How to increase rental housing supply in ski towns without pissing everyone off

[digitaldeath]

Containers stacked high and wide in every ski town. Every jagoff and their brother can pay 30 a night to ski and trash your town for as long as they like. Egalitarianism. Whoever wants to ski will be allowed to ski. No more candy ass who has the most gets the best lines. Make it so whoever is bout it bout it get it for perpetuity.

[heckacali]

Truckee takes a swing, and a miss?

https://www.sierrasun.com/news/truck...ve-for-locals/

[kokomas]

Nice idea. Is there enough incentive to the homeowner to add a unit?
- If it'll be required to be lower rent rental unit - enough benefit to the owner/landlord?
- if it'll be required to be used as a rental for a 10-year period - what happens if the homeowner sells within that period? Is the presence of a rental unit with required lower rent attractive to a buyer, or is it a negative?

Well there is incentive for me, i'd like to add value to my property over time and a second habitable unit, as long as it is nice, would do that.
Great question on the period of time in the affordable rental pool. I'm new to the game here, but I understand there are a number of affordable rentals owned or managed by the town/county and a pool of applicants on the waiting list. The idea would be to expand the pool by putting single family homeowners' ARUs into it. My suggestion would be that if I accept town subsidy in the form of a grant, reduced interest rate, or benefit from lower building costs due to scale then I should have to keep the property in the affordable rental pool for a certain number of years. If i sell the property, i assume the existing lease with tenants would survive the closing. My suggestion would be that the new owner could choose not to renew the lease for the current renters (maybe s/he wants to have family stay there). But the new owner could not rent the unit outside of the affordable rental pool until the full ten years had been met

Here VRBO/AirBnb's are not allowed anywhere except in the 'resort overlays', which means areas close to Teton Village and Snow King.
They are monitored as well.

Quoted for truth

oh, they are vociferously trying every possible angle, but they are, after all, beholden to their voters.
That's why I jokingly referred to Eminent Domain.

This is the number one issue for the county, period.
All the solutions seem to fall under the 'pissing everyone off' mode.

I realize the ARU streamlining process i am proposing may only be a small part of the solution, but who does it piss off? The builders i'm sure because it will cannibalize some of their business but they are already running full out now, not sure if it really impacts their bottom line. I am not sure how big the builders are in terms of political importance here. Maybe very important

Why is the cost to build $500 a sq foot. Does it have to be that high??

I understand that new construction/remodeling just costs that much here. In fact, I have heard that luxury builds like the Shooting Star development cost $1100 per foot. Imagine that. I think a lot of builders may have gotten rung out in the Great Recession and the ones who survived are now reaping the spoils. There are clearly builders from Idaho Falls and other places coming in but this place is remote and that brings its own challenges.

This. There isn’t any prefab design allowable in Jackson?
As far as laws, see what California did for ADUs.

Yes, prefab is allowed here I believe, so long as you get a local engineering firm to stamp their approval on the design. Without that i think it can be hard to get county permits. I have seen a bunch of prefab looking truck loads on Moose Wilson Road by the old Roadhouse in the past couple weeks. Can anyone give me someone to talk to who does prefab that is approvable by the county?

Well FKNA. Kokomas the Op here and I floated the south fork of the Snake today with Schwerty. Had I known he started this I could have given him the lowdown on this. I sure don't know the answer but it's a part of my daily conservation...

Koko, you should go the Tiny house route. My friend owned the one across from the Apens, just sold it and built another for his daughter last month. Maybe easier than ya think. He and Lindenle toured the slog of death outta granite cyn. last spring...

DJ, great floating with you today. I was too busy trying to outfox the 13 year old in the other boat...
I have been looking into the tiny house route quite a bit. A well known guy in town built one and is trying to sell it. He got such a hard time from town that he is giving up. I have spent a bunch of time on the phone with county planning. At first they said i could do it, but when i got to the building department they were surprised to hear planning would allow it. I asked planning again and they haven't gotten back to me.

Truth is, given the effort involved i would rather put up as close to 1000 sq ft up front rather than need to go through this permitting process again some day. Trying to figure out how to do it right, plus if our aging parents end up living with us someday the will not be climbing stairs to a loft! A strong contender is actually moving a house, perhaps one of the teardowns in the Gill Addition. Then i could put it on blocks in the yard, permit and build a foundation, and then remodel the heck out of it. Probably would come out to much less than $500 per foot.

I thought Koko was saying it will cost $500 / sqft to build a ADU on his existing land. I’m looking to build an ADU on my property here in Cali and we got SWAG quotes of $200-$350 for custom and $125-$250 for prefab.

Yes this is what i'm saying. Others like RideIt and BB and others are correct in saying that land cost/availabilty is an obstacle for large scale development. This is correct. My suggestion is to see how many landowners like me there are who would like to add a structure and would be willing to rent it out through the county program. I hope and pray to be here more than 10 or 20 years or whatever the term would be and after that i'd be free to do what i wanted with the second home, increasing my property value. I am borrowing this idea from federal low income housing programs where multifamily developers face the same stipulations. Not sure how well those work in the long run, but they do increase housing supply where i saw it done in Ogden

[natty dread]

Skiball: 90 days max a year on rentals of less than 30 days duration (and only primary residents allowed to do it, nit second homeowners) is one of the standard ways forward-thinking towns are saving their housing availability and neighborhood livability from the damage done by unrestricted short term vacation rentals. Also many of these towns have no restrictions on short term rentals in commercial zones—where commercial uses like hotels are supposed to be.

Hey warthog! Been a bit ha

[rideit]

I realize the ARU streamlining process i am proposing may only be a small part of the solution, but who does it piss off?

I like your proposal. But I think the 'pissed off' faction here is neighbors who don't like change, and also have the fear of additional traffic/noise etc.

[kokomas]

I like your proposal. But I think the 'pissed off' faction here is neighbors who don't like change, and also have the fear of additional traffic/noise etc.

Got it, thanks. Yeah there will be some who don't want another structure in their neighbors property. Hopefully they would not be the majority

[MontuckyFried]

How about taking a look what Boulder's been doing; then just do whatever the exact opposite of that is.

[liv2ski]

Got it, thanks. Yeah there will be some who don't want another structure in their neighbors property. Hopefully they would not be the majority

Good luck with the majority of NIMBY neighbors. Our small town is suppose to add 1,100 low rent units. My question is where, as we are on an island that is built out and my neighbors are all up in arms over people building additional units on their properties. I reminded one neighbor that down zoning to R2 increases his lots value and he didn't care, as he does not want a higher density in the hood.

[kokomas]

Good luck with the majority of NIMBY neighbors. Our small town is suppose to add 1,100 low rent units. My question is where, as we are on an island that is built out and my neighbors are all up in arms over people building additional units on their properties. I reminded one neighbor that down zoning to R2 increases his lots value and he didn't care, as he does not want a higher density in the hood.

Here the ARU's are already approved. I guess the nimby crowd may object to the extra effort to put more up on private land

[Iowagriz]

I think that Missoula did something like this approx 20yrs ago (or more?). I didn't live here at the time, only followed in the news. As I remember it, they allowed the older/bigger lots to divide and add a 2nd house to it. This was apparently in the older part of town that surrounds the university. I don't think it went well (besides the NIMBYism). The large/stately homes in the area, didn't have the extra property. The smaller homes next door did. You end up with a mish-mash within the neighborhood.

As I look at Missoula, the only real way to increase supply is to increase apartments, then townhomes, then small homes. People need a way to step up thru the process as they gain more financial independence. This is tough in mountain towns, even harder in resort towns. I do think it is unrealistic to think that everyone can get their own independent unit (own or rent), people will have to become better about accepting and becoming apartment/condo dwellers in the resort towns with limited capacity.

[summit]

Locals established in mountain communities understandably want some limits on growth so that the mountains towns don't get turned into crowded mountain cities more so than they already have. They balk at taxes, fees, assessments, regulations, and other costs that make their finances more challenging after they "finally made it" so that others can "make it" too. They are afraid of being crowded out or priced out.

Locals (and "locals") who don't own their place in the mountains obviously see getting their piece of the pie as more important than the cultural impacts of building high-rise apartment buildings, raising taxes, limiting property rights, and building tiny houses between every SFH. They are frustrated that it is so hard to make it and worry they never will.

People who own tax-payer-subsidized "affordable housing" will continue to do what people do... like moving to San Fran and renting out their ski country deed restricted place for profit, refusing to sell to renting locals who want to live securely in the community because enforcement is frequently crap. But should they be forced to sell? On the other hand, entitled people will demand that private property be seized or owners heavily restricted on use and taxed, as though it doesn't trickle down to rent... or future owners.

Meanwhile the mega-employer ski corps will continue to twist the market and artificially depress the fair market wages by bundling in ski passes and bunk beds in employee dorms with their low wages while demanding the community kick in money for their company town worker dorms.

It IS harder now than it was 15 years ago, but not that much... the largest difference now is social media and the echo chamber effect of people complaining about the issue. People forget that you have to expect MAJOR sacrifice for the MAJOR benefit of living in a high cost resort area, and there is no right to live there. These areas should have some kind of population limits. At the same time, you need a long term local community of those who have the wherewhithall to stick it out, particularly skilled and professional workers. The community also needs housing for seasonal low-skill workers. No easy solutions.

[neufox47]

I ski raced with a dude from the rancher family that apparently owns most / a significant portion of the undeveloped private land left in Jackson. I know he said they were going to have to sell at least part of it when his grandparents died to pay the estate tax. Now there is no estate tax so... vote to reinstate the estate tax?

[rideit]

I would love to know what properties those are.

[AdironRider]

The affordable housing solution is Victor/Driggs and Alpine (or other surrounding communities in other ski towns).

People need to get over the idea of living no more than 5 minutes away from their preferred areas. The past 10 years or so I have seen a large entitlement mindset to this type of living that must be cheap and available to all and it just isn't possible.

[summit]

People need to get over the idea of living no more than 5 minutes away from their preferred areas. The past 10 years or so I have seen a large entitlement mindset to this type of living that must be cheap and available to all and it just isn't possible.

Dunno if that is a symptom of the generational expectations or the social media echo chamber amplifying thus normalizing entitled whiners, but the last few years it has been very loud that new locals feel like they deserve the right to find cheap enough housing (which means their own place or maybe 2 people in a 2 bedroom) IN a ski resort town that they can afford skiing and partying while only having 1 unskilled job despite having a car payment and maybe some student loans. Or you get the liftie who married the restaurant server and that is their career 5 years in and why can't they afford a 2br 2ba condo in the ski town while also supporting a family? At some point you have to elevate your career if you want to make it in a resort community, especially with a family.

The real problem is if your fire fighter married to a nurse cannot afford a 2br condo and a kid, or the retail store manager married to a bank loan officer can't afford a 1br condo starter home even with no kids. Or you can have Aspen problems where CRNA married to a carpenter cannot afford a 3br house for their 2 kids within a 30 minute drive of the hospital, which is the call radius requirement for the job.

[::: :::]

Not sure it's entitlement as much as a realization that it's a better way of living to not commute long distances

An offshoot of the larger conversation about what's good for the environment and a increase in interest in living in higher density over the last 20yrs

The cheap part is just common to all...we'd all love that

[dunfree]

People need to get over the idea of living no more than 5 minutes away from their preferred areas. The past 10 years or so I have seen a large entitlement mindset to this type of living that must be cheap and available to all and it just isn't possible.

sure - and eventually your commuter workforce changes the nature of the town. more traffic, more parking. You can't keep your community looking the same (i.e low growth) with low taxes and decent jobs and provide affordable housing. Rent control ultimately raises rents. The only way to provide affordable housing longterm... is to build more housing. If you can't build out, you have to build up - and you have to do before property values start to skyrocket. this may be new to wherever but this isn't new in the world. solutions have been tried, you can see where they suceeded/failed. i don't really see this as hard, just as an unfortunate reality people don't want to accept - remember the endgame of Monopoly is everyone getting priced out.

[summit]

Not sure it's entitlement as much as a realization that it's a better way of living to not commute long distances

"I don't want to commute 25-50 minutes to my low wage low skill seasonal job that allows me access to paradise. I demand you use other people's money to build me a rent controlled apartment in a luxury resort town!"

That both is and is not hyperbole, depending on who is bitching on the local facebook feed / dive bar.

[SumJongGuy]

Thread: How to increase rental housing supply in ski towns without pissing everyone off

In other words.. How do we facilitate the ability of poor people to live in and around rich people without pissing off said rich people? Good luck with that..

[Sirshredalot]

sure - and eventually your commuter workforce changes the nature of the town. more traffic, more parking. You can't keep your community looking the same (i.e low growth) with low taxes and decent jobs and provide affordable housing. Rent control ultimately raises rents. The only way to provide affordable housing longterm... is to build more housing. If you can't build out, you have to build up - and you have to do before property values start to skyrocket. this may be new to wherever but this isn't new in the world. solutions have been tried, you can see where they suceeded/failed. i don't really see this as hard, just as an unfortunate reality people don't want to accept - remember the endgame of Monopoly is everyone getting priced out.

Sure. And building up is often preferable to building out. Density is ultimately cheaper and mitigates traffic problems.

The sticking point is overcoming the NIMBY inertia of the old balls HOA types who show up at City Council meetings, plus you've got the resorts who own a big chunk of the land at the base, who have the ear of the local politicians and also financially benefit from keeping the town zoned low-density. It's a tough fight.

[I Skied Bandini Mountain]

If we're going down the entitlement rabbit hole, let's include these resort companies counting on local/state governments (through subsidies, tax breaks, special zoning, grants, etc.) to make it easier to have a supply of low wage workers close by.

[::: :::]

in the rural west locales that i've worked, when the suggestion has been made to build multistory, they look around & say "why? we've got tons of space...!"

this conversation is coming up more and more & it is becoming apparent to locals that density is important to growth. I suppose pretending growth won't happen is an option but it seems a self-imposed kind of tax on sensibility

[iceman]

I would love to know what properties those are.

Have at it. https://maps.greenwoodmap.com/tetonw...ip,placelabels

[fastfred]

15 min walk to the lift the lifestyle isn't for everybody

Sent from my SM-J737V using TGR Forums mobile app

[EWG]

How about taking a look what Boulder's been doing; then just do whatever the exact opposite of that is.

This is fucking funny. My favorite is Boulder rich homeowners pointing at developers calling them evil because they might make money off of density while at the same time those same rich people are doing everything they can to preserve every possible part of Boulder "as is" so that it is usable only by the rich people that actually live there now. I mean there's greed, and then there's GREED.

Like the argument that allowing a bunch more working class people to live in Boulder would increase traffic too much. In the meantime, the alternative is that they drive into town, which they do now - 60,000 people per day. Waiting in hour long traffic jambs to drive in. But hey, THAT traffic doesn't matter because THAT in-commuting traffic does not interfere with my ability to easily drive 3 miles at 9am to my favorite latte place, get a front row parking space, and then drive back across town to my yoga session at 10am. Who cares what kind of traffic my barista and yoga instructor had to sit in to get into town to serve me and my needs...