Author: jhwatchdog

Dear Commissioners,

The County shouldn’t become an investor in the Nelson Drive Housing development.

The Putt Putt trailhead is not an appropriate location for dense development. The Forest Service study of the Nelson Parcel and its conclusions are vague and inadequate. We shouldn’t accept it at face value.

Over the past decades the Forest Service promised the neighbors that any housing on the Nelson Parcel would be similar in density to the existing Forest Service housing, and that it would be exclusively for Forest Service employees. This proposed development is double the density of the existing Forest Service housing and a majority of the new residents will not be Forest Service employees.

Federal wildland, far from services and shopping, embedded in quiet neighborhoods is the wrong place for high density. Everyone in these units will have a car and will drive through a quiet neighborhood to get to work, services and shopping adding to traffic pressure in the neighborhood and throughout Town. Over and over again we make the same mistake of allowing development out on the edge of Town where everyone will have a car and add to our traffic problem.

Where is the traffic study for this project? The proposal for the County to become an investor in this project should trigger a broader consideration to assure congruence with the Comprehensive Plan. The County may not have a say over what happens on Federal Land, but it also shouldn’t be investing in projects governed by other jurisdictions that violate the principles of good planning.

The proper location for dense development is in the urban core of Jackson along the highway commercial corridor where the Forest Service happens to already own land. 

The slippery slope of expanding the urban boundary of Jackson onto federally protected wildland is a red line we shouldn’t cross. As stated explicitly in our Comprehensive Plan, our protected federal wildlands are the #1 reason that Jackson Hole is the amazing ecological treasure that it is. We shouldn’t be sacrificing public wildland for any reason. Unfortunately, we all agree that protecting our wildlands is a top priority until preservation gets in the way of our financial or political interests and then it’s full speed ahead with the bulldozers. Sad.

You should be fighting against inappropriate development not becoming complicit in it. The County investing in this development compromises your role as a watchdog for the public interest. Who is watching out for east Jackson’s stable neighborhoods. Who is watching out for the Crystal Butte wilderness? Who is standing up to protect our public lands from development?

Regards,

Judd

—

Judd Grossman

Here were my comments at the 12/1/25 Council meeting:

“The Putt Putt trailhead is not an appropriate location for this development. The Forest Service study of the Nelson parcel and its conclusions are vague and inadequate. Town shouldn’t accept it at face value.
Over the past decades the Forest Service promised the neighbors that any housing on the Nelson Parcel would be similar in density to the existing Forest Service housing, and that it would be exclusively for Forest Service employees. This proposed development is double the density of the existing Forest Service housing and only a minority of the new residents will be Forest Service employees.
Federal wildland, far from services and shopping, embedded in quiet neighborhoods is the wrong place for high density. Everyone in these units will have a car and will drive through a quiet neighborhood to get to services and shopping adding to traffic pressure in the neighborhood and throughout Town. Over and over again we make the same mistake of allowing development out on the edge of Town where everyone will have a car and add to our traffic problem.
Your staff report conspicuously fails to consider the planning implications of adding high density on the periphery of Town. Where is the traffic study for this project? The proposal for Town to become an investor in this project should trigger a broader consideration to assure congruence with the Comprehensive Plan. Town may not have a say over what happens on Federal Land, but it also shouldn’t be investing in projects governed by other jurisdictions that violate the principles of good planning.
The proper location for dense development is in the urban core of Jackson along the highway commercial corridor – where the Forest Service happens to already own land. 
The slippery slope of using federally protected wildland to expand the urban boundary of Jackson in order to subsidize the housing of under paid private sector employees is terrifying. As stated explicitly in our Comprehensive Plan, our protected federal wildlands are the #1 reason that Jackson Hole is the amazing ecological treasure that it is. We shouldn’t be sacrificing public wildland so that private businesses can increase their profit margins and continue to expand. This is a land grab to serve corporations and rich people that is hiding behind a thin fig leaf of housing a few public servants.
Town investing in this development creates a huge bias that prevents the Town from watching out for the concerns of the neighborhood. Town Council would become the prosecutor, judge and jury for yet another instance of inappropriate development. Who is watching out for east Jackson’s stable neighborhoods if the Town is an investor in this project? Who is watching out for the Crystal Butte wilderness? Who is protecting our public lands from development?
Town should leverage any investment, annexation or sewer and water hook ups for a reduction in the density of this project and assurances that private sector employees won’t be housed on this public land. 
Thank you.”

The Nelson Drive Putt Putt Trailhead housing proposal is a betrayal of the neighborhood’s longtime consensus with previous district rangers regarding how that piece of Forest Service administrative land would be developed and assuring community input. The understanding was that any development would match the adjacent Forest Service housing in density, that it would be used for Forest Service employees only, and that the community would have a chance to help shape the plan. This new development plan was created entirely behind closed doors, is too dense, and includes housing for private sector employees. This plan needs to be reworked. The mix of housing should be single family and duplex rather than duplex and triplex, and should be restricted to public employees only. Good planning principles should prevent the development of dense housing on the quiet edge of Town where it generates traffic that has to filter through peaceful neighborhoods. Proper environmental stewardship dictates that we should not be sacrificing precious public wildland in order to subsidize housing for private business interests. Businesses should pay their own employee costs. Hands off our public lands.

I was chatting with a bartender the other day. He asked me, “How long have you been in Jackson Hole?” I said “45 years.” He said, “That’s a long time. You must have seen a lot of changes.” I replied, “Yes, lots of changes, and all this new development doesn’t make Jackson Hole any better, but Jackson Hole is still the best place on earth.” He responded quickly, “I’m here for the money.”

I must admit I was taken aback. I don’t recall hearing anyone express that sentiment so bluntly and succinctly. He seemed to be insulating himself from the seemingly inexorable destruction of Jackson Hole by keeping a laser focus on what was in it for him. Obviously, we all need money to live, but if Jackson Hole is just a vein of gold to be mined until it’s exhausted, what will be left of this magnificent place when the magic is tapped out and the miners move on?

In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, there was a surge of new residents. Some came to exploit Jackson Hole, but many, upon experiencing the wonder and sacredness of our beautiful valley, made stewardship a priority so future generations could experience the same sense of awe. Is anyone still motivated by that conservation ethic? 

“I’m here for the money” leads to relentlessly promoting our valley, bringing in more tourists and wealthy people to Jackson Hole than our wild places can possibly accommodate while drawing more businesses and workers to the valley than we can possibly house – permanently altering the small town with open land surrounded by wilderness character that makes Jackson Hole an international treasure. New residents – rich, middle class, and working class – all aggressively scrambling for their selfish interests without regard to the consequences – all pushing to expand the human footprint on a valley that should be preserved for open spaces, wilderness, and wild creatures.

Rather than pursue unsustainable growth, we need to treat this valley with the proper reverence that a world-class environmental jewel deserves. We need to apply the wilderness principles of  “Leave no trace” and “Pack it in, pack it out” to local planning. If those of us who deeply understand the magic of this valley don’t fight to protect it from overdevelopment and over-commercialization, it will be left solely to the “I’m here for the money” crowd to decide Jackson Hole’s future.

I’m concerned about the plans to build 13 four-unit apartment buildings on Forest Service land at the Putt Putt Trailhead in far east Jackson – a total of 52 units. This would set a terrible precedent by paving over wildland and expanding the urban growth boundary of Town. The proposed development is much more dense than the adjacent Forest Service housing, and would encroach on an important recreational access point. The decision by the Forest 13 years ago that this project with its high density would be appropriate seems arbitrary and vague. Creating a dense node on the periphery of Town next to wilderness, embedded within quieter neighborhoods without access to arterial roads is not good planning. 

We are making the same planning mistakes over and over again. We continue to spread density to the periphery of Town, imposing development that is neighborhood altering, car-centric and traffic aggravating. The appropriate place for dense development is in the core of Jackson in the commercial corridor along the highway where residents can be less reliant on cars because there is walkable access to jobs, services, shopping, entertainment, and transit.

It is reasonable to look for housing opportunities for public sector employees but the Putt Putt Trailhead is not suitable for dense housing development, and the planning/funding process that has been grinding on behind the scenes for this project has been extremely opaque. It appears that several federal government agencies are involved along with the Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust. The involvement of the Housing Trust raises the specter of trading precious wild land in order to house private sector employees. Permanently transferring public land for private benefit is not proper stewardship of the resource, especially in a valley that is a world class environmental treasure already suffering from over development and over-commercialization. The Putt Putt Trailhead should not be developed, and, if the relentless forces of development push this project through, densities should match that of the existing forest service housing next door, and all units should be reserved for public employees only. This controversial project deserves a transparent planning process rather than backroom machinations that are then presented to the public as a fait accompli. We must protect our public lands.

On February 5th the Town Council is expected to reconsider the text amendment it recently passed that would allow 4-story buildings and increased development potential throughout the Town’s NH-1 zone. The Council should reverse its previous decision and reject this text amendment. If Town’s intention is to facilitate intense development of housing on the former site of the Virginian RV Park, then changing the zone of that single parcel to CR-3 (a zone that already allows four stories) is a much better solution.

The text amendment is too broad. Higher density and taller buildings that might be appropriate for the Virginian project are not appropriate for the West Kelly Ave. or Rancher St. NH-1 neighborhoods. The predominantly single family West Kelly neighborhood is already struggling to assimilate the large apartment building at 440 West Kelly. The proposed text amendment would allow a developer to combine lots and build a massive building that is even taller. Is this text amendment a foreshadowing of the kind of development the Town has in mind for the Fairgrounds next door?

On the east side of town there is a dense node of NH-1 zoning at Rancher and Hansen embedded within quiet neighborhoods with limited access to services or arterial roads. Doubling down on this already thorny planning problem would force even more traffic to filter through the single family neighborhoods that surround the Pioneer Homestead. This text amendment opens the door to the development of a huge 4-story apartment complex on the far edge of Town adjacent to the Putt Putt Trailhead. Rational land use planning requires that high density should be focused into the commercial corridor of Town where large/tall buildings won’t loom over single family homes, and where residents won’t have to drive in order to get to work, services, and shopping. Far east Jackson is not the place for 4-story buildings.

This hastily conceived text amendment undermines the laborious planning and public input that went into creating our Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. Town Council should reject the NH-1 text amendment and instead implement CR-3 zoning to get the desired result for the Virginian project. There is no reason to put the character of the entire Town at risk when there is a more appropriate and targeted solution available.

Dear Town Council,

Here are some thoughts regarding the proposal to update the Residential and Short Term Rental Definitions and Requirements by changing the definition of short term rental to include any rental of less than 90 days:

1) The Status Quo should have significant weight. In contemplating changing the status quo regulatory environment that homeowners depend on there is a heavy burden on Council to make the case for why removing a long held right from property owners is justified and that adverse consequences have been thoroughly examined. Without clear evidence that this change will preserve worker housing it seems like a purely punitive move. The ability to rent month to month is a convention that has existed in Jackson Hole and throughout the country since our founding. Removing that right is a radical proposition. 

2) A Local worker exemption is a good idea. Skyrocketing property taxes are putting local working class homeowners in a bind, and they may need to rent out their houses periodically to avoid being forced to sell, so accommodating that in updated regulations is good. But I’m concerned this would necessitate the intervention of a government bureaucracy designed to determine who is a remote worker, who is a working local, or who is retired. This would be invasive and put this class of formerly unencumbered, free market homeowners into the “system” as if they were government subsidized homeowners. Is this a glimpse of our future? The Town taking control of our property, and then allowing us some of our rights back via an appointed board that decides if we are working or retired, or allowed to leave on vacation, in order to determine if we are eligible to rent out our house or not? Will older residents be incentivized to leave the workforce in order to qualify for the exemption?

3) What is the limiting principle? If the Town can claim the power to remove the traditional norm of month to month rental, can the Town go beyond the 90 days proposed and raise the minimum to 180 days or eliminate the ability to rent completely? Can the Town dictate who free market homeowners can rent to or sell to? This could be the continuation of a dangerous trend of overreach by the Town. Middle class homeowners seem to be targeted by the Town to have their property rights limited and their property values suppressed for the benefit of the wealthy employer class. Is this a slippery slope?

4) Tenants and landlords in the working class housing market need the option of month to month leases. Month to month leasing is a very useful option for landlords with working class tenants. Removing that option will cause the working class rental market to function less efficiently, and will undermine Town’s efforts to provide more worker housing.

5) This is government mandated wealth transfer from the less affluent to the more affluent.

In general there is already a dramatic economic divide between property owners in the non-Lodging Overlay parts of Town, and those who own properties in the Lodging Overlay and out in the County. Singling out the already restricted property owners of Town for further restriction while property owners in the Overlay and in the rest of the County are allowed to continue to rent short term without interference is a further transfer of wealth from an area of Town that has the highest density of working class homeowners to the Lodging Overlay and the County where the property owners are the most affluent. You are building a deeper moat around the property values of the wealthy at the expense of the less affluent. Is that your intention?

Any restriction on the ability to rent housing in the working class neighborhoods of Town should be accompanied by a reduction in the ability to rent in the Lodging Overlay and in the County at large. I support restricting growth and limiting the commercialization of Jackson Hole across the board. If you only target radical restrictions on the one area of the valley with the highest density of working class homeowners you will be complicit in a government decreed wealth transfer from the less affluent to the most affluent.

Best Regards,

Judd Grossman

50 Rancher St.

New houses maxing out F.A.R. on small lots look like cruise ships going through ship locks. They  are changing the character of our neighborhoods. The LDRs should encourage structures that are more congruent with neighborhood character. 

The addition of ARUs to our quiet residential neighborhoods is a problem. This practice violates the explicit intent of the Comp plan to maintain the status quo density level within stable neighborhoods. ARUs add the potential for double or triple density. They should be confined to high density areas, and they absolutely should count against the valley-wide build out cap.

I vehemently oppose the suggestion that we should eliminate single family zoning altogether. This would totally undermine the Comp Plan’s character districts, and radically subvert our Town Periphery neighborhoods which are specifically designated to provide a less dense interface with the wildlands that we border.

Spreading density throughout Town’s residential neighborhoods is also bad planning from a transportation perspective. Development in the periphery is car-centric. The smart place to increase density is in the urban, commercial corridor of Jackson on investment properties through mixed use development. Density in this corridor could provide new residents with the opportunity to easily walk to work, services, and transit – eliminating the necessity of owning a car. The worker shortage is a problem for employers that should be solved by employers either on site or in the commercial district.

Lasty, I’m extremely concerned about a particularly neglected demographic – Working Class Free Market Homeowners. These are people who have invested their life savings in their homes. They have made innumerable sacrifices to pay their mortgages and maintain their homes. Most have supported and worked in our community for decades. Reengineering their residential neighborhoods in contravention of the Comp Plan is pulling the rug out from under these residents – all in the name of providing new workers for the insatiable commercial machine that is devouring Jackson Hole. Providing more workers for high end restaurants and 5 star hotels, providing public housing subsidies for lawyers, PHDs, and other elites should not be done at the expense of the quality of life of long time working class property owners. There is no moral high ground in destroying quiet neighborhoods or using taxpayer subsidies in order to bring in new workers to suppress wages so that rich people can have less expensive servants. 

It’s also important to note that the proposals to increase the minimum rental period from 30 days to 60, 90, or 180 days will put further pressure on working class homeowners. Given the skyrocketing, highly regressive property tax bills we face, increasingly the only way to stay in our homes may be to move in with family for a month while we rent out our houses to help pay the tax burden. Proposals to put additional restrictions on the ability of working class homeowners to rent their property is particularly infuriating given that in the rest of the county the wealthy class flaunts the short term rental laws, earning thousands of dollars per night.

You should be protecting our beloved residential neighborhoods, not urbanizing them. You should be honoring the Comp Plan character districts, not undermining them. You shouldn’t be placing undue burdens on working class homeowners in order to cater to the wealthy class’ desires.

The huge new clear cut in what was once pristine forest coming down from the peak of Snow King Mountain is probably the largest environmental scar I’ve seen created in our Town. The selective concern we have for the environment in this community is stunning. The damage caused by ski areas and subdivisions is similar to that of drilling, mining and logging – but more permanent. Our environmentalism is performative and hypocritical. We wring our hands over idling cars, light bulbs and recycling, meanwhile the industrialization of our wild lands, and paving over of our open spaces is encouraged if it advances our selfish desires. With all the thrilling beauty Jackson Hole has provided us you would think we would be motivated to be better stewards of this magic valley.