Every argument in the book against housing for people with jobs is on the record somewhere within the Wood River Valley. No new or persuasive arguments have been put forth in decades.
They are always the same. They are trite, tiresome and hypocritical.
They have proven just one thing: People who work jobs that contribute to the local economy need affordable housing, and they should be able to find it everywhere they look.
Every subdivision in the area should contain housing that local wage-earners can afford. Developments with dazzling mansions should also have homes affordable to those with less than stratospheric incomes.
Every part of every city in the area, with the possible exception of those with operations detrimental to human health, should be open for development of affordable apartments, condominiums, townhouses and single-family homes.
It’s past time local elected leaders stood fast against the insidious economic tribalism that crept out of Sun Valley into Ketchum, and that today extends all the way to Timmerman Hill.
The influx of COVID refugees that arrived in the valley during the past year just added to pressures and attitudes that had already made housing scarce for hard-working citizens. Now prices for housing anywhere in the valley are entirely unaffordable to even high middle-income families.
The vocal and shortsighted have repeatedly defeated proposed housing for all levels of wage-earners. Dissenters claimed that development after development was in the wrong place, was too dense, would clog up parking, would generate too much traffic and drive down property values.
These arguments are wrong. Again and again, sites proposed for apartments have turned out to be just fine for townhouses or condos for residents who brought their incomes with them.
What is happening in the Wood River Valley is beyond mere gentrification. It is society at war with itself. In wealthy Sun Valley, billionaires oppose housing for millionaires. In Ketchum, one-percenters and equity-rich retirees oppose housing for nearly everyone else. Similar tensions exist in Hailey and Bellevue.
The situation is unhealthy. It threatens the heart and soul of our communities: our people.
Bald Mountain is the engine of the local economy. Without wage-earners, the lifts don’t run. Businesses and services—including medical services—don’t operate.
There is only one place for housing for the 99 percent: everywhere.
“Our View” represents the opinion of the newspaper editorial board, which is made up of members of its board of directors. Remarks may be directed to editorialboard@mtexpress.com.
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(6) comments
another thought here. Affordable housing---what does that mean? For example, Bluebird will cost roughly $30mm all in to build 56 units, many without parking, some bedrooms without windows, and no air conditioning. That's over $500,000 per unit. That seems like an outrageous amount of money for a crappy apartment (albeit in the best location in town).
I bet there are well over 56 condos around town that we could rehab for less than that.
Or, maybe we could do something like an earned income tax credit. Give low income people the option of either getting subsidized housing or a boost to their income and let them acquire market rate housing in Ketchum or Hailey or wherever they would prefer. How can giving them more choice be a bad thing?
Just trying to be a bit more creative than building the biggest building in town on prime real estate, full of crappy apartments with not enough parking. I wish our Mayor would lay out a real plan for community housing.
One of the things that is emerging from the Bluebird dialog that has been hidden by the Mayor is his plan for parking in Ketchum. City Planner Jade Riley in the 2/18 session on Bluebird said that Bluebird would be the catalyst to implement a new parking regime in Ketchum. What does this mean? They are still hiding their plan, but we know that it will include elements of the following:
1. Parking permits. Only certain people will be able to park in certain areas of Ketchum, based on a permit systems. IMO, this will create another city bureacracy (which might be its intent). Who will decide who gets a permit? Who will issue them and police them? It will require another headcount at city hall, continuing to build Bradshaws "CIty" of Ketchum.
2. There will be an end to free parking. The Washington lot, though usually almost empty, is the future of parking in ketchum. If you don't have a permit, you will end up paying for parking. The Mayor has been explicit that he wants to discourage driving and this is part of his plan to do it.
Will there be any community input on this? Well, if you define community as the Mayor and his cronies, sure there will. But will there be multiple public meetings and surveys? I doubt it. Maybe the Express will run a poll, and 65% of people will be against it, but that wont have any impact whatsoever on the grand plan the mayor and council are implement to Vailify Ketchum. Welcome to the CITY of Ketchum and kiss the TOWN goodbye.
I disagree with the concept that affordable or multifamily housing be placed in every zoning for the simple reason that each type of zoning brings its own specific needs. Placing a significant amount of housing (beyond what is permitted now) in the light industrial areas would negatively impact light industrial needs. Similar to when housing tracks are built too close to airports, all of a sudden residents complain amount noise pollution from airplanes. The same goes for farm zoning. Density in high traffic areas of cities has worked best for most towns across the world. That type of urban planning can cater to the most amount of people with the least amount of additional infrastructure (public transportation, road maintenance, etc.)
I think you are on point 90%. Affordable housing everywhere does make sense, I think that was the very point made by Mr. Boyle's guest opinion.
Why is there no affordable housing going into Warm Springs Ranch? Because our zoning stinks. We need a new Comprehensive Plan, based on data, that will guide us to build the right amount of affordable housing in the right places at the right costs.
Where I think you are 10% off is in your disdain for rich people that is implicit in your editorial, and your assumption that everyone who moves to Ketchum is non-working.
While you highlight the housing price increases that have come with the influx, you have ascribed no value to the resources these people bring into the community. Who pays for the carpenters and stonemasons? Who pays for the free community concerts? Who pays for a $9mm firehouse? A new city hall? Who paid for the Y?
For St Luke's? For the $14mm library? They support not one but two supermarkets. And dozens of restaurants. This money isn't coming from the tourists who frequent hotels with chronically low occupancy. The fianncial life blood of Ketchum is the second homeowner. Who pays for community housing? Those rich people you seem to disdain.
Ketchum has one of the largest budgets per capita of any city, not just in Idaho, but in the entire country. A town of under 5,000 residents and a City budget of almost $35mm. This is Marin County like. The vast majority of that comes from the second home owners from Seattle and Portland and SF who pay a lot in taxes, with no vote, no say, no rights. And where does all that money go? To one of the best schools, not just in the state, but in the country. To well-maintained roads and bike paths that benefit everyone. To an emergency and first responder services that are second to none.
And to reduce the attraction of the WRV to Baldy is really...odd. And disparaging of the working people of the WRV, most of whom have nothing to do with Baldy.
I am going to re-estimate now, and say that you are not 90% right. Maybe more like 70%.
Everyone in Ketchum, contributes. Everyone. The teacher and the firefighters. And the rich retirees. And the second homeowners. Let's all work together to solve Ketchum's housing issues. And let's not have an Editorial Board of our paper of record following the rest of the media industry in trying to divide us.
You are point on 100%. For several years, I have pushed to deaf ears including our Mayor, to open up zoning in the most logical area, the Light Industrial in Ketchum. Vacant lots, some City owned, the huge lot at corner of Lewis and Warm Springs Rd, and commercial buildings that should be allowed for live-work, including ground floors, should be rezoned from LI 2 to LI 3 (and add ground floor legal for live work). Northwood Way already is a mix of legal residential and commercial. The City’s fight to maintain “light industrial” in perpetuity, is over. Now is the time to move on and the most logical area for affordable housing, live work, and commercial is ALL of the light industrial in Ketchum.
To be fair, I believe the previous Mayor did change the Light Industrial zoning to permit community housing. He gave property developers/owners the ability to build another story (up to 50' high) if they included community housing. I am not sure on the parking requirements for that. But I like your thinking. We do have some community housing that seems in that area. Scott Building has some units, And GMD's previous development of 32 units abuts it.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In