Resorting to Madness
Posted on Wednesday, November 14th, 2007
Rampant resort development has been an increasing concern in ski towns across the country. We’ve blogged in the past about the effect this has on our communities. (See Telluride: A Mountain Town’s Future & Thinking of moving to Jackson?) But what are the “real costs” these development practices cause to our small communities?
Did you know that if you rate all of the counties in the US according to the increase in housing prices during the 1990s, eight of the top 10 are home to ski resorts: Vail, Aspen, Steamboat, Telluride, Breckenridge, Sun Valley, Park City and Jackson Hole?
Have you noticed the cookie cutter “villages” that are popping up in your favorite resorts? Or how about the slow decline of local businesses, which are being replaced by larger corporate shops?
I was fortunate enough to receive a copy of the film Resorting to Madness from the good men over at Coldstream Creative. The film, released in January 2007, addresses the impacts of the modern ski resort industry on mountain communities and environments.
With footage and interviews from dozens of ski areas, experts and concerned community members throughout North America, Resorting to Madness reveals the negative side of an otherwise glamorous sport and offers up suggestions to protect and maintain mountains and mountain communities.
If you’re heart is in the mountains and you love your ski towns, I can’t encourage you enough to check this film out. You can purchase a copy from www.filmbaby.com or directly through Coldstream Creative.
Do you have something to say about the resort development at our ski communities? Let us know in the comment section. Next week, I’ll choose a random commenter to whom I’ll send my previously viewed copy of the film.
People who live in ski restorts and complain about developement and newcomers have to ask themselves where did they grew up and what drew them to a mountain community. The term NIMBY is used often in referring to these complainers and rightly so. The love of the mountains and living in Jackson, Steamboat, Aspen, The Butte, or any of the other ski restorts is going to continue. I do agree we need smart growth and developement. Who’s going to close the door to people wanting to live in places for exactly the same reasons we moved to the mountains.
A very important and difficult subject.
A while ago, I quit going to Jackson Hole. I guess it’s been more than 10 years. And the reason I quit was twofold: It’s getting overdeveloped: Pepi’s Run, Bird in the Hand and the Hobacks get hammered, and because the locals, both wealthy and dirtbag, are too snotty.
After some thought, I decided that there’s a phenomenon call a financial gradient that has something to do with the attitude and degradation of the experience. On the one hand, I can appreciate the dirtbag locals attitude, but on the other hand, I wasn’t one of the folks jacking up the price of housing there at that time. While my time of raging around Moontania, Utah and Wyoming as a bum had passed, I could still appreciate the skiing. But not the vibe. I think the Sublette quad ended it for me as well as the buid out at the village and under the tram.
One thing that might help is to change a bunch of the zoning laws that restrict certain neighborhoods to “single family” housing and open them up for more flexible habitation. At least fight for the option folks.
Telluride has made a decent attempt at providing affordable housing, except some of the options flew in the face of state law. Anyway, props to Lance and crew for trying to keep T-ride more liveable.
As for me, I’ll lurk at Silverton where hopefully the Brill’s model of no RE development and relying on the town infrastructure will keep it balanced and a more moderate financial gradient. The skiing there sure kicks ass.
I almost HATE to agree with Ron R, but it is basically TRUE!! At WHAT pt. do we cut off things; new housing, infrastructure and employment opurtunities – that various economic levels of people need/want; so that they can live where-ever they want too and enjoy the life of the areas natural resources?? This is a question for ANY area – who do you want to live in your village and WHY?? When or where does quality and quantity cancell eaxch other out?
This seems a simple reflection of the fact that skiing is, and has always been, a rich kid sport. If polo was more trendy, and necessarily occurred in (beautiful) mountain areas, polo resort towns would be super expensive.
What do these resort towns generate? A specific sense of sexy self importance to those spending big dollars there, easy (a.k.a. lazy) access to the tops of cool mountains to ski on, and an environment where people can pretend that they’ve earned the access to this environment.
The biggest challenge here is that those who are not made of money, but want the easy access to runs that costs so much to build and maintain must also yield in their (frequently different values), suck it up, and play the rich guy servant role in exchange for free or cheap skiing. If you don’t like it, hike out.
Along with the houses being built, I’ve also noticed that my wife and I have had jobs for the last 20 years in a ski town, and it seems like quite a few other people are enjoying that minor detail as well, including folks writing and editing this blog, perchance?
I am not so sure you can fairly ask who can live in your mountain town. That seems a form of discrimination, plus certain people do bring in a certain amount of economic welfare to those who want to live in an area for the more natural reasons. I.e. Mountains to climb, streams to fish, un-named runs to ski. But at what point do these resorts and towns realize that all their development and push to bring in more high end homes, golf courses, country clubs,and people, cause the town to lose its charm? The bums, eccentrics, ranchers, etc. combine with the natural environment to make these towns what they are. But then it would seem all of the towns mentioned inevitably funnel toward the homogeneous “Vail” model(to survive, I wonder?). I’m afraid it might be more of our (greedy) culture to always want more, no matter where we are. (And I don’t mean to be on the high horse as I do it too.) You don’t see this model happening all over European resorts. There is only one going against the grain here, I think,…Silverton. I guess it’s priorities.
When economic development councils for cities, counties and states are comprised primarily of bankers and real estate developers – all of which are property “right” advocates – local residents will continue to watch fisheries, wildlife, wide open spaces and water sources (wells, springs, rivers and creeks) diminish in these highly desirable destination areas.
It’s sad that we can watch the loss of these once beautiful environments and still point the finger at someone else, rather than assume individual responsibility to STOP the ongoing problem. Or worse, hope for our Federal Gov’t to do something.
To expect government to mandate change is avoiding the issue of whom is ultimately responsible for allowing haphazard development to continue.
Can we stop people from moving to our resort communities no that we have moved to ‘paradise’? No. Can we limit development in wetlands or wildlife corridors and where people will reside and do business in these areas? Absolutely.
It does require action and exposure to attack by those that believe the power of one (or 2 or 20) can make a difference. I am fighting the old development formula in my destination home town. Are you?
As a native Montanan I have seen first hand what has happened not only to ski resorts but also to any desirable place to live. It alls come down to the almighty dollar. And I agree wholeheartedly with Jay J, Who do you want to live in your village and why? Locals and newcomers alike can make a difference, it just has to be done the right way, e.g local government, city council, etc.
OK, not moderated.
Anyway, I have to disagree with Matt. Skiing has not always been a sport of the wealthy. The wealthy may have engaged in it, but some of us grew up loving skiing in our backyards, climbing and playing in the snow from an early age in families which were not wealthy.
Besides, that’s kind of what I’m getting at regarding the divisiveness. It doesn’t do any good to blame the wealthy or write off the situation as hopelessly unmanageable servants of the wealthy. Participate in your local government to develop mechanisms supporting a more varied economic fabric: zoning, buildng restriction, affordable housing.
What’s more elitest…An outdoorsman wanting to limit access (mostly to him/herself because of a lifestyle choice) or a resort that does it through the laws of supply and demand?
Interestingly enough, the supply/demand curve is falsely inflated by strong protectionist policies. In essence, this is the price a society pays to protect the wildlife. Or live in the PRB -Peoples Republic of Boulder.
God willing we’ll all get to enjoy the outdoors on a regular basis but don’t expect somebody else to pay the bill for your choices.
First of all I took my avalanche 1 cert. from Ron a few years ago at the Peter Estin Hut. Congratulations Ron on taking over Aspen Alpine Guides.
The topic is one my wife and I have mulled over for a few years now. It leaves me very conflicted. I have wanted to move to the mountains for a long time. We even did a road trip last year that covered the states of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. We’re both phramacists and make decent money and we found ourselves essentially priced out of just about anyplace we would consider living. I personally love the Jackson area and come out to ski the Pass at least twice a season. I always said if there was ever a job opening at the hospital in Jackson I’d jump on it. Recently one was open and I didn’t jump. In order for us to afford a basic home in Driggs we would have to both work and there just aren’t the number of jobs to sustain that. Plus I look at the sprawl that continues to encircle Driggs and Victor compared to when I first started coming out to ski at the Ghee over a decade ago, and I just feel we would be one more house out there, one more car making the 60 mile round trip to Jackson every day. I think I would just be part of the problem. I agree with Ron on the NIMBY statement however. When I lived in the mountains it was so easy to adopt the “but I live here attitude” even though I’d lived there 1 year. I believe the real issue is the level of absentee ownership.
The people who build these massive homes live in this fantasy world. A friend of mine who worked security at an area with an “exclusive” community claims that half the multimillion dollar homes sit there with their doors unlocked half the time. They want to believe there living in some small, quaint little town where every one is just a good old boy. A good old boy who flew in on a Gulfstream.
Anyway it’s just my 2 cents
Mark B
MArk B
I’ve lived in mountain communities for 21 years, 18 of those in the Tahoe/Truckee area, 3-1/2 in Colorado. Why did I move to the mountains? Because I was born in the East Bay in California, and hated urban life from a VERY early age. The cities are where the true madness is. Can you blame others for wanting to escape? And can you blame those who’ve lived in the mountains, and made many sacrafices to live there, from wanting to take advantage of the boom in home prices? Many have sold and now have half a chance of retiring some day.
Part of the growth in mountain towns is due to simple population growth. The population is ever-increasing, and the cities are busting out into the suburbs and beyond.
Part of the cause is the wealthy. There seems to be in insatiable need with the wealthy to keep up with the Jones’. In one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in California, the joke goes: “Homeless means you don’t have a second home in Tahoe.” There is a lot of truth to that. So the wealthy build their 2nd, 3rd or 4th home. They need workers to build those homes, maintain and clean them (god forbid they clean their own toilet). Our youth thinks they are “above” that, so illegals come to do the work and bring their families. More growth. Who is to blame here? The wealthy? The parents of our youth? The contractors? The illegals looking for financial advancement? The government for allowing illegal immigration?
Another part of the overall growth problem is the result of the real estate frenzy that developed after the dot bomb fiasco. Real estate was a good place to stash resources. Unfortunately, the weathly built 15-20,000 square foot homes as a place to sink their wealth. That has pushed the prices way up. Big homes cost too much, so smaller ones suddenly become more in demand and the prices of those go up. The frenzy may abate, but because cities are insane, there will always be a market for a place to get away and recreate, someplace that is relatively uncrowded, relatively low crime and, in the case of resort towns, glam.
So who, or what, is to blame? It can’t be pinned on any one thing. I don’t like any of it but don’t know how we can stop it since there are so many factors involved. What we CAN do is push for responsible growth and limited development. What we can do is teach our children that honest labor is honorable and not something to be feared. What we can do is vote.
Mark,
I agree with you on the absentee ownership. I see so many grossly enormous homes that are only occupied 2 weeks out of the year which definitely contributes to the problem.
Regardless of housing prices or the mass of people moving to ski towns, I think one of the major concerns the video touches on is the commercialization of the ski areas and community involvement in help to preserve it’s character.
I don’t want to see all these great resort towns across the US become (insert ski town here) Sponsored by Disney/Starbucks and Aspen Ski Co.
Ron said it best with “Locals and newcomers alike can make a difference, it just has to be done the right way, e.g local government, city council, etc.” There are a lot of resorts around the country that have had great success with the communities stepping it up and making a difference.
Give us a real, historical drought and the whole thing will be moot. When the value of property is based entirely on its recreational usage, it is a fragile value indeed. That is, aside from views, mountain property is worthless in traditional measures (agricultural potential, ability to self-sustain, distance to population centers).
In the end, the market and reality will take care of this “problem.” In the meantime, mountain-lovers of modest means should just rent.
We moved out west to ski 2-3 great days a week rather than 7 crummy ice cold windy nights back in the Midwest. After one year in Vail I am doubtful that we can financially stay. The cost of our 560 square foot one bedroom is more than most average Americans mortgage. Now to the inherent problem: transient. Both of us are professionals she is a registered nurse and I am in sales/marketing. So far the turn over at my place of employment over one year has totaled 8 new employees for a company of 13 employees. I can’t even begin to explain how much time and money we wasted on training. Then we sit down and wonder why sales are stagnant. People have come and gone not because of our company but because they just can’t afford to stay long enough to make a change. Same for the hospital, it is a constant battle of training employees on equipment (hospitals are surprisingly different from one another I have learned). So after one year we feel our careers aren’t moving in the right direction, we aren’t getting much bang for our combined income of 115k, and buying a house at this point is a stretch. I would love to help change Vail because I love it here but honestly I don’t know if we will last long enough to do so. Point is in my opinion we are not just ideal people for a ski town, but crucial to the day to day operations of the town. The town needs to spend less time holding meetings and bickering and more time building. How crazy is it that the town won’t let the hospital add another floor (the building is currently 3 stories) because that is the zoning code. The hospital runs at full capacity all winter, and is a not for profit entity. I would love to help figure out how to help us stay but sadly either we will have to move or I will have to bartend a couple of nights a week to comfortably afford a house.
As the resident of a front range town who makes the weekend commute to the mountains where I would rather live but cannot afford to, it appears to me the problems are simply the trend in our electronically stimulated and socially unconscious communities regardless of location. The all mighty dollar is what speaks, and the mountains and the towns located therein can do little to slow the trend of such, “progress.” Currently, places like Jackson and Steamboat, and eventually Silverton, will be paved over and you won’t be able to swing a dead cat without hitting a strip mall. Unless, you change the mindset that money talks. Instead of selling land to the highest bidder, sell it to the person who works to be a part of the community at an affordable rate; volunteer firefighters/emt’s, teachers, people who have real interest in the communities in which they live? Not just real estate interest. Until we start valueing what is truly valuable and put our money where our mouth is mountain communities will go from places of natural beauty where we want to live and play to heroined-out places where the uber-rich and emotionally thoughtless go to squander their inheritance. Putting up a multi-million dollar estate that gets lived in four weeks a year does little to impress communal living where people are more than their bank accounts. If you want to value the people of a mountain town make it affordable for those who add character to the community, not just a higher tax bracket.
Would the communities be willing to give a small tax break to those megamansion owners who provided affordable housing on their compounds or as an apartment in their houses? Has JH ever had any kind of affordable housing requirements for development like Telluride has?
The Other Ski Professional
I spent a couple of seasons in Vail when I left the military. I often look at the jobs available at the hospital. The vail hospital at times actually does have a couple of pharmacy jobs open but much like you and your wife we’re at the point in our lives where were used to being owners not renters. It used to be Edwards was affordable. Now Eagle is out of reach. I think Gypsum is even out of reach at this point for 2 professionals.
Mark B
In the 90’s there was town regulations that required residential developers to provide 15 percent of their projects as affordable housing, although I don’t know where that stands now. Here’s an interesting article about the affordable housing crisis in Jackson:
http://www.jhguide.com/article.php?art_id=2393
So JH has had similar types of affordable housing.
I know one of the T’ride options was nixed: that being that a developer could build a rental unit with rent restrictions to alleviate town requirements on development. But rent restrictions are against CO state law, so that one is hung up for the moment.
Redistribution of wealth is a tough problem.
Any other ideas or approaches?
Real Estate… I don’t think I ever had a dislike of that profession until I moved to the mountains. I’ve lived in Vail the past 10 years and have seen too many changes in these few years. From heated streets (that actually use more energy than leaving them to be plowed)to rooms that go from 500-2500 a night, to resort employees still making from 8.50-12.00hr. it’s crazy. A rented room is up to $700 compared to $450 when I first moved here. Buying a small condo is at least $400K. Most of the 2nd homes are people that are international with deep pockets or the few front rangers that were smart to hold on to their property through the years. Many ski areas have lost their souls and have had greed take the place. I heard the top selling real estate agent in Vail sold 23 million dollars worth of property in one year. Do you think that person cared about the future or just rather their pockets? Both the CEO of mountain operations for Vail & Beaver Creek and Vail Mtn’s. Director of operations have new porshes I’ve seen driving around. Yes, I understand that making Vail Resorts millions and millions over the years they may deserve this, but as an employee I’d kinda laugh. What happened to being conservative. You think they would at least want 4wd. Oh, I forgot heated streets you don’t need it! Then you have a new Arrabelle (newvail.com) which looks like Disneyland or the Taj Mahal. Set up to make a few folks BIG bucks. Any great ski area will fall to developers if you let them or more importantly your local government does. Money talks and unfortunately i think may ski areas are losing the battle especially Vail…
The killer is absentee 2nd-home owners. There would be plenty of accomodation and half the development if you were only able to own a primary residence or else a rental property – no empty 2nd homes for rich people. If you only want to ski for a couple weeks a year then you have to rent – you do not have the right to own in a community where you are seldom present. If you want to own a home in that community then you must rent it out at least 50% of the time.
This situation is similar in many ways to that of “Gateway Communities” – those near the entrances of National Parks and similar popular yet protected areas. We begin to bite the hand that feeds us. These areas need more protection than ever as the population increases everywhere. The pressure is not just on ski resorts communities, it is on any community where outdoor recreation of any sort is ideal. We ALL NEED WILDERNESS for refuge, renewal, and hope, especially the city dwellers. Many books have been written on the subject – this is not a new or unique problem.
The trick is to simultaneously preserve and enjoy. These wild and beautiful places should not be just playgrounds for the rich – public lands are for the public of all economic levels. But, to protect that place for future generations, we need to respect limits – when the boat is full, we must be willing to wait in line for our turn.
I’m about to get “priced out” of an historic little town with a seasonal economy. I have had to scrounge to find work here, in order to stay. Meanwhile, the price of rent has more than doubled in five years. Nearly everyone who lives here came from somewhere else. We can’t keep people “out” but we can put limits on the kind of development that happens. Control it with careful thoughts toward the future. We can become involved in the decision-making process. Start locally.
I remember visiting all of these towns being spotlighted – I remember them as they were in the early 70’s, Aspen as John Denver knew it. I do not even consider visiting those places now. My relatives were all pushed out & I can’t afford a hotel room. That, and it breaks my heart that the buildings and clearings have crept up the mountainsides as far as they have. These places will just never be the same again, I almost don’t recognize them.
I can say the same about towns and cities. We must design for healthy growth, because we’re obviously not stopping the growth.
How many of you have kids? (I don’t) We can all be accused of some form of hypocrisy, let’s all try to minimize what we’re guilty of and help others do the same, with grace and humility.
I have seen the avalanche of change in many mountain towns including my home state of New Hampshire and now, in my adopted state in Montana. Here in Missoula, a massive new ski area is being planned for Lolo Peak. While the planned resort is meeting stiff opposition, the resort side is also supported, well prepared and well funded. It may be only a matter of time before a swank new resort is on the bill for the Bitteroot Valley. Resort leaders want the local national forest to allow them access to public land to complete the resort, cut ski runs, and build lifts to the top of 9,100 foot Lolo Peak, the dominant high point in our valley. THe same requests were sought and granted back east in New Hampshire at resorts like Loon Mountain and Waterville Valley. For me, the issue lies around allowing public lands to be used to generate profit for relatively few investors, at the expense of those public land owners – you and me. WHile I might be interested in skiing a new resort on private land, I don’t want what is already special, beautiful, and environmentally critical habitat to be ruined for the sake of recreation and profit.
Those of you who are fortunate enough to live,ski,recreate,and work in such a beautiful environment should do all you can year round to stop uncontrolled growth and call on your local elected officials often to be responsible and accountable for plans that preserve what you have. I’ve visited the Tetons many times over the years and you truly do have some of the best backcountry and resort skiing around (on both sides of the pass and in and out of the park). When you are looking down into the valley from above and the view begins to be impeded by the greed of others, it’s probably time to take a stand against further growth. I think Tim W raises many good points on this isssue. Thanks for sharing your mountains and snow with those of us who are not locals. When you find yourself jaded,angry,and depressed with your lot in life come out to MT BAKER for a visit and see what it is you sound like you miss. Chances are Glacier will never catch up, even if you all show up at once. MBHC
This has been an issue in New England for many years. Stratton has to bus workers in, Waterville Valley has dorms for lift attendants. Those that feel the need to create exclusive enclaves, away from the masses, fail to understand the impact of their elitism. What if all those who serve them didn’t show up? No one to serve me my appertif, or seat my lazy butt on the chairlift, no one I can snap my fingers at, it would be fate worse than death.
Read Hayek, the economist. His economic model for distribution of wealth is to have most resources clustered in a very small segment of the population. This is the model favored by several recent presidents.
Interest rates have not helped, encouraging people to really live beyond their means and drive the housing market nationwide. Easy credit means easier to buy, causing more demand in an artificial manner. As a result, housing has gone nuts in all urban centers and “vacation” locales.
So all that stuff is at a national level. For those of you that care, think about it at the polls.
At the local level, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to try to legislate that nonlocals can’t own homes. But communities can legislate about the size of home (limit them to 3k sqft?) and zoning regulations that encourage quality housing supply, like room sharing, apartments and lot sizes.
Venting is great, but wasted unless you go enact something that fixes the problem.
Buster,
On the subject of “Venting is great, but wasted unless you go enact something that fixes the problem”
I unfortunately literally can’t “afford” to stay long enough to get involved and make a change in Vail.
This is part of the new problem, HIGH TURNOVER, it ruins local business specifically skilled positions due to the cost of training (nursing, teachers, HVAC, ect.), keeps more people out of the local government (some positions require candidates to have lived within town for x amount of years, or people just can’t financially stay long enough to be known).
It is the big companies who profit from high turnover because high turnover for unskilled workers keeps the wages low. We now have a very strong perpetual cycle that I believe will be difficult for places like Vail and Aspen to break out of.
TOSP,
I feel for you. Having to leave sucks if that’s what it comes to. I’m not intending to attack you or anyone else personally. But I sure as hell would like to elicit action.
But, the problems are not limited to resort communities. What’s happening can also be attributed to national policies.
Big government sucks. But big government that only looks out for the very wealthy sucks more.
So even at the local level ask youself a couple of questions:
0) Is there anything I can do, even if I have to leave? It bites to try to address a situation that we can’t take advantage of, but Americans have a damn good track record of that.
1) Is there another place to go where it’s not as messed up? Park City? Telluride? Whitefish?
Buster, Whitefish is going down the tubes too. Take a look at Whitefish Resort (the new name): Even it is being developed. Lots are being sold all around it, and home are being erected by the wealthy who want “to get away from it all.” (The problem is they bring it all with them.) The income being generated by the sales is allowing Whitefish to put in new lifts and build a new lodge.
Buster, you are correct in that we have to do something at every level. Your idea of finding another place to go, however, simply starts spreading the problem, like whirling disease. We can’t run away; we have to fight. But because the “battle” is on so many fronts, we need to be wise in how we address each one. The most logical front to expend the most energy is the local front. Here we might see some immediate tangible changes. As for the national front, it is addressed by letters to representatives, senators, donations to environmental causes, and our votes.
Carol,
People have different needs and requirements. TSOP states he may not be able to afford to stay, so the move suggestion is in his context.
It’s weird how innernut communication is like having a series of conversations with different people and always taking whatever is written out of a particular conversation context.
Anyway, participate where and how you can.
No deep thoughts here, just my two cents-
Another question that occasionally comes up is what sort of culture are we trying to preserve? Let’s face it, the majority of us mountain-town residents do enjoy many of the perks that a ‘regular’ city offers, such as fast food, large grocery stores, many different services, and such. In regards to that, is there much of the ski-town culture anymore? I refer to the end-of-the-road, nearest-groceries-are-twenty-miles-away, lay-in-six-cords-a-winter type of town where there’s a bar, a post office, and a ski area. I’m not pointing any fingers here, but I sometimes feel as though most of us are lamenting the demise of this sort of lifestyle more than the negatives brought by rampant development.
I’ll be frank- how much of us benefit from this development? I know my family and I do. I maintain lifts at a large Colorado ski area (resort?) and the money this brings in allows me to live year-round up here in the high country. I think my particular area would survive just fine if it lost its destination and second-home skiers, but there are many that wouldn’t and the associated towns would literally evaporate. I see our towns, especially Aspen, Telluride, Breckenridge, Steamboat, and Jackson, as modern-day equivalents of the mining boom towns. When the outside wealth leaves, what will be left? Jackson and Steamboat will survive, but all that will sustain them is the ranching that came before.
This isn’t to say we shouldn’t push for more responsible development. By all means, we should. Unregulated sprawl is, to my mind, killing the Eagle Valley. It’s not the most senic place on earth, but 10,000+ square foot mansions on ridgetops is a bit much. There is something to be said for living on the valley floor and leaving the surrounding areas for recreation and wildlife. Urban sprawl is paving farms and open spaces in the Front Range, the Puget Sound, and others. Why let it happen up here where there’s less space to begin with?
To The Other Ski Professional:
115K a year and you can’t afford a house? Assume you save 20-30K a year, in 2-3 years you’d have enough for a down payment on anything in the 300-400k range. Maybe not in Vail proper, but at least in Edwards…