5 ms·

I was born and raised in a small ski town that was a "hidden gem" for a long time. This article covers the issues well. In one year, it all changed. Housing pr

I was born and raised in a small ski town that was a "hidden gem" for a long time. This article covers the issues well. In one year, it all changed. Housing prices and rent increased drastically -- sometimes by 2x or 3x. Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. What does it say when a city's essential workers cannot vote on city issues anymore? The city is not legally allowed to regulate short term rentals, so AirBnB is taking up a significant portion of housing. The city tries to make developers restrict short term rentals on the units they develop instead but with limited success. Any attempt at new housing is met with fierce resistance by a loud minority with expensive lawyers. Nobody wants the town to change. Everyone who moves here wants to prevent anyone else from following. Some of the people advocating for affordable housing are the same ones trying to jack up property values. So affordable housing is not actually affordable for anyone who needs it. Businesses are struggling to find employees, and many have closed or limited their hours. At the same time, commercial rents are increasing. It's a sad mess.

gnarcoregrizz 5y ago
Sounds like a problem that'll fix itself if no businesses can hire. Unfortunately it will probably be on a long time frame.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  I think part of the problem is that while maybe wages will be pushed up a bit, eventually the equilibrium is still a situation we won't like. Like long commutes and bad living situations.
  - refurb 5y ago
    But is it a bad equilibrium? If someone is willing to trade the time and cost of a long commute, can’t we trust that they decided it’s worth it? I keep hearing how we need to make the Bay Area affordable, but I’m also thinking “price is a signal” and people deciding to live elsewhere is exactly what we want. I spent time in a developing country and the government is struggling to creating new economic centers but failing miserably (mostly due to poor people willing to sacrifice for higher wages). If they had their way they’d love to not have a metro area of 15M but two metro areas of 7.5M. Not sure we should be accommodating everyone in the Bay Area (or wherever), people deciding to move to Austin is a good thing.
    - pharmakom 5y ago
      Perhaps a bad example of a free market in action, what with the rigid zoning laws and regressive tax incentives.
    - space_fountain 5y ago
      Idk, we do live in a bit of a climate emergency so using government policy (not the free market) to discourage density seems like a bad way to achieve that. Also I guess I left out the worst bit of the high cost of living equilibrium. Homelessness has been connected pretty cleanly to high housing costs. It isn't even that surprising, people find moving difficult and even more so when you're at the bottom of the economy just scraping by and then you actually run out of money. There's also a common feeling that forcing people to move is a bad thing. That seems at least reasonable to me.
      - refurb 5y ago
        But it makes no sense to solve for one dense urban area when you could have people go elsewhere and create a different sense urban area. And it doubly doesn’t make sense when it’s more costly.
        space_fountain 5y ago
        I think it doesn't really seem like that's the equilibrium. Instead it seems like it causes long commutes. In the bay area huge numbers of people commute into sf from huge distances. It does seem like the situation being different would be better.
    - ako 5y ago
      Yes, often it is a bad equilibrium. When prices rise, taxes rise, and often people who were able to live somewhere no longer can. They're forced to move, eventhough they'd rather stay. This also happened in the bay area, where people were involuntarily forced out of their homes. See for an example: https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03/23/after-decades-in-wicker-park-senior-homeowners-forced-out-by-skyrocketing-property-taxes-this-neighborhood-has-broken-my-heart/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03/23/after-decades-in-wic...
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Yes the solution is to make minimum wage 100 grand a Year The elites love when shortage increases their asset values, but increase wages? What are we, communists?
- ehnto 5y ago
  Amazon and eCommerce in general is really well positioned to fill the gaps left in failing towns, which means the quaint stores that die off in the interim have a much different landscape to return to. Cafes and restaurants don't tend to have as much trouble, but small goods, homewares, boutiques and so on can really struggle to fit into the new paradigm.
- buttercraft 5y ago
  Yes, it will take a while. I feel like the problem is that everything happened too quickly. The growth has been happening for a long time, but suddenly we got ten years worth of growth in one year. It will take a while to even out.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Presumably it should have made many o the old residents a lot of money, though, so it isn't all bad? The value of their homes increased threefold, after all?
- ehnto 5y ago
  I imagine they would have rather kept their town than a bundle of cash. If it's just a matter of shifting suburbs in a big city that's one thing, but people who choose a ski town to live in do it for the community and way of life.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    So if they would've rather kept their town, why the hell did they sell?
    - ehnto 5y ago
      It's not an ultimatum where they had control over the outcome, the community was already changing around them, so they either live with inflated prices for everything and a fracturing community, or they sell and try somewhere new. You can see the writing on the wall in other words. You also have to be able to afford to not sell when where you live gentrifies, prices for everything go up, local taxes go up, restaurants get fancier, services cost more, groceries go up, if you were renting then you get priced out.
      - emteycz 5y ago
        Prices went up because real estate prices went up because people sold - not the other way around.
        TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
        When people don’t sell, market prices still go up: it’s called supply and demand, and in the situation you describe, there is very little supply.
junon 5y ago
This sounds like Snow Valley. Pretty much what happened.
xyzzy21 5y ago
Pretty much has destroyed California as an entire state.
jseban 5y ago
> Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. And I guess they also made huge amounts of money selling their homes in town, and now live in houses much bigger outside of town... Or if they were renting, they were taking a risk to begin with and can't really expect that work/life-balance opportunity to exist unchanged forever.

gnarcoregrizz 5y ago

Sounds like a problem that'll fix itself if no businesses can hire. Unfortunately it will probably be on a long time frame.

space_fountain 5y ago
I think part of the problem is that while maybe wages will be pushed up a bit, eventually the equilibrium is still a situation we won't like. Like long commutes and bad living situations.
- refurb 5y ago
  But is it a bad equilibrium? If someone is willing to trade the time and cost of a long commute, can’t we trust that they decided it’s worth it? I keep hearing how we need to make the Bay Area affordable, but I’m also thinking “price is a signal” and people deciding to live elsewhere is exactly what we want. I spent time in a developing country and the government is struggling to creating new economic centers but failing miserably (mostly due to poor people willing to sacrifice for higher wages). If they had their way they’d love to not have a metro area of 15M but two metro areas of 7.5M. Not sure we should be accommodating everyone in the Bay Area (or wherever), people deciding to move to Austin is a good thing.
  - pharmakom 5y ago
    Perhaps a bad example of a free market in action, what with the rigid zoning laws and regressive tax incentives.
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    Idk, we do live in a bit of a climate emergency so using government policy (not the free market) to discourage density seems like a bad way to achieve that. Also I guess I left out the worst bit of the high cost of living equilibrium. Homelessness has been connected pretty cleanly to high housing costs. It isn't even that surprising, people find moving difficult and even more so when you're at the bottom of the economy just scraping by and then you actually run out of money. There's also a common feeling that forcing people to move is a bad thing. That seems at least reasonable to me.
    - refurb 5y ago
      But it makes no sense to solve for one dense urban area when you could have people go elsewhere and create a different sense urban area. And it doubly doesn’t make sense when it’s more costly.
      - space_fountain 5y ago
        I think it doesn't really seem like that's the equilibrium. Instead it seems like it causes long commutes. In the bay area huge numbers of people commute into sf from huge distances. It does seem like the situation being different would be better.
  - ako 5y ago
    Yes, often it is a bad equilibrium. When prices rise, taxes rise, and often people who were able to live somewhere no longer can. They're forced to move, eventhough they'd rather stay. This also happened in the bay area, where people were involuntarily forced out of their homes. See for an example: https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03/23/after-decades-in-wicker-park-senior-homeowners-forced-out-by-skyrocketing-property-taxes-this-neighborhood-has-broken-my-heart/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03/23/after-decades-in-wic...
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Yes the solution is to make minimum wage 100 grand a Year The elites love when shortage increases their asset values, but increase wages? What are we, communists?
ehnto 5y ago
Amazon and eCommerce in general is really well positioned to fill the gaps left in failing towns, which means the quaint stores that die off in the interim have a much different landscape to return to. Cafes and restaurants don't tend to have as much trouble, but small goods, homewares, boutiques and so on can really struggle to fit into the new paradigm.
buttercraft 5y ago
Yes, it will take a while. I feel like the problem is that everything happened too quickly. The growth has been happening for a long time, but suddenly we got ten years worth of growth in one year. It will take a while to even out.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

Presumably it should have made many o the old residents a lot of money, though, so it isn't all bad? The value of their homes increased threefold, after all?

ehnto 5y ago
I imagine they would have rather kept their town than a bundle of cash. If it's just a matter of shifting suburbs in a big city that's one thing, but people who choose a ski town to live in do it for the community and way of life.
- emteycz 5y ago
  So if they would've rather kept their town, why the hell did they sell?
  - ehnto 5y ago
    It's not an ultimatum where they had control over the outcome, the community was already changing around them, so they either live with inflated prices for everything and a fracturing community, or they sell and try somewhere new. You can see the writing on the wall in other words. You also have to be able to afford to not sell when where you live gentrifies, prices for everything go up, local taxes go up, restaurants get fancier, services cost more, groceries go up, if you were renting then you get priced out.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Prices went up because real estate prices went up because people sold - not the other way around.
      - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
        When people don’t sell, market prices still go up: it’s called supply and demand, and in the situation you describe, there is very little supply.

junon 5y ago

This sounds like Snow Valley. Pretty much what happened.

xyzzy21 5y ago

Pretty much has destroyed California as an entire state.

jseban 5y ago

> Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work. And I guess they also made huge amounts of money selling their homes in town, and now live in houses much bigger outside of town... Or if they were renting, they were taking a risk to begin with and can't really expect that work/life-balance opportunity to exist unchanged forever.