ISSUE #28: They Want to Raise Taxes--for More Corporate Welfare

Please attend the Ketchum City Council meeting on 8/19 at 4pm

The chart above was used at the August 5th Ketchum City Council meeting to justify why Bluebird is good for Ketchum.

I look at that same chart, and I see:

• a few essential workers

• a lot of corporate welfare

• a propaganda attempt to ram more Bluebirds down our throats

In short, it is “lipstick on a pig.”

Why is That a “Good” List for Taxpayer-Funded Housing?

Let’s consider this list for a minute. Here is my admittedly judgmental assessment of it. I wonder what the “test” was for approving the employees of these employers.

BCSD: That isn’t teachers. Teacher's starting wage is above the Bluebird cap. So, who is it for at BCSD? BCSD is working with ARCH on teacher housing.

St. Luke’s Wood River: Likewise, full-time nurses make too much. SLWR is working with ARCH on housing.

USPS: It is an essential service, and the workers there are awesome. But shouldn’t we as a City be suing the USPS for denial of our delivery or free PO Box right? And how does the USPS get away with paying its employees so little that they qualify for public housing?¹

City of Ketchum: Shame on the Mayor and Council for paying city employees so little. City wages did not pace inflation. Meanwhile, the Housing Department payroll has ballooned. Hmm.

Sun Valley Community School: Disclosure: one of my kids went there. Categorizing a private school as an essential service is a bit rich (pun intended). That school can pay to house its own employees—we know that because of what they are going to build in Sun Valley. Why are Ketchum taxpayers subsidizing this institution? Also, it is in Sun Valley—why aren’t Sun Valley taxpayers picking up this tab?

Wood River YMCA: I will grant them this one, given the after-school and summer school services it provides the community.

Sun Valley Play School: I don’t know enough to say whether it is education or this is more corporate welfare for Sun Valley Co. It’s not a Ketchum business. Why don’t Sun Valley taxpayers pay to house its employees? Per the website, it looks like daycare for Sun Valley Resort guests (it is promoted as such by Visit Sun Valley).² Does it have a pre-school that is open to Ketchum residents at reasonable rates? Hmm.

Higher Ground: I put them in the same non-profit category as the Y.

Habitat Veterinary Hospital: don’t recognize that one? It used to be locally-owned— St Francis. A Boise company bought it. If they could afford to buy it, perhaps they could afford to pay a decent wage.

Sun Valley Animal Center: Why do for-profit vets get away with low wages to their non-doctors? Should we be subsidizing that? This one is also outside of Ketchum City limits.

Atkinson’s Market: if you owned Atkinson’s wouldn’t you love being able to keep your wages low and your employees right across the street? How convenient! No wonder Atkinson’s wrote a letter to the state in support of Bluebird at the behest of the Mayor. Ironically, most people at Bluebird will probably shop for groceries in Hailey given their incomes.

Chateau Drug: Who doesn’t love its convenience and friendly employees? However, is that a qualification for a public housing entitlement? The other drug store in town hasn’t asked to house its employees on the public purse. Why does Chateau?

Oasis Stop n’Go: you gotta be kidding me. A for-profit gas station/convenience chain store with a State-guaranteed profit margin? 🤮

This list is propaganda. Out of 13 entities the City Housing Department deems “essential,” only about half pass the smell test. 1/3 of them aren’t in Ketchum.

Then, look at the rest of the list. The contractor and some of the subcontractors that built Bluebird are getting units in…Bluebird. Hmm.

The Tanning Co? Zenergy? Luxury Vehicle Rental? Taxpayer-funded Visit Sun Valley? WaFd—a bank? Should taxpayers be subsidizing these companies?

Sun Valley Play School and Sun Valley Stables are both located in Sun Valley and are owned by Sun Valley Company.³ I wrote an entire post on how SVC fleeces Ketchum taxpayers in multiple ways. Add this to the list.

I don't judge these companies as businesses—I patronize many of them. But for them to expect the public to subsidize their low wage business models is, in my opinion, not right. Especially when they aren’t even located in Ketchum. This is not a list to be proud of. This is a list of shame.

The City Council unanimously agreed we should subsidize housing for all of these employers. Is there any company in the WRV that the Ketchum City Council wouldn’t give a handout to? Where do they draw the line?

One of the pushbacks people have made against the Ketchum Housing Department is that they are using Ketchum tax dollars to provide housing for the entirety of the Blaine County population. This list certainly substantiates that. Why won’t Hailey, Sun Valley, and the County pitch in to subsidize their local workers? Why is it all on the back of Ketchum taxpayers?

I will note that, per SVED, the Blaine Country has added 1,500 employees to its workforce since the Ketchum Housing Department was established.⁴ Where did that housing come from? I don’t know. I know it didn’t come from BCHA, which is, essentially, the City of Ketchum Housing Department. And I am pretty sure our taxpayer-funded housing “experts” don’t have a clue how this happened.

Ballot Initiative Decision at August 19th Council Meeting

On August 19, the Council plans to meet to re-deliberate an initiative to raise the LOT on Lodging by 2% on the November ballot.

I say re-deliberate because that is the topic that took up most of the August 5th Council meeting. The original proposal was to put this on the ballot for November without specifying how the money would be spent. There was no debate about raising the LOT. All Council members, including the Mayor, are supportive of raising taxes to fund the Housing Action Plan. Most of the discussion was about their concern it would not pass this time and then they can’t put it on the ballot for another year. To them, it is not a question of if, but of when.

There were three public comments.

• One from a guy who runs a new short-term rental business for investors who don’t live here. He supported it—he noted Park City has a 13.5% lodging tax.

• One from a local hotel owner who is against it—she noted that bookings are down, costs are up, and she thinks it is unfair for Ketchum businesses to be taxed to pay for all of Blaine County’s housing needs.

• The final comment was from me.⁵

The Mayor tried to steer the Council by opening with a statement that he doesn’t want to do it November, as there is not enough time for voter education. He thinks the way to get ballots passed is to organize a working group and engage door-knockers to get out the vote. This approach worked for him with the LOT for Air. Many people involved in that effort were not Ketchum residents, and that measure was passed with only 20% of registered voters because of low turnout. He knows how to game the system to get his desired outcome.

Ms. Hamilton thinks it won’t pass because people are overwhelmed with the amount of construction in Ketchum and are worried about the impact of Bluebird. My read is that she is correct. She wants to game the system to improve the odds of it passing by pushing it to May.

Ms. Breen largely agreed with her. She wasn’t present for the voting, but the Mayor voted her proxy (is that legal?).

Mr. Hutchinson wants this on the November ballot because he thinks it's a good idea; the Council should be putting good ideas in front of the electorate, and he doesn’t like the political angle delaying a vote. To him, raising the lodging LOT does not go far enough—he proposed raising the LOT on retail, as well.

Mr. Cordovano, in my opinion, had the most reasonable approach. He wants it on the ballot for November to spur community conversation, but he thinks raising taxes for an open-ended housing purpose is the wrong way to go. He wants to put this on the November ballot, but only if it is earmarked for housing preservation, not new construction. This seems to me far more likely to pass than an open-ended check for a deeply flawed Housing Action Plan.

I have dissected the plan elsewhere. It is ludicrous—it basically says anyone who wants to live in Ketchum has a right to live in Ketchum, and if they can’t afford to live in Ketchum, Ketchum taxpayers will help subsidize their housing. To look more palatable, it redefines “worker” as someone who chooses not to work and the “unhoused” as people who commute more than 45 minutes.

In the end, they decided to revisit a ballot initiative with a targeted spending purpose at their August 19th meeting. If you want to weigh in on this topic, that would be the meeting to go to.

Scarce Resources Should be Prioritized for Essential Workers

Right now, Ketchum plans to build at least two more Bluebirds, one on the YMCA parking lot and another at the $7mm+ site of the Lift Tower Lodge. This is a travesty of City governance and City planning.

I am not against publicly subsidized housing. I am for it when there is no other alternative for essential workers.

Where do I draw the line on what an essential worker is? It’s not that hard. Most of them work for the public in education, safety, and emergency services.

• If your kid goes to school and there isn’t a teacher, that is essential.

• If your house is on fire and there is no fire crew, that is essential.

• If you get robbed or assaulted and there are no police, that is essential.

• If you are hurt and there are no medical professionals, that is essential.

After that, it gets murkier. Non-profits that fill the gap that public services should provide but don’t because of Idaho’s approach to taxation could reasonably be deemed essential.

You could say a pharmacy is essential, and of course it is. But shouldn’t a pharmacy in one of the wealthiest towns in the country be able to pay its workers a living wage? Shouldn’t that be true for almost every for-profit endeavor in Ketchum?

My point is that we only have so much money—shouldn’t it go to house essential workers before we prioritize those dollars for corporate welfare?

1. https://www.npmhu.org/resources/body/Effective-PP07-2023.pdf

2. https://www.sunvalley.com/explore/kids-programs/

3. That was for you Ed.😉

4. This is from SVED's most recent email to its members,

5. Here is what I said. The Mayor cut me off before I could finish. In his defense, I did get a bit emotional.

You make it sound so innocuous.  You package something people don’t want, more Bluebirds, with something they do want—fire consolidation.  But people have caught on to your plan to replace locals with taxpayer-funded corporate welfare that keeps wages depressed for the people who will replace them.  To risk failure of the fire issue to accomplish this goal is irresponsible.

You have never reported to the public on Northwood Place and whether it has achieved community goals. You mention the importance of enforcement—you seem to have a renewed enforcement zeal for housing—but you have never enforced a short-term rental violation, of which, according to the City, there are hundreds.

You are the regime that sat on your hands while all the workforce long-term rentals went to the tourism industry without any attempt to stop it.  Now you want working people to slit their own throats with a tax that will accelerate your grand plan.  There is no way to make a living wage and live in a Bluebird.  Your list is a damning indictment of their employers.  There is no way a full-time employee should make so little to qualify.  Sun Valley Co should not be pointing their employees on how to get taxpayer-funded housing on their employee website while renting a four bunk bedroom with shared bath and kitchen for $2400/mo.  They and the rest of your list should be ashamed for taking advantage of the taxpayer-funded corporate welfare you are handing to them.

Given your lack of transparency, lack of a comprehensive plan, refusal to listen to the concerns of the voters, and the clear conflicts of interests of your housing director who wants Ketchum taxpayers to fund housing for everyone in Blaine County, who can trust you to build the workforce housing we need with our limited resources?  You can’t even get the post office fixed.  Or our roads and sidewalks, which a LOT is supposed to pay for.

We need a legitimate city planning process that recognizes and fights back against the impact of the SVC master plan, recognizes the Bluebird debacle on our commercial district, acknowledges the airport expansion that you are sponsoring with taxpayer funding, and incorporates the Marriott you approved over our objections and privately assured the developers you would approve, that takes into account the Warm Springs development project—plus all the other development plans you are approving.  We need to do the planning for how many essential workers like teachers, healthcare workers and first responders we will need given our growth and prioritize housing them. 

You should take this proposal off the table. You should stop looking for more funding to build more Bluebirds.  You should repeal the in lieu of fee so we get more housing faster.  You should adopt the ARCH and WRCHT models that create true workforce housing for essential workers without depressing wages.  You should stop building massive low-income housing projects in the retail core that harm our local businesses and build them in the LI zone and south of town.  

In short, there is a large and growing component of the community that does not trust you and will fight you on this.  Please, stop destroying our community.