Question: Where are future growth, development and conservation appropriate?
Considering the scenarios for Jackson and Teton County, where do you think future growth, development, and conservation are appropriate? What trade-offs are you willing to make to accomplish your preferences?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I support Plan D. I am strongly opposed to all the other plans. Limiting the total population of Teton County and Jackson is the ONLY way to preserve our quality of life. Adding people is a direct tradeoff. Pretending we can add thousands to this valley while “protecting” the area is a false claim.
I urge both the Teton County commissioners and the Jackson Town Council to save this area from massive development and the disease of addtional population.
Lastly, the need for affordable housing is not the problem of the Town or County. It is the problem of the large businesses who wish to add employees. Public funding for low cost housing is a subsidy of these large businesses and should not be part of our strategy.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I am a public servant here and cannot afford to live in Teton County, even though I have been employed by my agency for 20+ years. It is, indeed, the responsibility of the town and county to provide some affordable housing for those of us who cannot live here, even though we contribute time and services to the community. It’s not just people working for “large businesses” who need a hand. Granted, businesses should provide some housing, and new developments should have a certain proportion (at least 25%) of their properties in the “affordable” price range. But other needs are here, too. It’s interesting that there seems to be plenty of land available for new mansions, but not for affordable housing…. even though only 3% of the county is in private ownership.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Growth should be limited to less than 1% per decade. Our current plan, and elected officials that we the voters continually enable to violate the plan, are allowing growth in inappropriate areas and are steadily contributing to an unsustainable community mix.
We need the brakes put on hard. We need to only allow growth that densifies within current town boundaries. These projects must specifically address rental and affordable purchase shortfalls. Everything else I’m reading is just going to make the imbalance worse. Everything else I’m reading also keeps us on a fast track to infilling this valley to the max. I for one do not think that’s responsible stewardship of this magnificant place.
Ask yourself, who benefits from continued growth? We should be responsibly aiming to address our imbalance and preserve as much contiguous open space as possible. We will survive and prosper as a community in this way, and have housing options for our kids. We do not bare a requirement to ensure developers, realtors, and resorts have any year over year growth whatsoever. Let’s make a strict comp plan and then have the backbone to follow it.
If we do this right, we’ll get on the road to fixing our imbalances (which includes too many developers and realators who feel it’s their entitlement to continue developing every last available area without interference from the residents) Stop the growth and send them packing. Vote elected officials out of office that don’t follow the plan - they’re serving a fleeting, vested interest minority and permanently degrading life for the majority of us.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I am thankful for this action of Jackson and the County to create a 20 year plan that is skipped over by too much of our Country. It will undoubtedly create an even more enjoyable Jackson for our future. I believe that the following three items are priorities for any plan of Jackson.
Limit Sprawl and Traffic:
The current system of zoning land areas with maximum density rates does nothing but promote urban sprawl. A desired population in 10 years should be agreed upon and then annual growth limits could be interpolated from that number. Priority should be given to development proposals within city limits or established urban centers. Southern California uses the maximum density rates to limit development and it has resulted in the longest commuting times for residents and the worst pollution rates in the country. I hope that Jackson can think outside the box to provide a more desirable outcome.
Improve Transportation:
I am in support of Plan B’s provision to create urban islands to facility the development of social centers. This would likely reduce the need for residents to drive rather than increase it as the scenarios packet suggested. It would also facilitate the design of efficient public transportation systems by creating distinct and common destinations for travelers. Widening roads is the last thing Teton County or Jackson needs. Actually it has been shown in a study of 30 California counties over many years that increasing road capacity by 10% results in a traffic increase of 9% within 4 years (Freedom From Oil by David Sandalow, p153). Widening roads is not the solution to reduce traffic in Jackson.
Worker Housing
It is not the responsibility of any government organization to provide housing; nor food, cars or lift tickets for that matter. While the idea of cheap housing in Jackson may paint a rosy picture, economics will explain that the increased supply of labor promoted buy cheaper housing will decrease wages and leave everyone with higher taxes and workers in no better situation than they started. Providing safe, reliable and inexpensive transportation options is the best way to ease the financial burden of commuters and reduce traffic in the valley.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I work in jackson and live in town. I would like to make jackson my home, but unfortunatley it is way to expensive.This town needs to help the people that keep this town running. I don’t know whos responsibility it is. help the people that work in this town not the rich people that are here for a short period each year
February 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I don’t have any problem with limiting population growth if that’s what the community decides it wants but I think it is hilarious that people think that will “preserve” the community the way it is- Limiting growth will protect the environment and that is a good thing but I think it will bring a faster more dramatic change to the social fabric of Jackson Hole, especially Jackson. By limiting growth you are further curbing supply of a commodity that has virtually unlimited demand and send prices toward the Andromeda galaxy (they cleared the stratosphere a couple years ago).
The demographics of the valley will get older and richer than they already are. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing if that is what you are looking for but it will not be the Jackson you see today. Growth is not inevitable but change is- the community can get bigger and perhaps retain some of its social structure and paradoxically, its small mountain town feel or it cap growth and protect the way things look but it isn’t going to feel like a small town- it is going to feel like a mountain-themed retirement community where retired investment bankers are pampered by J-1 visa workers who live in barracks and leave every six months.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I have Lived in this valley for over 30 years, I was born and raise in Jackson, my Parents were also born and raised here. I work for the county yet, I have to start looking for land in surrounding areas. Why should I be forced to do so? I want my kids to beablr to grow up as I did in this community. Not have to live in small over populated communities such as 12 pines or other affortable communities. They need a yard, some where to play with out worring if they can step out side the 8×8 yard on to next one without being yelled at. It is a fact that all affortable housing is not Family frienldy. I iam sick of designs that cram as many people they can into a very small area, just to save wildlife and land. Yet noboby seems to care when a multi million dollar home goes up, which takes alot of property to do and resources. Someone needs to come up with a plan that is family friendly and does not crowd people into tiny areas. I know wildlife is important, my Grandfather Phil Baux, who has a park named after him told me the importance of preserving our land and wildlife, but also told how to make a childs years of growing up a great time.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
It seems from the many people I speak with that are against additional affordable housing, or additional developments, those are the people who have a house, and are no longer affected by the housing market. I realize that this community is unique and a wonderful place to live, with the wildlife and the open space needing to be protected, but how can it be condoned to put up a billion dollar house on several acres, for someone who may only spend 2 weeks a year in it, but not want more affordable housing for the people in the community who work and live here, and support the economy. I am a professional in the community, but can not afford to buy a market home. I don’t necessarily think that the community should supply everyone with houses, but when the market is 600% to 700% over the average market in the US and likely more over the market in Wyoming, we don’t have any other choice. There are many houses/townhouses/and condo’s in the area that are rental only to make money off those who can’t afford market homes, and can’t get into a affordable house. These rentals are necessary because the market is so hard to get into, but if there were more housing options, these rentals may likely turn into market housing as well. I was raised on a ranch in a small town in Wyoming, and appreciate the conservation of ranch land and wildlife habitat, however with such a small percentage of the county deeded land, we need to make the most of that land that we can build upon with “affordable housing” or market housing that is actually affordable.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
We need to strengthen the START transportation program so that workers who have to commute can do so affordably and save our highways from far too much traffic. It is hypocritical for our elected officials to think that a subdivision like Teton Meadows can be well served by a bus system when most home owners (affordable or not) will have at least 1 if not 2 cars. Think of that. If Teton Meadows subdivision is passed as is (500 homes) then the number of cars will increase by at least 500 but most likely at least 750. That’s a huge increase. Do you think that these home owners will care to use public transportation to take them 3 miles into town? They will very likely drive themselves to work.
Those who live 25 or 30 miles from Jackson are FAR more likely to use the START system (just by necessity) than those who live just 2 or 3 miles from work. It’s just human nature. The price of fuel is bound to go up and the reality is the fact that we are in a recession that is probably long term. Most people will be forced to take public transportation (due to the high cost of fuel) when they live outside of the valley. Building more affordable housing for these people only increases the problem and numbers of cars on our roads.
It is also very stupid and shortsighted to take the rental housing off the market by converting apartments into condos that become permanent homes (affordable or not). The owners will one day retire and/or get rich. What then? How much more housing will be needed? We need to plan for 20, 50 and even 100 years into the future.
We need to approach Jackson Hole more like New York City (speaking of Town as Heart) as far as transportation and workforce is concerned. People who work in Manhattan don’t feel a sense of entitlement to live in the city. They have excellent public transportation that takes them to and from work and most people are forced to live outside of the city but that is just the way it is. People in Jackson Hole need to wake up and realize that a vast number of Americans commute to and from work. Are we more special than most Americans? We need to focus far more attention on public transportation. Pathways are also a great help to this valley in many ways too.
We cannot have both scenic vistas, open space, wildlife and continue to build and increase our population as we are doing right now. It just won’t work. There is only a finite area to build on in this valley and we need to be extremely careful about how we plan for our future.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I have lived in Wyoming all of my life. Same goes for my dad and my dad’s dad. It really blows my mind that we look the other way when someone with millions comes in and wants to build a over sized house for their needs but, we have a problem building small houses on only a acre or two to produce housing for more than one family.
Yes, I too was raised on a ranch and I do take in consideration of all the wildlife and if we try to produce a few more affordable housing units for the locals and support our local economic and stop importing people from other countries. we would be helping to preserve our wildlife and lands. because no one takes better care of their land then your locals.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Others have already voiced the problems with affordable housing, but as a resident of the Jackson area, a renter, and part of the low income ‘work force’, my opinion of the affordable housing may differ from what most expect.
I am 100% against any affordable housing made available by the government, the county or the city. Jackson Hole is what it is today because of the free market and what Jackson has to offer (supply and demand). The free market and ultra high prices has lead land to be bought up and controlled by those who do not wish to see sprawl, and not by greedy developers. People don’t realize it, but these “2-week-a-year summer home owner’s” are what makes this area what it is today. Let the population continue to limit itself by encouraging responsible growth with free markets and NOT affordable housing. It is businesses’ responsibility to hire and compensate workers, let businesses support their own work forces by supplying affordable housing as they see fit, or paying higher wages.
Government assisted affordable housing will not bring the result many people expect. I see that most of the basic reasons I (and others) moved here and continue to live here would be negatively impacted by more affordable housing and more people. Jackson is a great place, and yet it can be very difficult to live here for many reasons in addition to housing costs. We must realize that some of the reasons that make this place such a great place to live are direct results of the difficulties of living here.
Personally I can hardly afford to live here, but work hard to make it happen. I wouldn’t have it any other way. People who can’t afford to live here are simply not trying hard enough or don’t want it bad enough. I have the right to say this because I have probably one of the lower paying jobs in the area, yet manage to live here happily. I rent and have no hopes of owning a house here, but am building my future in other ways like any responsible person should. Besides an affordable house that can’t be sold on the open market can hardly be considered an investment. For the money savvy an affordable home is little more then a long term rental.
If we add more affordable housing what will be the final result? Lower labor rates, overall decrease in average income, higher stress on county and city services, more big business, more traffic and more people. NO THANKS, I moved here to get away from all of that! By the time we are done building affordable housing to make everyone happy, nobody will want to live here. Adding more affordable housing now is simply adding fuel to the fire.
To other low income workers who want affordable housing: why do you really want this? As an investment? (its clearly not). Some notion that you ‘own your own land’ (you clearly don’t under the current affordable housing rules). Or so you can simply live here (obviously you don’t need to own to live here). I think many people want affordable housing simply for the silly idea that owning a house is part of the American dream and a required part of a successful life. I think this mentality should be put to rest.
Appreciate Jackson for what it is. Great people, killer summers, even better winters, but with expensive living costs. Buy a house if you can; otherwise rent, invest in other things, and be happy you live in such a great place while you can! Meanwhile as it gets more expensive to live here, the people who make it happen will be rewarded with higher paying jobs, higher living standards, better community services, and more fresh turns!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The more that people here (Jac.) express their opinions it seems that they believe they are being -herd-. Please understand that the only thing determining the fate of our county is the push and pull of money. Do you really think that developers are so concerned about the long term here. Even the conservation groups have to sway there opinions based on contributors to their non-profits (someones getting paid). Wake up people!! Lucky our land here is mostly protected. The remainder has been bought and sold over and over driving the price through the roof. If you really want to do something about the long term go make some money and buy one of these over priced locations and see how you can develop it…Keep in mind that what you will be able to do is being dictated right now….By Who?
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I am completely AGAINST Plan D and am 100% in favor of building adequate affordable housing to support the workforce in this county. Attempting to restrict the growth of Teton County and Jackson is both absurd and unrealistic. Trying to limit growth in an attempt “to preserve quality of life” is a complete contradiction. By limiting growth and not providing adequate affordable housing for the working class that supports this community and all of its fire & protection services, public services, restaurants, businesses, grocery stores, gas stations, activities, transportation, hotels and the so-called “quality of life” , the county and town would be destroying everything that has helped to create and supports this “quality of life” on a daily basis.
Three questions to those who are (or think they are) in support of Plan D and disagree with me:
1. If your quiet, peaceful house or vacation home happens to catch on fire, would you like someone there to put it out?
2. If you or someone in your family is seriously injured,ill or in immediate danger, would you like for someone to help them?
3.Do you use or like any of the following: to buy groceries and/or household supplies,to go to the bank,to eat at restaurants, to fly into or out of the JAC airport, to go to the doctor or dentist, to have your household garbage picked up,to have your street plowed, to have your sewage treated, and/or to have places for your family to stay while visiting Jackson? If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, than you are, in fact, AGAINST Plan D, whether you think you are or not. The simple fact is that if the working class cannot afford to own homes and live here, then there will be no one to work here and provide the essential services needed, period.
Pretending that this town can continue to provide the necessary services and luxuries that its residents expect and take for granted without providing adequate affordable housing in this county for the indivduals that provide these services & luxuries is a dream that will never come true.
Furthermore, having the majority of our emergency responders, fire department and police officers forced to live in outlying communities that are long distances and sometimes hours away from emergencies is a recipe for disaster.
I strongly urge both the Teton County commissioners and the Jackson Town Council to provide as much adequate affordable housing for the workers that support this community in this county as possible.
The need for affordable housing is absolutely and without a doubt the responsibility of the Town and County.Depending on and putting the burden on the outlying counties and states to provide affordable housing for the workforce that support Jackson and its residents is both irresponsible and ridiculous.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I hope that the good people of Jackson Hole stand up against the pressure to build affordable housing. It will change the entire area in dramatically bad ways. Your taxes will go up substantially to pay for roads, side walks for housing, snow removal, increased police and safety, perhaps more schools, teachers, hospitals, welfare and benefits for low income people. And too the matter of impinging on resources like water must be factored into the mix. People go to Jackson Hole because it is still a nice place to visit and live. Please, take heed, I live in a “Sanctuary” city right now and as more and more housing is built to accommodate illegals and other low income people, our housing values go further down. And our crime rate, disease levels, and taxes have vastly increased. Our homes and communities have literally been destroyed. In the state the I live in currently NAFTA and associated groups have been the catalyst in the growth of low-income housing. It fits into their overall game plan. I don’t know if NAFTA and associated agenda organizations tentacles go as far as Jackson Hole, in any event I urge concerned citizens to be very cautious about the motives of the people that want to push this plan forward. I hope that beautiful Jackson Hole will stop all plans to build affordable housing so they will not suffer the same devastation that much of our country is experiencing at the hands of corrupt leaders/politicians and/or by sheer ignorance.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Let’s talk about the Big Picture: resource depletion. James Howard Kunstler explains it best in this latest blog.
“Disarray”
The dark tunnel that the US economy has entered began to look more and more like a black hole last week, sucking in lives, fortunes, and prospects behind a Potemkin facade of orderly retreat put up by anyone in authority with a story to tell or an interest to protect - Fed chairman Bernanke, CNBC, The New York Times, the Bank of America, etc. Events are now moving ahead of anything that personalities can do to control them. The “housing bubble” implosion is broadly misunderstood. It’s not just the collapse of a market for a particular kind of commodity, it’s the end of the suburban pattern itself, the way of life it represents, and the entire economy connected with it. It’s the crack up of the system that America has invested most of its wealth in since 1950. It’s perhaps most tragic that the mis-investments only accelerated as the system reached its end, but it seems to be nature’s way that waves crest just before they break.
This wave is breaking into a sea-wall of disbelief. Nobody gets it. The psychological investment in what we think of as American reality is too great. The mainstream media doesn’t get it, and they can’t report it coherently. None of the candidates for president has begun to articulate an understanding of what we face: the suburban living arrangement is an experiment that has entered failure mode.
I maintain that all the “players” — from the bankers to the politicians to the editors to the ordinary citizens — will continue to not get it as the disarray accelerates and families and communities are blown apart by economic loss. Instead of beginning the tough process of making new arrangements for everyday life, we’ll take up a campaign to sustain the unsustainable old way of life at all costs.
A reader sent me a passle of recent clippings last week from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It contained one story after another about the perceived need to build more highways in order to maintain “economic growth” (and incidentally about the “foolishness” of public transit). I understood that to mean the need to keep the suburban development system going, since that has been the real main source of the Sunbelt’s prosperity the past 60-odd years. They cannot imagine an economy that is based on anything besides new subdivisions, freeway extensions, new car sales, and Nascar spectacles. The Sunbelt, therefore, will be ground-zero for all the disappointment emanating from this cultural disaster, and probably also ground-zero for the political mischief that will ensue from lost fortunes and crushed hopes.
From time-to-time, I feel it’s necessary to remind readers what we can actually do in the face of this long emergency. Voters and candidates in the primary season have been hollering about “change” but I’m afraid the dirty secret of this campaign is that the American public doesn’t want to change its behavior at all. What it really wants is someone to promise them they can keep on doing what they’re used to doing: buying more stuff they can’t afford, eating more shitty food that will kill them, and driving more miles than circumstances will allow.
Here’s what we better start doing.
Stop all highway-building altogether. Instead, direct public money into repairing railroad rights-of-way. Put together public-private partnerships for running passenger rail between American cities and towns in between. If Amtrak is unacceptable, get rid of it and set up a new management system. At the same time, begin planning comprehensive regional light-rail and streetcar operations.
End subsidies to agribusiness and instead direct dollar support to small-scale farmers, using the existing regional networks of organic farming associations to target the aid. (This includes ending subsidies for the ethanol program.)
Begin planning and construction of waterfront and harbor facilities for commerce: piers, warehouses, ship-and-boatyards, and accommodations for sailors. This is especially important along the Ohio-Mississippi system and the Great Lakes.
In cities and towns, change regulations that mandate the accommodation of cars. Direct all new development to the finest grain, scaled to walkability. This essentially means making the individual building lot the basic increment of redevelopment, not multi-acre “projects.” Get rid of any parking requirements for property development. Institute “locational taxation” based on proximity to the center of town and not on the size, character, or putative value of the building itself. Put in effect a ban on buildings in excess of seven stories. Begin planning for district or neighborhood heating installations and solar, wind, and hydro-electric generation wherever possible on a small-scale network basis.
We’d better begin a public debate about whether it is feasible or desirable to construct any new nuclear power plants. If there are good reasons to go forward with nuclear, and a consensus about the risks and benefits, we need to establish it quickly. There may be no other way to keep the lights on in America after 2020.
We need to prepare for the end of the global economic relations that have characterized the final blow-off of the cheap energy era. The world is about to become wider again as nations get desperate over energy resources. This desperation is certain to generate conflict. We’ll have to make things in this country again, or we won’t have the most rudimentary household products.
We’d better prepare psychologically to downscale all institutions, including government, schools and colleges, corporations, and hospitals. All the centralizing tendencies and gigantification of the past half-century will have to be reversed. Government will be starved for revenue and impotent at the higher scale. The centralized high schools all over the nation will prove to be our most frustrating mis-investment. We will probably have to replace them with some form of home-schooling that is allowed to aggregate into neighborhood units. A lot of colleges, public and private, will fail as higher ed ceases to be a “consumer” activity. Corporations scaled to operate globally are not going to make it. This includes probably all national chain “big box” operations. It will have to be replaced by small local and regional business. We’ll have to reopen many of the small town hospitals that were shuttered in recent years, and open many new local clinic-style health-care operations as part of the greater reform of American medicine.
Take a time-out from legal immigration and get serious about enforcing the laws about illegal immigration. Stop lying to ourselves and stop using semantic ruses like calling illegal immigrants “undocumented.”
Prepare psychologically for the destruction of a lot of fictitious “wealth” — and allow instruments and institutions based on fictitious wealth to fail, instead of attempting to keep them propped up on credit life-support. Like any other thing in our national life, finance has to return to a scale that is consistent with our circumstances — i.e., what reality will allow. That process is underway, anyway, whether the public is prepared for it or not. We will soon hear the sound of banks crashing all over the place. Get out of their way, if you can.
Prepare psychologically for a sociopolitical climate of anger, grievance, and resentment. A lot of individual citizens will find themselves short of resources in the years ahead. They will be very ticked off and seek to scapegoat and punish others. The United States is one of the few nations on earth that did not undergo a sociopolitical convulsion in the past hundred years. But despite what we tell ourselves about our specialness, we’re not immune to the forces that have driven other societies to extremes. The rise of the Nazis, the Soviet terror, the “cultural revolution,” the holocausts and genocides — these are all things that can happen to any people driven to desperation.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:57 am
What makes Jackson - Teton County Wyoming unique is its wildlife. There are other pretty places in our country but where else in the lower 48 do you have the big game that you see in Jackson? The intense growth that some in our community are pushing is going to have the devastating result of sending our big game packing. Affordable vs non restricted housing? First, let’s decide on the population suitable for Teton County which sustains our natural resources, wildlife, and takes into account needed services, utilities and roads, etc. for a well planned community. Next, decide on where that population should be within the county. And then, let’s decide on what combination of housing; free market, deed restricted and rental housing which is appropriate to fit the target population numbers. Any new development regulations need to incorporate, on site, the percentage of each. If it is decided that 25% or 75% affordable/rental for each new development is what the community wants/needs then fine. No more fee in lieu for newly platted or planned developments. Not requiring integrated developments has socially engineered JH the last 30 years. Our community is now very class based. If you increase the required affordable/rental percentage of new developments to a high level 50-75% will that shut down growth? Yes! Is that not the right approach to take. Only developments that are truly worthy and meet the goals of our County should get approval. No more variances or hard to enforce conditions! Let’s take the time to get this new comp plan right! Put a moratorium in place if need be to give time to properly and thoughtfully plan. Didn’t we do this in 1994?
March 20th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I am in favor of D. The qualities that drew us all here should not be changed for the sake of progress. I don’t believe it is the responsibility of gov’t to provide housing for a workforce. Thank you for this opportunity.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
It is NOT the responsibility of the county to provide housing for workers - I have lived here for 31 years and arrived in Jackson with $1100.00 to my name. After being an active community member for 31 years and raising children here (AND working), I now own my home ( its value now being threatened by planned development for affordable housing). I did not have anyone that supplied me with affordable housing.
If people cannot afford to live here, then don’t live here. Simple.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I think it is ridiculous that people feel entitled to live here even though they can’t afford too. Affordable housing causes more problems than it solves. Cram another 5,000 people into this valley and it will be a far cry from why most of us moved here. Don’t turn jackson into Boulder, Co north.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
As a long time full and part-time resident since 1957, I have some serious concerns about future development plans.
Basically I am in favor of Option D. My new motto for Jackson Hole is “Don’t VAIL-A-FY this valley.” Only wealthy people own property in Vail. Vail was never a town. It is a playground for the rich and famous. Jackson needs to maintain the character which attracts people all over the world and all economic levels to visit. We need affordable housing for year-round employees and the workforce. We need to place a MORATORIUM on GOLF COURSES. The need for water is the next “oil” crisis. We need to preserve and protect the ecosystem for wildlife in order to protect the quality of human life. This valley is focussed too much on the greed of big land developers, realtors and the very rich. Our focus needs to be on maintaining the diversity and balance between working population and the very wealthy; to preserve and protect the wildlife and their ecosystems (we need them for our survival on this planet; to preserve air and water quality (both are threatened and polluted by development). Often “dong less is doing more:.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I have to ask, with all the hype about affordable housing, why has the county not considered a serious look at affordable rentals? Affordable housing isn’t fair to the wealthy population or the low income in that it regulates the value of the land by the people living on it. The majority of low income people who work in Teton valley that I am familiar with would be tickled to death to be offered a decent apartment for say 750 a month. In this manner, they are still provided affordable places to live, but do not infringe on the real estate market and investment availabilities in this valley.
I rent myself through employee housing, and wouldn’t mind NOT owning a home here, as long as I can afford to have a roof over my family’s head. If I want to invest my money into owning real estate, I will not overstep my abilities and just invest in an area that isn’t 500% higher than most of the US (as I currently am).
If the county can encourage investors to build rental complexes (such as Blair) including lowering the taxes and zoning resrtictions for such investors, more people will be inclined to build the apartments. Currently in this area, Apatments have a very small income potential without charging very high and outrageous rent, which would defeat the purposes.