Battle Blue Bird

(5) comments


The cartoon, as many things in this paper, is highly biased in the size of the armies it depicts. The poll right next to it shows over 61% against and under 27% for. For all the reasons Mssrs Meads and Young point out, this is a bad deal for everyone in Ketchum but the developer and a few tenants.


Bluebird should never have been sent to P&Z. My guess is a recent poll will indicate that although pushed by the Mayor and City Council (ala Marriott) the public will oppose. The opposition is mainly not Affordable Housing but the poor planning and location. The Mayor and Council continue to hide behind two factors that are reality

1. we have a parking problem!! So how does adding a 4 story building alleviate the problem

2. We have a traffic problem that has been magnified by the future construction of Marriott and possible construction on Hot Dog Hill. So how does Bluebird Village help that problem?

The fact is our Mayor and City Council have not defined affordable housing. And have falsely stated that the recent construction on 4th and 5th street is affordable which it is Not and was built without parking ( you can’t make up this form of irresponsibly )

Affordable Housing is essential but my goodness, thought and location is equally essential.

And for those who point or applaud Aspen or Jackson Hole or Park City can’t be serious. Aspen - you can’t park in the town unless you are a resident and have to purchase a parking pass. Simply put, Jackson Hole is beautiful but an absolute disaster for parking, lack of strict zoning and building codes and over crowded. Park City - speak to the residents - it’s in course to bring another over built and problem laden town:city.

Affordable Housing - yes! Bluebird Village proposed location - so terrible that many thought it was a cruel joke when heard.


@L2meads - Well, stated and I support your views (no pun intended). Today's IME features Rixon lookin precisely at the spot where affordable housing should be sited, irrespective of Bob's "control" over the property. Asking citizens to contribute $9M for land the city doesn't control is embarrassing... another deal the city has mucked up. And, of course, 2.5 acres @ Ol' Anderson lies fallow....


The economic (and legal) thing to have done was to declare the site surplus, auction it, have a city council vote to devote those monies to acquiring an affordable housing location (of which there are several) and then lease the new site at market rent to a local developer (of which there are several) who would put up rental housing that our "lifeblood" of teachers and firefighters and health care workers could live in (they are excluded from Bluebird due to its income limits). However, that was never considered--Bluebird has been in the works almost since the day the Mayor was elected. When no one was looking, the City even changed the zoning just to make Bluebird possible. And why do you think this P&Z process is taking place during Slack, when a lot of people are out of town. The whole thing stinks. You think they would have learned from KETCH, where they gave all sorts of concessions to the out of state developer who almost immediately flipped it and the rents have gone up big time--leaving the neighbors to deal with the parking issues.


Heads up, Mr Meads, something like the Aspen plan is precisely what City Hall is currently working on for Ketchum. High density sole-purpose residential, up until KETCH and Bluebird, was excluded from the CC zoning district because residential land use and parking crowds out retail land use and parking and is detrimental to the survival of the commercial district. Atkinson's wrote a letter in support of Bluebird to IHFA at the request of the Mayor. I guess they see this as cheap housing paid for by the taxpayer for their workers. But if they think this through, as future Bluebirds and KETCHs are built in the CC district, we will all end up shopping in Hailey. Or Amazon.