Please purchase a subscription to read our premium content. If you have a subscription, please log in or sign up for an account on our website to continue.
Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.
Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.
Welcome! We hope that you enjoy our free content.
Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in to your subscriber account or create an account and subscribepurchase a subscription to continue reading.
Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in to your subscriber account or create an account and subscribepurchase a subscription to continue reading.
Thank you for signing in! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.
Thank you for reading! Please purchase a subscription or log into an existing subscription to continue reading the Idaho Mountain Express.
Thank you for reading! Please purchase a subscription or log into an existing subscription to continue reading the Idaho Mountain Express.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content.
Sometimes it’s necessary to state the obvious.
Mountain resort towns without visitors are like logging towns without trees or mining towns without ore.
Mining and timber towns are built on the work of miners and loggers. Without miners and loggers, ore isn’t extracted, and trees aren’t cut or milled.
In mountain resort towns, if hotels, ski mountains, bars, restaurants and retail stores don’t have workers, visitors don’t come because no one is there to serve them. There is no economy.
Without workers, mining, timber and mountain resort towns are ghost towns where rusty hinges creak on the doors of empty windblown buildings.
Cities larger than mountain resort towns grow because their economies are diversified.
Historically, farm and ranch towns in the West added railroads that enabled the manufacturing of everything from heavy equipment to potato and computer chips. Small towns became big cities as companies grew up around a city’s original enterprise.
One-room schoolhouses became high schools and universities as companies needed better skilled and educated workers.
The Ketchum City Council forgot its city’s economic history last week during a discussion about its new 51-unit Bluebird apartment project that is under construction. Its four members seemed to agree that the city should give preference to tenants employed by public entities like the Blaine County School District and local governments.
This opinion ignores the fact that the city’s entire economy is built on the work of tourism workers, not government workers. If the opinion becomes policy, it will be a disaster.
The council would have been better off doing nothing than going down a road in which it allows government employees to jump the housing line and leaves tourism workers in the cold.
The Bluebird project is the second high-density project built on city-owned land. It was controversial, and the council’s ill-timed discussion last week will relight the embers of that controversy.
The council should revisit the city’s own budget. In 2022, the city brought in $4.6 million in property taxes and $4.3 million in local-option sales taxes.
LOT taxes are collected on all sales of retail items, lodging, liquor and building materials. Local businesses collect the tax.
Without it, Ketchum city government would be a shadow of itself. It wouldn’t have enough money to pave roads, remove snow or fight fires.
The question, “Which came first, businesses or government workers?” isn’t a chicken-and-egg question. Businesses came first.
The city’s own difficulties in recruiting and retaining workers may be blinding the council to the fact that the housing shortage is not confined to government workers. It may be leading the city council to regard workers in tourist-related businesses as competitors for housing instead of what they really are—the critical rods and pistons in the local economy’s engine.
The city billed the Bluebird as “workforce” housing, open to all workers who meet income qualifications. It didn’t say that government workers would be preferred.
The city should not break faith with the businesses, residents and workers who supported the Bluebird project.
It should acknowledge that tourism is the town’s only industry, that local government is healthy only if tourism healthy—and act accordingly.
“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.
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Post a comment as anonymous
Report
Watch this discussion.
(9) comments
The IME’s position is clear. They play to their advertisers and pro,one maximum tourism development with locals paying taxes to subsidize tourism businesses that can depress wages to get their workers housing at public expense. If the city has no teachers what do they care? Their kids are grown—families can move to Hailey to make wood for more of the short term rentals that the IME seems to support.
*groupthink
Consider this as alternative. I lived in Ketchum when the original LOT was passed, primarily by Seiffert's city council led by Jim Jacquet. Most locals opposed it, but we acquiesced when promised that tax revenues would be used only for "direct impacts from tourism on local property owners." To us, it was the "new snowplow-firetruck deal." Of course, that morphed quickly to supporting "Wendy's Chamber, " and then subsidies to business marketing efforts and, now, this month's tricky vote supporting airline subsidies for another five years. And I agree with you that wages can be depressed if Ketchum remains hell-bent on creating multiple public housing projects, thereby growing The Resort's, et.al., profits. Certainly, local cities should NOT enable city employees and the local Bureaucracy to move to the front of the tenant line for public housing. I opposed Bluebird (for many reasons) and I've questioned other appointments to the Ketchum's P&Z (for lack of intellectual diversity and fairness to those living in the city). Here's my solution in a nutshell: VOTE THEM OUT ASAP.
100%. But who competent is going to run? The current regime seems determined to stay in power. Look at how the Mayor ran in the last election. His friend Gary Hoffman libeled me, and who planted that dirty pool article in the Daily Beast? Hmmm. This is a mayor who called for civility in the debate but did not disavow the incivility of his camp. Or what the owner of Maude's did with his social media. Or how Jeremy Fryeberger, then chair of the Democratic Central Committee, told lies about me to Spencer to try to get him to drop out of the race and back the Mayor (I have the email). The IME editorial board didn't even interview the candidates. The whole process seems designed to exclude non-machine candidates from running.
Let`s take the thought a step further. If we are truly interested in equality, why is a worker given preference over someone who can`t? Who has the greater need?
"Can't" what, Badger?
Can`t work; the unemployed during lean times, the sick and handicapped, the old ones, students, the challenged...........
That's not what is going on here. The person who is being prioritized is a person who chooses not to work. But even in your choice set, my answer is that some jobs are worth more to the community than others. I think a teacher or EMT brings more value than someone who works for a company like SVC or Aspen Ski Co or Marriott that exists to take money out of the community. Until we have filled the essential jobs to keep the town running at a basic level, we shouldn't be prioritizing corporate welfare. Should the taxpayer be subsidizing housing that encourages Marriott to keep their wages depressed so their employees can qualify for public housing? That is what we did with Bluebird.
Rogerthat....
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In