Vol2No5: Housing, Comp Plan, One-Way Streets--Where is the Inclusion?

Where is the Transparency?

Do you ever think the people you elected to office think you are dumb? While I didn’t vote for them, what else are we to think when the City of Ketchum puts this out in the Mayor’s Missive, aka, Heard on the Street:

Do you see what they did there? They wanted to assure you that the worst of what you thought about Bluebird was wrong. That they weren’t filling it up with homeless people from Twin. That may be true, but it isn’t because they didn’t try to.

If no one has relocated from Twin Falls to Bluebird, it’s because the people they tried to recruit from Twin either didn’t want to move three counties away, or if they did, they didn’t qualify for Bluebird’s income caps.

The people in City Hall must think we can’t read.

But you see what they didn’t do there? They didn’t tell you:

• when Bluebird will be completed (it is almost a year behind schedule)

• if it is fully leased, and if not, why not

• who will be living in it

Why do you think that is? The last time they gave us an update on tenants, it looked like more than half of them didn’t work in Ketchum. None appeared to be the teachers, first responders, or health care workers the Mayor told us that Bluebird was built for. Bluebird has cost us $10s of millions and is supposed to address Ketchum’s essential worker shortage by providing affordable housing. Spoiler alert: THEY LIED. Bluebird doesn’t do that, cannot do that, and was never intended to.

That “priority” they cite for essential workers is a sham. They know that essential workers in Ketchum are paid too much to qualify for Bluebird.

However, Bluebird does fulfill one of Ms Hamilton’s stated visions for Ketchum: its placement in the commercial district reminds rich people that there are poor people.

BCHA Is Complicit in This

They haven’t shared why, given BCHA’s massive wait list for housing that they used to justify Bluebird, Bluebird isn’t fully leased. They have had to market Bluebird to find tenants. What does this say about the integrity of BCHA and its waitlist? The BCHA Executive Director said they had HUNDREDS of people ready to move into Bluebird. It has to be evident to anyone paying attention that Bluebird is not the kind of housing working people in Ketchum want or need. Why does building four more of these on extremely valuable pieces of land make sense? That’s their plan.

In case you missed it, Daryl Fauth was appointed to the BCHA board last week. He lives in Hailey, but he takes a proprietary interest in Ketchum. You can read his online comments in the Mountain Express. Not only is he a big fan of Bluebird, he helped make it happen, and his firm netted $10s of thousands on that project. While I would hope he would recuse himself from profiting from the Bluebirds to come, how is it not a conflict of interest for him to be part of their planning team?

This is how our local political boards operate. This is bad governance.

Why Don’t They Want Our Input?

Bluebird is just one physical manifestation of the City administration’s general disdain for the people living in Ketchum. Lest you think that it’s only me who holds that opinion, The venerable Idaho Mountain Express just published an editorial stating something remarkably similar, calling the only open house the City had on the draft Comp Plan a “travesty.” Even the IME, which told you to vote for Bradshaw, Breen, and Hamilton, now seems to have lost respect for how they operate. Better late than never for them to realize what I have been pointing out for years.

But according to the City, you shouldn’t be too bothered that their open house was a travesty. They will offer you more travesties opportunities to comment on the Comp Plan. That one won’t be a draft. The “final” version will be put to the Council for a vote, with a Staff recommendation to adopt it. The supporting staff memo will assert that a broad range of public input was considered. I, and the IME, call bullshit on that. In that meeting, the Council can incorporate additional comments, or not. They have no obligation to.

What Does “No Net Loss of Parking” Mean?

On January 14th, the City held an invite-only meeting to discuss their plan to make some streets one-way and add bike paths. There was a rumor that this action would result in a loss of 90+ parking spots from the commercial core. This was based on one of the options presented to the City by the consultant they have engaged for this project.

In the meeting last week, the City reiterated to the attendees the point they make below: no net loss of parking. What does that mean? I ask because people in the room said that the plan would take away parking spots on the one-way streets, but there was no information on how the spots would be replaced. Given the City will default to permanently eliminate 65 spots with the Washington Lot housing project if they don’t get the LID, I think our merchants are rightfully a bit suspicious of the City.

I am sharing this secondhand, as the meeting was held in secret. It was not publicly noticed, and no information has been made available to the general public. This is an example of what the Mayor calls the “transparency” of his administration. A City staffer told me I wasn’t invited when I showed up. Gee, I wonder why not. In my observation, the City uses these curated focus group meetings to justify its plans. How is it “collecting public feedback” if the public isn’t even aware that you are taking non-public feedback? This is bad governance.

Light At the End of the Tunnel

The good news is that a new council can undo most of this next year. In November, we will elect a new mayor and two city council members, ending the Troika’s seven-year reign. Bluebird and Main Highway Street will stand as physical monuments to what happens when elected officials ignore the interests of the electorate.

The new Council will have its work cut out for it.