JH is truly a special place and in order for it to remain that way, development must really be kept at a minimum. As a part time resident, i would much rather have a new highway/road/busses put in for commuters rather than increase land build-out, which will inevitably have a negative impact on the environment, and possibly reduce the demand for others to visit this fine and beautiful destination.

Thank you,
A concerned (new) resident

“Sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. The only way to a “sustainable” society is to stop population growth.

Do we have the courage to identify our “carrying capacity” in the valley and to put a cap on population?

Mathematically, a 5% growth rate means the population DOUBLES every 14 years.

The population clock is reading 1 minute to midnight. Our planet is nearly at its carrying capacity NOW.

As serious resource depletion kicks in over the next 50 years, perhaps our comp plan should truly PLAN for it. How about a new comp plan that considers locally grown energy and food? How about we all start thinking about how we can all individually and collectively help with:

Solar panels
Wind farms
Greenhouses
Electric train service
etc.

Many communities around the world are planning for resource depletion. Why is this component missing from our plan?

Thanks for reading,
A concerned JH native

I believe the plan was good in theory, but the practice and outcome have failed. Most of our workforce resided outside the county. I work for the Police Department and I rent one of the Town owned homes. My wife also works. Our two, fulltime incomes bring in a lot of money for us, but we cannot afford to purchase a house in the Valley. What is more sad, is that I am a 3rd generation native of Jackson, WY.

Yes we have scenic vistas and open lands that cannot be developed, but we need to face the fact that Jackson is NOT what it use to be, and holding on to that dream is useless and will drive the real estate market even higher. There needs to be planned development that targets the true workforce in the Valley, and I believe the Teton Meadows project is one of the answers.

Jackson was never planned to be a large community, never planned to have this much traffic, and certainly never planned to have most of its workforce out of the Valley. It is too late to plan to keep Jackson a small cowboy town. Our future plan needs to involve the County, because that is where the sprawl is occurring. Stopping the sprawl will create more problems, especially in the affordable housing area. Therefore, we need to encourage the sprawl in planned communities to the south and west. Sprawling north and east are out of the question. I believe annexation is another part of the answer. The land to the city’s south and west should be annexed to better control the community growth. One might say that annexation and community building will bring more traffic than we can handle. First, we are already beyond the breaking point with traffic, why, because most of the workforce has to commute from far away to work. If the majority of the workforce lived in Jackson, traffic has more of a chance to reduce because of increased mobility options, ergo, START, bike, taxi, carpool…whatever. Yes the START bus travels south and west of the Valley to bring the workers in, sad really, but the cost is great with the fuel and maintenance of the buses. Not to mention the lack of ownership “bused-in” workers have for the Community of the Valley.

One thing is for sure, Jackson is not what it used to be, and forcing it to, will cause more trouble than we have now. Embracing sprawl and annexation is the only viable option this Valley has in order to keep an in-house workforce and allow the working family to stop wasting money on rentals, and contribute to the viability of the community by owning a house in the Valley.

Thanks,

Kiley Campbell

I’m sure we all understand that the Vision Statement expresses our desires and the LDRs provide the mechanisms to achieve those desires. Last night’s workshop focused on the Vision Statement and brought out many interesting points, and a great deal of common thinking.

That being said, I think that as this moves forward we need to be very careful to remember that, while the Vision Statement is general by definition, it requires a high level of understanding of and agreement with the definitions of the terminology used. Two terms in particular have captured the attention of the commuunity in recent years and are used regularly in discussing goals and ambitions: “sustainability” and “community character.” However, it is apparent that there is neither a formal definition of or any agreement on what they mean.

Because a plan is only as good as the ability of people to use it as intended, we have a conundrum. If these terms are quantifiable (admittedly doubtful), then I think we absolutely must do that before using them. If they are not quantifiable (the more likely case), then let’s get rid of them and use terms on which we can agree.

Realistically, what we’re faced with is deciding first what we want and then what we’re willing to do/give up to get it. For example, if we want less traffic, are we willing to put a cap on the number of valley residents? Legalities aside, I doubt it. Are we willing to put commercial zones in or near residential zones to avoid longer trips for things like groceries? My guess is that NIMBY applies here. Building more roads isn’t the answer either; build it and they will come. If we want to preserve specific views are we willing to write airtight LDRs that do not allow for variances? That’s a very difficult economic decision to make, and probably politically impossible. Are we willing to codify in great objective detail how buildings should look, with no variances allowed? That would take the subjective decision-making out of the hands of our electeds but it sure stifles creativity and diversity. Is it possible to define the amount of economic growth we are willing to accept and put legal restrictions in place to force adherence to that limit? Very un-American! Won’t, and certainly shouldn’t, happen.

Enough, already: you get the idea. I wish I were smart enough to have solutions to this; I am speaking out in the hope that others – wiser and more talented than I – will be able to helps us walk this very difficult path.

1. Any long-range plan deserves, even needs, regular review at least every 3 years. The current plan recognized this but did not provide any requirement, program or dollars to support such a review.

2. It is critical that we recognize the changing demographic of the valley, including, but not limited to, aging population, wealth, with income derived from outside the valley, and changing values.

3. It is equally important to recognize the change in the economic engine base of the valley. It is clear that tourism, while still strong, is no longer the primary factor it used to be. Nor, for that matter, are ranching and agriculture. We must find a way to develop a strong middle class based on local business/industry outside of those formerly primary sources.

4. Affordable Housing. While this is obvious to most everyone, I offer the following very personal analysis. We clearly have no real sense of the appropriate ratio of residential to affordable housing. Thinking way outside the box, and at the risk of being totally politically incorrect, I would suggest a moritorium on all residential development until we can provide adequate affordable housing for our existing condition; this will then give us a strong statistical base for formulating the necessary ratio for future development.

I’m looking forward to this update and hope that the public will take every available opportunity to participate. It’s our future: if we opt out of the process we abrogate the right to complain about the results.