Branding…

[ by Mark Reaman ]

So much of “it,” whatever “it” is, can be about marketing and branding instead of the meat of an issue or product. 1) Is Crested Butte really a ski town nestled in the heart of the Elk Mountains as ChatGPT claims? 2) Do developments with names like StarView, Elk Run or River View really live up to their names? 3) Is Donald really winning this war he chose to start? 4) Which beer is best on a Friday at happy hour in CB? 5) Does the SAVE Act a) protect voting or b) keep millions of voters away from voting? 6) Is it a second home tax or a sales tax equalization measure?

Taking the last one first, the Crested Butte town council on Monday said it is open to exploring a tax on second homes. Sure, they’re framing it as a “sales tax equalization measure” and technically that bureaucratic moniker holds water. But it would be a vacant home tax. Last time it was tried in Crested Butte, the council hurriedly pushed a tax on second homes starting in July and stumbled through the election season in 2021 pointing fingers and being defensive with no super clear plan for the money. Voters turned down that tax by a pretty wide margin, 57% to 43%.

While it is far too early to know which way this wind would blow if they council comes up with a tax to put to the voters this fall, it probably has a better chance of passing than in 2021. It just feels like there is a bigger divide nationally and locally between the haves and have nots these days. But it is waaaay too early to know anything yet since the council doesn’t know anything about how it would work yet — but I can see the future and the future is a probable November ballot issue. Ultimately, the local voters get to decide.

My advice to the town council would be to not just brand an empty house tax differently this time around but go out and sell it to not only the local voters, but also to those that would be impacted by the measure. It’s a person who loves this place who would write the check, not an empty house. Explain the specific need for such a revenue source and convince those who come to town for extended lengths of time why it is in their best interest to support the move. There can be good reasons for it and last time that wasn’t explained well at all. 

One of my concerns voiced in 2021 was that such a tax could hobble one of the three pillars of the community: the second homeowners’ leg of the three-legged stool that props the place up (locals, tourists and second homeowners). If not handled right, that could still be the case. I wrote in 2021 that Crested Butte is still much more of a textured community than a commodity compared to similar towns, and the idea of being fairly egalitarian still holds here. But even that is changing. Division in the community benefits no one and it will be up to councilmembers to do the hard legwork to sell the idea. 

That’s part of the politics that makes it all work.

On the other hand, second homeowners didn’t appear to do themselves any favors when they said in 2021 they could pick up the gap that the potential tax was meant to bring in to support affordable housing through philanthropy. That gap remains pretty wide. While there have been some contributions and support toward affordable housing from second homeowners in CB to organizations like the Valley Housing Fund, I don’t think even they would say they have come close to filling that gap. The vibe I get is that while some second homeowners in CB have stepped up their support and that is appreciated, overall, there hasn’t been enough contributed in the last four or five years to build a small two-bedroom deed restricted home in town.

Donating to housing isn’t sexy like contributing to the arts center or open space, but they’d all miss the workers who make this place the place they love when they disappear because they can’t find a place to live. 

The bottom line is that the idea of a tax on people who own houses where they don’t have their primary residence is once again stirring in Crested Butte. That really should not be a surprise to anyone. It is far too early to take a stand on it until more information is gathered and the council comes up with a definitive plan for how it would work, who it would impact and where the money would go…and most importantly, if they can convince most or some of their part-time neighbors on the importance of implementing a sales tax equalization measure. That is much more important than the rebranding part.

As for the first five things at the top of this column?

1) Crested Butte is a lot of things but seems to be evolving into a year-round amenity-based resort community in the middle of nowhere (thank God) with a small but extreme ski area. Heck, with the weather this weekend, CB could brand itself the Aruba of the Rockies!

2) They probably did before they built the developments that blurred the stars, chased away the elk and blocked the river view.

3) The only part of this he seems to be winning is the name he is so proud of. Epic Fury is appropriate since the dude seems angrily furious all the time and is epically baffled why the friends he kicked in the nuts for the last several years won’t bail him out in the Strait …Meanwhile Donald and Tattoo Pete act like tough bros playing the video game Arma 3 from the safety of their basement couch and bragging about it all. And while Iran is getting creamed in the traditional military sense, it seems their strategy is to push oil prices higher, get US allies separated from America, and drag in the rest of the Middle East while choking the oil pipeline. Who’s ahead in that war game?

4) The one in my hand.

5) Reasonable voter ID overseen by the states is not a problem in general, but since there is absolutely zero proof of any significant voter fraud issues, when Donald said last week the SAVE Act would “guarantee the Republicans the mid-terms,” it is pretty obvious — the answer is b. 

—Mark Reaman