 2 years ago

Bozeman?

ghaff3• 2 years ago

Although it has it's downsides, Salt Lake City?

There are a bunch of smaller ski towns but I'm not sure most of them would really appeal to me long-term.

mynameisnoone4• 2 years ago

If you can tolerate a state run by Mormons, SLC is chill and active. I'd sooner live in Denver. I went through Colorado Springs but it had California-like homeless issues.

viraptor• 2 years ago

Few of them. As you get older, if you want good medical care, you likely want to see the same doctor at a well equipped facility. Ski towns can rarely provide those (mostly rotating staff, just essentials, potentially costly air transport if you need to get something non-trivial)

corford• 2 years ago

Someone should familiarise the local residents with Gary Stevenson's work: https://youtube.com/@garyseconomics (https://twitter.com/garyseconomics)

tiffanyh• 2 years ago

Yellowstone

This is a storyline in Yellowstone TV show.

That ski destinations price out locals, due to million dollar vacation homes & tourists.

You see this happen at Telluride, Aspen, Jackson Hole, etc.

marklubi• 2 years ago

Would hardly call Steamboat a ‘cowboy ski town’. They’ve had speed limit signs listed in both MPH and KPH since the mid 90’s.

Octokiddie• 2 years ago

This kind of gross imbalance is self-correcting. Those who have been through a few of these cycles know the warning signs. Those who don't get an expensive lesson at the school of hard knocks.

yawgmoth• 2 years ago

This is why I am against folks in San Francisco making more than folks in Ann Arbor for the same job. When the pandemic hit, high earners moved in and drove costs up in our local market. We lose twice.

mynameisnoone4• 2 years ago

All high income earners beyond a certain amount (on a graduated scale) should be required to found a new city and pay much higher taxes. Also needed: UBI because around a hundred million Americans are being shut out and left behind.

listenallyall• 2 years ago

The article fails to even mention the IKON pass effect, which (along with Epic Pass) has massively boosted ski-town demand specifically, on top of the Covid phenomenon that increased desirability of all kinds of resort and recreational areas.

By offering unlimited skiing at Steamboat and dozens of additional resorts, IKON (and Epic) has increased frequency of ski trips which in turn increases demand for lodging, which benefits Alterra and Vail because they own the most desirable real estate assets.

The pricing-out of average people from ski towns was slowly happening for decades, but it accelerated greatly in the past few years.

1vuio0pswjnm7• 2 years ago

Site not responding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240303131135if_/https://www.nb...

mynameisnoone4• 2 years ago

It's the SF effect that creates expensive hipster ghettos of dumb money chasing stupid money. Just move anywhere else with good climate, low pollution, good walkability/short commutes, relatively low risks, and access to major medical.

uslic001• 2 years ago

I have been going to Steamboat since 1981. I had a friend who bought a townhome there in the late 1980's for 400K. He sold it in the early 90's for a small profit. Now that townhome is worth 4 million. I have two friend from college that still live in the area but can't afford to live in Steamboat. They live 30 minutes away but the cost of living is still very high.

angmarsbane• 2 years ago

Why isn’t the solution to reduce the demand for select housing stock, stating that it can only be sold or rented to people who have an on-site job in the town?

A 'cowboy ski town' where high earners can't afford a home faces housing battle

Related Stories