As the months go by, we see the actions by this City Council become more and more onerous. We cannot wait until an election in November to stop all this. The situation worsens as the months go by. There needs to be a recall petition and a lawsuit seeking a temporary halt in these programs. That is the only solution, otherwise we just watch (or fiddle) as Ketchum burns....
Thank you, Perry, for outlining these important details in what the City is proposing and for continuing to keep the community informed on discussions and decisions are being led by the City, and how the community can impact those discussions and decisions. Missing from the comp plan plan is anything about infrastructure upgrades that would be needed to support increased density. One issue a KBAC Board member brought up is insurance. If you live in a single family home now, and something happens, will insurance cover your single family home due to changes in zoning definition? Those details need to be thought through as these conversations are taking place. Below is the comment that KBAC submitted to P&Z ahead of the Feb. 3rd P&Z meeting:
The KBAC group appreciates the opportunity to provide constructive feedback on the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. We have concerns about two significant zoning aspects of the draft Comprehensive Plan and feel it is impossible to provide accurate comments without examining the new Planning and Zoning changes side-by-side.
Residential - The residential changes propose increasing density in established neighborhoods without adequate infrastructure planning, particularly in West Ketchum and Warm Springs, which already face capacity constraints. The current water, sewer, and road infrastructure needs significant upgrades before supporting increased density. Emergency access is already constrained on narrow streets, with no transparent budgeting outlined for these necessary improvements. The proposal lacks specific building height, size, and density restrictions, with no clear caps on rental rates aligned with workforce wages or language preserving single-family and duplex opportunities in medium-density zones.
Additional planning is needed for wildfire and flood risks, particularly in forest-adjacent developments, and the insurance coverage implications have not been adequately addressed.
Instead of sweeping density increases in well-established neighborhoods, incentives to incorporate affordable housing into new property developments should be considered. There is a more holistic way to address these needs without penalizing neighborhoods with established families and residents.
Commercial - The commercial changes suggest potential downzoning in the expanded Retail Core area while maintaining current allowances in Community Mixed-Use zones. However, the full impact cannot be assessed without seeing the new zoning code. While Community Mixed-Use areas appear to maintain current height and density allowances except for hotels, the language suggests reductions in the expanded Retail Core area. KBAC supports a mix of commercial spaces, including smaller retail spaces for local businesses, restaurant spaces, and residential spaces interspersed. KBAC supports economic diversity and all property types in the RC except oversized full lot-line to lot-line developments like Bluebird, which do not meet Ketchum's character goals or provide adequate parking for residents, employees, or customers. We realize developers are maximizing FAR, yet continuing to do that directly conflicts with the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan and what the community has voiced. KBAC supports affordable housing outside of the Retail Core and supports clear design guidelines in the Retail Core that promote the character and integrity of Ketchum.
Overall, we are concerned about the implied zoning changes mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and the lack of input from businesses and residents. We recommend removing all references to any zoning and density changes from the Comprehensive Plan and moving this work to the Planning & Zoning team, which will develop a complete plan with input from key stakeholders.
This raises one serious issue that always seems to be overlooked. That is, the existing infrastructure is now overtaxed to serve the existing community. For one example, our water supply is limited to the local river system. There are no other sources. The arcane Idaho water rights laws dictate that many downstream users have preferences, hence upstream users are at risk. How will that be handled? Will we still be able to water our landscaping? Next question, who will be taxed to pay for upgrades to road, bridges, sewer systems, etc? The existing locals who largely do not support the growth plans dictated by this City Council? I'm just asking for a friend....
Per the City Planner, we have more than enough water. Our source is the acquifer not the river.
That being said, I’ve seen no study on this.
In the last city council meeting of 2024 they dropped a bomb that we have $100mm in deferred instructors liability. No mention of this in the comp plan and no plan for how to deal with it.
I would also add, since the City Planner claims we have sufficient water, why is it that Magic Reservoir (think fire fighting) has periodically dried up and not so long ago there was an edict that you had to cease watering your lawn if it was larger than some measure)? Is the City Planner a hydologist, by chance? Or was their an independent study done that would assure us all that we have enough water? And, as last point, why did the local driller, when changing my pump, suggest that I should now drill to a deeper depth?
Well now, I think most people understand that the acquifer is supplied by the river, which is supplied by the snow pack, and depleted by usage from users like humans, tourists, snow making, farmers downstream...
If we have more than enough water each year, why have restrictions periodically been placed on landscape watering, why has the fishing at Silver Creek and the Big Wood been impacted in certain years by low very low levels?
There has been many seminars locally by qualified engineers who suggest otherwise than this City Planner.
In your last comment about water and golf courses, you suggested that limiting water for golf courses would wreak havoc on tourism. Now you are complaining that turning river water into snow to then melt back into the river is bad. Wouldn't limiting snow making negatively impact tourism? You're contradicting yourself.
The use of the descriptor "wreak havoc" is your term.... The fact is that the golf courses are the major attraction for many tourists and second home owners. Further, I am not "complaining" about snow making, I just noted that it was a usage of the aquifer, along with other types of usage. You're misrepresenting what I wrote.
Perry is right to ask this question: ..."This is the stuff you don’t read in the Mountain Express. I wonder why that is?"... I wonder, too. Well done, Perry! The IME has missed the opportunity to create a series of articles that chronicle this issue.
At the moment I have to say that the newspaper is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. The staff looks like a bunch of gutless wonders, committed to a style of journalism that is for the most part incredibly anodyne and superficial. They are missing the boat.
Have a look at the link below from today's NY Times. It's relevant:
The U.S. Economy Is Racing Ahead. Almost Everything Else Is Falling Behind -
Perry- big fan of all your posts. Food for thought on this particular one:
Does higher-density construction necessarily mean prioritizing tourists? While I think you're likely correct in ascribing that motivation to the Council, I'm not sure it has to be the case. Can Ketchum keep its character while building more density? I think it may have to.
This is a nice place to live and it is an inescapable reality that more people will want to live here. To my mind, Ketchum has three options for the future: 1 become more dense, 2 become more sprawling, or 3 not build at all and slowly become so expensive that when the older generation finally sells, the only people who will be able to afford a house in town are second home owners, retirees, and perhaps a select few remote workers.
A lot of younger people who want to make a life here would probably support option 1. For example, my wife and I hope to become Ketchum homeowners someday and that likely means a condo. Sure a single family home with a yard would be great, but we can't turn back the clock to what Ketchum was decades ago. And we're tired of being told, somewhat pedantically, that "you should move to Hailey because that's where families are." We both work in Ketchum; why should we move south and become part of the big daily traffic jam on 75?
You advocate in these posts for keeping Ketchum's character and local community. I'm all for that. But to do that, normal people need to be able to buy homes and live here. As you've rightly pointed out, the city government's programs have screwed up incentives and ignore the simple solution of the free market- we need more housing supply!
Perhaps the city's re-zoning plan is prioritizing the wrong areas in some places, but reflexively opposing anything but single-family home development feels like NIMBY-ism and a "pull up the drawbridge behind me" attitude.
I’m not saying only SFR. I’m pointing out they will make SFR non-conforming in a lot of Ketchum. I’m all for families in Ketchum. But unless you make north of $280k, the average home price might be out of reach. Think of all the new condos built in the last year—can you afford any of them? Who bought them? Why do you think building more of them will bring the price down? Has that EVER occurred during your lifetime in Ketchum? The problem is what Mr Chubb said last night. The value of a condo for tourism is higher than the value of a condo for a local resident. Unless we can kill tourism demand that will always be true. Yet we tax ourselves to increase tourism demand and to subsidize tourism companies. No resort town has ever built their way to affordability. Tripp’s solution is a supply of housing restricted to local workers. That requires deed restrictions.
If they could put major restrictions on Short-Term-Rentals, that would be one way to open the supply for normal folks to buy (or rent)homes and condos in Ketchum.
Without this kind of restriction almost all incremental units will go to tourists. That’s not my view. It’s what the City Planner stated in the joint meeting on Monday.
You could argue that it's more useful and accurate to focus on thee relationship between cost and demand, not supply and demand. The cost defines the supply. The demand follows. Both are highly elastic. The question is how to manage cost and demand dynamically over time with progressive, rational, public policies and tax laws...on the ground, in the WRV.
Local governments need to have more agency in Idaho., that's one reason a lawsuit is not moot or without merit. Another reason is to somehow get a stay put on the construction of the next "worker housing" monolith. These buildings are ghettos-in-the-making, just give them a couple of decades, and they herd people into vertical compounds rather than integrate them into the community at large. That's one definition of a suburb as well as a ghetto.
Don't let it happen to Ketchum any more than it already has! Keep the next Bluebirds in blueprint mode for as long as you possibly can. That's step one: you've got to figure out a way to buy yourselves some time. Slow.It.Down.
Wes is right to ask this question and he frames it well. He's also correct that Ketchum will grow simply because it's a nice place to live...if there are jobs and enough affordable places to live. There are simply too many people to go around and/or too few places for them to live. The elasticity of pricing is high on both sides of the supply and demand.
Ideally, create progressive policy that shape the growth in a way that is in keeping with the desires and needs of the current residents and control the rate of growth rationally, (there's no such thing as a "free" market, in any case) to the extent that the residents are are reasonably happy. The bell curve that illustrates how residents feel will ideally reflect happiness, not anger.
As a way of stepping back getting a broader perspective on what is more foundational, I refer you to this article from today's NY Times. Stay close to First Principles, right?
The U.S. Economy Is Racing Ahead. Almost Everything Else Is Falling Behind - The gap between Americans’ prosperity and quality of life has grown since the 1990s.
More folks are moving to the Valley. Either expand via density or sprawl... or I suppose you can open up all second homes to squatters rights. Because geography is limiting sprawl, the second best option is squatters rights. Oh shoot, this isn't the 1800's? I guess density is the only solution... Warm Springs is oddly dark for being one of the more lived in parts of Ketchum. It's not AirBnB's. Its second home owners. I guess we can thank a national and global wealth disparity that is as bad as ever. You using this substack to slander people actually trying to help and make a change is a weak attempt to give you a political bump for the next election cycle. These simple solutions for very, very, very, complicated issues are what people like to read to 'save Ketchum'. Don't fall for this crooks Trump tactics.
First of all all, aren’t you a coward for commenting under your immature pseudonym? I don’t mind people criticizing me or my thoughts but honorable people are accountable for their words.
I agree that things are complicated. You offer only criticism but no solutions. Do you think upzoning to create more second homes is a solution?
Okay, okay, I'll try to give some solutions, or at least comments. But keep my name out of it. Middle school was hard enough.
You're examples of bad use of high density are penthouses on top of multi use commercial/residential buildings in the core downtown area. Of course those will be exorbitantly priced, and the only people who will afford them are folks who have salaries from larger cities that offer higher wages. The point of those buildings aren't density, its to create two or so units on top of boogie coffee shops, or pilates studios, and are probably built with an expensive price tag in mind to give developers incentives to build. Increasing density in already populated areas is I think a great way to fill in the space... as space in this valley is so limited. Look at the Fields, or Limelight out warm springs. It offers housing to countless locals, and gives them good housing options. I think rezoning R1 lots to high density to allow for more of the fields or limelights would be a good thing for this valley. Housing is limited. Increase the ability to build housing. Seems simple nuff for my simple brain. The American Dream of a single family home on an 1/2 acre lot is great for a lot of America, but the geography of this valley won't allow for it.
Lets discuss the potential civil engineering issues, and social issue of adding more people into this valley.
Civil issues: The argument that the fragility of our grids should be the reason to stop urban density is outrageous to me. Right now, lets say there are roughly 17k people who live in the WRV. An anecdotal method to judge how many people our grids (water, gas, electrical, roads) can handle is to look at the number of people driving into town for 10 hours a day from M-F (workers), and then the number of people who come into town for 48-72 hours over the weekend (tourists). I'd guess that on any given day, there are in total 25k-30k people who are in this valley, 17k of those who actually live here full time. In my mind, adding a hand full more condos that will house a couple hundred people will by no means come close to touching what the critical mass is on our grids. The benefits for those extra condos will be enormous as people living and working here will have a place to buy or rent. Also, for the people moving into the new condos, you can subtract from the net workers, and even tourists coming to town.
Now for social issues. I don't really have a solution, this will be more of a rant.
An argument that one of your sheeple posted about that I found to be quite outrageous is that that the outdoor recreation around here is getting too popular or crowded, and that reason alone should stop urban development. There's a couple things wrong here. One, we live in one of the most uncrowded stated in the US. 61% of Idaho is made up of public lands. If you can't get away from people or find a corner without people, thats a severely personal problem. More people need to experience the outdoors. We can't safeguard it, we all are public land owners. I'm sorry that running into people in Adams Gulch ruined your hike. Go one drainage further. I'm sorry that you feel like you have ownership over a trail or a section of this state that you have been so fortunate to experience before other people. Next summer when you find the pit toilet at your favorite trail-head is out of TP and your are staring at your left sock to clean your ass with, please don't blame the tourists or the increased number of locals. The real issue plaguing our public lands infrastructure aren't people enjoying time outside, its coming from the federal government cutting forest service employees.
Yeah well, you can say there is no connection between the quote from the Idaho Statesman below and the fact that Ketchum lacks the agency to determine its housing policies and its quality of life, but I beg to differ.
Craven, arbitrary and patriarchal white-boy "god-politics" shapes both Idaho state policies on abortion and by extension, Kecthum's lack of agency to tax and limit of its STR's. Patriarchy manifests in many forms of control. What do you say? Is this government overreach?...There is absolutely NO room for some pinhead's childish image of "a father-god" in politics:
Idaho GOP lawmaker wants women charged with murder for seeking abortions, end to exceptions -
The next City Council and Mayor are likely to be hood ornaments for the same governmental gas guzzler and carbon-spewer as the one "in power" now. Better to sue, develop a campaign to draw in other municipalities and go for it. Take the gloves off, good people.
At the moment, the effort to be heard by the current Mayor & Co., Inc. are failing. To wit:
...“Our worth and right to life as human beings is not derived from external circumstances or opinions, but from the Imago Dei,” Shippy told lawmakers Wednesday, referencing the Judeo-Christian God. His bill would prevent the “intentional killing of preborn life” and ensure “justice for preborn children,” he said.
“Homicide laws should apply equally to the preborn,” [sic/sick] Shippy said, noting that he views laws on abortion in stark terms. Either the fetus has a “right to life” that the state should protect like any other life, he said, or the state has no business interfering in a woman’s pregnancy at all."...
OK- fair enough. As I said, no arguments here on all your points re taxation to subsidize tourism / low wage workers for big corps. This place sells itself and we shouldn't be in the business of corporate welfare, especially not at taxpayer expense. But if we can't increase the housing supply ie "build our way to affordability," then what can we do? Not rhetorical, I'm genuinely wondering...
P&Z Chair Neil Morrow said last night we should give up. There isn’t anything we can do.
I think we need to do Tripp’s plan. Tax tourists to buy deed restrictions that create a supply of housing restricted to local workers. Tourists create the housing problem and they can easily afford to pay to mitigate it. A much better use of LOT that VSV and FSVA in my opinion.
How do you avoid the problem we have now with the deed restrictions as outlined in one of your previous posts? If the owner is restricted from realizing the appreciation in value of the property, will anyone want to participate?
So, you are suggesting that heavily taxing tourists will solve the perceived local housing issues? Aren't you trying to attract tourists, who are the very foundation of the economy of the WRV? Seems to me that targeting them would cause them to divert to other ski resorts.
As the months go by, we see the actions by this City Council become more and more onerous. We cannot wait until an election in November to stop all this. The situation worsens as the months go by. There needs to be a recall petition and a lawsuit seeking a temporary halt in these programs. That is the only solution, otherwise we just watch (or fiddle) as Ketchum burns....
Thank you, Perry, for outlining these important details in what the City is proposing and for continuing to keep the community informed on discussions and decisions are being led by the City, and how the community can impact those discussions and decisions. Missing from the comp plan plan is anything about infrastructure upgrades that would be needed to support increased density. One issue a KBAC Board member brought up is insurance. If you live in a single family home now, and something happens, will insurance cover your single family home due to changes in zoning definition? Those details need to be thought through as these conversations are taking place. Below is the comment that KBAC submitted to P&Z ahead of the Feb. 3rd P&Z meeting:
The KBAC group appreciates the opportunity to provide constructive feedback on the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. We have concerns about two significant zoning aspects of the draft Comprehensive Plan and feel it is impossible to provide accurate comments without examining the new Planning and Zoning changes side-by-side.
Residential - The residential changes propose increasing density in established neighborhoods without adequate infrastructure planning, particularly in West Ketchum and Warm Springs, which already face capacity constraints. The current water, sewer, and road infrastructure needs significant upgrades before supporting increased density. Emergency access is already constrained on narrow streets, with no transparent budgeting outlined for these necessary improvements. The proposal lacks specific building height, size, and density restrictions, with no clear caps on rental rates aligned with workforce wages or language preserving single-family and duplex opportunities in medium-density zones.
Additional planning is needed for wildfire and flood risks, particularly in forest-adjacent developments, and the insurance coverage implications have not been adequately addressed.
Instead of sweeping density increases in well-established neighborhoods, incentives to incorporate affordable housing into new property developments should be considered. There is a more holistic way to address these needs without penalizing neighborhoods with established families and residents.
Commercial - The commercial changes suggest potential downzoning in the expanded Retail Core area while maintaining current allowances in Community Mixed-Use zones. However, the full impact cannot be assessed without seeing the new zoning code. While Community Mixed-Use areas appear to maintain current height and density allowances except for hotels, the language suggests reductions in the expanded Retail Core area. KBAC supports a mix of commercial spaces, including smaller retail spaces for local businesses, restaurant spaces, and residential spaces interspersed. KBAC supports economic diversity and all property types in the RC except oversized full lot-line to lot-line developments like Bluebird, which do not meet Ketchum's character goals or provide adequate parking for residents, employees, or customers. We realize developers are maximizing FAR, yet continuing to do that directly conflicts with the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan and what the community has voiced. KBAC supports affordable housing outside of the Retail Core and supports clear design guidelines in the Retail Core that promote the character and integrity of Ketchum.
Overall, we are concerned about the implied zoning changes mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and the lack of input from businesses and residents. We recommend removing all references to any zoning and density changes from the Comprehensive Plan and moving this work to the Planning & Zoning team, which will develop a complete plan with input from key stakeholders.
This raises one serious issue that always seems to be overlooked. That is, the existing infrastructure is now overtaxed to serve the existing community. For one example, our water supply is limited to the local river system. There are no other sources. The arcane Idaho water rights laws dictate that many downstream users have preferences, hence upstream users are at risk. How will that be handled? Will we still be able to water our landscaping? Next question, who will be taxed to pay for upgrades to road, bridges, sewer systems, etc? The existing locals who largely do not support the growth plans dictated by this City Council? I'm just asking for a friend....
Per the City Planner, we have more than enough water. Our source is the acquifer not the river.
That being said, I’ve seen no study on this.
In the last city council meeting of 2024 they dropped a bomb that we have $100mm in deferred instructors liability. No mention of this in the comp plan and no plan for how to deal with it.
How did the City Planner come to that conclusion? Surely the City has professional studies that support this opinion…
I would ask if there is so much water, why is it that Magic dries up? Or why does the County place restrictions on the use of water for landscaping?
I would also add, since the City Planner claims we have sufficient water, why is it that Magic Reservoir (think fire fighting) has periodically dried up and not so long ago there was an edict that you had to cease watering your lawn if it was larger than some measure)? Is the City Planner a hydologist, by chance? Or was their an independent study done that would assure us all that we have enough water? And, as last point, why did the local driller, when changing my pump, suggest that I should now drill to a deeper depth?
Well now, I think most people understand that the acquifer is supplied by the river, which is supplied by the snow pack, and depleted by usage from users like humans, tourists, snow making, farmers downstream...
If we have more than enough water each year, why have restrictions periodically been placed on landscape watering, why has the fishing at Silver Creek and the Big Wood been impacted in certain years by low very low levels?
There has been many seminars locally by qualified engineers who suggest otherwise than this City Planner.
In your last comment about water and golf courses, you suggested that limiting water for golf courses would wreak havoc on tourism. Now you are complaining that turning river water into snow to then melt back into the river is bad. Wouldn't limiting snow making negatively impact tourism? You're contradicting yourself.
The use of the descriptor "wreak havoc" is your term.... The fact is that the golf courses are the major attraction for many tourists and second home owners. Further, I am not "complaining" about snow making, I just noted that it was a usage of the aquifer, along with other types of usage. You're misrepresenting what I wrote.
It’s heartbreaking to watch Ketchum change in this way. I can only hope the locals who have loved this town for decades will show up.
Perry is right to ask this question: ..."This is the stuff you don’t read in the Mountain Express. I wonder why that is?"... I wonder, too. Well done, Perry! The IME has missed the opportunity to create a series of articles that chronicle this issue.
At the moment I have to say that the newspaper is hardly worth the paper it's printed on. The staff looks like a bunch of gutless wonders, committed to a style of journalism that is for the most part incredibly anodyne and superficial. They are missing the boat.
Have a look at the link below from today's NY Times. It's relevant:
The U.S. Economy Is Racing Ahead. Almost Everything Else Is Falling Behind -
nytimes.com/2025/02/04/briefing/the-us-economy-is-racing-ahead-almost-everything-else-is-falling-behind.html
.
Perry- big fan of all your posts. Food for thought on this particular one:
Does higher-density construction necessarily mean prioritizing tourists? While I think you're likely correct in ascribing that motivation to the Council, I'm not sure it has to be the case. Can Ketchum keep its character while building more density? I think it may have to.
This is a nice place to live and it is an inescapable reality that more people will want to live here. To my mind, Ketchum has three options for the future: 1 become more dense, 2 become more sprawling, or 3 not build at all and slowly become so expensive that when the older generation finally sells, the only people who will be able to afford a house in town are second home owners, retirees, and perhaps a select few remote workers.
A lot of younger people who want to make a life here would probably support option 1. For example, my wife and I hope to become Ketchum homeowners someday and that likely means a condo. Sure a single family home with a yard would be great, but we can't turn back the clock to what Ketchum was decades ago. And we're tired of being told, somewhat pedantically, that "you should move to Hailey because that's where families are." We both work in Ketchum; why should we move south and become part of the big daily traffic jam on 75?
You advocate in these posts for keeping Ketchum's character and local community. I'm all for that. But to do that, normal people need to be able to buy homes and live here. As you've rightly pointed out, the city government's programs have screwed up incentives and ignore the simple solution of the free market- we need more housing supply!
Perhaps the city's re-zoning plan is prioritizing the wrong areas in some places, but reflexively opposing anything but single-family home development feels like NIMBY-ism and a "pull up the drawbridge behind me" attitude.
I’m not saying only SFR. I’m pointing out they will make SFR non-conforming in a lot of Ketchum. I’m all for families in Ketchum. But unless you make north of $280k, the average home price might be out of reach. Think of all the new condos built in the last year—can you afford any of them? Who bought them? Why do you think building more of them will bring the price down? Has that EVER occurred during your lifetime in Ketchum? The problem is what Mr Chubb said last night. The value of a condo for tourism is higher than the value of a condo for a local resident. Unless we can kill tourism demand that will always be true. Yet we tax ourselves to increase tourism demand and to subsidize tourism companies. No resort town has ever built their way to affordability. Tripp’s solution is a supply of housing restricted to local workers. That requires deed restrictions.
If they could put major restrictions on Short-Term-Rentals, that would be one way to open the supply for normal folks to buy (or rent)homes and condos in Ketchum.
Without this kind of restriction almost all incremental units will go to tourists. That’s not my view. It’s what the City Planner stated in the joint meeting on Monday.
You could argue that it's more useful and accurate to focus on thee relationship between cost and demand, not supply and demand. The cost defines the supply. The demand follows. Both are highly elastic. The question is how to manage cost and demand dynamically over time with progressive, rational, public policies and tax laws...on the ground, in the WRV.
Local governments need to have more agency in Idaho., that's one reason a lawsuit is not moot or without merit. Another reason is to somehow get a stay put on the construction of the next "worker housing" monolith. These buildings are ghettos-in-the-making, just give them a couple of decades, and they herd people into vertical compounds rather than integrate them into the community at large. That's one definition of a suburb as well as a ghetto.
Don't let it happen to Ketchum any more than it already has! Keep the next Bluebirds in blueprint mode for as long as you possibly can. That's step one: you've got to figure out a way to buy yourselves some time. Slow.It.Down.
Wes is right to ask this question and he frames it well. He's also correct that Ketchum will grow simply because it's a nice place to live...if there are jobs and enough affordable places to live. There are simply too many people to go around and/or too few places for them to live. The elasticity of pricing is high on both sides of the supply and demand.
Ideally, create progressive policy that shape the growth in a way that is in keeping with the desires and needs of the current residents and control the rate of growth rationally, (there's no such thing as a "free" market, in any case) to the extent that the residents are are reasonably happy. The bell curve that illustrates how residents feel will ideally reflect happiness, not anger.
As a way of stepping back getting a broader perspective on what is more foundational, I refer you to this article from today's NY Times. Stay close to First Principles, right?
The U.S. Economy Is Racing Ahead. Almost Everything Else Is Falling Behind - The gap between Americans’ prosperity and quality of life has grown since the 1990s.
nytimes.com/2025/02/04/briefing/the-us-economy-is-racing-ahead-almost-everything-else-is-falling-behind.html
More folks are moving to the Valley. Either expand via density or sprawl... or I suppose you can open up all second homes to squatters rights. Because geography is limiting sprawl, the second best option is squatters rights. Oh shoot, this isn't the 1800's? I guess density is the only solution... Warm Springs is oddly dark for being one of the more lived in parts of Ketchum. It's not AirBnB's. Its second home owners. I guess we can thank a national and global wealth disparity that is as bad as ever. You using this substack to slander people actually trying to help and make a change is a weak attempt to give you a political bump for the next election cycle. These simple solutions for very, very, very, complicated issues are what people like to read to 'save Ketchum'. Don't fall for this crooks Trump tactics.
First of all all, aren’t you a coward for commenting under your immature pseudonym? I don’t mind people criticizing me or my thoughts but honorable people are accountable for their words.
I agree that things are complicated. You offer only criticism but no solutions. Do you think upzoning to create more second homes is a solution?
Okay, okay, I'll try to give some solutions, or at least comments. But keep my name out of it. Middle school was hard enough.
You're examples of bad use of high density are penthouses on top of multi use commercial/residential buildings in the core downtown area. Of course those will be exorbitantly priced, and the only people who will afford them are folks who have salaries from larger cities that offer higher wages. The point of those buildings aren't density, its to create two or so units on top of boogie coffee shops, or pilates studios, and are probably built with an expensive price tag in mind to give developers incentives to build. Increasing density in already populated areas is I think a great way to fill in the space... as space in this valley is so limited. Look at the Fields, or Limelight out warm springs. It offers housing to countless locals, and gives them good housing options. I think rezoning R1 lots to high density to allow for more of the fields or limelights would be a good thing for this valley. Housing is limited. Increase the ability to build housing. Seems simple nuff for my simple brain. The American Dream of a single family home on an 1/2 acre lot is great for a lot of America, but the geography of this valley won't allow for it.
Lets discuss the potential civil engineering issues, and social issue of adding more people into this valley.
Civil issues: The argument that the fragility of our grids should be the reason to stop urban density is outrageous to me. Right now, lets say there are roughly 17k people who live in the WRV. An anecdotal method to judge how many people our grids (water, gas, electrical, roads) can handle is to look at the number of people driving into town for 10 hours a day from M-F (workers), and then the number of people who come into town for 48-72 hours over the weekend (tourists). I'd guess that on any given day, there are in total 25k-30k people who are in this valley, 17k of those who actually live here full time. In my mind, adding a hand full more condos that will house a couple hundred people will by no means come close to touching what the critical mass is on our grids. The benefits for those extra condos will be enormous as people living and working here will have a place to buy or rent. Also, for the people moving into the new condos, you can subtract from the net workers, and even tourists coming to town.
Now for social issues. I don't really have a solution, this will be more of a rant.
An argument that one of your sheeple posted about that I found to be quite outrageous is that that the outdoor recreation around here is getting too popular or crowded, and that reason alone should stop urban development. There's a couple things wrong here. One, we live in one of the most uncrowded stated in the US. 61% of Idaho is made up of public lands. If you can't get away from people or find a corner without people, thats a severely personal problem. More people need to experience the outdoors. We can't safeguard it, we all are public land owners. I'm sorry that running into people in Adams Gulch ruined your hike. Go one drainage further. I'm sorry that you feel like you have ownership over a trail or a section of this state that you have been so fortunate to experience before other people. Next summer when you find the pit toilet at your favorite trail-head is out of TP and your are staring at your left sock to clean your ass with, please don't blame the tourists or the increased number of locals. The real issue plaguing our public lands infrastructure aren't people enjoying time outside, its coming from the federal government cutting forest service employees.
Yeah well, you can say there is no connection between the quote from the Idaho Statesman below and the fact that Ketchum lacks the agency to determine its housing policies and its quality of life, but I beg to differ.
Craven, arbitrary and patriarchal white-boy "god-politics" shapes both Idaho state policies on abortion and by extension, Kecthum's lack of agency to tax and limit of its STR's. Patriarchy manifests in many forms of control. What do you say? Is this government overreach?...There is absolutely NO room for some pinhead's childish image of "a father-god" in politics:
Idaho GOP lawmaker wants women charged with murder for seeking abortions, end to exceptions -
idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article299790729.html#storylink=cpy
The next City Council and Mayor are likely to be hood ornaments for the same governmental gas guzzler and carbon-spewer as the one "in power" now. Better to sue, develop a campaign to draw in other municipalities and go for it. Take the gloves off, good people.
At the moment, the effort to be heard by the current Mayor & Co., Inc. are failing. To wit:
...“Our worth and right to life as human beings is not derived from external circumstances or opinions, but from the Imago Dei,” Shippy told lawmakers Wednesday, referencing the Judeo-Christian God. His bill would prevent the “intentional killing of preborn life” and ensure “justice for preborn children,” he said.
“Homicide laws should apply equally to the preborn,” [sic/sick] Shippy said, noting that he views laws on abortion in stark terms. Either the fetus has a “right to life” that the state should protect like any other life, he said, or the state has no business interfering in a woman’s pregnancy at all."...
Just sayin'.
OK- fair enough. As I said, no arguments here on all your points re taxation to subsidize tourism / low wage workers for big corps. This place sells itself and we shouldn't be in the business of corporate welfare, especially not at taxpayer expense. But if we can't increase the housing supply ie "build our way to affordability," then what can we do? Not rhetorical, I'm genuinely wondering...
P&Z Chair Neil Morrow said last night we should give up. There isn’t anything we can do.
I think we need to do Tripp’s plan. Tax tourists to buy deed restrictions that create a supply of housing restricted to local workers. Tourists create the housing problem and they can easily afford to pay to mitigate it. A much better use of LOT that VSV and FSVA in my opinion.
BTW, I ran on that idea four years ago when I ran for Mayor. I only lost by 100 votes.
How do you avoid the problem we have now with the deed restrictions as outlined in one of your previous posts? If the owner is restricted from realizing the appreciation in value of the property, will anyone want to participate?
So, you are suggesting that heavily taxing tourists will solve the perceived local housing issues? Aren't you trying to attract tourists, who are the very foundation of the economy of the WRV? Seems to me that targeting them would cause them to divert to other ski resorts.
Maybe a change.org petition could quickly demonstrate opposition and link from your emails.
Have they broken down or specified WHO exactly would be living in these high density units? That’s a sincere question.
Also- any info on whether this housing will also be subsidized (or price restricted )?
I’m trying to picture the demographic.
I can’t picture a family wanting to live in an apartment or high density unit.
Wondering who the high density units will be catered towards. Anyone know ?