39 resorts in the hands of just three corporations

Forums:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/is-vail-resorts-killi...

Is Vail Resorts Killing Whistler’s Spirit?

When Vail bought Canada’s famed Whistler Blackcomb ski mountain, locals were nervous. Now, after a record season of visitors, they’re enraged.

By 

Natalie Obiko Pearson

April 9, 2018, 9:54 AM MDT

The takeover of Canada’s most iconic ski resort by an American corporation was never going to go smoothly. But Vail Resorts Inc.’s $1 billion acquisitionof Whistler Blackcomb has Canadians seething.

The new owner’s offenses include the adoption of an on-mountain app that features Fahrenheit and inches, rather than Celsius and centimeters, and a season-pass pricing system that benefits globetrotting jet-setters at the expense of locals. Then there’s general discontent over the assimilation of a quirky, homegrown success story by an American corporate behemoth.

“They’re trying to cater to a wealthy, sheltered audience—I don’t know if that crowd really wants what we have,” says Cathy Zeglinski, a competitive athlete and family doctor who closed her Whistler practice last September, forced out by rising living costs and staff shortages in the town. “What we have is snow, extreme terrain,” she explains. “It's blustery, it's very hard to see. That’s why people come to Whistler—it's very extreme.”

The base of Whistler, with the mountain in the background. It was acquired by Vail Resorts for $1 billion.

Photographer: Justa Jeskova Photography

This is the first season that Whistler Blackcomb was included in Vail’s $879 Epic Pass (now $899 for the 2018-2019 season), a program that gives holders unlimited access to the company’s 14 resorts in North America and Australia. The impact has been immediate. Other sites on the pass include Beaver Creek and Vail in Colorado and Park City in Utah, where snowfall was at the lowest levels recorded in 30 years.

A skier on Whistler. The resort is arguably the most famous ski mountain in Canada.

Photographer: Paul Morrison

That helped push a chunk of Vail's estimated 750,000 Epic Pass holders to look farther north this past season. More than 8 percent of holders visited Whistler Blackcomb, helping make it the most-visited mountain resort in North America, according to a March 13 Vail investor presentation. 

Visitor numbers at Whistler set a record for the third straight year, thanks to visitors from the U.S., Mexico, Australia, and the U.K., Vail Resorts Chief Executive Officer Robert Katz said in a March 8 investor call. “That has been a pretty strong example, I think, of the power of the Epic Pass.” 

Alienating the Locals

Canadians aren’t as impressed. Whistler Blackcomb’s tickets are now priced with a base rate in U.S. dollars—unfortunate for Canadians who hold the second-worst-performing major currency this year. The exchange rate for the two currencies is published above ticket prices, which fluctuate daily.

Whistler village, with a lift in the foreground. The area has a severe housing shortage, affecting seasonal workers and locals alike.

Photographer: Leanna Rathkelly/All Canada Photos

Meanwhile, Vail canceled Whistler’s popular one- and three-day prepaid lift tickets, which were discounted exclusively for Canadians and Washington state residents. The move underscores a shift away from local, casual skiers to focus on so-called destination visitors, a category that spends three times more than its regional counterparts at Whistler annually.

“It irks you,” says Roger Schmidt, an engineer based in Ottawa who’s been skiing at Whistler since the 1970s. “I’m the victim of the exchange rate in my own country. Not everybody has the time or the resources to go away for a 10-day ski vacation every season. It’s like the message is, if you’re local, you can ski at the smaller hills.”

Vail also is facing an effort by some employees to unionize, a challenge that originated in the ski school, whose top instructors get paid roughly C$25 ($20) an hour for teaching five-hour private classes that can earn the company up to C$860 ($676) a day. Whistler Blackcomb was primarily responsible for a $2 million jump in Vail's ski school revenue for the three months ended January, according to the company's latest quarterly results.

Meanwhile, circulating within the community is the hashtag #FailVail and ominous-sounding epithets like VailBorg or simply, the Mountain. 

“We knew there would be challenges as we integrated two large companies,” Vail said in an emailed response to questions. “We have worked and continue to work together toward building upon Whistler Blackcomb’s continued success.”

Canadian Lore

The majestic twin peaks of Whistler and Blackcomb are seamlessly connected by the world’s highest gondola and have consistently been rated the continent’s No. 1 ski resort. Locally, they occupy a unique place in Canadian ski lore.

Whistler Blackcomb’s roots trace back to a group of gutsy Vancouver entrepreneurs in the 1960s who foresaw Olympic potential in a region with no road access, electricity, or running water. The current mayor was a squatter in the early 1970s, posing nude with skis alongside fellow occupiers facing eviction.

The summit lodge. Whistler is now part of Vail’s Epic Pass program; for a flat fee, skiers have unlimited passes to all 14 Vail resorts.

Photographer: Noel Hendrickson/Digital Vision

In the 1980s, when snowboarding was still banned at most North American mountains, Blackcomb welcomed the sport. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was a snowboard instructor there, calls it his favorite ski resort. 

While the purpose-built faux alpine village—a creation of the same landscape architect who designed Vail— may look like an outlet mall, it's attracted an eclectic, polyglot mix of ski bums, free spirits, and well-heeled thrill-seekers united by a love of the resort’s singular terrain. The twin peaks' massive 8,171 skiable acres offers something for everyone, but it's the more than 2,200 acres of leg-burning black and double-black terrain that sets it apart. It’s enough to comprise a large ski resort on its own, and it offers some of the steepest, toughest runs on the continent.

More recently, an influx of wealthy transients has caused property prices to more than double in the past five years, according to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. Luxury boutiques have replaced local businesses, and workers desperate for housing have to rent shared rooms for hundreds of dollars a month. The problems started long before the acquisition, but locals fear it's set to get worse. Residents of Park City, which was also purchased by Vail Resorts, have had similar concerns; brokers call it the "Vail Effect."

Vail responded in an email, saying the company houses 31 percent of its work force at Whistler Blackcomb. Pete Sonntag, the resort's chief operating officer, said in an interview in August 2017 that Vail may consider funding new construction to expand affordable housing.

Tourism Whistler’s CEO, Barrett Fisher, has said the town’s focus should be to attract the “right guests” appreciative of its mountain culture. “Business is booming, but so too is the level of local angst surrounding this growth,” she wrote in an open letter, acknowledging transportation, housing, and staffing pressures that back-to-back years of record visits have caused.

Vail at Work

Katz, Vail’s CEO and a former private equity investor, has defied a broader industry decline to build North America’s largest ski resort owner and operator. He’s done that by acquiring rival mountains and then luring snow hounds to the slopes by offering unlimited access to a smorgasbord of resorts. The more often people visit, the thinking goes, the more they’ll spend.

When Katz first introduced the Epic Pass encompassing five resorts a decade ago, he slashed the price of access to less than half the price of a season pass at most rival resorts. At the time, the move was seen as crazy. But the Epic Pass upended the industry, making snow sports more accessible and also driving a consolidation that's put 39 resorts in the hands of just three corporations—Vail being the largest.

Vail is pouring money into Whistler Blackcomb to boost capacity, announcing a C$66 million investment—the largest single-year amount in the resort’s history—to fund a new gondola and upgrade lifts. It’s also declared a focus on high spenders. In its investor presentation last month, it cited efforts to target high-net-worth customers with personalized “luxury-focused content based on income.”

More upscale visitors will come who are “probably not coming to experience the terrain challenges of the mountains,” says G.D. Maxwell, a semi-retired columnist for local Pique NewsMagazine who’s lived in Whistler since 1992. “They like easy cruising, good food, and expensive shops.” In other words, the Canadian resort will increasingly come to resemble its Colorado parent. “Vail bought the No. 1 resort in North America and is now going to teach it how to be the No. 3,” Maxwell says.

While overall I think the Vail-machine is not a good thing, Whistler is probably the resort I least am worried about ruining.  It already looks like disney world, total prefab "ski town main street", and when I was there in the 80's it was completely full of large groups of Japanese skiers.  The skiing was great, but it has always catered to the package skiers and rich people looking for a slightly more exotic locale.  

>> Whistler is probably the resort I least am worried about ruining.  It already looks like disney world, total prefab "ski town main street", <<

 

Yep, was there before the Olympics a few years ago. It's like the Vail Village on Canadian Steroids.

FOM...there's plenty of "small" non-corporate ski areas out there....go enjoy one!

It seems kind of contradictory to brag about being the Number 1 ranked ski resort and then....

...complain about too many tourists.

Yep, was there before the Olympics a few years ago. It's like the Vail Village on Canadian Steroids.<<

 

Are those cheaper?

I skied Vail once- 1980's

Massive

FOM...there's plenty of "small" non-corporate ski areas out there....go enjoy one!<<<

And what about the locals @ Whistler?

There's a few local ski areas right outside of Vancouver (Cypress, Seymour, Dakota Ridge)...just gotta poke around. This is like someone moving to Vail and then complaining about all the visitors.

white people problems.

So, you'd be totally OK if the Japanese bought Eldora and set the lift ticket prices in yen?

white people problems.<<<

^ this is precisely the problem!

Public lands have been snapped up by corporate interests and a large socio-economic moat has been erected to cater to the uber elite at the expense of reasonable access by all Americans.

they are closing beach access also.

because $ = free speech.

>>  snapped up

You mean leased?

 

>> cater to the uber elite at the expense of reasonable access by all Americans. <<

LOL...the article is about a Canadian resort. But, whatevs...

Canadians and Mexicans, by virtue of living in North America, are Americans.

In your mind, yes :)

They will stop you at the Canadian border if you have any record, even a DUI under 10 years

Let inject a little bit of reality into this conversation. The corporate entity that was Whistler/Blackcomb had overextended themselves, their stock was at an all time low and there was a question of them having to shut down operations or, at least, closing a substantial part of their operations. I'm sure all the locals would have been much happier with all of the businesses going under and half the jobs disappearing. Right? 

My mom runs ski groups (to Whistler, for over 20 years) and they turned away some dude who had a MJ possession 20 years before and a non-refundable condo.  

DUI only within 10 years?  I thought it was forever. I'll pass that along.

Top of Page Bottom of Page Permalink 

zobden

 nedb on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 – 02:47 pm

 

>>  snapped up

You mean leased?

 

>> cater to the uber elite at the expense of reasonable access by all Americans. <<

LOL...the article is about a Canadian resort. But, whatevs...<<<<

 

"You know Greg, 'exact words can be pretty hard to live by'".

Let inject a little bit of reality into this conversation. The corporate entity that was Whistler/Blackcomb had overextended themselves, their stock was at an all time low and there was a question of them having to shut down operations or, at least, closing a substantial part of their operations. I'm sure all the locals would have been much happier with all of the businesses going under and half the jobs disappearing. Right?<<<<

Yes, watching a ski area operator "implode" would almost be better than learning Jerry is alive and well living on some deserted island!

Even if the worst case scenario unfolded and it went belly up, how long do you really believe it'd stay offline?  Ideally, an operator would be allowed to restart ski area operations in isolation of the giant "monster" of real estate related activity.

Yes, watching a ski area operator "implode" would almost be better than learning Jerry is alive and well living on some deserted island!

In the case of Whistler/Blackcomb that would entail well over 50% of the working people losing their jobs and many of them their homes. 

Even if the worst case scenario unfolded and it went belly up, how long do you really believe it'd stay offline?

Less than 10 % of ski resorts that go belly up ever reopen. If the owner's actually filed for bankruptcy the spaghetti-like corporate structure and partnership deals in any major ski area would probably take at least 2 -5 years to sell off each asset class to the highest bidder. The equipment, lifts, snow grooming, snow making are usually the first to go. Once those are sold off, the resort becIdeally, an operator would be allowed to restart ski area operations in isolation of the giant "monster" of real estate related activity.omes even less desirable to a buyer because of the new capital outlay. Ideally, an operator would be allowed to restart ski area operations in isolation of the giant "monster" of real estate related activity.y to get a resort up and running again.

Ideally, an operator would be allowed to restart ski area operations in isolation of the giant "monster" of real estate related activity.

Not sure what you are saying there. Could you give examples as to what you think that is? 

Stowe is now owned by Vail. A season pass used to be around $2,000, but the Epic Pass is now around $800. As a result, skiing is now more affordable, especially to locals. They sold a shit ton of Epic Passes this past season. I don’t see how this is a bad thing for the industry. Cheaper tickets > more sales > more jobs.

Last week I was chatting with an Exec at Stowe about it. He may have been giving the party line, but his direct quote was, “we’re now owned by a ski company instead of an insurance company. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.”

 

In the case of Whistler/Blackcomb that would entail well over 50% of the working people losing their jobs and many of them their homes. <<<

Have you ever taken a close look at how a local ski area economy "matures"?  Real estate development typically overheats, often encompassing the construction of massive trophy homes that sit unoccupied for the vast majority of the year.   These are essentially residential "bridges to nowhere"; and while I'm all for people making a living, is such hallow endeavor truly a sound and sustainable basis for supporting the working class' needs well into the future?   At best, those who suck, on the teat of unbridled development are mainlining sugar for support & they ought to realize before sticking the IV into their arms, IMO.    This is to say nothing of how high end real estate development displaces the working class to peripheral communities; effectively creating unmanageable traffic quagmires; let alone the effect upon the community dynamic.

Less than 10 % of ski resorts that go belly up ever reopen. If the owner's actually filed for bankruptcy the spaghetti-like corporate structure and partnership deals in any major ski area would probably take at least 2 -5 years to sell off each asset class to the highest bidder. The equipment, lifts, snow grooming, snow making are usually the first to go. Once those are sold off, the resort becIdeally, an operator would be allowed to restart ski area operations in isolation of the giant "monster" of real estate related activity.omes even less desirable to a buyer because of the new capital outlay. Ideally, an operator would be allowed to restart ski area operations in isolation of the giant "monster" of real estate related activity.y to get a resort up and running again.<<<<

In the case of Whistler, I've been unable to determine whether the ski area itself resides upon private property or public lands.  If it is private, there might be some legal knots that need to be untangled before a restart could be effectively engaged.  However, in the case at US resorts, where most are located on USFS lands, I suspect there's a fairly straightforward process for the land holder (USFS) to invalidate lease and retain possession of capital assets located on public lands.  Lets not lose sight of the fact that ski area operators are "glorified renters".  If you owned a condo and rented it out to someone who defaulted on their lease, do you really believe it'd take years and years to reclaim your condo? 

I don’t see how this is a bad thing for the industry. Cheaper tickets > more sales > more jobs<<<

See post above to SF.

When ski area operators leverage public lands as a lost lead in to stimulate real estate sales / activity, they're able to harness the power to inject giant and unsustainable steriod shots into local ski area ecomonies.   After effects of initial steriod shots dissipate, there's always a call for more more more.  It's a vicious cycle lacking in economic overight that is "gutting" ski towns almost everywhere. 

It seems to me that the biggest issue altogether is that the ski industry isn’t sustainable. It costs a fortune to run a mountain, and its impossible to accurately predict ticket sales fo a season because they ar so dependent on weather. As a result, small  mountains go belly up and the larger resorts expand and diversify to become “4 season destinations.”

That leads to consolidation, and massive growth and development of the bigger places.

Anthropogenic climate change will likely kill off many of the smaller and more southerly ski areas over the next decade or so.

It seems to me that the biggest issue altogether is that the ski industry isn’t sustainable. It costs a fortune to run a mountain, and its impossible to accurately predict ticket sales fo a season because they ar so dependent on weather. As a result, small  mountains go belly up and the larger resorts expand and diversify to become “4 season destinations.”<<<

Part of the reason it costs a fortune is due to the massive capital expenditures ski area operators have invested into the infrastructure that's simply not necessary, but is tethered to the meat and potatoes of their model that targets an elite market that demands the latest and greatest ... which is really superficial to the essence of the sport.   Wolf Creek is a good example of a no frills resort that offers excellent terrain and experience at a more reasonable rate.

Forcing ski area operators to divest of themselves of all adjunct real estate activity would go a long way to improve the long term sustainability of resorts and local area economies IMO.

Anthropogenic climate change will likely kill off many of the smaller and more southerly ski areas over the next decade or so.<<<

I believe climate change is real and will ultimately have a signficant impact, but personally believe it's going to occur on a much slower curve ... I believe the hyper-partisan political landscape has prompted many to erroneously jump to conclusions pertaining to direct causation related to current events. 

For example, our snowpack in SW Colorado is at something like 50% of average and we've had a crazy warm balmy winter.  Many people are claiming this is all due to climate change; whereas if I had to bet on things, I'd probably say that 95% is due to it being an "outlier year", and the remaining 5% due to climate change ... perhaps nudging it further in that direction. 

>> Forcing ski area operators to divest of themselves of all adjunct real estate activity would go a long way to improve the long term sustainability of resorts and local area economies IMO. <<

 

I'd guess less than 50% of Colorado ski areas are resorts in the terms you're laying out. There is a choice. You have a choice. Vote with your wallet (or vote by going into the backcountry).

Forcing ski area operators to divest of themselves of all adjunct real estate activity is an unrealistic proposal, and there are no legal means to do so.

Part of the reason it costs a fortune is due to the massive capital expenditures ski area operators have invested into the infrastructure that's simply not necessary, but is tethered to the meat and potatoes of their model that targets an elite market that demands the latest and greatest ... which is really superficial to the essence of the sport.   Wolf Creek is a good example of a no frills resort that offers excellent terrain and experience at a more reasonable rate.

Unfortunately, Wolf Creek's lifts are nearing end of life and the cost of new lists that will pass the all important insurance acceptability test are quite expensive. Probably more than Wolf Creek's capital budget will allow. Like many areas like WC, they are currently getting by with buying parts from old lifts that have been replaced elsewhere but that pool of parts is dwindling fast. New parts have not been made in years so when the old stuff is gone, there is no way they can continue using their current lifts. 

The biggest cost at any ski resort is insurance, at least in the US and Canada. Unlike Europe where the skier takes almost full responsibility if they get injured, the laws in the US and Canada don't allow that. If the laws were changed to be more like Europe, a lot of smaller resorts could make a go at it. It is unknown though if the skiing/snowboarding public would go for bare bones resorts. For most, they show up on vacation and want all the amenities that go with vacation. The truth is that the "local" demographic is but a tiny sliver of the visitor demographic at just about every ski area around. You market to your biggest market segment, not your smallest. 

I'd guess less than 50% of Colorado ski areas are resorts in the terms you're laying out. There is a choice. You have a choice. Vote with your wallet (or vote by going into the backcountry).

Forcing ski area operators to divest of themselves of all adjunct real estate activity is an unrealistic proposal, and there are no legal means to do so.

Good points, ned. 

Good points, ned. <<<

So, it's OK for the 1%'rs to be able to afford 100% of the ski areas, but the 99% of the rest of us must be satisfied with choosing from 50% of them?

 

624c5bc1ab61805e137c8ca5fd606478.jpg

 

How many of the 99% can buy beachfront property on the north shore of Kauai?

Should everybody in the world have the right to live in the most desirable areas?

 

A)    How many poor people can afford to live in Aspen?

B)    Is it a problem that poor people can't afford to live in Aspen?

>>>>    The biggest cost at any ski resort is insurance, at least in the US and Canada

 

Oh, bullshit. If you ever provide a shred of proof to support that I'll be impressed, before I tear that shred of proof into little itty bitty microshreds of bad argument.

 

here's Vail's income statements past three years, don't seem to find a line for "insurance" *:

http://investors.vailresorts.com/static-files/dfc3520f-258f-410c-9c5d-c3...

Clipboard14_3.jpg

*ps, did a word search for insurance in the 10-K, there is not one mention of liability insurance other than D&O (executive officers) insurance.  Maybe I missed it.

How many of the 99% can buy beachfront property on the north shore of Kauai?<<<

I'm talking about reasonable access to public lands (USFS) that most ski areas reside upon & the implications / consequences that arise from throwing it to the "swamp".  It's interesting to me how some will find this sort of private infiltration into the public sphere to be perfectly acceptable, yet at the same time will be aghast at charter schools or more "egregious" forms private sector encroachment in other arenas.  People have just gotten used to this swamp.

Vail's Park City Resort in on private land, as is Deer Valley.

They have lifts.

Millions of acres of mountains in the west are on public land and have great snow: Cali, Utah, Nevad, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho...

You are 100% free to ski there.  (example: the Uintah mountains on the Utah-Wyoming border)

What they don't have is airports and roads and an economy that will employ ski bums...and lifts. 

The places where you can live next to lifts are expensive.

So is Manhattan. 

Again, does every US citizen have a right to be able to afford to live in Aspen?

>>>>    The biggest cost at any ski resort is insurance, at least in the US and Canada

 

Oh, bullshit. If you ever provide a shred of proof to support that I'll be impressed, before I tear that shred of proof into little itty bitty microshreds of bad argument. 

*ps, did a word search for insurance in the 10-K, there is not one mention of liability insurance other than D&O (executive officers) insurance.  Maybe I missed it.

Calling for my statement to have some proof behind it is fair enough. I will make a few calls today and find out where liability insurance is lumped in. I'm sure we can both agree that it has to be somewhere. Ski resorts do not operate without liability insurance. 

What they don't have is airports and roads and an economy that will employ ski bums...and lifts. <<<

And just where do these towns get the funding for airports in the boonies?

I'm going to go out on a limb like SF did re: insurance, and say that most of the well to do ski towns are disproportionately "connected" (politically) and wield significant influence at both the state and federal levels to secure massive funding for infrastructure.  I know the Telluride airport received $64 million+ for an tiny airport next to a town of 2,500 (that currently saw it's only commercial airline pull out recently).   I'm sure commuter airports nearby ski resorts across the country receive similar favoritism vs. some small town in the middle of Iowa.   This is all a giant "mousetrap" to sell real estate & public lands are ultimately being leveraged.   Welfare for the rich.

You are correct about a handful of ski areas operating exclusively on private lands, and more power to them; however,  I fail to see how this how this absolves unique national communal assets to be dedicated to the highest and best use vs. thrown to the virtually unregulated lion's den of myopic private interests?

 

 

 

 

>>   I fail to see how this how this absolves unique national communal assets to be dedicated to the highest and best use vs. thrown to the virtually unregulated lion's den of myopic private interests? <

 

By unique, do you mean that it is an area of USFS land with ski lifts? I'd guess the amount of USFS lands served by chairlifts to be under 0.001% of acreage. So, your premise is categorically false. You can access literally millions of acres of forest land for no charge. If you don't want to pay $149 for lift ticket at Vail, then go down the street to Sunlight or Loveland or Wolf Creek or A-Basin. You won't have to be 'forced' to look at their base development. You have choices; stop acting like you don't. 

One could argue that the National Parks are in the same racket. But, they actually support the idea that the more services offered equates to a fee (NPS vs USFS/BLM). Do you think that the biggest, best hotel room at Yellowstone should be free? Should we "force" our way into the park and stage a protest?

Do all USFS lands = all USFS lands, in terms of:  topography, proximity to population centers / transportation, climate, and general suitability to being conducive to a "ski area"?  Why should the "Big 3" get dibs on all the prime locations for ski areas?

Who said anything about being free?   Why should the pace of capital improvements to ski area infrastructure be tethered to the elite as a part of a lost leader for real estate sales (to benefit a private interest); causing access fees to be far beyond the ability of the average American gain reasonable access the limited and finite number of permitted areas in existence?

It's interesting how you're favoring a paradigm that sees wealthy foreigners enjoy public lands / facilities that "common" Americans are unable to afford / use.

 

 

>>>>does every US citizen have a right to be able to afford to live in Aspen?

I think the more appropriate question is that do the people who work in Aspen have a right to be able to afford to live there (or very nearby).  Affordable housing is an issue even in ski towns.

 

At Sugar Bowl they allow people to skinny up the hill.  Most of them are on their way to USFS backcountry, but I have seen people skinny up and telly down--not sure how you'd enforce it even if that's not allowed. I've seen people going "up" at other resorts as well, always assumed it was because its public land, I've never taken a ticket or had my ticket taken except at the lift.

 

>>>>   Calling for my statement to have some proof behind it is fair enough. I will make a few calls today and find out where liability insurance is lumped in. I'm sure we can both agree that it has to be somewhere. Ski resorts do not operate without liability insurance. 

 

I'd guess it is on the order of 1% of revenue, probably less. 

What can you sue a ski resort for that would cause insurance to be a meaningful level of expense?  Honest question, I get it that businesses get sued, but why would skiing be a higher level of insurance risk, than, say, petroleum refining or medical products?  

 

 

anyhow, how come nobody is whining about only the rich people getting to use helicoptors to ski?

>>>>  do the people who work in Aspen have a right to be able to afford to live there (or very nearby). 

 

Do the people who work in San Francisco have a right to be able to afford to live there?

How about Dallas?

 

>>>>  do the people who work in Aspen have a right to be able to afford to live there (or very nearby). 

 

Do the people who work in San Francisco have a right to be able to afford to live there?<<<

 

What if wealthy Chinese or Russians snapped up all housing in SF and simply let it sit vacant, would you be OK with that?

anyhow, how come nobody is whining about only the rich people getting to use helicoptors to ski?<<<

There is a section of USFS land very near to where I live that has been proposed as Wilderness Area and one of the "exceptions" being considered is the allowance of an existing heli skiing operation.   Personally, I think it's BS to allow this exception ... even though I'm sympathetic to the owners of the operation that have made investments for many years.  

Stepping back, the issue of heli skiing is apples / oranges ... since the entry level infrastructure cost of per capita of heli skiing far exceeds lift systems that could easily be established in a minimalistic sense to afford the greatest degree of accessibility by all Americans.

>>>here's Vail's income statements past three years, don't seem to find a line for "insurance">>>

I'm gonna venture to guess it's included in the Mountain and Lodging Operating Expense line, which makes up 60% of Mountain and Lodging income for 2017. Other than utility costs for running the lifts and such, as well as salaries for the workers, I'm not sure what else would be included in that expense line.

Lodging could be substantial in so far as the relative percentage of total "Mountain and Lodging Operating"  ... which would likely include the associated insurance that's scaled up accordingly for a sub line item of lodging.

>> What if wealthy Chinese or Russians snapped up all housing in SF and simply let it sit vacant, would you be OK with that?

Yes, fine with it.

Money has utility - the zone has always had problems with that.

>> What if wealthy Chinese or Russians snapped up all housing in SF and simply let it sit vacant, would you be OK with that?

Yes, fine with it.

Money has utility - the zone has always had problems with that<<<

So, you'd be OK with foreigners buying up all of the real estate in SF; forcing U.S. citizens to pay rent to said foreign investors in order to be able to reside within the city limits?

Do you really not know what yes means?

Does this mean you're also saying "yes"?

Do you really not know what "do you really not know what yes means" means"?

:)

Does this mean you're also saying "yes"?

It sounds like a very far fetched hypothetical, but does it not seem the world is moving toward lopsided special interests taking over not only the "commons", but much of the private sector at the expense of the "average person" to attain their fair share?

We might not be there yet, but it does seem to me we're heading in the direction of pre-French Revolutionary dynamics; with so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few that eventually something has got to give.

Unless something has changed since 2019, it appears the ski industry has effectively placed a muzzle on the USFS reporting resort-specific payments and now only report aggregate data from regions.

It never ceases to amaze me how the ski area industry effectively tramples over the public's rights by warping their glorified renter status into something that it is not. From the article:

>>>Vail’s permit fees must be confidential, Jarnot argued, “in part to prevent its sensitive financial and commercial information from being discovered by its competitors who are vying for the same skiers and guests within the same or similar markets.”<<<

Again, glorified renters. The article goes on to state:

>>>It appears the federal government is giving the ski industry leeway that it doesn’t give to other industries. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, provides information on royalties paid from specific oil and gas leases as well as royalties paid by oil and gas companies that lease public lands.<<<

https://coloradosun.com/2019/12/24/ski-area-land-fees-colorado-forest-se...

Ullr Parade is Thursday in Breck....12-20" predicted for Thursday>Friday. Finally some SNOW :)

^ Hopefully!  We just received about 5", but Thursday is looking better.

Sad news from Eldora, not sure why anyone is in the trees at this stage?!?

https://www.outtherecolorado.com/news/local-skier-dies-at-resort-in-colo...