Yes, there is a Trader Joe's here. It's painted to look like the Sierra Nevada on the inside.
This is my first post to Epic Ski...I grew up ski racing in the PNW and I now live in Seattle, WA. My girlfriend and I have a pretty good online business going and we're finally (a lot of hard work later!) able to move to and live just about anywhere we'd like, so we're looking to move to a town where we can get a ton of skiing in. However, here's the catch...we need to be able to get a house (not a condo/apt.) for under $400,000 USD. Thoughts on places? We've looked into S. Lake Tahoe CA, Truckee CA, Bend OR, Sacramento CA, Reno NV, Driggs ID, and Whitefish MT. Are we missing anywhere? Where would others be thinking about?
Thanks in advance for any help!
BTW--I hope this is the right part of the forum to be posting in...
How exciting to be doing this sort of research! I live and work in Truckee as a Realtor and thought I would pass some info and listings $430k and under along to you:
Like most ski towns, Truckee has been becoming more costly to live in, but there are still options out there in your range. I can't speak for other recommendations on this thread, but I can at least tell you why I live here!
1) Squaw, Alpine Meadows, Sugarbowl, Northstar plus smaller resorts all within 20 minutes
2) Roads are well-plowed
3) Backcountry access like few other areas in the world...snow stabilizes within hours here....takes days/weeks in the Continental snow areas. Would be happy to take you on a tour if you are in town. :)
4) You will never have to use hand/foot-warmers again. 300 bluebird days in Tahoe. Unless you ski in a storm, you will almost forget what it is like to deal with flat light. Some of the best weather in the country right here
5) Reno is only 35 minutes away for commercial airport, cheap and ample shopping/services.)
6) A little over 3 hours to the Pacific Ocean, plus amazing Lake Tahoe which is a bit of an ocean in itself, not to mention dozens of other bodies of water to play in.
7) Lively town of Truckee with thriving community of approx 16,000 primary residents; tons of culture with influence of nearby Bay Area.
8) Gaming and nightlife over the border in Nevada
9) Epic hiking/mtn biking up until the very last minute that we get a few feet of snow and then it is time to bust out the snowshoes/XC skis!
10) Super cheap season passes...picked up passes at Squaw/Alpine and Sugarbowl this season all for about $600.
11) After a 3 year drought, we are due up for a BIG WINTER!! :D
I hope this helps. If you need any more info, just private message me or give me a shout through my listings link. Good luck!
In addition to elevation, I'd think access to water for snowmaking is another key factor in insuring against a changing climate. Mammoth would seem to be in a very challenging position for water competing against the other huge and growing CA interests. I'm not certain, but I believe most Colorado ski areas can get all the water they need for the right price. I don't know about the areas mentioned.
Not sure about the conservation aspect, but I know they still have to buy water rights for snowmaking regardless.
Don't discount the benefit of man-made snow. You don't have to ski on it!!
The man-made snow is just a base of 18 inches or so that lets them open terrain sooner and keep it open later. After that base is in place you'll be skiing on the real stuff... sooner and longer. I'd guess the extra time on both ends of the season allowed by snowmaking would likely counteract even the worst predicted shortening of the ski season by climate change.
I'm late to this, but if I was in the OPs shoes I'd consider the impact of taxes and regulation. If you and your wife make pretty good coin, then moving from WA (no income tax) to CA could be a shock. For me there is no ski area in CA worth taking that hit. If you take up residency on the NV side of Tahoe there is no income tax. Similarly if you go to Targhee, I'd investigate living in Alta, WY just across the border from Driggs since Wyoming has no income tax.
I am sorry, but there is simply an enormous difference in rates of taxation in this country, and it doesn't equalize through comparing full-spectrum rates of taxation as you propose, income levels, or any other basis of comparison that I am aware of.
I live in Colorado. I pay a 7.9% sales tax (state/county/local combined). Colorado has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation and one of the lowest overall tax rates anywhere.
I recently purchased a house for just under $200,000. That bought me a 2000 square foot home on 1.2 wooded acres, National Forest access 200 feet down at the end of the road.
My annual tax bill for this house, inclusive of all mill levies, is $866.
In New York, I could expect my property tax rate to be ten times that. I could expect my sales tax to be about the same- a quick google search shows plenty of 8% plus sales tax ranges. And, in case you are not familiar, New York taxes the shit out of mortgage proceeds- You owe NY taxes to go into debt.
Obviously California has a reputation for high tax rates, not to mention real estate costs that are still out of control compared to income levels- Having a high tax rate and compounding it by having housing costs 3-4x what is typical through most of the county is murder.
What the right tax level should be is something for another conversation. Personally, I would be willing to pay more in taxes as I think we are funding things like roads, schools, and disability services at a lower level than I would like.
I don't think where I live is some shithole, and I doubt most others would have that view. It doesn't all even out.
You are right- I left off state income tax.
The tax rate for a single person living in New York earning $50,000 per year is 5.8%. According to your source, the low is 4%, and the high is 8.82%.
I'm not anti tax. I think tax rates in some states are too low (and I rank Colorado there), and I think the tax rates in some states is just out of control and damaging to the state. In most cities in upstate New York, properties are near worthless in part because the tax rates are incredible. When I started working in mortgage 15 years ago, it amazed me what you could buy there, and then shortly thereafter, I learned what I would pay in taxes. It disabused me of any notion of investing up there. I am sure countless individuals and countless businesses have reached the same conclusion.
No, no I am not conflating the two. They are both low. (Obviously dependent on where in the state you live for both).
Colorado has a law commonly referred to as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)- it has been in effect since the early 1990's. The public must vote on each and all tax increases and major bond issuances. No matter how dire the situation, elected officials cannot increase tax rates. In addition, state government expenditures cannot increase more than a few percentage points above what the revenue picture was the year before.
This is quite a mixed bag in terms of actual policy, but the reality is that the general citizen is far less likely to vote for tax increases than their elected representative.
Nope. For some that makes property taxes way cheaper depending on when they purchased the property, otherwise it's pretty average (1%) albeit on more expensive properties. The only real result of that prop is that we have many shitty schools now due to a lack of funding.
It's not that minimal. There are some articles that floated around, where the water that returns is low as 40% and only as high as 80%. Here is one of the more recent articles on the subject that got floated around last year. You maybe able to find the thread and debate on it.
Article too long? There's some infographics on the bottom that summarizes it up.
In other words, even in the best estimates, 20% of the millions of gallons of water you're spritzing in the air doesn't flow back.
And that's just the water not the power.
So it may not be as environmentally friendly as you may think.
On the other hand snowmaking isn't the only bogeyman in the water/energy problem, nor is it the top water user.
Anyway, the point is just be aware and appreciative of the costs for our fun.
and yes potentially snowmaking as a water waster could be regulated in the (distant) future, just like how golf courses are asked/forced to go brown.
I've always heard the loss rate was around 10% but I have no idea if that's BS or not. Seems about right. My wife said the same, although suspected it was maybe closer to 15% depending on some major variables. And she would know. I would ask for more details but talking about work is kind of a buzzkill in the evening, no?
Most of the evaporation probably occurs in the actual snowmaking process. This evaporation is an important component of snow-making as it cools the surroundings and helps freeze the tiny droplets of water.
LONG-time lurker, but just HAD to post on this one, if only to keep this thread alive as this, I imagine, is the ultimate dream for likely 99% of those on this board.
Literally, read first couple posts, skipped to page 9 immediately to post a reply so that my first reply would be pertaining to this topic.
Lived in CO and MT multiple times in very early twenties. 1,000s of days between Vail, Breck, A-base, Beaver, Copper, Key, Big Sky, Bridger, etc. throughout my life. This unfortunately changed when I decided to join society in a meaningful way as a contributing member, instead of simply chasing fresh lines, powder and first tracks. After a 5-year sabbatical due to graduate education and training, my wife and I recently enjoyed the best powder skiing we've ever had at Steamboat this past December during a truly epic 4-day storm. WOW. This was akin to throwing jet propellant on my dream of returning to live to ski.
Thus, I live with malignant, raging, ski fever. SKI, SKIING, Freeskier, etc. I subscribe, read, re-read, re-re-read all issues, back issues, no matter. My web browser constantly has 10+ tabs open to some sort of ski related searching, research, weather, resort news, forums. It really never stops, nor do I ever want it to.....