Real Estate Crash thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

But realistically for JH and other valley trapped towns, they need worker housing. Go three stories. Have to prove you’re working so many hours (locally. Not WFH. And not over a certain income).
It’s not rocket science. Let the market set the rate. But make it worker housing.

---

So what do you do when you want to quit or are fired? What happens if your boss is an ass? Just suck it up because if you quit you will be evicted?

Your idea will just spawn more business development in JH, becuase they will have cheap, subsidized housing for their workforce. Is that what you want? More business in JH, means more people, means more houses, means more shitter cleaners needed. Just accept that JH is exclusive. Don't try to continually pretend you can make it affordable for everyone who wants to live there. And be thankful that the area is surrounded by protected federal lands so the no matter how poor you are, you can still recreate there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Aspen thinks they have figured it out where they have the billionaires and select few lotto winner middle/lower class. But I don't see how this can work in the long term.

---

We've done a lot better job here, compared to most/all other resort towns, because we got the ball rolling 40+ years ago with the affordable housing program. Seems to have worked out pretty well for the "few," sorry: thousands of us living in affordable housing and keeping the lights on around town. It's not perfect (and there are still thousands of people commuting upvalley daily); the biggest miss with the housing program is a lack of back-end control to incentivize/force turnover when people's income+assets grow or they retire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Last I checked Jackson was horribly expensive to live in and still had gas stations, grocery stores, and restaurants. Just because the people in the town are almost exclusively ultra rich doesn't mean essential commercial won't exist. The workers can drive in from the flatlands hours away, where it is much more conducive to house the masses than a mountain valley. And pristine and environmentally delicate places like Jackson will remain mostly pristine.

---

JFC.... great idea, really great for the environment and humanity. It's curious that you live in a generic "urban" environment and travel to a resort town, while judging people who choose to and/or are struggling to live there. All the while you then paint us as the elitists who through luck/grift/inheritance/etc are living in a false paradise that should be kept unpopulated, so you can go recreate there. WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

We have subsidized apartments here. It helps. But you can’t make much money. Kinda weird. And by much money, if you’re paid a fair wage you’re back at market rent. But at least they finally built apartment buildings.

Teton pass is bearing the brunt.
I guess they could build a tunnel. Where’s Elon musks boring machine?

But realistically for JH and other valley trapped towns, they need worker housing. Go three stories. Have to prove you’re working so many hours (locally. Not WFH. And not over a certain income).
It’s not rocket science. Let the market set the rate. But make it worker housing.

---

Unfortunately, a tunnel would be many hundreds of millions of dollars, just to service two communities that don’t even total 50k or 60k worth of people. Doesn’t pencil out.

AS really has an obsession about shitter cleaners.

I guess you are an altasnob. Only the rich need enjoy.


Alpine vibes fair point. Whether it’s habitat or a local deed restricted lottery it’s one and done. And yeah, while the idea of retiring in your favorite location is great, it doesn’t help the next generation.

Sadly. People get priced out. And for worker housing if they don’t work they should get evicted. It sucks. But it’s needed. And clearly there’s an amnesty period if you get fired or change jobs.
Disability or injury gets more complicated.


But “market rate” for workers working 1,800 hours for a local employer making less than $50k in an expensive area is a necessity. Change the numbers as needed. But the concept is valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

Unfortunately, a tunnel would be many hundreds of millions of dollars, just to service two communities that don’t even total 50k or 60k worth of people. Doesn’t pencil out.

---

A hundred million dollars ain't what it used to be. And if they don't build the tunnel this year, we'll all be another year older when they do.

:fmicon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

Unfortunately, a tunnel would be many hundreds of millions of dollars, just to service two communities that don’t even total 50k or 60k worth of people. Doesn’t pencil out.

---

I would add a billion in that cost estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Yeah, that's why I said many hundreds of millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teleee

I would add a billion in that cost estimate.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Hell - a billion ain't even all that much any more. Just ask Bezos.

I bet they'd find a vein of gold under the Grand Teton to help pay for it. Just sayin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teleee

Given the choice between development and conservations easements I will always choose the conservation easements. TGR Forums

---

Hmmn, I can think of some local locales that I would much rather see developed. Next time you drive up to CB, look at the "open space" between Riverbend and the highway. That parcel was purchased by the Riverbend HOA to protect their views, and then they threw a CE on it. Given that it's already developed, has infrastructure, doesn't have any special wildlife or other characteristics-- I'd rather see homes there. It's not like a bunch of elk camp out there or anything...

I have joked for three decades that if they really wanna go big, they would put a tunnel from the end of Teton Canyon, have it come out at Granite Canyon, with a nice little elevator to the top of the Grand in the middle. Sell waffles up there bitches!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinevibes

We've done a lot better job here, compared to most/all other resort towns, because we got the ball rolling 40+ years ago with the affordable housing program. Seems to have worked out pretty well for the "few," sorry: thousands of us living in affordable housing and keeping the lights on around town.

---

It's working for you, and it's working for people who want to try to cram as many people as possible into the Roaring Fork Valley. But how's it working out for Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinevibes

JFC.... great idea, really great for the environment and humanity. It's curious that you live in a generic "urban" environment and travel to a resort town, while judging people who choose to and/or are struggling to live there. All the while you then paint us as the elitists who through luck/grift/inheritance/etc are living in a false paradise that should be kept unpopulated, so you can go recreate there. WTF?

---

So you're one of those guys who thinks your overall carbon footprint is lower living in Aspen that some guy in downtown Denver. It's not just how far you travel to mountain bike, but a bunch of other factors. Dense, urban, living is the most sustainable and efficient way for humans to live. That's true even if you drive out of the urban core to recreate on occasion. I believe in building up, not out. And building in Aspen and JH is about as out as you can get.

Lets face it. What's the point of wilderness? What's the point of conservation easements? It's to keep humans from fucking up the land becuase if left unchecked, humans will definitely fuck up the land.

Here ya go bud, I'm all caffeinated up and happy Valentines day to you and yours:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

It's working for you, and it's working for people who want to try to cram as many people as possible into the Roaring Fork Valley. But how's it working out for Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness?

---

You just need to stay in your lane and stop talking out your ass about stuff you don't have a depth of knowledge in. I realize this is your MO around here, but it's tiring to watch you attempt to play it both ways and fail. You claim to want some sort of neoliberal, free market approach for the West, yet you can't help but attempt to box-in, judge and put restrictions on locales and human realities you have nothing to do with. Continuing to judge people for supposed motives and mistakes they've made by choosing to live somewhere, while you yourself are complaining about your access or lack thereof to said place is a bad look. Stick to hot takes about your adopted home range and leave the rest of us to manage where we live.

And FWIW: I'm not advocating for cramming as many people as possible into the valley and neither are most of the residents here, besides the opportunistic developers and real estate agents. And luckily some of the most damaging potential developments - North Star, Wildcat, Little Annie - were averted through foresite and conviction. While our valley has been the vanguard of ski resort cache, hot real estate and doomed development, we've also been blessed to be populated by thousands of well-intended and ambitious locals, for decades and decades, who have fought to protect many aspects of our community and natural environment. The employee housing program - with a focus on affordable, sustainable, *dense,* and liveable housing for real people is one such outcome of those undertakings. See also: MB Wilderness, AVLT, Pitkin County Open Space, etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

So you're one of those guys who thinks your overall carbon footprint is lower living in Aspen that some guy in downtown Denver. It's not just how far you travel to mountain bike, but a bunch of other factors. Dense, urban, living is the most sustainable and efficient way for humans to live. That's true even if you drive out of the urban core to recreate on occasion. I believe in building up, not out. And building in Aspen and JH is about as out as you can get.

Lets face it. What's the point of wilderness? What's the point of conservation easements? It's to keep humans from fucking up the land because if left unchecked, humans will definitely fuck up the land.

---

Funny - once again: trying to run your mouth from shallow personal experience. I lived in Denver. I worked in Downtown. I now live "in" Aspen - 2.5mi from the core, .5-2.5 miles from my three ski areas and work, a 10min walk to the airport. Not dissimilar to most the full time residents (and most affordable housing residents) here. I'd love to see you chalk up some math here, but the way I see it and have lived it: there is no comparison for carbon footprints. I actually live in a relatively dense, urbanish housing development (with free bus service into town and a dedicated bike lane), which may be similar, but likely less carbon emitting than the vast majority of lifestyles+carbon footprints undertaken by a similar "outdoorsy guys" in Denver. You can pretend that Denver is a "dense, urban locale" (it's not), but behind that the fact is that most of the people stacking days in the mountains probably live in a SFH, with a truck/4wd and take long drives to get to their go-to spots (sound familiar?).

Again: don't open your mouth until you know what the shot is: All newer affordable housing development in Aspen is built "up" with a focus on density and efficiency. Newer private development is restricted to square footage requirements and the demand for real estate provides some amount of forced density. It's nowhere near perfect, but you're far off base with your characterization of "out." We have a taxpayer funded office, CORE, whose sole mission is to reduce emissions, improve building efficiency and improve the overall environmental reality of Aspen's built space. We're surrounded by protected open space, federal space and easements - those aren't being encroached or built into. Sure, I'd love to have less people pouring onto buses for their picture of the Bells, but our visitation and private vehicle traffic into protected spaces are a drop in the bucket compared to other high-draw protected areas, say RMNP, MRNP, ONP, YNP, etc etc. So what's your point about "their point" or is that just another hyperbolized false dilemma you've sketched out?

alta slut is just jelly that someone else has it better than him

even more pissed if you got yours with a handout cause altapuss pulled himself up by his bootstraps all the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinevibes

Stick to hot takes about your adopted home range and leave the rest of us to manage where we live.

---

We're discussing Aspen, but you can substitute in Jackson, Tahoe, or near me, Leavenworth or Mazama. The majority of TGR forums are people complaining about resort areas being too crowded, and resort areas being too expensive. People are posting video of traffic jams at Squaw that make Bay Area traffic look like a breeze. The question is, what do we want these resort areas to look like in say, 100 years? The next question is, who should get a say in how these resort communities are developed?

Just becuase I don't live in resort communities doesn't mean I shouldn't have a say. I, like all Americans, have a right to recreate in those federal lands. And I have a right to try to keep those federal lands wilderness in character. They are trying to build a mega resort in Ashford on the way up to Paradise at Rainier. Should I keep my mouth shut on that because I live in Tacoma, 2 hours away? People in resort towns arrogantly assume they alone should be able to decide how these lands are developed.

I don't have a vendetta against the grunt laborers of Aspen who keep the lights on. But I don't see how these areas can sustain their population growth. Cities, like Seattle, can sustain population growth, becuase, well, they're cities. The infrastructure is concentrated so $1 in tax dollars goes farther. That's great that Aspen is building dense public housing. That's better than not dense public housing. But the way I see it, making it cheaper, and more affordable to live in these locals will just bring in more people. I want the population of these areas to be capped as it stands, rather than always growing. Let the cities grow. Let these towns surrounded by wilderness, whether it's Aspen, Jackson, Leavenworth, or Mazama, remain as they are. That's why I am such a strong supporter of conservation easements. They take away developable land making it harder for these areas to grow. An unfortunate byproduct of this is only the super rich can afford to live there. But I am ok with that if that is the only way to keep population growth in these areas to a minimum. Communities like Aspen and Jackson are already listed as the wealthiest, and the most unequal places in the US. I have zero faith any of these public housing programs will have any measurable effect on that and their main effect will be to make these places even more crowded than they already area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastfred

alta slut is just jelly that someone else has it better than him

even more pissed if you got yours with a handout cause altapuss pulled himself up by his bootstraps all the way

---

There is nothing personal about this discussion. I live in a city today. But I probably won't live in a city my whole life. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on how this country is developed. I've recreated in all these lands that are being discussed, and I want my children to be able to recreate in these lands. And I don't think you should have to live there to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

I have joked for three decades that if they really wanna go big, they would put a tunnel from the end of Teton Canyon, have it come out at Granite Canyon, with a nice little elevator to the top of the Grand in the middle. Sell waffles up there bitches!

---

and people accuse me of excessive drug use

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinevibes

You just need to stay in your lane and stop talking out your ass about stuff you don't have a depth of knowledge in.

---

Altasnob needs to read this again and take it to heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Just because I don't live in resort communities doesn't mean I shouldn't have a say. I, like all Americans, have a right to recreate in those federal lands. And I have a right to try to keep those federal lands wilderness in character. .

---

You have every right to have a say in how federal lands are managed and developed. But we aren't talking about federal lands, at least not here in Aspen. We're talking about state, county, and even private lands, that are being developed or redeveloped into affordable housing. And according to the state of Colorado and Pitkin county, unless you are a resident you don't have a voting say, regardless of how close these developments might be to your federal lands. And your uninformed opinions about these towns, and their development and housing issues, is exactly why local municipalities and states have things like residency voting requirements to prevent people like you, who only pass through these places to recreate on federal lands, from dictating local policy for the people living and working there 12 months out of the year. You may not like what places like Aspen, Jackson, Leavenworth, etc.. do with their land that abuts federal land, but tough shit. I wouldn't expect to have a say in Seattle's urban planning and suburban sprawl because I've passed through there on my way to climb Rainier. You are more than welcome to your opinions, however unnuanced and myopic they may be, but just know that they amount to little more than wasted bandwidth for those of us that reside in these communities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Remember when altasnob said he was not going to post in the PR again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Attachment 447587

---

I ‘memba too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenboy

Hmmn, I can think of some local locales that I would much rather see developed. Next time you drive up to CB, look at the "open space" between Riverbend and the highway. That parcel was purchased by the Riverbend HOA to protect their views, and then they threw a CE on it. Given that it's already developed, has infrastructure, doesn't have any special wildlife or other characteristics-- I'd rather see homes there. It's not like a bunch of elk camp out there or anything...

---

Good point, I need to think broader, I tend to think of it as the big thousands of acres that lock everyone out but a few select billionaires. There are certainly exceptions to my statement. And to make me even more of a hypocrite thanks for not pointing out that I bought a chunk of land that is in a conservation easement.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenboy

Altasnob needs to read this again and take it to heart.

---

Oh please. We're talking about whether there should be public housing in Aspen. There is no right or wrong answer. There are no "experts" on this issue. It's just people's opinions.

The only way to make any unaffordable place affordable, whether it is Aspen or Seattle, is to build a fuck ton of housing. Any housing. Public housing, dense housing, McMansions, just a ton of new housing. The more, the better. I am all for filling up where I live with new housing. Apparently, you feel the same way about where you live. Unfortunately, I doubt you will get what you want (becuase there are plenty there who disagree with you). So 50 years down the road, Aspen will still be the most unafforadable, unequal place in the US, only more crowded than it is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenboy

Altasnob needs to read this again and take it to heart.

---

Wouldn’t that be nice.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

according to the state of Colorado and Pitkin county, unless you are a resident you don't have a voting say

---

You're right. I don't live in CO and can't vote there. But guess what, there is some urban hipster living in Denver who can. And that urban hipster in Denver DOES get a say in what happens in Aspen.

CA and OR have already gotten rid of single family housing at the state level. WA has a bill that might pass that would get rid of single family housing in every city in WA over 6,000 people and instead, every single family home parcel would be allowed to build up to four units on it, six if within a half mile of transit. Even if this law doesn't pass this year, it (or something similar) will pass in the coming years. And CO will likely be doing something similar soon. Basically, the states are shoving density down the throats of these uppity cities whether they want it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teleee

I bought a chunk of land that is in a conservation easement.

---

You asshole! You should be forced to develop the land you own! How dare you do what you want with your own land and not build on it!