A Times dispatch from Breckenridge, Colorado, reports on what the article calls "a housing crisis in ski country":
Local officials and housing experts say it is a symptom of widening economic inequality, one that is especially sharply felt in tiny resort towns hemmed in by beautiful but undevelopable public land. While the wealthiest can afford $5 million ski homes and $120-a-day lift tickets, others work two jobs and sleep in shifts to get by.
The article displays a remarkable lack of curiosity about what makes this "public land" "undevelopable." It would be a better article if it explained what "public" entity owns the land. Is it a national park, a national forest, BLM land, or state or county land? Could it be sold or leased or privatized? Are there other factors impeding the construction of additional housing on private land in the area, such as zoning laws or environmental regulations? In general, if there is a "shortage" of something, it's often the case that a government-imposed restriction is preventing supply from rising to meet demand. Instead of that interpretive lens, though, the Times prefers to look at this one through its preferred explanatory framework of "economic inequality," as if the existence of $120-a-day lift tickets is somehow what is preventing some ski lift operator from finding decent housing near his workplace.