Catch of the Day - ski homes for $150k
14 posts
5 users
3k+ views
JimK - DCSki Columnist
July 1, 2008
Member since 01/14/2004 🔗
2,723 posts
Again, just for fun, random selection of what $150k will get you in Ski Country USA:

Pagosa Springs, CO, 25 miles from Wolf Creek Ski area:
http://durangoco.yahoo.prutriples.com/details/start.aspx?propid=206D000591526&VIP=ClassYahoo

Rexburg, ID, 45 miles from Grand Targhee ski area:

http://www.century21.com/classic/property.jsp?ref_code=Yahoo-Redirect&tr_key=34503324

Whitefish, MT, 1 bdrm condo very near Whitefish Mtn Resort (Big Mtn):

http://realestate.yahoo.com/Montana/Whit...redir=1<ype=0

Dillon, CO, 1 bdrm condo, 5-10 miles from Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper, A-Basin:
http://realestate.yahoo.com/Colorado/Dil...redir=1<ype=0

Sandy, UT, 12 miles from Mecca, ahem, I mean Alta:
http://www.realestatebook.com/homes/listing/101-537782703/refer=yahoo

Gardnerville, NV, 20 miles from Heavenly:
http://listings.listhub.net/pages/NNRMLS/944/80009944/?channel=yahoo

Placerville, CA, 40 miles from Sierra At Tahoe ski area:
http://www.californiamoves.com/property/...00000&WT.srch=1
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
July 1, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
For those of us inveterate yankees, here is an Eastern version:

Killington: $149K, 1 BR condo on shuttle route
http://www.skicountryrealestate.com/viewlisting.php?mls=2634035

Bolton Valley: $112K, next to Snow Flake Lift,
http://www.stowerealty.com/proddir/prod/15/11195?mls=2800049&Submit=Search


Smugglers' Notch: $148K Minutes from Smuggs
http://www.stowerealty.com/proddir/prod/15/11150?mls=2803509+&Submit=Search

Waterville Valley NH, 149.9K, on the resort, 2 Br condo
http://www.wvnh.com/results.php?cid=1130...&action=results

Attitash NH, $159K, within sight of the mountain,
http://www.beangroup.com/real_estate/listings/Homes/NH/Bartlett/631217

Snowshoe, $145K, one bedroom condo
http://snowshoevacationrentals.com/snows...ls=&loc=&page=1


Canaan Valley, $129.9K, Hendricks home
http://www.canaanrealty.com/sales/hendricks.htm

Sugarbush/Mad River Glen, $150K condo
http://idx.vermontidx.com/v2/html/property/view/5/59696
Roger Z
July 1, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
Pagosa Springs. Great town, beautiful valley, just down the road from the best ski area in CO. Take my word for it, don't go there.
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
July 1, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
Gee that's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative town... Funny, it's directly inversely proportional to Aspen as to political party affiliation... I'd visit... couldn't live there though. Median home price $850K! And that's even with a 18% depreciation on real estate... Check the http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Pagosa_Springs-Colorado.aspx
skiTLINE
July 2, 2008
Member since 12/15/2004 🔗
230 posts
But someting with those numbers doesnt add up. Says income average per household is $37K so how would median house cost $850K????

Somethings off somewhere \:\)
Roger Z
July 2, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
More than that, if you go to value for owner-occupied housing, the median is between 100-150K. I know that assessed values don't always keep up with sales prices, but a 700K spread is very fishy.

I did my own "informal" search, too: Realtor.com. There are currently 679 properties with houses/condos on them for sale in Pagosa Springs. Sorting the properties by price and going to page 34, which should have the "median" house on the market right now, the last house listed for $345,000.

Then of course there's this site: http://www.homegain.com/local_real_estate/CO/pagosa_springs.html

which shows an AVERAGE home price of $210,000 (the average is usually higher than the median due to the lognormal distribution of home prices).

As to the political affiliation of a town... who cares. Seriously, who frickin' cares. Anyway, since this site can't even get median home price within a factor of three, who's to say the town isn't run by the last vestige of the Workers' International? And what it matter if it would? So long as they're not pulling a Mugabe on my property, no, it wouldn't.

As to what really matters: the skiing is fantastic, the views are stunning, the land is phenomenal, with two of the largest wilderness areas in Colorado within a stone's throw of town. I hear the fishing is good, too, and the hot springs are really cool. I don't want to live in town- there's a lot of property headed east toward the Pass that looks ideal. I'm betting things are cheaper west or north though, but Durango is further west so that might be a factor as well on prices that way.
Snowshoeskier
July 3, 2008
Member since 04/20/2006 🔗
17 posts
 Originally Posted By: Roger Z
As to the political affiliation of a town... who cares. Seriously, who frickin' cares. Anyway, since this site can't even get median home price within a factor of three, who's to say the town isn't run by the last vestige of the Workers' International? And what it matter if it would? So long as they're not pulling a Mugabe on my property, no, it wouldn't.


Depends. Sorta the difference between Lynchburg and Asheville. Going there to visit, I'm with you. Living there is another story. Then I'm with lbotta
Roger Z
July 3, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
When I think of my ideal home, I think of a place where it doesn't matter who my neighbor is, because he lives a mile away amd we stay out of each other's hair unless there's something fun going on. If he wants to start a hippie commune or a militia, no le hace, so long as there's a bonfire at the parties and I get invited to 'em (and I'm not being thrown on the bonfire, or at least not until I've drunk my share). So if the "town" is 100% Republican, Democrat, Communist, Libertarian, Anarchist, PETA, or pro-Cat, it's utterly irrelevant, because I'm not looking to live in a town, anyway. There's plenty of space around Pagosa Springs and that's what I'm aiming for- that blank spot between the comma and the start of the next word.
Snowshoeskier
July 7, 2008
Member since 04/20/2006 🔗
17 posts
That's becoming a luxury you can't find. With more zoning and building restrictions everywhere, towns will be the way to live in the future. Add to that, that in western states you don't or may not have water rights. So you're stuck with your neighbors.
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
July 8, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
Don't want to start the next war... but I consider driving as about the worst chore in which I can engage, sort of akin cleaning my toilet. The least thing I want to do in my vacation time is getting in a car, vehicle, or whatever that I have to drive for everything I need. For that reason, my second home needs to be, and is indeed, in a town with plenty of non-driving options, whether they be walking, cycling, trolley or bus. The Intrawest concept of the central village is optimum, so is Stowe and other villages where a car isn't required other than to get there, park the thing, and forget about it.

I am also about the most gregarious person in the world. So my permanent home is in the center of the city where I have six major supermarkets and a plethora of gourmet shops within a walkable eight-block radius.

The political affiliation of a town does make a difference in the long run. But sometimes there are surprises. Visiting one of my best friends in Park City some years ago, there were more Unitarians there than in my own neighborhood in DC. It's a quality of life issue, especially when I'm interested in living in the center of town life.
Roger Z
July 8, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
I can't argue if you don't like driving Lou. You don't like it, that's cool. I don't mind it, chiefly for this reason: my ideal ski areas have nothing- N-O-T-H-I-N-G- around the base area. There are a select few places like that left in the country (MRG, for example, which I think you listed as a place back east with affordable homes nearby), but I hate skiing by condos and lodges and hotels and more condos and more lodges and more hotels. The Canyons and their stupid "Colony" is the epitome of a wretched ski experience in my book.

Wolf Creek appeals to me in part because the only thing around the base area is trees. There isn't even a vacation home in the pass. The nearest lodging is several miles away, the nearest restaurant even further. I value the solitude that ski areas like that provide, and I recognize that to get that in its purest form, you've gotta drive. You can't say "well, nothing around the base area except something for me." It's either nothing or it's not nothing, there's not much in-between (again, MRG has a couple scattered homes and I can dig that. Also, a well-contained base area is tolerable, but not ideal for my favorite skiing).

As far as politics go, I've lived around jerks of all political persuasions. I've also lived around good people of all political persuasions, so I don't make much of politics unless the people are politically active, and again people who are activists- of any persuasion- are not someone I want to live around unless, as I mentioned earlier, they live about a mile away. And Salt Lake City- as well as the surrounding, more conservative suburbs- have won nationwide accolades for their progressive urban planning. Pagosa Springs isn't big enough to support its own independent mass transit system. I think an Aspen or a Steamboat can- Pagosa is maybe a third the size of either town.

As far as being able to find places in the middle of nowhere- the great secret is that there's still a lot of secrets out there. Yeah, if you don't like to drive there aren't many 40 acre tracts sitting right next to a detachable quad, but it depends on your values. I prefer to live near nothing, and ski at ski areas surrounded by nothing, and driving in those kinds of conditions are a pleasure to me, particularly if it involves 4wd action. The best skiing and the best hiking are usually the place that's farther away than anyone thinks they want to go, so a car or a truck is pretty imperative to get to such spots (or a plane in certain cases).
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
July 9, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
Roger, totally respect your opinion, although wonder what the availability of that type of land will be in the future as well as your transport needs when gas gets to $9 or $10 a gallon which it is foreseeable.

Which brings another point. Can a ski area make it only on its own merits as a ski area? On purely economic grounds, it seems very hard to do. MRG of course is a salient example that it can, but also it is a cooperative with old - now rich - hippies that take care of the "resort" like their own backyard (sans cannabis, of course). But everywhere you turn around, from Laurel Mountain to Montage, pure ski areas are in a quandary of having to subsidize ski ops through real estate and development sales. Oh well...
Roger Z
July 9, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
 Quote:
wonder what the availability of that type of land will be in the future as well as your transport needs when gas gets to $9 or $10 a gallon which it is foreseeable.


Well, if gas got to 9 or 10 a gallon that type of land would be VERY available as everyone would be trying to unload it. However, I think there's about as much of a chance gas gets that high as there is that it craters to 9 or 10 cents a gallon. That's a 250% increase from an already record-high price, where demand destruction is in full swing except for countries with subsidies (and, incidentally, gas prices have increased nowhere near as much as oil precisely because of this demand destruction). Either the countries subsidizing their consumers would run currency-crushing deficits continuing to do so, or they'd end the subsidy, and gas demand would collapse in those countries as well. And, besides, as Samuelson just reminded W-Post readers in an editorial a week or so ago: this isn't just a gas crisis we're facing. It's all commodities (steel, gold, wheat, aluminum, etc etc). He had a nice argument why this was happening, hadn't heard it before so I'm not sure what to make of it, but anyway...

 Quote:
Can a ski area make it only on its own merits as a ski area? On purely economic grounds, it seems very hard to do.


Sure, why not. You already cited MRG, they've got a model. I can name at least four in Colorado alone that survive on that model, five actually (Wolf Creek, Monarch, Cooper, Loveland, A-Basin), at least three in New Mexico, all but two or three in Montana, ditto for Wyoming... heck even around Lake Tahoe there's Alpine Meadows, Homewood, and Mount Rose.

The success of real estate in sustaining ski resorts is directly proportional to a resorts' capitalization and hence it's ability to weather downturns like they're facing right now (or to do like Intrawest did and try to sell off undercapitalized products years ago). Real estate- particularly second home real estate- is a higher risk product, it's good when it booms and sucks air when it busts. If you don't have the capital to cover a market bust your whole ski area will go up in smoke. Ski areas that can't afford- or choose not to make investments in- things like top-of-the-line grooming and snowmaking and high-speed lifts (or make these investments at far lower rates than industry standards) are the perfect example of resorts that shouldn't be getting into the real estate business.

Now, that also makes them ripe purchasing targets because undercapitalization=underperformance in the long run. A cash heavy investor can come in and buy these resorts for dimes on the dollar, basically, if said investor has $100 million to lay into a resort village. I think that's why these daytripper ski hills get gobbled up- I think one up by Missoula is going through this right now (Lolo).

Do the models work? To the extent that their financial situation is such that it makes more sense from a risk perspective to stay small and undeveloped, yes. Does that make them ripe targets for acquisition? If they have lease rights to land around them (or outright ownership), yes. It's a double-edged sword. I'm happy they're still around though.
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
July 14, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
I'm with you in many ways, although we differ on the gas situation. On our differences, I can see a renewed drive by the Vens, Saudis, etc., in collusion with Big Oil, to drive up prices. It may be that they cool their jets until things stabilize a little. However, I think $10 a gallon a distinct possibility in the medium future. It already is in Europe. Another part is that we may end up raising gas taxes - no matter what the candidates promise - to embark on a European-style mass transport construction and renewable energy development boom, financed by gas prices, at the same time that it drives down demand.

On the development side, I fervently hope you are right. Seems, though, that every major ski area is bent on becoming another Whistler. And the realities of resort real estate are that there will be demand for years to come.
DCSki Sponsor: Seven Springs Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds