GONDOLA GOSSIP

by:  staff writer

Maybe the problem isn't really the problem… maybe it's the individual perception of the problem. Let's take a breath and a step back to just take in the big picture. As the popularity of skiing grew and then with the invention of snowboarding the numbers of visitors to small mountain communities have grown and grown. Some growth was intentional other growth perhaps unexpected yet both have contributed great benefits for some and unintended consequences for others. Times change and so do the economics and impacts on communities.

The original investors were not corporations...they were just people who wanted to be part of a mountain community and lifestyle. Perhaps retire there. Resort town realtors began by helping bring investment to a fledgling sport and growing community… but today they only sell every and any property to whoever is willing to pay the highest price community be damned. Meanwhile as with any success came a greater corporate presence in the recreation, lodging and retail sectors. The domain of local small businesses providing year-round economic stability for the community and workforce was shrinking as corporate resort revenues centers expanded. The expansion and consolidation of shareholder owned resort conglomerates ultimately pitted the local community against the same devil they once willingly and perhaps unknowingly sold their souls to.

What does that mean? If you think about how the brands were built it began long before a corporate marketing firm was hired to exploit it. When you came to mountain resorts when they were getting started you were coming to their community. After a day of mountain sports and splendor people need places to sleep, eat, shop, etc. There was no seasonal workers filling low paying seasonal jobs to maximize corporate profitability back then. Teachers, nurses and other locals simply picked up a second job to accommodate winter visitors. It was locals providing the experience that connected with visitors and later became the foundation of a marketable corporate brand. The problems began without anyone even knowing what was going to happen.

For those who do not recall the origin story of most popular ski resorts it usually begins with a town and a mountain sharing the name long before a greedy corporate resort company was named after them. These companies profited from what local communities were building. At first it seemed harmless until a mutually beneficial partnership became more and more one-sided as consolidation spread through the mountain sports and resort industries. Bean counters and corporate gluttony cannibalized the communities and workforce they once built their brands on.

That brings us back to perspective. In some instances the concept of affordable housing in resort communities needs to be scrutinize, especially those concepts that turn resort and hospitality companies into landlords and their employees into tenants. Although well intentioned at first the concept has de-evolved into NIMBY dorm style housing projects in small resort communities. Housing a large seasonal workforce to service their guests does little to repair the damage done to local healthcare, education and other year-round services that sustain the community and that visitors and locals depend on. This results in growing conflicts as solutions that once worked for both the resort and community now only work for the resorts at the expense of the community.

Perhaps the solution is looking at affordability from a different perspective. Most corporations are driven by future profits and certainty… community planning that facilitates both fosters an environment conducive to collaboration and investment. Uncertainty undermines trust and future cooperation. One solution is getting back to the basics that made both the resort and community a popular destination for visitors in the first place. It wasn’t seasonal workers or revenue centers… it was the mountains and the local community who built and maintained everything year-round for there to even be any seasonal opportunities for guests and employees. A balanced approach is about give and take to find compromises that work for everyone. That means adapting to changing times and the economics.

Again affordability is a matter of perspective. Some are of the opinion if you cannot afford to live where you work because they pay more for a vacation home there is capitalism so tough luck. But is it that simple? If affordability means the ability to pay increasingly higher rents in the community where you live and work then there is no problem. Many local employers have raised their wages and most locals already have a second job or two… so why don't they have places to live? The answer is inventory. Where local landlords used to be satisfied renting to year-round locals even at the high rents as time passed local landlords sold to the highest bidders not caring about the impact on the tenants or community. Today the consequences are clear. The hard working year-round local can afford to pay year-round rent, but that often means they cannot save to buy when competing with VRBO, Air BNB and corporate housing providers.

Perhaps we need to look at affordability from a community perspective. What you contribute compared to what you extract from the community. Everyone who lives here pays taxes… yes, the landlords include the high taxes and HOA dues into the rent they charge locals… that is why rent is so expensive. This eliminates the "I pay property taxes renters don't" argument. Now let's look closer. When the cash flow on your minimum investment is a primary factor in your property purchases perhaps it is you who cannot afford to be part of the local resort community?

The  local workforce is paid willingly by honest corporations generating revenue with all appropriate fees, permits, taxes and local housing requirements. Meanwhile others believe they should be permitted to profit from housing visitors without meeting any of those requirements with little or no investment. It seems clear some property owners want to profit off the visitors to resort communities by displacing the local professionals the community depends on to provide visitors with the services they require and expect. Resort communities welcome all visitors to come and stay with responsible lodging companies who employ and house their local workforce unlike the greedy investors who exploit local workers and their housing for personal profit.

Let's be fair. There would not be people seeking to exploit what used to be housing for local teachers, firemen and professionals as vacation rentals if there was not a market of guests who are looking to save a few bucks by staying with them. Again perhaps the question is affordability… not if locals can afford the rent to serve you and your guests but instead if you and your guests can afford to own or vacation in their community? If you think local workers have sour grapes you may be right… but those with the hardest feelings are all the resort companies who pay their way and play by the rules to ensure they have workers in the communities others just want to exploit.