Next Event

11 Responses to “Question: What is your definition of “community character” for Jackson/Teton County?”

1. Brian Grubb Says:
   October 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

   Our Community Character is defined by open lands that surround development nodes such as the Town of Jackson, Teton Village and Wilson. The character of those development nodes is defined by their density and building heights with the Village being the most dense and Wilson, Alta and Buffalo Valley being the least dense. The character of the Town of Jackson is defined by the Town Square with predominantly 2-story buildings, zero lot-line, pedestrian oriented buildings surrounded by 2-story neighborhoods.

2. Nancy Hoffman Says:
   October 12th, 2007 at 9:30 am

   Brian Grubb offered a very good explanation of community character. The valley has changed so much since the original introduction of that term, but there still remains some characteristics that should remain including low buildings that do not interfer with the views of the landscape or sunlight. Infilling in town also has its limitations. Adding additional commercial only creates need for more housing and that is a vicious circle. Open spaces has described Jackson Hole and it should continue as best as possible. Lot line to lot line commercial is also contrary to what I think is our community character. Another thing that is not community character is the use of metal for exterior of buildings. The town square is the town heart and should be preserved with two story buildings.

3. Nancy Hoffman Says:
   October 13th, 2007 at 9:01 am

   I also need to speak of bulk and scale. Huge buildings have sprung up in Jackson that are also totally out of character with the community. It goes back to the old two story buildings that are what Jackson was all about. That was part of the character I thing should be maintained. Mixed use should be abandoned for residential only. By looking at the employees needed for the existing businesses, we are maxed out on commercial.

4. Nancy Hoffman Says:
   October 17th, 2007 at 8:09 pm

   The news needs to get out that this website is available to get more comments. Nancy

5. A casual observer Says:
   November 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

   Why is it that we are only talking about the physical nature of buildings? People are just as much if not more of an influence on community character than the built environment. If we want to build a town for tourists to pass through and remark how quaint it is that is fine, but the way that residents experience this valley depends on who they see at the post office, who puts out their chimney fire, and who brings cupcakes to the church bake sale - not metal siding.
   If we ignore the affects of land use planning and the built environment on demographics then we have essentially created a Western small-town theme park that is little different than Disney’s Frontier World except the price of admission is $1.5 million instead of 50 bucks – kinda like Aspen.

6. Marcia Says:
   November 8th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

   I worked hard with many others at the planning commission meeting 11/7/07 and left feeling still concerned for the small business owner and the “common” person/worker and families who live here year round becuase they love this valley. At my table, I heard developers, realtors and an economist dive into how “Jackson downtown is a bunch of run down buildings that cannot compete with the future Teton Village and the high end chains stores that will come etc… but downtown is not the Village and why not keep downtown Jackson to be our cool town where small businesses and services can thrive… or are we diving into a total remodel that only the rich and large chains can afford. To me “character” is more than the number of buildings and what kind and where… its about what do we want to support here? the wealthy or common small business owners… Santa Cruz took a stand on it and still ensures only small business can do business in their town. I also heard the misconceptions and anger toward attainable/ affordable.. so are we getting rid of “common folk”… because if we don’t support all those that realy live and work here because we love this valley, then what kind of character will Jackson really be. Maybe we need to revamp the attainable program so those who invest can benefit in 20 years for their love of this valley…. I ask you to advertise boldly on the front page of the news prior to meetings to get more of the “regular” folks out here and have a say or the developers and realtors and economists will have their way with what we once knew as the cool little western town called Jackson.

7. Anonymous Says:
   November 13th, 2007 at 11:06 am

   Community Character is more than the physical character of Jackson. What makes Jackson, Jackson and not Aspen or Vail are the people, the community. We have been more than just a resort in the past. I fear that without adequate workforce housing we will simply become another rich resort.

   The build-out numbers presented at the workshop seemed large. However what was not represented was what type of development is allowed under those build-out numbers. It is not housing for the workforce, for the community. Just more million dollar large second homes out of reach for those who live here.

   Please consider adequatly addressing the workforce in the comp planning effort. If that means some increased density, well planned would be worth saving the character of our community.

   The workforce housing should be expanded beyond the affordable program now in place. There are many folks who cannot qualify due to dual incomes or assets but are priced out of the current market.

8. Jackson resident Says:
   November 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am

   Community character is a combination of the built environment and the social fabric (you know, those “characters”) that make up “community.” I know the question doesn’t ask what the community character should be, but here goes…I think the community character should consist of a compact built environment with large expanses of open space for wildlife movement/winter range, scenic corridors, and geographic buffers between development nodes. Development nodes should be located in logical places: where there is already some density, and places where we can put more density. We shouldn’t be afraid to create new nodes with some basic commercial services so everyone doesn’t have to come into Town for a gallon of milk (south park near Scherr-Thoss, Buffalo Valley?). In order to preserve those big pieces of open space, we will need to either be prepared to transfer development rights to nodes (including Jackson) or to purchase development rights (very expensive) through some sort of SPET tax. The current development pattern for most of the County is 3-acre lots, which means sprawl and exclusively affordable only to the wealthy. The density nodes need to include affordable housing and small lot or condo market housing for working families. This leads to the social fabric…who is going to be able to afford to live here once all the “old time” Jackson Hole folks cash out and move away? I fear the social fabric will drastically change from the rugged, outdoorsey old-timers to trust-funder/investment banker yuppies, because they will be the ones who can afford to live here. Jackson Hole has been a place that has drawn people here due to the outdoors, the challenge of isolation and making it through the long winters. People who were willing to sacrifice because they really wanted to be here. Well, with daily jet service, all the amenities of a small city, and with money being able to buy any comfort people would normally miss living in an isolated location, it is no longer a sacrifice for people with money. Living here is a sacrifice if you are a regular working class person just trying to make it. But I think we want to keep working class people here, not just so we have someone to ring up our groceries and build our homes, but because we need normal people without the skewed perspective of being independently wealthy. I want my kids in school with other kids who don’t think it is normal to vacation at a different tropical resort in the South Pacific every spring break, or to get a brand new SUV when they turn 16. I am concerned that the build-out numbers are being used as a goal to reflect an end. Basically, saying, “how many people do we want to let into our valley?” We should decide what we want our valley to look like, geographically and socially, then figure out what those numbers are going to be based on what we want. If we decide on a set number first, then we are becoming an exclusionary community even more than we already are.

9. Nancy Hoffman Says:
   November 29th, 2007 at 8:22 am

   Is there any resort community that has been successful keeping its “working” population living there? I haven’t heard of any. One can subsidize housing heavily and never really make it affordable forever. Then maybe if the affordable housing formulas were created to adjust annually to the increase in market housing, that might help and Restricting any more commercial may reduce the need for more service people so that we can catch up with current needs.

10. Adam Sherman Says:
    February 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    I agree with Nancy H. I’ve lived in several “resort” communities - some built around a desination (Vail, Copper), some already in existance (e.g. Aspen, Jackson, Steamboat, Breck) - and they all have the exact same issue: where do the people who actually LIVE there live? There’s always plenty of multi-million dollar properties available for wealthy second-home owners to buy, but in none of these towns has there ever been a viable market for homes for long-term/permanent residents. And I’m not talking about 6 ski bums living in an apartment. I’m talking about families and people who want to settle and create a life-long home for themselves.
    Once a family had both parents work so they could get ahead. Now they both work like dogs just to stay afloat, and a housing market like jackson offers nothing to work towards - other than the hope of surviving.
    My suggestion isn’t to build hundreds of cheap apartments or to subsidize housing for a handful who make it through the maze to qualify; it’d be to carve out a portion of the community that belongs to long-term residents and zone it or adjust the economics of it so that it’s in reach of someone - ANYone - who is willing to work towards establishing themselves and building a life for themselves.
    The inability to create a sustainable life for oneself is BY FAR the least welcoming aspect of life in a community like Jackson. I hope there’s a solution, or towns like this won’t survive.

11. Tammy Christel Says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 am

    I wish to touch upon a crucial issue Jackson citizens must consider as we chart growth: The role of broad-based industry as it relates to sustainable urban planning.

    What quality of jobs are we planning for?

    Mixed-use development, currently defined, imagines businesses and customers as embracing that concept by building unspecified commercial, lodging and residential spaces. The premise is that Jackson residents will be able to walk to work.

    What work?

    What professional jobs are being created that will provide the level of income necessary to live in these spaces?

    If we don’t plan to build opportunities for sufficient wage earning, we’re just doing more of the same: constructing amenities to be supported by service-level jobs. All work is valuable, but these jobs, by themselves, won’t sustain us.

    In every sector, the economy deteriorates. Disposable income is not so disposable. Here in Teton County over the past five years, some free market housing values have almost doubled.

    But that rate of return will not continue.

    Given that, potential property buyers need significant wealth, excellent credit, 500 ounces of gold, and an upper tier level job waiting for them.

    We don’t have enough of those jobs. Wages are too low and there is no housing. Comprehensive employee health coverage is rare. Last Friday evening, at 5:00 pm, I drove home to Jackson from Tetonia. I easily passed 100-200 cars leaving the valley, driving to Idaho; very few cars were headed towards Jackson.

    Eben Fodor, a ‘green’ urban planner, acknowledges the need for economic development, but notes its rewards do not ultimately lie in a few people reaping great monetary rewards. Fodor implores all communities to ask themselves these often overlooked questions when planning growth:

    1. Of the jobs that will be created by new growth, what kind of jobs will they be?
    2. Who will get these jobs?
    3. What salaries and benefits will be paid?
    4. Are the benefits to the community greater than the cost?
    5. Will these businesses be stable and make long-term contributions to the community?
    6. What will be the full cost to the community? ( Fodor lists subsidies, infrastructure, services, environmental and social costs.)
    7. Are the benefits to the community clearly greater than the cost?
    8. What are the risks if the business should not succeed or relocate?

    Another consideration:

    Will these new jobs help build sustainable right livelihoods for its citizens?

    Right now, via the comprehensive planning process, we are determining whether to offer enriching livelihoods and long-term community health and wealth. If we don’t make specific choices we rob future generations and ourselves.

    In planning a community, we ideally pick development and growth ‘stocks’ to provide steady return over an extended period. How we pick those stocks determines the long-term health of our community portfolio. Making informed, broad-based choices determines the value of our community, the education and resumes of our citizens, the breadth of our economic base. One need only look to the collapse of our current markets and the devastating chain reaction that can result from putting too many eggs in one basket.

    In choosing qualitative growth we must explore ways to add education, arts, technology and science-based businesses and build infrastructures to support entrepreneurs. Let’s research the incorporation of facilities for humanities, health and public policy training.

    If we broaden our vision and invest in diversity, Jackson can certainly become a town with great heart.

Add your comments