Possibly two new ski areas being developed

If you follow the ski industry, you know how difficult it is to get terrain added to existing mountains, much less open a new mountain. Happily, in the last year Idaho opened up Tamarack which looks like it could be a good one. It has lots of terrain and consistent snow, although like most of Idaho it is hard to get to and not close to metro areas (unless you count Boise as one). Prior to Tamarack the last proper destination resort established was Deer Valley, all the way back in 1980 (I think).

The main reasons it is so hard to open ski resorts are:

Land Ownership - most large parcels, especially in the West/Rockies, are owned by the government. If you can get a license / lease to use it , it typically requires either BLM or Forestry Service approval. It is difficult to have outright ownership and government leases can come with significant operating constraints.

Development - assuming you can surmount the first issue, there is a long path to developing the property. This includes cutting a road, clearing the ski runs, installing the machinery, building a base area, establishing lodging, food service and other amenities. If one is opposed in this process by environmentalists , NIMBYs , or others it can be difficult to impossible for this to happen. Filing and getting approval of an Environmental Impact Statement can be a multi year process. Some states have their own versions of this, additionally, such as Vermont with Act 250 rules.

Negative Macro Trends - the population of skiers / snow sliders has been stable/flat in the US for over 20 years. Over 500 smaller ski areas have closed during this time and a number of other areas, although still operating, have been in & out of the bankruptcy / foreclosure process. In addition, the average lift ticket is being sold to an older person each year ... because the user pool is not renewing itself with new younger consumers. A difficult torts / liability environment has also driven up operating costs, both in insurance premiums and in the safety procedures that resorts have to invest in.


Some of the implications of the above mean that most ski resorts cannot operate profitably without extensive real estate operations / development. The skiing on the hill typically can't support itself without the condo sales at the base. Fortunately (or not so fortunately) some of the negative trends have been counterbalanced by baby boomers' voracious demands for second homes, especially in resort areas. This has tended to prop up the areas that are well suited for development near the base (e.g. Vail, Okemo, Snowmass) while leaving some areas behind which are unable/unwilling to build out locally (e.g. Mt Bachelor, Bromley, Grand Targhee). The Vail Daily News picture on the right is of Battle Mtn in Colorado.

As someone who has a home somewhat near an area which has flitted in/out of bankruptcy (Magic Mountain) I've seen the damage that a stagnant area can inflict upon a local town and their property owners. Condos on mountain are worth maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of what they were when the mountain was operating. Local stores and restaurants are shuttered due the lack of visitors. It's unfortunate, and a warning sign that one needs to look at the health of the local attraction when buying into a resort area.

Anyways, it looks like there may be two new areas that could be built in the next decade or so, which is Good Thing. These take a long time to pan out, but we'll keep our fingers crossed.

Dyer Mountain in California

Battle Mountain in Colorado