NASJA 6: Onsite Lodging Vital

Critics of the modern resort industry, who range from old-school rugged types to new-age anti-capitalists, with ordinary folk in-between, find fault with the growth of second home ownership at ski areas. “Vailification” as it is often called, involves people spending sums of money on vacation homes that are beyond the reach of most people.

I’ve felt some effects from this trend. When I go to Aspen, I stay not at the Little Nell or the St. Regis or the Hotel Jerome or other such high-end hotels. Of course, even the cheaper sleeps in that town are expensive.

Twice in the last 5 years, the hotel at which we have stayed has gone condo, and not even condo, but fractional ownership. Think time share, on a large budget, as in $1,000 per square foot. And that’s for partial ownership, mind you.

In a morning session, the owner of Crested Butte resort defended the growth of upscale ownership. There’s no time to review his comments now, but they are worth hearing. The most interesting point: real estate buyers subsidize the mountain experience for everyone else.

That makes sense. After all, ownership carries extra responsibilities, financial and otherwise. And if the resort owner can make money by selling and selling real estate, that fronts money that can be used to upgrade operations (lifts, grooming equipment).

Then again, it all depends on the structure of the organization. I recall reading the annual report of Intrawest, the resort giant. It divides its business into real estate, hospitality (managing real estate) and mountain operations (lift tickets, ski school, meals, and so forth). Each division, if I recall correctly, was expected to turn a profit.

In any case, there’s no use railing against the purchase of mountain homes. There will always be a group of people with the money to spend on them, and others willing to sell them.