The money and activity being thrown at housing is absurd. And what are we achieving?
There are housing units tucked away throughout Ketchum that were built into projects in the late 90's/early 2000's in trade for the developer receiving greater building rights. These units did not use tax funds to be built, they are governed by deed restrictions agreed on by the developer and the city and most important, will remain "affordable" in perpetuity.
Northwood Place and Bluebird are the opposite. They are regulated by the federal government, need (a lot of) tax funds/public property and have sunsets on the life of the "affordability" of the units. Why? Is the housing problem going to someday disappear?
The decision to allow "in lieu funds" instead of requiring units be built into projects that benefited from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was just plain a bad idea. It is a more costly way to provide housing units and has resulted in what we are seeing being built today. Instead of correcting bad code, the city has moved forward with even more bad code in trading parking for housing. It would appear that our elected officials believe that along with the housing problem going away in the future, visitors and residents of Ketchum will no long need cars.
Annie, your City needs you back in office! The City's housing program is designed to squeeze out the local middle class and replace it with low-paid transient tourism industry workers for the hotel industry, which will largely be controlled by people from out of state. It is an exploitative model and deeply cynical. Note that at the bi-annual construction meeting yesterday, Neil repeated his disdain for people who want to slow down things in Ketchum. He is all about development. The question is, why? How does he benefit from this? Given how out of sync he is with the local community, what is his interest in pushing this agenda?
Sometimes it seems we heap all responsibility on those leaders closest to us with no regard for the shortcomings of the system they are operating out of.
KW, that was an interesting question! In fact, Adam Smith, the 18th century philosopher who is considered the "Father of Modern Economics," wrote that government interference in market activity would, in fact, destroy capitalism. He asserted that government should be limited to three functions: protecting national borders, enforcing civil law and public works (e.g. education). In other words, government should not provide benefits like housing.... If workforce housing were truly required in an area, those who benefitted from housing, e.g., SVCo and others, would step up to provide it - just as SVCo has done for their own interests. Adam Smith termed this the "invisible Hand" that would guide capital formation. Marxists, on the other hand, would argue that government should provide for all...
I was addressing two approaches to economic management: capitalism and Marxism. Our country was founded upon the principles of capitalism, although many forms of governments in our country don't seem to agree with those principles. My point was to address your assertion that the local housing "crisis" was a failure of capitalism, as it's a failure of blocking and distorting free market movements, IMHO.
It would be great to take an excerpt of the real data to a council meeting and challenge anyone misrepresenting some of these important issues. Also, have you thought about placing an ad in the Mountain Express highlighting your blog? We need to reach people who may have not voted in the past or voted for the wrong candidates.
Thanks for these suggestions. As you know, I think the Troika is immune to data or analysis and has limited its sources of input to reinforce its narrative. We need to vote them out in November 2025, but we will need to find some quality candidates to run.
Taking out an ad is an interesting idea. Next month, I plan to launch a podcast companion to this blog, and that would be a good catalyst to advertise. (But I hate giving the IME money.)
"Activity does not equal achievement"
The money and activity being thrown at housing is absurd. And what are we achieving?
There are housing units tucked away throughout Ketchum that were built into projects in the late 90's/early 2000's in trade for the developer receiving greater building rights. These units did not use tax funds to be built, they are governed by deed restrictions agreed on by the developer and the city and most important, will remain "affordable" in perpetuity.
Northwood Place and Bluebird are the opposite. They are regulated by the federal government, need (a lot of) tax funds/public property and have sunsets on the life of the "affordability" of the units. Why? Is the housing problem going to someday disappear?
The decision to allow "in lieu funds" instead of requiring units be built into projects that benefited from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was just plain a bad idea. It is a more costly way to provide housing units and has resulted in what we are seeing being built today. Instead of correcting bad code, the city has moved forward with even more bad code in trading parking for housing. It would appear that our elected officials believe that along with the housing problem going away in the future, visitors and residents of Ketchum will no long need cars.
Of course, that will be someone else's problem...
Annie, your City needs you back in office! The City's housing program is designed to squeeze out the local middle class and replace it with low-paid transient tourism industry workers for the hotel industry, which will largely be controlled by people from out of state. It is an exploitative model and deeply cynical. Note that at the bi-annual construction meeting yesterday, Neil repeated his disdain for people who want to slow down things in Ketchum. He is all about development. The question is, why? How does he benefit from this? Given how out of sync he is with the local community, what is his interest in pushing this agenda?
Good question. We may never know...or it may become clear by what he does once he is no longer in office.
Perry, let's pool money for an ad, I know how hard it is to give money to the Mountain Express but as stated it would be for the common good. Gwen
@PB...Do current housing insecurities reflect a failure of American capitalism?
Maybe. But they definitely reflect a failure of the people who have run Ketchum for the last 6+ years and have squeezed out locals.
Sometimes it seems we heap all responsibility on those leaders closest to us with no regard for the shortcomings of the system they are operating out of.
KW, that was an interesting question! In fact, Adam Smith, the 18th century philosopher who is considered the "Father of Modern Economics," wrote that government interference in market activity would, in fact, destroy capitalism. He asserted that government should be limited to three functions: protecting national borders, enforcing civil law and public works (e.g. education). In other words, government should not provide benefits like housing.... If workforce housing were truly required in an area, those who benefitted from housing, e.g., SVCo and others, would step up to provide it - just as SVCo has done for their own interests. Adam Smith termed this the "invisible Hand" that would guide capital formation. Marxists, on the other hand, would argue that government should provide for all...
Now, which government do we have in Ketchum?
Which government? Is capitalism a "government"?
I was addressing two approaches to economic management: capitalism and Marxism. Our country was founded upon the principles of capitalism, although many forms of governments in our country don't seem to agree with those principles. My point was to address your assertion that the local housing "crisis" was a failure of capitalism, as it's a failure of blocking and distorting free market movements, IMHO.
Capitalism was one of the principals our country was founded on. Equality was another.
What turns me off to Ketchum today is the glaring commercialism.
It would be great to take an excerpt of the real data to a council meeting and challenge anyone misrepresenting some of these important issues. Also, have you thought about placing an ad in the Mountain Express highlighting your blog? We need to reach people who may have not voted in the past or voted for the wrong candidates.
Thanks for these suggestions. As you know, I think the Troika is immune to data or analysis and has limited its sources of input to reinforce its narrative. We need to vote them out in November 2025, but we will need to find some quality candidates to run.
Taking out an ad is an interesting idea. Next month, I plan to launch a podcast companion to this blog, and that would be a good catalyst to advertise. (But I hate giving the IME money.)
I understand, but it's for the greater good... EVERYONE reads the paper.