I was appalled by Mallory Walker’s full-page ad/letter campaign advising people to vote “no” on raising the LOT tax. I’m a 33-year-old Ketchum local who has lived here my whole life. Housing is of big concern to me as I see many people my age losing housing, having to leave town, or being priced out of the market. I will be casting my vote for the LOT tax increase and hope anyone who cares about our town does the same.
Walker argues that we should be using the current LOT funds toward housing rather than raising the LOT. What he misses is that it would be illegal for the city to simply reallocate funds; all LOT funds must be voted on. There is no other continuous revenue stream to housing other than the in-lieu housing fee. "Ketchum does not need more money"? That’s what someone with a lot of money and secure housing says.
His point about Ketchum selling the old city hall site is completely moot. That site is already being developed as Bluebird Village and cannot be sold or allocated differently.
"Ketchum does not deserve new money"? Ketchum is constantly getting new money, just not for those who live and work here. He means lower-income, housing-insecure people don't deserve money.
Lastly, his argument that "most occupants of workforce housing prefer Hailey over Ketchum" is so tone deaf I’m shocked he would put it in print. Most workforce housing occupants are forced to live in south Valley locations—that doesn't mean they don't want to live in Ketchum. It's a very privileged argument that certain "types" of people (i.e., poor, low-income, non-white) want to live together and not in places where rich, high-income, white people live.
Hayden Seder
Ketchum
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(10) comments
Two factual inaccuracies in this letter. First, in this referendum we can vote AGAINST raising the LOT and FOR using the LOT for housing. You don’t have to vote for both. That would enable the existing LOT to be used for housing without raising the LOT on locals (to over $2.5mm a year). Second, Bluebird has not yet been permitted. The developer does not yet have his financing in place and cannot get a building permit until/unless he does. It may not be possible for him, even with the millions in extra money the City voted to give him. It may take a passage of the LOT to get him even more taxpayer money to make it possible. Note, he will be taking $1.8mm of the money for his company. Given the absurd economics of the project, that taxpayer asset could be used faster and and more cost effectively to provide housing.
There is no good tax.
Maybe we shouldn't listen to silver spoon fed, born on third and got walked home to nine figure wealth figures about what working and middle class people actually want?
Censorship? You must be a "progressive." Personal attacks are the lefties' modus operandi. All voices and perspectives are welcome to the discussion, even yours.
Doesn't it seem like we are in a never ending tax and spend and tax and spend and tax some more spiral? All you pro-LOT people, when does it end? When are you satisfied that we locals have paid enough for gov't's inefficient and shortsighted use of our hard earned income. Many of us have been saying for a long time that the all out push for pro-tourism would be a problem down the road and viola!, here we are. Yet your only answer is to tax us some more. Why should we listen to you at all since basically your ideas have created the problems we are facing now? Of course we support your right to make your argument. The problem is that you neglect the forces that have brought us to this point in time. And now your only answer seems to be to tax us more to solve it. Wrong!
Vote NO on the LOT.
The LOT sales tax we all pay into as locals is used to promote the tourist industry. We give the money to the airlines so they can bring more people here. Vote No to bringing more people here ! Right now we have no property for sale and nothing for rent in our community, slow the growth, vote no on tourism, vote no on a new LOT tax .
This is misinformation. The new LOT revenues will not be used for tourism. The proposed legislation states: "The new revenues generated from such additions will solely be used for the purposes of Workforce Housing Provision and Support"
source: https://www.projectketchum.org/local-option-tax/
@MtExpress please remove this comment above as it is clearly misleading and false.
I believe he meant that the existing LOT revenues are used for airline subsidies and area advertising
wd ? It is just an extension of the same thing. The first LOT tax was to create more business revenue by bringing more people here, and that money goes to the airlines. They came and bought all the houses and property. Now we need to tax the people again for workforce housing. It is the same thing. Vote No on any new LOT taxes. Vote Yes to repeal the first one.
Well Chuck, unfortunately in our democratic system, voting is not a "fill-in-the-blank of all the policies you would like to see happen". Repealing the AIR tax, set to expire in 2023 btw, is not on the table. If it were I would vote to repeal it too. But its not. And voting No on this doesn't change that fact.
You seem to still not grasp that this new LOT tax is about workforce housing, not tourism. Maybe try actually reading the link i shared?
WD, as fast as they tax for one problem they create a new problem that needs to be taxed. The next thing they will want is a tax to support all the stuff being bought online because no one wants to pay the local sales tax. Why does this community have to be taxed to build a tourism industry ?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In