Category: posts

In the Rural LDR update electeds removed 1,800 units of unrestricted rural residential development from our county build out totals. This was a major accomplishment. Removing this development potential from rural areas of the county protected open space, prevented suburban sprawl, reduced future traffic pressure, and decreased the number of free market units that drive our overpopulation problem, and our workforce housing deficit. In the current process of  updating the LDRs for Districts 3-6, we should not let a single one of these removed rural units return to market without a local workforce occupancy deed restriction on it. Every one of these units should be focused into the urban core of Jackson. The only exception could be for businesses outside of the urban core that are interested in building workforce housing on site. None of these units should be added to base zoning. They should only be available as a bonus opportunity. By relaxing FAR, height, and parking restrictions for these deed restricted units – essentially removing land costs from the equation – we can incentivize their development. These units should be size and deed restricted, but sell and rent at whatever price the market will bear. The size limits and local workforce occupancy restrictions will serve to suppress prices and ensure affordability for working people.

Regarding; Subarea 6.1: Low to Medium Density Neighborhoods:
Remove the potential for the doubling or tripling the density in stable periphery neighborhoods by removing the ARU development option.

Regarding Subarea 3.4: May Park Area:
Do not perpetuate the past planning error that was made in this area. Creating a dense node at the periphery of town surrounded by less dense neighborhoods was a very bad idea. New zoning should aim to reduce density the May Park Area.

Regarding Subareas 4.1: Midtown Highway Corridor, Subarea 4.3: Central Midtown, Subarea 5.1: West Jackson Highway Corridor, and Subarea 5.3: High School Butte:
These are prime areas for dense workforce occupancy deed restricted housing development near transit, services, shopping and jobs. Don’t waste the opportunity.

It is inappropriate to use public money to subsidize the housing for private sector employees. Housing subsidies are appropriate for people who are disabled, and if necessary for public employees: first responders, nurses, teachers, etc. To the extent that the affordable housing supply program is subsidized with taxpayer funds it’s really an “affordable employee program” that benefits the employer class, and the wealthy class who have an interest in cheap labor. Housing subsidies for private sector workers are really wage subsidies for their employers. It’s wrong for private entities to ask the taxpayers to subsidies their employees.

All 2,400 units that are allocated to increase the density of Town should be deed restricted for local workforce occupancy. Every single one. Letting any of these units enter the market without deed restrictions will only add to our traffic and workforce housing problems. Every additional unit added through this program should also be be restricted in square footage, so they are modest in size. There should be no price or rent caps, so that employers aren’t let off the hook for paying for the true cost of their employees. Otherwise, we will be inadvertently subsidizing the commercial expansion and job creation that is leading to our overpopulation problem, and that perpetuates our clogged roads and workforce housing deficit.

Regarding traffic, All these reallocated units should be located in the urban commercial core that stretches from Smiths to Dairy Queen. This is where density belongs. This is where people can live lives that don’t revolve around car ownership. The farther you get from the commercial urban core the more necessary it is to have a car. There should be no parking minimum requirement on these deed restricted units, in fact parking maximums should be considered.

Last week’s News and Guide editorial sung the praises of the new START Town Shuttle routes. The new routes are indeed more convenient, but I take issue with some of the statements made in the editorial.

The START Bus system currently claims to reduce single occupancy car trips by around 1%. If START is able to achieve the Integrated Transportation Plan’s ambitious goal of doubling ridership in the next ten years it will then be able to claim that it reduces those car trips by around 2%. It’s hard to see how that kind of minuscule reduction in vehicle trips will have much affect on our valley’s traffic woes. My conclusion is that – like pathways – START is a very nice amenity, but not a game changer when it comes to our traffic gridlock.

Tens of millions of dollars will need to be spent in order to attempt to achieve and maintain the goal of doubling START ridership. This is a very extravagant amenity, and the cost of START isn’t only financial. For example, the Town Shuttle currently sends 66 buses each day into the quiet residential neighborhoods east of Redmond to serve very few riders – on average less than one rider per bus. In the case of far east Jackson START is dramatically adding to the traffic rather than reducing it, and is damaging the character of those neighborhoods by relentlessly trolling large essentially empty buses up and down narrow residential streets. Empty buses are not environmentally friendly.

START’s growth in ridership has actually been stagnant since 2008/2009. It’s quite possible that a significant number of the people who wish to ride the bus already do so. Rather than pouring tens of millions of dollars into START in a futile attempt to reach unrealistic ridership goals that even if reached will have little positive effect on our traffic problem, local government should work to reduce the expensive burden START places on the taxpayers, and fight the urbanization of our quiet neighborhoods by focusing START resources on the routes and times of day that will ensure full buses.

I think we can all agree that START is a useful amenity, and that we need START to be as efficient and effective as possible. Let’s move in the direction of a lean, intelligently targeted, transit system, not a bloated system that eats up huge chunks of taxpayer dollars and damages our quiet neighborhoods with big city bus traffic.

We must not raise taxes or use taxpayer money to subsidize workforce housing for the private sector.

Our affordable housing problem is a problem between employers and employees, and the government should not get in the middle. If employers are having trouble filling positions they need to either pay higher wages, subsidize housing for their employees, or rework their business plans to operate more efficiently.

To require the general public to subsidize workforce housing through government subsidies creates a windfall not only for the lucky individuals who are able to take advantage of large housing subsidies, but more importantly a windfall for employers who are able to enjoy having the taxpayers pay part of their employee costs. This is a blatant form of corporate welfare, and only throws more fuel on the fire of our overheated economy by publicly subsidizing private commercial enterprises.

Why are we even talking about low wage jobs in a community that has negative unemployment?

Take for instance the controversial rent increases at Blair Place; those increases could be mitigated by a $2 or $3 per hour raise in wages for the average tenant, but as long as the government is ready to rush in and subsidize housing costs businesses will continue to avoid paying the full cost of their employees, and the taxpayer will continue to get the shaft.

If employers can’t fill low wage positions then wages should rise until those positions become attractive to potential employees, and if higher wages create a headwind to economic growth is that really a problem in the current local economic climate? Slower growth would mean, fewer jobs, less traffic, and less demand for workforce housing.

Do not raise taxes, and do not use taxpayer money to subsidize workforce housing for the private sector. Those are the “do nots”. Here are the “dos”:

1) Do Use taxpayer money to subsidize housing for PUBLIC sector employees. We are all stakeholders in local government, and we have an interest in making sure it provides it’s services as efficiently and at as low a cost as possible.

2) Do create well crafted incentives to spur the private sector to develop high density workforce housing in the core urbanized areas of Town.