By Jim Stanford on November 3, 2008
Incumbents must be feeling the heat. Yesterday Mayor Mark Barron knocked on my door in a downpour, and while we were engaged in a discussion, along came Teton County Commission Chairman Andy Schwartz, making for a political roundtable in my living room.
I challenged both of them on a number of points, particularly the mayor, who I have perceived to be a cheerleader for high-end development downtown. One of the topics we covered was law enforcement, whose mission in the town and county seems to have morphed from “protect and serve” to “harass and intimidate.” At a get-out-the-vote party last week, I heard a number of horror stories from innocent young citizens.
Both candidates, I’m pleased to report, agreed that the sheriff’s office and police have been overzealous at times, especially with regard to ticketing bicyclists. The mayor reiterated that he plans to start with the police department for the budget-cutting process. Andy added that the county has hired a consultant to study just how much law enforcement our community needs; currently, we outspend every other county in Wyoming on a lopsided per-capita basis, owing partially to the seasonal influx of tourists who require additional services.
We also discussed the economy and its anticipated effect on development, as well as the Forest Service proposal to sell public land and build housing at the Putt-Putt trailhead.
I’ve always been a supporter of Andy. Following his election in 2000, he served in the minority with Sandy Shuptrine as the GOP triumvirate of Bob Shervin, Bill Paddleford and Jolynn Coonce consistently ignored the recommendations of the planning commission and rubber-stamped every development proposal that came across their desks.
Andy has been unfairly maligned this campaign as “pro-growth.” I remember what pro-growth was like. Rather, Andy has been a realist about growth, trying to make development that’s inevitable — i.e. SRA and Targhee resort plans — more palatable to the community. He was an advocate for pathways long before it became fashionable; he served on the town and county planning commissions for a total of seven years before being elected; and as a former cook and sax player who has built a retail business and raised a family in Jackson, he is in touch with all strata of the community.
I don’t always agree with him, but he listens to my idealistic rants and presents a pragmatic point of view. When I was organizing the Jackson Peace Rally last summer, Andy helped make sure that law enforcement would not interfere with a demonstration of our First Amendment rights.
While we are big fans of Claire Fuller — no candidate brings as much promise for wholesale change in how we govern ourselves — it would be a mistake to lose Andy’s experience as we move toward the finish of a new comprehensive plan for the valley.
The mayoral race has been a more difficult choice.
As I told the News&Guide after being written in for mayor, I like Mark Barron and think he has done a good job for the town, yet we could do better in some areas. The parking garage, Snow King tunnel, “mixed-use” monstrosities like 30 King St., cyclists treated like terrorists — these are just a few of the irritants that had me thinking about running a protest campaign.
The mayor sat on my couch yesterday and calmly tried to defend himself. A lot of the recent development, he explained, resulted from a convergence of a red-hot real estate market and ridiculously easy credit with the council’s efforts to concentrate density closer to downtown.
My main point in questioning him was to see if he is listening to the rather large segment of our community who doesn’t share his enthusiasm for redevelopment. I tried to impress upon him that while many of us would tolerate taller buildings and increased density, the community has to get more in return — i.e. more deed-restricted affordable housing.
He assured me he has heard the criticism; already we have seen a response, as the council has made a hasty retreat away from the mixed-use zoning and embarked on a reform of the regulations. Mark said he supports raising the requirement for new development to 25 percent affordable housing, a long-overdue first step toward offsetting some of the impacts of growth.
Mark’s opponent, Mike Lance, is a public servant, not a politician, and he would certainly tighten the reins on development in town. Rather than build up, he prefers expansion to the south, believing that families are best raised in suburbia, with bigger yards and closer to most of the schools. I tend to favor Mark’s approach, only with better execution.
When I stepped aside to let Mike run for mayor, I asked him only one question: Would he support increased density for deed-restricted affordable housing within the town limits. Twice, including during a public press conference, he indicated that he would, specifically agreeing that the Housing Trust parcel on Hansen and Redmond was a suitable location.
Since then he has backtracked on that position, and told the Housing Trust at a neighborhood meeting that the Hansen/Redmond proposal is too dense. Naturally, I’ve been disappointed.
So I’m going to cast my ballot tomorrow for Mark Barron, with some reservations but also the hope that this competitive election will help him do a better job representing all the people of Jackson, not just the businessmen.
If not, in two years’ time, we might be having a more pointed roundtable in the living room.
Posted under County Government, Politics, Town Government
This piece is a pleasant tonic on Election Eve. In a sport where everyone is “resolute” — stubborn — it’s refreshing to read that someone’s thought processes describe a genuine arc.
Let’s hope Andy makes it again. (He’s always led the vote count in all his elections.) He still plays in the Recessions so we’ve had several (for me) educational chats as we drive to the Big Holes for band practice.
Andy is the consummate pragmatist with a grasp of The Bigger Picture that would never occur to me. He remains immune to the emotionalism that grips nearly every development drama.
The voters have spoken and I respect the process. Now the election is over I ponder……44% showing is a large percentage against the high density, high buildings – so now what?
Will there be change? There’s another large project by the Parkway and Rusty Parrot going before council that was suppose to be addressed before election day and was put off until afterwards. Will the election make a difference? I’m not holding my breath but deep inside hope so.
So higher density in neighborhoods – smaller yards – less green area – where’s the trade off? I know we are close to the hiking trails….what about the elderly population or the physically disadvantaged? There has to be change for everyone and advantages for everyone. We can’t be so narrow minded that we only look out for our own peer group and forget the rest of the population. Yes people in neighborhoods have been upset and historically not listened to by the administration when a large denisity project goes in. Why can’t there be trade offs?
I think the May Park certainly addresses a place where the community as a whole wins – maybe this is the trade off for less green in the high density deed restricted affordable housing projects. I believe that for every high density housing project that doesn’t have green space there should be a park added to compensate the losing of green space.
I always wondered why some people think the quality of life of residents in the town should be less than that of anyone else.
Developments such as the Snow King tunnel, the parking garage, and the mixed use monstrosities I fear are just the beginning. I think the 25% housing is still too low to compensate for the commercial that has been approved – but then again that is history and we will live with what has been done.