Yeah, I have some thoughts on the hospital property with regards to housing. When construction had been recently completed and operations just underway, SLWR announced a meeting open to input from the community with the top-level administrators coming up from Boise. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, then they opened the meeting to public questions and comment. There were only six or eight members of the public in attendance, over twice that many representing SLWR, three of them attorneys.
I have often been called a gadfly, and much worse, no longer interpreting this as an insult. So, I got right to the heart of the artichoke asking if any consideration had been given toward the housing of employees on-site. The three attorneys, I believe including Tom Praggastis, became noticeably agitated deflecting and refusing to provide any coherent response. A 'smart dude' behind me followed up on this thread for a minute, perhaps 'smart' enough based on the evasion regarding this topic by these attorneys to understand what was really happening here.
I am not a 'smart guy' but have decent critical thinking skills, but often require a little time to process events and attach any probable or possible meaning. Why did these attorneys get so weird when I brought up employee housing. Ah hah! I wrote at the time that I believed there was something in the contract between SLWR, BC Med, and the owners of the property prohibiting any workforce housing on site as the negotiations for acquisition of the property no doubt included the real estate interests making the deal possible, and definitely not wanting to add any affordable supply because the doctors and employees at that time could easily afford to buy into the market.
Maybe I am wrong about this, or not. But I believe it was the 'smart guy' attending the meeting who wrote a LTE published in the IME that was absolutely brilliant. It had an almost science fiction quality to it, raising the specter of this state-of-the-art hospital facility filled with the most advanced and expensive diagnostic and imaging equipment, with no employees to operate them. I challenge the IME to do some investigation into their archives as to the date of this meeting and subsequent issues containing this LTE and to publish it. It was wonderful, written at a time before everyone around here sold out.
I can’t believe McGraw actually said ….“people commuting to work increase accidents and put wildlife at risk”. And that he said it in defense of upzoning!
Traffic will increase hugely for at least 10 to 20 years during the construction phase of building high density units.
Of course Perry is correct that locals won’t live there, so people from the south end of the valley will have to drive up there to service the needs or the increased number of tourists and second homeowners. Thus increasing traffic!
I no longer live in Ketchum, so I have no say in this craziness. But just the same, it breaks my heart to watch this sweet mountain town destroyed by these people.
thanks for your newsletter. Seems to me the decision to up zone West Ketchum is already decided and the city and planning council doesn't care what their constituency they represent think. Mr. McGraw's comments on not wanting to commute to Ketchum seems a conflict of interest in determining what is best for the town of Ketchum, not himself. The council discussed potentially restricting the up zoning language to be for "Community Housing" only. New restrictions different from what were in place when I purchased my home may impact the value of my home and property.
The city has not presented how up zoning solves their "Community Housing" problem. They do not because they know it will not!!!!
Ms. Moczgema mentions it does not move the needle much!!! It does if you live and own a single family home in West Ketchum. It was acknowledged the new townhomes on Bird Drive are listed at $5 million plus. Not too mention how unattractive they are and not in keeping with our community. How will up zoning not just add more townhouses no one who lives here can afford or wants? Ms. Landers admitted they will not bring down housing prices or affordability by adding supply. Then what is the plan? They want to restrict large homes from being built. Again an attack on our property value. I would prefer one home to the issues that come with increased density due to Community Housing in an area as small and confined as West Ketchum. Why the resistance to work with the community and look at sites such as the hospital or other more reasonable locations? Where community outdoor living areas could enhance the livability? To be clear, I fully support workforce housing. Unfortunately I will be out of town the week of the meeting in April. We need to pack the room and let our feeling understood.
I can`t imagine that building "community housing" above the hospital parking lot would ever be feasible, financially. I'm a bit confused also about whether the property is in Blaine County or Ketchum and who you see paying for such a project.
It is in the City of Ketchum area of impact. They control development there. Why wouldn't the City put the money it plans to spend on developments downtown into this? Also, the WRCHT has a novel approach to financing this kind of project.
It seems to me that St. Luke`s would also control development there. While the WRCHT may be able to secure the bonds necessary, could they ever rent the units at a price that would warrant the title of "community housing"? Or would the rent prices escalate over time, and with new owners, to a point the units become as expensive or more expensive than the waste we are seeing on North River Street in Hailey. The project would be excavation intensive, the most expensive and unpredictable cost of building. It would be steel intensive, a massive cost with our new tariffs. Concrete as well is horribly expensive now. I like the idea of it, and Ketchum can spend her money as she sees fit, but as i really don`t think the idea is realistic. It would probably be cheaper for Ketchum to buy a few city blocks in Bellevue and build there.
Yes, I think I do, as well? Only I no longer know the definition of "community housing" given the apparent lack of distinctions of "employee housing, workforce housing (employed in Ketchum or employed elsewhere or working from home), low-cost housing, non-resident housing, and, presumably, housing for the unemployed, including retirees. Whichever-Whatever the increased densities are determined to be named, I am quite familiar with Ketchum geography, and I have reviewed the (proposed) Land Use Map relative to density and ownership, and concluded what is proposed by the present Council is a huge boon to The Resort, hotels and other employers being able to benefit while the property values of Ketchum present residents are destroyed. I also fear the lack of height limits on these multistoried, steel-framed abodes that you have correctly alerted us to. No matter how many are built, they will not be enough to accommodate future needs, particularly if The Resort is sold and gambling is approved. That said, the unaddressed, most serious remainder is the impact it will have on low density residential owners & voters in Ketchum, as I believe that within a decade present Ketchum residents will be outnumbered by the new tenants sufficiently to alter the political goals of this community. What we still have remaining in Ketchum will be destroyed evermore - Main Street is the leading example of that.... Because of Friedman, such has already happened to Hailey in the last five years. This new and broad proposal for upzoning Ketchum will result likewise. Ditto for the Hwy 75 corridor at large...from the intersection at Hwy 20 to SNRA and threatening those presently residing on Blaine's north end. The present lack of spine and guts by Blaine County's Commissioners is also a concern, and I believe the commission needs to be expanded to five members at least, which could be done by adding a Ketchum Commissioner and a Hailey Commissioner to join the present three commissioners.
Despite the manifesto of the Ketchum Housing Action Plan, we do not have the resources to provide subsidized housing for everyone who wants to live in Ketchum. So who is most deserving of the limited resources? The Mayor says we should make no distinctions between corporate and non-profit/municipal employees. I disagree. Let's prioritize our scarce resources for "essential" workers. I'd like to see our police department taken back from the County and have police officers who live in our community. I want to make sure doctors and nurses can live in our community. Other first responders. And, of course, teachers. The City sets a terrible wage example with how little it pays its maintenance workers. We should be providing housing for city workers in the community they serve. Let's take care of this group before we provide corporate welfare to for-profit companies and solve the housing problems of the rest of Blaine County.
Agreed. In my life I`ve lived on the floorboards of a boat. I`ve shared homes with bikers and loggers. I`ve camped in the dirt and lived out of my backpack. I`ve witnessed Mexican labor in this valley living in chicken coops, under bridges and in the borrow pit of the highway. One kid I knew in Hailey lived in a tee pee by the river and nourished himself on magpies. Community housing to me is a simple concept. (I love my home in Hailey and it would take a team of wild horses to drag me away from it).
That said I feel it important to note the powerful influence our host (thank you), Perry Boyle has had on Ketchum politics by reveling the inadequacies and failures of Ketchum`s administration and policies. He has worked tirelessly and deserves credit for his leadership.
Yet, I think it is only fair to say that his total lack of support and constant attacks have inhibited, to the point of terminating, the critical development of community housing by a duly elected government. His insistence on prioritizing "essential workers" over the general population seems repressive and discriminatory. Everyone needs a roof over their head. And to those (Wes Penn), who suggest that only those who can afford it should be living here i say, if you don`t see fit to pay the workers that make it possible for you to be here, a decent wage, you shouldn`t be living here either.
Please, may I suggest reading Idaho Code sec. 67-6502, et seq, of The Land Use Act. Zone of impacts primary intention is to protect private property rights of owners adjacent to Idaho cities that wish to expand. I further suggest NOT contemplating legal action v. STL in Idaho courts.
Yeah, I have some thoughts on the hospital property with regards to housing. When construction had been recently completed and operations just underway, SLWR announced a meeting open to input from the community with the top-level administrators coming up from Boise. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, then they opened the meeting to public questions and comment. There were only six or eight members of the public in attendance, over twice that many representing SLWR, three of them attorneys.
I have often been called a gadfly, and much worse, no longer interpreting this as an insult. So, I got right to the heart of the artichoke asking if any consideration had been given toward the housing of employees on-site. The three attorneys, I believe including Tom Praggastis, became noticeably agitated deflecting and refusing to provide any coherent response. A 'smart dude' behind me followed up on this thread for a minute, perhaps 'smart' enough based on the evasion regarding this topic by these attorneys to understand what was really happening here.
I am not a 'smart guy' but have decent critical thinking skills, but often require a little time to process events and attach any probable or possible meaning. Why did these attorneys get so weird when I brought up employee housing. Ah hah! I wrote at the time that I believed there was something in the contract between SLWR, BC Med, and the owners of the property prohibiting any workforce housing on site as the negotiations for acquisition of the property no doubt included the real estate interests making the deal possible, and definitely not wanting to add any affordable supply because the doctors and employees at that time could easily afford to buy into the market.
Maybe I am wrong about this, or not. But I believe it was the 'smart guy' attending the meeting who wrote a LTE published in the IME that was absolutely brilliant. It had an almost science fiction quality to it, raising the specter of this state-of-the-art hospital facility filled with the most advanced and expensive diagnostic and imaging equipment, with no employees to operate them. I challenge the IME to do some investigation into their archives as to the date of this meeting and subsequent issues containing this LTE and to publish it. It was wonderful, written at a time before everyone around here sold out.
I can’t believe McGraw actually said ….“people commuting to work increase accidents and put wildlife at risk”. And that he said it in defense of upzoning!
Traffic will increase hugely for at least 10 to 20 years during the construction phase of building high density units.
Of course Perry is correct that locals won’t live there, so people from the south end of the valley will have to drive up there to service the needs or the increased number of tourists and second homeowners. Thus increasing traffic!
I no longer live in Ketchum, so I have no say in this craziness. But just the same, it breaks my heart to watch this sweet mountain town destroyed by these people.
Which is why McGraw was appointed a Prince of Enshitification
thanks for your newsletter. Seems to me the decision to up zone West Ketchum is already decided and the city and planning council doesn't care what their constituency they represent think. Mr. McGraw's comments on not wanting to commute to Ketchum seems a conflict of interest in determining what is best for the town of Ketchum, not himself. The council discussed potentially restricting the up zoning language to be for "Community Housing" only. New restrictions different from what were in place when I purchased my home may impact the value of my home and property.
The city has not presented how up zoning solves their "Community Housing" problem. They do not because they know it will not!!!!
Ms. Moczgema mentions it does not move the needle much!!! It does if you live and own a single family home in West Ketchum. It was acknowledged the new townhomes on Bird Drive are listed at $5 million plus. Not too mention how unattractive they are and not in keeping with our community. How will up zoning not just add more townhouses no one who lives here can afford or wants? Ms. Landers admitted they will not bring down housing prices or affordability by adding supply. Then what is the plan? They want to restrict large homes from being built. Again an attack on our property value. I would prefer one home to the issues that come with increased density due to Community Housing in an area as small and confined as West Ketchum. Why the resistance to work with the community and look at sites such as the hospital or other more reasonable locations? Where community outdoor living areas could enhance the livability? To be clear, I fully support workforce housing. Unfortunately I will be out of town the week of the meeting in April. We need to pack the room and let our feeling understood.
I can`t imagine that building "community housing" above the hospital parking lot would ever be feasible, financially. I'm a bit confused also about whether the property is in Blaine County or Ketchum and who you see paying for such a project.
It is in the City of Ketchum area of impact. They control development there. Why wouldn't the City put the money it plans to spend on developments downtown into this? Also, the WRCHT has a novel approach to financing this kind of project.
It seems to me that St. Luke`s would also control development there. While the WRCHT may be able to secure the bonds necessary, could they ever rent the units at a price that would warrant the title of "community housing"? Or would the rent prices escalate over time, and with new owners, to a point the units become as expensive or more expensive than the waste we are seeing on North River Street in Hailey. The project would be excavation intensive, the most expensive and unpredictable cost of building. It would be steel intensive, a massive cost with our new tariffs. Concrete as well is horribly expensive now. I like the idea of it, and Ketchum can spend her money as she sees fit, but as i really don`t think the idea is realistic. It would probably be cheaper for Ketchum to buy a few city blocks in Bellevue and build there.
Kris, you like "the idea of it"? Do you think STL would like to house employees of The Resort, et. al., @ the hospital? Really...?
Simply put, I like the idea of community housing.
Yes, I think I do, as well? Only I no longer know the definition of "community housing" given the apparent lack of distinctions of "employee housing, workforce housing (employed in Ketchum or employed elsewhere or working from home), low-cost housing, non-resident housing, and, presumably, housing for the unemployed, including retirees. Whichever-Whatever the increased densities are determined to be named, I am quite familiar with Ketchum geography, and I have reviewed the (proposed) Land Use Map relative to density and ownership, and concluded what is proposed by the present Council is a huge boon to The Resort, hotels and other employers being able to benefit while the property values of Ketchum present residents are destroyed. I also fear the lack of height limits on these multistoried, steel-framed abodes that you have correctly alerted us to. No matter how many are built, they will not be enough to accommodate future needs, particularly if The Resort is sold and gambling is approved. That said, the unaddressed, most serious remainder is the impact it will have on low density residential owners & voters in Ketchum, as I believe that within a decade present Ketchum residents will be outnumbered by the new tenants sufficiently to alter the political goals of this community. What we still have remaining in Ketchum will be destroyed evermore - Main Street is the leading example of that.... Because of Friedman, such has already happened to Hailey in the last five years. This new and broad proposal for upzoning Ketchum will result likewise. Ditto for the Hwy 75 corridor at large...from the intersection at Hwy 20 to SNRA and threatening those presently residing on Blaine's north end. The present lack of spine and guts by Blaine County's Commissioners is also a concern, and I believe the commission needs to be expanded to five members at least, which could be done by adding a Ketchum Commissioner and a Hailey Commissioner to join the present three commissioners.
Despite the manifesto of the Ketchum Housing Action Plan, we do not have the resources to provide subsidized housing for everyone who wants to live in Ketchum. So who is most deserving of the limited resources? The Mayor says we should make no distinctions between corporate and non-profit/municipal employees. I disagree. Let's prioritize our scarce resources for "essential" workers. I'd like to see our police department taken back from the County and have police officers who live in our community. I want to make sure doctors and nurses can live in our community. Other first responders. And, of course, teachers. The City sets a terrible wage example with how little it pays its maintenance workers. We should be providing housing for city workers in the community they serve. Let's take care of this group before we provide corporate welfare to for-profit companies and solve the housing problems of the rest of Blaine County.
Bingo. I think that is a goal of this process.
Thanks for bringing up the idea of 5 County Commissioners. I agree!
Agreed. In my life I`ve lived on the floorboards of a boat. I`ve shared homes with bikers and loggers. I`ve camped in the dirt and lived out of my backpack. I`ve witnessed Mexican labor in this valley living in chicken coops, under bridges and in the borrow pit of the highway. One kid I knew in Hailey lived in a tee pee by the river and nourished himself on magpies. Community housing to me is a simple concept. (I love my home in Hailey and it would take a team of wild horses to drag me away from it).
That said I feel it important to note the powerful influence our host (thank you), Perry Boyle has had on Ketchum politics by reveling the inadequacies and failures of Ketchum`s administration and policies. He has worked tirelessly and deserves credit for his leadership.
Yet, I think it is only fair to say that his total lack of support and constant attacks have inhibited, to the point of terminating, the critical development of community housing by a duly elected government. His insistence on prioritizing "essential workers" over the general population seems repressive and discriminatory. Everyone needs a roof over their head. And to those (Wes Penn), who suggest that only those who can afford it should be living here i say, if you don`t see fit to pay the workers that make it possible for you to be here, a decent wage, you shouldn`t be living here either.
Please, may I suggest reading Idaho Code sec. 67-6502, et seq, of The Land Use Act. Zone of impacts primary intention is to protect private property rights of owners adjacent to Idaho cities that wish to expand. I further suggest NOT contemplating legal action v. STL in Idaho courts.