Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 176
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    none
    Posts
    8,334
    Who decides what’s traditional, in a resort town?

    Just have to build more employee housing.

    https://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspe...moves-forward/

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    between campus and church
    Posts
    9,925
    Free market would suggest if resorts can’t find employees due to housing shortages, the resort needs to build more housing.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    59715
    Posts
    7,446
    Or perhaps pay more so the employees can actually afford to live there?

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    17,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Peruvian View Post
    Free market would suggest if resorts can’t find employees due to housing shortages, the resort needs to build more housing.
    Or rent out the Sundowner and Dostals.
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Peruvian View Post
    Free market would suggest if resorts can’t find employees due to housing shortages, the resort needs to build more housing.
    Like the railroads and coal companies used to do--build company towns, charge rent, grocery bills etc to the workers which somehow always managed to be more than their pay.
    From the resort's standpoint it makes sense. From the employee's standpoint--if they change jobs they lose their housing.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    your vacation
    Posts
    4,718
    if it was easy everyone would be doing it
    fuck that shoulda got here twenty years ago
    not my problem
    who cares
    maybe we can start holding lotteries, a few people are selected each year to move to a ski town and live rent/mortgage free for a lifetime

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    17,749
    Quote Originally Posted by fastfred View Post
    if it was easy everyone would be doing it
    fuck that shoulda got here twenty years ago
    not my problem
    who cares
    maybe we can start holding lotteries, a few people are selected each year to move to a ski town and live rent/mortgage free for a lifetime
    You're onto something here.
    "Make skiing a privilege again"
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    General Sherman's Favorite City
    Posts
    35,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    You're onto something here.
    "Make skiing a privilege again"
    Finally. I’m so sick of these poors showing up on the slopes and bringing down the AMI; don’t get me started on the snowboarding variety.

    Godspeed, Fred.
    I still call it The Jake.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    your vacation
    Posts
    4,718
    get real it's not like I had a trust fund the day I showed up in town at 19, it kicked in a couple years after I got here

    keep skiing and mtn towns priviladged I've had enough fat midwestern tourists all summer, bring on the black cards and helly hansen one piecers

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Peruvian View Post
    Free market would suggest if resorts can’t find employees due to housing shortages, the resort needs to build more housing.
    Or pay a true market price for labor which includes their cost of housing
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    关你屁事
    Posts
    9,532
    market price of labor = what you have to pay to get someone to do the job
    market price of labor != the cost of living. hence the whole "living wage" thing.

    pretty much every expensive resort community figures this out eventually.

    if you want a "freer market" to fix your housing problems change zoning laws/building codes/planning approval so you can build more, cheaper, living units.

    If you aren't willing to do that, the freer market ain't going to fix shit. And since most communitys aren't willing to do that they bandage it with "affordable housing" or shuttling workers in from worker ghettos far away.
    Last edited by dunfree ; 10-26-2019 at 10:23 AM.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Jong Kong
    Posts
    86
    The reality of being an outsider moving to a ski town is sacrificing a few years of your life in order to save up the cash and make it work. As an outsider who's in the process, I get it. It keeps the people out who aren't committed.

    How many legit ski towns are left though? Every cookie cutter apartment complex and mcmansion added is a turn off if you're looking for the real deal.










    Sent from my SM-G950U using TGR Forums mobile app
    "Skiing is the easy part, Carl."

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wilson
    Posts
    2,121
    I have a bit of a project plan forming here in TC (the wyoming one) as I want to add an accessory rental unit to my property that will increase my property value over time, allow me to rent out to friends who work in the county, and potentially house our parents some day if one set of them moves out. I'll chip away at the plan as I have time and we try to save some money to do it. The place shouldn't be too small and definitely shouldn't have a ladder to the bed like the tiny houses do. It should maximize the 1000sq ft allowance and should maybe be attached to a garage for tenant use and to store toys. The obvious issue is that as it moves up the scale to what would actually be livable, the rent I'd need moves out of reach of people i'm looking to house

    1. Trailer / tiny home on wheels - not allowed although I see many others doing it in plain sight of the road. ELIMINATED

    2. Tiny home - very expensive per square foot, most are not made for the cold here, needs to be signed off on by local engineering firm to be permitted including fill foundation, needs to tie into existing septic or town sanitation. Probably not worth the hassle if we want to replace with a bigger structure some day

    3. Move an existing cabin or teardown - potentially cheaper per sq ft even with the moving cost, but may not get a good layout, everything will have to be brought up to code, need to put it on blocks while we get the right foundation made

    4. Prefab house - need to meet with some firms that do this, haven't explored yet. Holding out some hope, send me names of you got them

    5. Stick built on site - get the right build but very expensive such that (when we came up with the scratch) I'd have to charge way more in rent than friends would be able/willing to pay. Still an option if rented out at market to a family with some more coin that want to get into the school system
    Last edited by kokomas; 10-27-2019 at 07:52 AM.
    Day Man. Fighter of the Night Man. Champion of the Sun. Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wilson
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by LesterSmoove View Post
    keeping in mind I'm just a dude on the internet with no specific expertise in this issue who just typed up an overly lengthy word soup:

    there isn't much land, and the county/town talk a good talk about upzoning in the town, but we need to accept that some places can handle a building taller than 3 stories without destroying the character of our community. it'll help rental projects pencil out, and I believe landowners could print money on simple market-rate rentals if they can build enough units. JHMR at one point tried to get permission to build a 4 story building behind kmart for employees and the town said no.

    if people want to buy in at this point, that's what victor, alpine, and star valley are for, and I hope those valleys don't go all nimby and start to make it harder to build. JH proper just needs a lot of new rental apartments to keep the place functioning and to give people a place to live when they first move here, before they decide to lay down roots and try to buy in a commuter town.

    hidden hollow was great, but it could be taller and I wouldn't care. that's a lot of worker bees who won't be looking for rental housing in victor.

    the commissioners have murmured about rezoning northern south park some day (AKA Gill/Lockhart land around smiths/highschool road), so thats not a new idea. it won't interfere with elk migration either.

    if county rezoned northern south park and those families decided to cash out on some of their land, it would be a shame to pave it over with relatively low-density duplexes or homes on small lots like cottonwood flats. The county should take the opportunity to go balls out with incentives for maximum density if the landowners wanted to put up big apartment buildings there. with infrastructure upgrades, including tribal trails, and possibly access from highway 89, you could go 5 stories there no problem, and the density might be sufficient enough for some people to actually ride the start bus. I suspect that if they ever rezone that, nearby homeowners will fight until it's a watered down waste, and we'll pave over that beautiful land with expensive low-density shit for minimum benefit.

    same with the rodeo grounds. yes, they'll eventually get redeveloped, but hopefully it's denser than the redmond/hall rentals that the town recently built. anyone know the real story on the "has to be used for rodeo" stipulations? guessing the law is on county's side.

    joe rice got a 4-story building approved by the pawn shop on broadway. he had to fight the council to build it in a way that it could pencil. obviously he has an incentive to house his employees, but I suspect he'll directly profit on the rent too if it ever gets built. but it's an example of how we benefit when the council just stepped back, made exceptions to strict zoning regs, and let someone build something that penciled.

    that half-vacant farmhouse live/work development across from smiths was a huge wasted opportunity. if the landowner had some kind of density bonus for rental housing and could build 4 stories, that could have been great, and it would have been a better investment for them in the end. current zoning allows for a 3rd story but only with major setbacks, and there are other difficult requirements RE building form and mass.

    other in-town properties I can think of as being good candidates for redevelopment as rentals if given allowances for increased density:

    *auto dealership and adjacent properties across from smiths, above the old sands whitewater building (all owned by 1300 land, whoever that is. bet they'd like printing money from rentals though)
    *the disused sands whitewater building/lot across from smiths (charlie still owns it)
    *the open lot behind the togwotee snowmobile adventures building could take a big building for sure
    *possibly a lot of the industrial/service properties on gregory lane, especially if we vote to upgrade gregory lane in the spet election
    *a rich dude could maybe assemble some of the dilapidated properties on south park loop road in between gregory and blair over time and then, if incentivized with density bonuses, build a massive building.
    *downtown, the gravel lot by lewis and clark rafting (owned by mogul hospitality partners)...find a way to let them put up a 5+ story apartment building on that big lot and maybe they'll decide it's not worth it to build a hotel, especially with the new commercial mitigation rules

    in sum, there isn't much, but we just have to do a little more to help private developers pencil out on rental housing, and it will seriously help us all if the worker bees have more rental options. they are all driving here anyways.

    as per the thread title, streamlining ADUs in county would be less controversial
    Would Stilson be an option? I realize they are tearing it up to put in more parking which seems like a good idea but what about putting multi use development here including a bunch of parking? I don't know the land size/constrains but it's in county, on the bus lines, could reasonably do well with westbankers currently crowding into a couple restaurants, potentially cut down on traffic to town, etc
    Day Man. Fighter of the Night Man. Champion of the Sun. Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Down on Electric Avenue
    Posts
    4,405
    Quote Originally Posted by LesterSmoove View Post
    the problem is, if you were to spend 11 mil on 3 acres, and then build 50 1-bdr units, you're still subsidizing each unit by 220k/unit just in land costs. and what if they can't even build 50? when you have expensive land, you have to build up or else you're just blowing your wad on bullshit. we don't need to subsidize the hell out of housing if we just build efficiently, but that's what pisses everyone off.

    JH's permanently terrified town/county government first spent 1.7 mil to buy a double lot basically in the heart of downtown depending on who you ask (neighbors say it's a quiet residential street, but some lots back up onto a big money cabin resort), CERTAIN to build 16 or more units. woman who moved there a few years ago scared the fuck out of the town/county and now maybe they'll build 6-8. so, the public subsidy goes from 106k to $280k-210k just on land, and far fewer people are housed. that is, unless the town gives up and sells it in a recession for 1.2k and it becomes 2 box mansions for 67yo retirees, or maybe 29yo's who earn 60k but somehow own an 800k 1960s shitbox.

    it's possible. neighbors need to just relax, count their blessings, and go for a hike, and remember how nice it is to own a single family home 1 block from heavy duty commercial downtown areas. (sorry djongo, from previous posts get the impression you live next door, but thats how i feel)
    No worries...
    The new neighbor is just the voice of the neighborhood because she has prior skillset for that and she has a genuine dog in the fight.

    At least 2 homeowners on the street are from families that Pioneered this town. 3-5 generations deep. Tuckers and Karns'.

    Most homes owned over 25 years by same person. Working neighborhood that already houses about 10-15 renters in 2 blocks.

    The big cabin development owned by Clarene is the quiet mover behind this and always has been. She wants all the property between the cabins and the rodeo grounds and has purchased a place or two under cover already. She's one of the biggest monopolists in JH.
    When the place first got approval, (subsequently unapproved) The guy behind the prop got an offer from a developer for his and his mother's next door home. For more high density. The domino effect took a nanosecond.
    Unapproval saw the offer rescinded.
    The long established block was now being set up to have about 20-30 new residents on 3 lots. See any problems there?
    Long time locals would be pushed out so tomorrows kids can have a phenomenally overpriced shoebox with a shite parking scenario. Fucking genius. And soulful.

    And fuck the Mayor who says full build-out or sell it. Politics is about compromise, not my way or the highway. And FWIW, the neighbors have ALWAYS said yes, we are open to some more density so long as it doesn't fuck us over.
    Scary lady (?) has gone through fire to come up with alternatives and options. She should be in charge of the housing authority as the current gal is a clusterfuck. She thought she saw a good opportunity and spent a bunch of our money on a weak bet.
    There aren't many but options do exist in this town/county that are by all definitions, a better direction.

    County sat on 5 acres just a 1/2 mile from Koko's home for almost 20 years. Right in front of the aspens, now for sale.

    As a 30 year resident I am both happy and sad for Kokomas. I consider him a very capable, intelligent guy and I fear he is stepping into a shit pile gnarlier than one might imagine. OTOH, I'd be lifetime amped if he can move that mountain. I shit you not, the person who fixes the problems here could easily run the country.

    We are relaxed. If you were thinking we were not relaxed, then you're gonna freak when we ACTUALLY become unglued.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Mostly the Elks, mostly.
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by kokomas View Post
    I have a bit of a project plan forming here in TC
    I've thought about this too.

    I'd have to excavate, pour, dig septic, run util's etc.

    I lean toward tiny home on wheels, remove wheels and crane onto foundation. There are a couple tiny home villages here that seem to do fine in the winter .. Sprout Tiny Homes I think they are http://sprouttinyhomes.com/

    A guy down the way did a pre-fab, it came out nice. but it's yudge, a ranch that came in 2 parts and craned onto foundation. Dunno if they make smaller ones?

    Stick built would be the way to go if you could do most of it yourself or bro-deal it, otherwise the $/SF in my area is offensive.

    If I had an ADU, I'd rather have long term renters, not vacation rentals - for a lot of reasons. But a guy can generate more $ doing the latter.

    To get this back on topic, maybe the county could encourage employee housing rentals of ADU's and spare rooms by subsidizing the property owner, with an agreement on capping affordable rent? That way the county wouldn't have the HUGE investment to buy property and build and maintain housing, just scratch a monthly 'rent' check. Owner to get 1000 from county, and 700$ or whatever from the employee renter?
    Motivation to not VRBO, affordable rent for employee, and not building as many new units. Plus the building/maintaining costs fall to the owner, and owner realizes the value increase to property too.
    Is this a dumb idea?

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    59715
    Posts
    7,446
    And then you have government paying to supply low wage employees to resort corporations.

    Am I the only one who finds this distasteful?

    I'm not some Ayn Rand carrying Libertarian who thinks government is cancer, I just really don't like the idea of government/tax money helping corporations keep wages artificially low. If they can't hire enough worker bees to wipe the asses of their rich customers because it's too expensive for worker bees to live there - they need to pay more to their worker bees.

    Yes I know mom and pop's are getting pinched too, but I don't see corporate welfare as the answer.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wilson
    Posts
    2,121
    Actually I agree with both of prior posts if that's possible. Maybe a PPP where county helps the homeowner put the ADU in (streamlined permitting from a small range of local options where plans are readily available and architects/contractors are scoped out, perhaps financing or grant), employers register with county to sponsor the rental of new units in exchange for living spaces for some number of employees, and the homeowner agrees to put ADU in the affordable rental pool for x number of years
    Last edited by kokomas; 10-27-2019 at 08:59 AM. Reason: Edited to add financing
    Day Man. Fighter of the Night Man. Champion of the Sun. Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone.

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Quote Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain View Post
    And then you have government paying to supply low wage employees to resort corporations.

    Am I the only one who finds this distasteful?

    I'm not some Ayn Rand carrying Libertarian who thinks government is cancer, I just really don't like the idea of government/tax money helping corporations keep wages artificially low. If they can't hire enough worker bees to wipe the asses of their rich customers because it's too expensive for worker bees to live there - they need to pay more to their worker bees.

    Yes I know mom and pop's are getting pinched too, but I don't see corporate welfare as the answer.
    This x 1000000000

    It is a racket

    See the PPP problem you have with Vail is they have a shit ton of land they are sitting on and have had for decades near basically all of their resorts. But they won't develop because they know the market cannot support that much buildout of land farther from the resort. But they won't sell it.

    So they go, hey taxpayer! We'll donate this land we paid 100K for years ago. You taxpayers drop 10s of millions to develop deed restricted units, and you guys manage the rentals through county housing authority, but we want half of those units permanently reserved for Vail employees who we can then pay otherwise below prevailing market wages because the job has attached discounted housing.

    The taxpayer gets fucked. The employees have increased power disparity because their housing security is attached to their particular corporate employer... nobody wins except Vail.

    And the cycle continues.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wilson
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by kokomas View Post
    Actually I agree with both of prior posts if that's possible. Maybe a PPP where county helps the homeowner put the ADU in (streamlined permitting from a small range of local options where plans are readily available and architects/contractors are scoped out), employers register with county to sponsor the rental of new units in exchange for living spaces for some number of employees, and the homeowner agrees to put ADU in the affordable rental pool for x number of years
    As homeowner I'd want some teeth to evict though if tenants violate lease in terms of noise/partying/extra guests what have you, given that in this scenario I have ceded over the rental decision to the county affordable rental pool
    Day Man. Fighter of the Night Man. Champion of the Sun. Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    8,715
    And then you have government paying to supply low wage employees to resort corporations.

    Am I the only one who finds this distasteful?
    Nope. It is corporate welfare. The fact that my wife and I will have to pay a real estate transfer tax of 1% when we sell our market rate house in a neighborhood with an inflated real estate market partially due to STRs that do not pay the lodging tax just so that someone who may have a higher income than we do, can buy an appreciation guaranteed
    unit or live in an apartment with granite counters in town an my expensive is tough for me to take.

    I know of zero people in the trades that live in affordable housing. They all get paid a minimum of $25/hr. because that is what the market demands. Hotels, restaurants, retails stores, management companies want to pay $15/hr. and then have their employees pay the poor card and suck on the government tit. All the while the business owners are calling in the the town council meetings from their condo in Cabo complaining about the struggle to find employees. Oh, the "qualified applicants" are hand picked by a committee made up of business owners. So yeah, the only beneficiaries are the business owners that get to pay a below market wage, a handful of "workers" that win the lottery, and the contractors building the places. The ski resort is not the problem. They purchase their own units to house their employees.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wilson
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles View Post
    Nope. It is corporate welfare. The fact that my wife and I will have to pay a real estate transfer tax of 1% when we sell our market rate house in a neighborhood with an inflated real estate market partially due to STRs that do not pay the lodging tax just so that someone who may have a higher income than we do, can buy an appreciation guaranteed
    unit or live in an apartment with granite counters in town an my expensive is tough for me to take.

    I know of zero people in the trades that live in affordable housing. They all get paid a minimum of $25/hr. because that is what the market demands. Hotels, restaurants, retails stores, management companies want to pay $15/hr. and then have their employees pay the poor card and suck on the government tit. All the while the business owners are calling in the the town council meetings from their condo in Cabo complaining about the struggle to find employees. Oh, the "qualified applicants" are hand picked by a committee made up of business owners. So yeah, the only beneficiaries are the business owners that get to pay a below market wage, a handful of "workers" that win the lottery, and the contractors building the places. The ski resort is not the problem. They purchase their own units to house their employees.
    Great points Summit and FG. If the local govt did not subsidize the construction but rather expedited the process and perhaps offered some financing would your view change? I.E. the homeowner building the ADU and the employer helping to pay the rent foot the bill
    Day Man. Fighter of the Night Man. Champion of the Sun. Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Mostly the Elks, mostly.
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain View Post
    And then you have government paying to supply low wage employees to resort corporations.

    Am I the only one who finds this distasteful?

    <snip>

    they need to pay more to their worker bees.

    Yes I know mom and pop's are getting pinched too, but I don't see corporate welfare as the answer.
    Truth. It is distasteful.

    But that corporate welfare already happening here. Gvt has done (are still doing) it by taking countless millions buying land, millions more to build crappy high density housing, lots more $ to administer the program, investigate fraud, etc.
    Could that same money going forward be better utilized to re-purpose or subsidize existing housing supply for workers? While helping out property owners too?

    I don't see our local gvt ever getting out of the employee housing game - that toothpaste is out of the tube.

    It's not a solution, I know. But seems like it could help a little.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,113
    Quote Originally Posted by fastfred View Post
    if it was easy everyone would be doing it
    fuck that shoulda got here twenty years ago
    not my problem
    who cares
    maybe we can start holding lotteries, a few people are selected each year to move to a ski town and live rent/mortgage free for a lifetime
    if it's not your problem why comment?

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Aspen
    Posts
    3,058

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •