Perry, your fact development, analysis and fortitude are amazing. You doing the entire WRV such a great service. Thank you.
With all this outstanding content, have you ever considered put together a “one click” email platform to enable your ever growing group of followers to communicate directly with the city council, elected leaders and staff on key issues like this?
You could draft letter based on your newsletter as you see fit and people could sign their name to it / send from their own email accounts at the click of a button. Even add their own comments if they want.
Might get some attention if the Troika, et al. start seeing hundreds of emails in their inboxes. Also help grow your subscriber base.
Chris thanks for the kind words and the good idea, but I just don't have the time. I wrote the last one from Seat 25E DCA-->DEN and my seatmates were none to happy about my flying elbows. I have a more than full-time job so I do what I can. I think the highest ROI is to get new council members elected who will do what they can to reverse the destruction. It only takes three to destroy a city, and it only takes three to get it back on track. That's the need to have. Everything else is a nice to have.
I've got to jump in and mention the form of government change from Mayor - Council (aka "Strong Mayor") to Council Manager. When this issue is before the voters, the slate for elected officials is on the ballot too. This November election is an opportune time with the mayor and 2 council member seats already scheduled to be on the ballot.
In the 2011 election with the Council - Manager Form of Government initiative on the ballot, there were 12 candidates vying for the 5 positions, 5 incumbents and 7 challengers. 4 of the incumbents would have kept their seats if the Council - Manager initiative had passed, and interestingly enough, the mayor at the time came in 4th with only 1 vote more that the 5th position candidate. Voter turnout was high, more than 50%. The Mayor - Council ("Strong Mayor") form of government was retained with 582 (57%) votes against 440 (43%). The next day the mayor called it a mandate...
This is such a good idea. I wish there were a way to consolidate the voices. The very structure of the city council and their phony ‘feedback’ process makes it inherently almost impossible to bring to light everyone’s voices. They ignore petitions. They dismiss people’s letters. How do we make clear that there are MULTITUDES of people who disapprove of what’s happening. That, due to frustration and a sense of powerlessness, are turning to Perry and his Substack as if he were on city council? He’s the only one doing his due diligence here.
There is a proven way to “consolidate voices.” It’s called a Civic Assembly and I wrote about it in Ketchum Sun. Many people support the idea, including Perry, Anne Corrock, etc. because it is a way for elected officials to get a true read on what the community wants. It helps them do their job in a fair and inclusive manner:
BTW, in the Civic Assembly I observed in Bend last fall, randomly chosen delegates were encouraged to talk to as many people as they could and to include that input in their recommendations if they felt it was warranted. So—if anyone has a good idea (even folks who live outside the geographical boundaries of where the Civic Assembly is taking place), it will have a high likelihood of being included and then voted on by the everyday community members who make up the Assembly.
Kudos to Suzanne Frick for suggesting the 2014 Comprehensive Plan does not need changing. As we have found out during this process, she's right! Nothing has changed in what people want; to have diverse housing, good governance, a strong economy and be stewards of our environment without losing our biggest asset, the character of Ketchum.
I attended the meeting on Monday. It started off with the guiding principles of the proposed comp plan and future land use map being community character and housing. However in the next 3 1/2 hours we heard a lot about housing; how it can only be created by increasing density and we must be willing to sacrifice for the good of all... What we didn't hear much about was community character. And we heard nothing about any of the other issues in the 144 page document.
So, outside of all of the concerns already identified by many, here's my biggest beef: The 2025 proposed future land use map being compared with the 2014 comp plan. It's misleading. The 2014 map is irrelevant, those proposed zoning changes were not adopted. The comparison should be with the current zoning map to show the true changes that are being proposed. And yes, I did point this out during the December comment period.
'(Neil Bradshaw) said 'big money' is taking over Ketchum, and we cannot stop it. Therefore, he suggested that we proceed with the Comp Plan as proposed and make the best of it.'
-Holy cow! This is absolutely insane. Neil Bradshaw has CREATED this problem!
With the exception of Tripp Hutchinson, City Council's handling of this situation is totally inept and appalling.
Yes, bring on the 3D models so people can really get a 'visual' on what warm springs and other areas will ACTUALLY look like if these high density boxes are squeezed in. Very depressing. Thank you, Perry, for your doggedness to stay abreast of the countless developments and details. I wish there was a way to help, aside from writing letters (which I do, and which they shrug off)
I have a comment to add, you may have covered this already, my apologies if I’m being redundant.
So much of what makes this community special is access to the out doors.
That is skiing , for the most part, with out lines. Cross country skiing without crowds. Back country hiking skiing without crowds. Not to mention just walking around town and no matter what street you look down one sees the mountains and hills which are so unique to Ketchum.
Density will only degrade this, irresponsible development like this will make some rich and impoverish the life style of everyone else.
Stuart--thanks for the comment. Never apologize for caring about the community!
What you mention are what I lump into one of our scarce resources along with money and land--it's "character." What makes Ketchum, Ketchum. Upzoning Ketchum for increased density has a cost in character that our City Hall puts a value on of zero. Which is why they need to go.
Hard to argue with what you are saying Perry. Let me offer the hypothetical that you agree that there is a need for some large (to be defined, let's say more than 300) number of affordable workforce homes for essential workers. Density is probably the only way to solve it inside or near Ketchum city limits. You leave Warm Springs zoning as is, where do you put the density and workforce housing? Feel free to disagree with the hypothetical entirely.
I do agree. I think the ideal thing would be to sell Lift Tower Lodge and buy the trailer park across from the hospital. Take that from 53 units to 150 units. Develop it using the WRCHT model. Reserve it 100% for essential workers.
Hard to argue with that idea as well. You and Mr. C (Chubb I believe) reason that the economics of any development near the ski resort will find short-term rental as highest use for owners. I don't think you can fight that in the state of Idaho with deed restrictions. The other place that seems workable to me would be the Light Industrial area.
The Park and Ride Lot was rezoned from GR-L (General Residential-Low Density) to T (Tourist) to accommodate the YMCA needs when it was built in the mid 2000's. A high density residential project is already allowed there.
A 100% residential building in the L-I (Light Industrial) zone would require a rezone of the district, a development agreement or some form of overriding underlying zoning which would be arguably considered spot zoning.
Pick a number you like better. It's probably not 50 and it's probably not 1,000. Ketchum published Housing Action plans say between 600 and 1,000 over a ten year period. I picked half of their low forecast as a placeholder. There is definitely demand. Are you thinking higher or lower estimates? Perry's napkin sketch with 150 units would be an interesting test of the market.
I could take you back to the 70's, maybe early 80's, when option taxes were quietly employed to subsidize the Chamber. I was a member of Mountain Rides Board and some Ketchum folks even argued against funding the free bus system! Notwithstanding, funding "the Chamber" passed quietly w little opposition.
With me it's NOT a number, it's a type need based on civic needs, not subsidy for economic growth and profits from sale of liquor & (future) gambling, hotels, boutiques, speculation, etc.
I think everyone who commented here is in the same place. This needs to be something that can be addressed by private financing. The economics to do it privately are difficult but perhaps achievable. If essential workforce housing can be achieved with private financing (big IF); to me the only reason not to support it is to not want essential workers living in the community.
D'accord - and such abuse of the previous status originated w those misusing option taxes as subsidies for The Resort. That's where we locals lost control of Ketchum.
Yes, I remember when LOT taxes first came up to support air travel subsidies back in 2012 timeframe. One suggestion at the time was to increase the lodging tax if subsidies were needed. We know where that went.
Hailey and Bellevue are certainly good options and lots going on there. It would be advantageous for Ketchum to have housing for essential workers like firefighters, EMTs, teachers at Hemmingway, and even police; in Ketchum. If a good number of people working at places like Decked and Idaho Biosciences could live in Ketchum it would be easier to attract and retain key employees. Surely Ketchum can be for housing some portion of it's essential workers in Ketchum?
The economics in Ketchum somewhat preclude what you are suggesting. Accommodating essential workers in Ketchum was supposedly the goal of this City Council, and, of course, that goal became perverted by this City Council. As a consequence, we see the ambiance of Ketchum being largely destroyed, or on the way to destruction and we will will have a smaller version of Aspen. IMHO!
I'm pretty much 100% as well that the economics can work, and the WRCHT model is along the right line; notwithstanding the difficulties and foot shooting on 1st and Washington (wrong place, no parking strategy)
I'd offer that the plan to increase density in Warm Springs is the wrong plan and is the wrong path. The goal to provide housing for essential workers is not the wrong goal. You are skeptical on the economics of doing it in Ketchum. Perry offers up a mid-valley location plenty close to Ketchum and an economic thesis. I think the Light Industrial can work as well. I don't think you are arguing against the idea of essential workers in Ketchum, you just have an understandable skepticism that there are workable economics for it.
Perry, your fact development, analysis and fortitude are amazing. You doing the entire WRV such a great service. Thank you.
With all this outstanding content, have you ever considered put together a “one click” email platform to enable your ever growing group of followers to communicate directly with the city council, elected leaders and staff on key issues like this?
You could draft letter based on your newsletter as you see fit and people could sign their name to it / send from their own email accounts at the click of a button. Even add their own comments if they want.
Might get some attention if the Troika, et al. start seeing hundreds of emails in their inboxes. Also help grow your subscriber base.
In any event, thanks again for your great work!
Chris thanks for the kind words and the good idea, but I just don't have the time. I wrote the last one from Seat 25E DCA-->DEN and my seatmates were none to happy about my flying elbows. I have a more than full-time job so I do what I can. I think the highest ROI is to get new council members elected who will do what they can to reverse the destruction. It only takes three to destroy a city, and it only takes three to get it back on track. That's the need to have. Everything else is a nice to have.
I've got to jump in and mention the form of government change from Mayor - Council (aka "Strong Mayor") to Council Manager. When this issue is before the voters, the slate for elected officials is on the ballot too. This November election is an opportune time with the mayor and 2 council member seats already scheduled to be on the ballot.
In the 2011 election with the Council - Manager Form of Government initiative on the ballot, there were 12 candidates vying for the 5 positions, 5 incumbents and 7 challengers. 4 of the incumbents would have kept their seats if the Council - Manager initiative had passed, and interestingly enough, the mayor at the time came in 4th with only 1 vote more that the 5th position candidate. Voter turnout was high, more than 50%. The Mayor - Council ("Strong Mayor") form of government was retained with 582 (57%) votes against 440 (43%). The next day the mayor called it a mandate...
This is such a good idea. I wish there were a way to consolidate the voices. The very structure of the city council and their phony ‘feedback’ process makes it inherently almost impossible to bring to light everyone’s voices. They ignore petitions. They dismiss people’s letters. How do we make clear that there are MULTITUDES of people who disapprove of what’s happening. That, due to frustration and a sense of powerlessness, are turning to Perry and his Substack as if he were on city council? He’s the only one doing his due diligence here.
There is a proven way to “consolidate voices.” It’s called a Civic Assembly and I wrote about it in Ketchum Sun. Many people support the idea, including Perry, Anne Corrock, etc. because it is a way for elected officials to get a true read on what the community wants. It helps them do their job in a fair and inclusive manner:
https://open.substack.com/pub/theketchumsun/p/vol2no1-a-more-transparent-and-inclusive?r=5gcze&utm_medium=ios
BTW, in the Civic Assembly I observed in Bend last fall, randomly chosen delegates were encouraged to talk to as many people as they could and to include that input in their recommendations if they felt it was warranted. So—if anyone has a good idea (even folks who live outside the geographical boundaries of where the Civic Assembly is taking place), it will have a high likelihood of being included and then voted on by the everyday community members who make up the Assembly.
Kudos to Suzanne Frick for suggesting the 2014 Comprehensive Plan does not need changing. As we have found out during this process, she's right! Nothing has changed in what people want; to have diverse housing, good governance, a strong economy and be stewards of our environment without losing our biggest asset, the character of Ketchum.
I attended the meeting on Monday. It started off with the guiding principles of the proposed comp plan and future land use map being community character and housing. However in the next 3 1/2 hours we heard a lot about housing; how it can only be created by increasing density and we must be willing to sacrifice for the good of all... What we didn't hear much about was community character. And we heard nothing about any of the other issues in the 144 page document.
So, outside of all of the concerns already identified by many, here's my biggest beef: The 2025 proposed future land use map being compared with the 2014 comp plan. It's misleading. The 2014 map is irrelevant, those proposed zoning changes were not adopted. The comparison should be with the current zoning map to show the true changes that are being proposed. And yes, I did point this out during the December comment period.
Excellent points
'(Neil Bradshaw) said 'big money' is taking over Ketchum, and we cannot stop it. Therefore, he suggested that we proceed with the Comp Plan as proposed and make the best of it.'
-Holy cow! This is absolutely insane. Neil Bradshaw has CREATED this problem!
With the exception of Tripp Hutchinson, City Council's handling of this situation is totally inept and appalling.
Yes, bring on the 3D models so people can really get a 'visual' on what warm springs and other areas will ACTUALLY look like if these high density boxes are squeezed in. Very depressing. Thank you, Perry, for your doggedness to stay abreast of the countless developments and details. I wish there was a way to help, aside from writing letters (which I do, and which they shrug off)
Prayers To You Perry🙏🙏🙏 The writing and the hard work you do for the good of all, is Noble and Wise.
Thank you for continuing to fight.
More ways that all these additional tourists will affect the quality of life we all moved here for:
- More crowded ski conditions.
- More packed trails.
- More crowded restaurants.
- More difficulty in staffing for local businesses that are packed in 4-6 months of peak season and empty the rest.
Depletion of our water supply? Expansion of our waste facility?
Perry, these are all excellent points.
I have a comment to add, you may have covered this already, my apologies if I’m being redundant.
So much of what makes this community special is access to the out doors.
That is skiing , for the most part, with out lines. Cross country skiing without crowds. Back country hiking skiing without crowds. Not to mention just walking around town and no matter what street you look down one sees the mountains and hills which are so unique to Ketchum.
Density will only degrade this, irresponsible development like this will make some rich and impoverish the life style of everyone else.
Stuart--thanks for the comment. Never apologize for caring about the community!
What you mention are what I lump into one of our scarce resources along with money and land--it's "character." What makes Ketchum, Ketchum. Upzoning Ketchum for increased density has a cost in character that our City Hall puts a value on of zero. Which is why they need to go.
Hard to argue with what you are saying Perry. Let me offer the hypothetical that you agree that there is a need for some large (to be defined, let's say more than 300) number of affordable workforce homes for essential workers. Density is probably the only way to solve it inside or near Ketchum city limits. You leave Warm Springs zoning as is, where do you put the density and workforce housing? Feel free to disagree with the hypothetical entirely.
I do agree. I think the ideal thing would be to sell Lift Tower Lodge and buy the trailer park across from the hospital. Take that from 53 units to 150 units. Develop it using the WRCHT model. Reserve it 100% for essential workers.
Hard to argue with that idea as well. You and Mr. C (Chubb I believe) reason that the economics of any development near the ski resort will find short-term rental as highest use for owners. I don't think you can fight that in the state of Idaho with deed restrictions. The other place that seems workable to me would be the Light Industrial area.
Particularly on the city owned land there. For some reason they want to use the Y lot instead.
The Park and Ride Lot was rezoned from GR-L (General Residential-Low Density) to T (Tourist) to accommodate the YMCA needs when it was built in the mid 2000's. A high density residential project is already allowed there.
A 100% residential building in the L-I (Light Industrial) zone would require a rezone of the district, a development agreement or some form of overriding underlying zoning which would be arguably considered spot zoning.
And the current trailer park residents. Dont want to give them the short end of a stick.
They have the short end already.
I disagree w the 300+; says who that?
Pick a number you like better. It's probably not 50 and it's probably not 1,000. Ketchum published Housing Action plans say between 600 and 1,000 over a ten year period. I picked half of their low forecast as a placeholder. There is definitely demand. Are you thinking higher or lower estimates? Perry's napkin sketch with 150 units would be an interesting test of the market.
I could take you back to the 70's, maybe early 80's, when option taxes were quietly employed to subsidize the Chamber. I was a member of Mountain Rides Board and some Ketchum folks even argued against funding the free bus system! Notwithstanding, funding "the Chamber" passed quietly w little opposition.
With me it's NOT a number, it's a type need based on civic needs, not subsidy for economic growth and profits from sale of liquor & (future) gambling, hotels, boutiques, speculation, etc.
I think everyone who commented here is in the same place. This needs to be something that can be addressed by private financing. The economics to do it privately are difficult but perhaps achievable. If essential workforce housing can be achieved with private financing (big IF); to me the only reason not to support it is to not want essential workers living in the community.
D'accord - and such abuse of the previous status originated w those misusing option taxes as subsidies for The Resort. That's where we locals lost control of Ketchum.
Yes, I remember when LOT taxes first came up to support air travel subsidies back in 2012 timeframe. One suggestion at the time was to increase the lodging tax if subsidies were needed. We know where that went.
It's time to take it back ;-)
Hailey and Bellevue?
Hailey and Bellevue are certainly good options and lots going on there. It would be advantageous for Ketchum to have housing for essential workers like firefighters, EMTs, teachers at Hemmingway, and even police; in Ketchum. If a good number of people working at places like Decked and Idaho Biosciences could live in Ketchum it would be easier to attract and retain key employees. Surely Ketchum can be for housing some portion of it's essential workers in Ketchum?
The economics in Ketchum somewhat preclude what you are suggesting. Accommodating essential workers in Ketchum was supposedly the goal of this City Council, and, of course, that goal became perverted by this City Council. As a consequence, we see the ambiance of Ketchum being largely destroyed, or on the way to destruction and we will will have a smaller version of Aspen. IMHO!
I don’t agree that economics preclude essential workforce housing. I’ve laid that out how to do it in several posts.
What does "economics preclude" mean? Econ is supposed to reflect reality.... Anything more bends reality from the present. What 's wrong w status quo?
I'm pretty much 100% as well that the economics can work, and the WRCHT model is along the right line; notwithstanding the difficulties and foot shooting on 1st and Washington (wrong place, no parking strategy)
IMHO as well Ed, always the right spirit!
I'd offer that the plan to increase density in Warm Springs is the wrong plan and is the wrong path. The goal to provide housing for essential workers is not the wrong goal. You are skeptical on the economics of doing it in Ketchum. Perry offers up a mid-valley location plenty close to Ketchum and an economic thesis. I think the Light Industrial can work as well. I don't think you are arguing against the idea of essential workers in Ketchum, you just have an understandable skepticism that there are workable economics for it.
Warm Springs is interesting as the aquifer in that area is quite small. How will increased density impact the water supply?
Housing employees not employed in K is the wrong goal. It is antithetic to preserving what is good here.
I agree with that. Efforts should be for essential workforce employed in Ketchum. They are a big part of what is good here.