When you look at the amount of traffic that comes from Carey, Fairfield and further south it is hard to believe that most of them would give up a house with a yard and move into an apartment in Ketchum. There are apartments being built in Hailey constantly and many of those people work in Ketchum which is a short drive. We really don't need more housing in the core of Ketchum.
I find it bizarre that no one involved in housing in Ketchum City Hall seems to have any interest in asking the working population what they want or the employers what they need. They are arrogant and are convinced they know what is best. As for a house with a yard, Bradshaw said in a meeting that families will be perfectly fine being raised in condos as part of his justification for his MASSIVE upzoning plan for Warm Springs and West Ketch that eliminates new single-family residences in those areas. He knows full well that working families aren't going to move into luxury condos built for the Airbnb and wealthy second home markets. His Planner has told him that building them will not attract families to Ketchum. Yet he persists in his propaganda. I call this the BIG LIE.
Perry- you were instrumental in informing the public about this issue. I wonder why the project got fast tracked when early on public comments disfavored the project. Why did the mayor keep telling people that Ketchum taxpayers were in favor of affordable housing on the 1st & W lot when public comments revealed the opposite? And how much taxpayer money was spent on developer fees, attorney fees, staff time, and slick marketing only to cancel the program. I think along with the cost overruns for Bluebird, Ketchum taxpayers need to demand an accounting of this money and demand a plan from the city for a refund.
Perry, you are making a huge difference. Thank you for your efforts.
Could you do a blog post about all the different players?
City council, Mayor, P&Z, KURA, KBAC, WRCHT, ARCH, etc. It's very confusing if you haven't been involved for a while.
What are their charters? How are they funded? How/when are they selected? For elected positions, when are elections and what are the criteria for running? What are terms for non-elected positions?
This seems like the first start to potentially drum up some candidates.
The entire Troika is up for re-election in November. This is our opportunity to vote them out and vote in people who will represent the interests of the residents. Until we get three votes for locals on the council, we can only wait them out and shine the light on what they are trying to do to our city. Their upzoning plan will be the death of Ketchum. We should do everything we can to kill it now, and if we fail, make sure we elect people who will kill it next year.
Along with good candidates, we need to have the right form of government that best serves Ketchum. Is it the Mayor-Council (aka “Strong Mayor”) form that we currently have, or would the Council-Manager form be a better fit?
Check out Vol.2 No.7 right here in The Ketchum Sun to get an overview. We can bring this choice to the voters in November, along with a slate of good candidates.
Well, Perry should definitely run — and I assume he is planning to do so — but Ketchum needs others like him to restore order to the city council.
I, myself, don’t live in Ketchum. I am just concerned about the impact it is having on the rest of the WRV through bad precedent and by turning what was once a quaint mountain town (the best in the nation) into a Little Los Angeles … in more ways than one.
I’m not sure about the residency requirement, but regardless, it would be great to see some bona fide Ketchum residents throw their hats in the ring. Sooner the better!
...."A county or city may implement such reasonable regulations as it deems necessary to safeguard...general welfare in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate. ,,, Neither a county nor a city can regulate the operation of a short-term rental marketplace."
A city council has the legal right (not to mention the responsibility) to safeguard the integrity of residential neighborhood but cannot regulate the STR marketplace?
I would say this statute could be challenged in court. Perry has done enough analysis to verify the destructive impact (both economic and social) that STR's have on the "integrity" of residential neighborhoods. That's your ammunition.
I take the wording to mean that you must allow them but you can regulate them, for example by requiring them to have permits etc. In some places the property taxes are also much higher for homes that are STVR's. Not sure if that would be legal in Idaho.
It seems the areas in the country that are successfully controlling them are doing so by regulating how much time they can be rented. I doubt that would even work here, as our peak tourist seasons are so short and most STVR owners in town are renting for short periods of time to pick up some extra cash but want the homes available for themselves when desired. This isn't a town where someone would be buying property as a vacation rental business, because the economics are not there.
A "no parking on city streets" ordinance would be permissible under Sec. 67-6539. Additional restrictions would also fit, e.g., restrictions against fires, grills, etc. After enactment, short term renters would have bear the burden of challenge.
When you look at the amount of traffic that comes from Carey, Fairfield and further south it is hard to believe that most of them would give up a house with a yard and move into an apartment in Ketchum. There are apartments being built in Hailey constantly and many of those people work in Ketchum which is a short drive. We really don't need more housing in the core of Ketchum.
I find it bizarre that no one involved in housing in Ketchum City Hall seems to have any interest in asking the working population what they want or the employers what they need. They are arrogant and are convinced they know what is best. As for a house with a yard, Bradshaw said in a meeting that families will be perfectly fine being raised in condos as part of his justification for his MASSIVE upzoning plan for Warm Springs and West Ketch that eliminates new single-family residences in those areas. He knows full well that working families aren't going to move into luxury condos built for the Airbnb and wealthy second home markets. His Planner has told him that building them will not attract families to Ketchum. Yet he persists in his propaganda. I call this the BIG LIE.
Exactly right. There is something extremely incongruous about creating high density corporate beehive residences in a remote mountain town like this.
Everyone in Ketchum government needs to get a one way bus ticket out of the valley never to return!
The mayor, all four council members, all P&Z members, and the whole planning department. Tar and feathers for these hacks!
yeah, well... ya know... Thats like, your opinion, man.
Perry- you were instrumental in informing the public about this issue. I wonder why the project got fast tracked when early on public comments disfavored the project. Why did the mayor keep telling people that Ketchum taxpayers were in favor of affordable housing on the 1st & W lot when public comments revealed the opposite? And how much taxpayer money was spent on developer fees, attorney fees, staff time, and slick marketing only to cancel the program. I think along with the cost overruns for Bluebird, Ketchum taxpayers need to demand an accounting of this money and demand a plan from the city for a refund.
Perry, you are making a huge difference. Thank you for your efforts.
Could you do a blog post about all the different players?
City council, Mayor, P&Z, KURA, KBAC, WRCHT, ARCH, etc. It's very confusing if you haven't been involved for a while.
What are their charters? How are they funded? How/when are they selected? For elected positions, when are elections and what are the criteria for running? What are terms for non-elected positions?
This seems like the first start to potentially drum up some candidates.
Excellent article as always.
That said, I get: Ketchum’s rogue city council has no regard for Ketchum voters and is poised to destroy Ketchum with its housing fetish.
The question I still have is: How do we stop them?
Does anyone know how many seats (if any) are open on the city council this year?
Who are the best candidates to replace them?
What can be done now (beyond commentary) to organize and mobilize?
Especially in a largely part-time community, 6 months or so is not a lot of time to put a plan into action.
The entire Troika is up for re-election in November. This is our opportunity to vote them out and vote in people who will represent the interests of the residents. Until we get three votes for locals on the council, we can only wait them out and shine the light on what they are trying to do to our city. Their upzoning plan will be the death of Ketchum. We should do everything we can to kill it now, and if we fail, make sure we elect people who will kill it next year.
Along with good candidates, we need to have the right form of government that best serves Ketchum. Is it the Mayor-Council (aka “Strong Mayor”) form that we currently have, or would the Council-Manager form be a better fit?
Check out Vol.2 No.7 right here in The Ketchum Sun to get an overview. We can bring this choice to the voters in November, along with a slate of good candidates.
Well, Perry should definitely run — and I assume he is planning to do so — but Ketchum needs others like him to restore order to the city council.
I, myself, don’t live in Ketchum. I am just concerned about the impact it is having on the rest of the WRV through bad precedent and by turning what was once a quaint mountain town (the best in the nation) into a Little Los Angeles … in more ways than one.
Yes 1000%. You nailed it. Do you have to be a resident of Ketchum to be on city council? The mayor doesn’t live in town.
Annie if you want to have a fun conversation with the Mayor, talk to him about that. But yes, you do need to be a resident within the City limits.
How does he get away with that? Owns rental property?
I’m not sure about the residency requirement, but regardless, it would be great to see some bona fide Ketchum residents throw their hats in the ring. Sooner the better!
You and Perry should run! Christian I saw where you ran for SV city council at one point? You seem to have sound logic.
One needs to be a Ketchum resident to run for Mayor and city council.
And we are on it.
Idaho Statute CHAPTER 65
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING (Section 67-6539)
...."A county or city may implement such reasonable regulations as it deems necessary to safeguard...general welfare in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate. ,,, Neither a county nor a city can regulate the operation of a short-term rental marketplace."
A city council has the legal right (not to mention the responsibility) to safeguard the integrity of residential neighborhood but cannot regulate the STR marketplace?
I would say this statute could be challenged in court. Perry has done enough analysis to verify the destructive impact (both economic and social) that STR's have on the "integrity" of residential neighborhoods. That's your ammunition.
I take the wording to mean that you must allow them but you can regulate them, for example by requiring them to have permits etc. In some places the property taxes are also much higher for homes that are STVR's. Not sure if that would be legal in Idaho.
It seems the areas in the country that are successfully controlling them are doing so by regulating how much time they can be rented. I doubt that would even work here, as our peak tourist seasons are so short and most STVR owners in town are renting for short periods of time to pick up some extra cash but want the homes available for themselves when desired. This isn't a town where someone would be buying property as a vacation rental business, because the economics are not there.
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING (Section 67-6539) -
legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title67/T67CH65/SECT67-6539/?utm_
A "no parking on city streets" ordinance would be permissible under Sec. 67-6539. Additional restrictions would also fit, e.g., restrictions against fires, grills, etc. After enactment, short term renters would have bear the burden of challenge.