By Jim Stanford on October 27, 2011
If you don't bother, someone else will do it for you.
By now, another story about the Comprehensive Plan is about as welcome as dust on crust. But be patient, we’re nearing the finish line.
Yet again, it’s critical to get input from a broad swath of citizens, not just the usual suspects. And giving input can be as simple as describing what’s in your neighborhood, or what’s lacking.
Last month, I attended one of these character district workshops and was impressed. The quantity and depth of information presented can be intimidating, but it just means planners are doing a thorough job. Staffers are on hand to walk you through the process and explain everything. And really, anyone can participate — even, as the adage goes, if you’ve lived here only a minute.
Planners are holding workshops today through Tuesday all around the valley. Click here for a complete schedule, or just stop by the 4-H building, 255 W. Deloney Ave., any day between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
The future is up to us. Don’t be left grousing about a hollow bar of soap.
Posted under County Government, Economy, Environment, Politics, Town Government
“speak up now or shut up later”
That’s silly.
I’d rather speak up when a specific situation presents itself. Jackson is a moving target.
In 8 years every working still might be forced out of the valley due to the high cost of living. Greater density might look very attractive in South Park.
When our population doubles along with traffic, our perspective might change too. Greater expansion along the Village road might look better than it once did. I leave all options on the table. The comp plan doesn’t. It’s a guide for the blind.
every area or node in the county needs to suffer or benefit from the aches and pains of our inevitable growth. to dump greater density and impacts on south park is shortsighted. south park is a haven for wildlife and birds as well as an area with wonderful vistas.
South Park could stand some improvements, like connectivity between Melody and Rafter J, bus service, “local convenience” shops to reduce car trips. I think there are better places for housing first, like west Jackson from the Y to Smith’s. If S Park one day is to be developed, I’m with Capt. Bob: cluster housing along HS Road and preserve the southern Hereford Ranch as open space.
@I see: I hear you, but this process affords us an opportunity to make some tough decisions, like better transportation planning. Routing every car through the Town Square is 1890s planning. Close off half the square (Deloney and Gill) as a pedestrian-shopping-cafe area. North bridge anyone?
Snow King and Cache could support more housing and perhaps a few shops. I voted to keep Snow King area quiet. East Jackson needs more local convenience, possibly along Broadway or Snow King Ave. some day.
I disagree with the promotion of increased capacity in South Park/HS road. In the spirit of disclosure, I live in this area but do not utilize HS road. My bias outlined, I feel any development south of the Y puts more stress on the intersection itself, requiring the Tribal Trails connector. This is a pandora’s box road that can never be undone.
Increased development (see: decreased livability) is not the answer to increased demand. Deed restricted development; yes. Increased density downtown: yes. Significant mass-transit infrastructure: yes. Moving free-market density away from the core is a solid no. It will negatively impact what makes JH special and is a slippery slope.
Frankly, I’m a bit of a NIMBY, but so what. My other posts back my social justice cred, but I draw a line here. “JH cant be for everyone lest it stoke passions in no one.” – Ghandi
There’s not a town, burb, city, or man camp that didn’t displace wildlife. The Aspens would never have been built had the Wildlife-Firsters been in control, same goes with any development – from Los Angeles, CA to Portland, Maine.
The idea that Jackson’s South Park can’t support dense housing is pure NIMBY talk from folks that want view sheds and a private zoo in their backyard.
Of course it can support dense housing. So can the elk refuge, the parks, etc., etc. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. LA and Portland are, by most estimates, not anywhere like Jackson Hole. Nor is anywhere in between. Its for that reason that, if I had my way, all new development would cease – a position I held way back when I was new to the valley. The opposite take would turn this place in to Summit County. No thanks.
South Park can support many more people without driving the county’s wildlife into the historical dustbin. Plenty of elk live in Wyoming and they don’t need to South Park to survive.
Ceasing all development is the expected response of selfish people. Workers have to live somewhere. Don’t Alpine/Victor have wildlife to protect?
I was going to say something about Alpine and Victor..what was it..oh yes; Who cares.
Accommodating more worker housing leads to a demand for more workers to support the first group, who in themselves require more workers, who require more workers, ad infinitum.
If protecting this place for its inherent value is selfish, while promoting development to accommodate human sprawl is then selfless, perhaps my moral compass is askew.
Growing yourself out of growth induced problems is difficult at best – whether it be workforce housing, jobs or tax revenues. Each addition just ends up in total digging the hole a bit deeper. Chad stated it well. Meanwhile least we forget – resort and commercial entitlements, platted and unbuilt housing lots and the like already will lead us to twice the built environment we see on the ground today. That gets left out of the message. Town alone has the existing zoning for another 1,200 homes – it is the economy – not the zoning that is the problem. In the end twice the people also means half the powder – and twice as many folks on the Putt-Putt trail.
Chad:
Your vision is like the misguided one maintained by the elk refuge. Wildlife will do just fine without all your hand holding – as was pointed out in the Weekly ( http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=7896 ). And view sheds will always be a dime a dozen in Teton County even with dense housing outside of Jackson’s town limits.
Jackson’s wildlife won’t suffer because a private ranch owner decides to pack homes across his property in South Park. The riparian environment will still see abundant wildlife throughout the year. Wildlife will survive and thrive. It may not look like the zoo you’re are used to, but the millions of acres of national forests and parks will still be here and providing habitat for your favorite critters.
The view sheds you want to protect don’t belong to you but you insist on acting like they do by telling everyone what they can do with their private property. You insist on stealing value from their land for your personal pleasure and perhaps personal investment.
You anti-growth policy just results in a community for the wealthy and no one else. If that’s your vision for Jackson, then that’s selfish.
Jackson should grow and prosper. It will still be a special place for people and Wildlife 20 years from now with twice as many people. If that’s too many people for you, move on. That’s the natural balance between people and place.
I suggest it would be better to discuss points of view and supplemental information meant to inform – and expand – the discussion – then personal attacks.
The comp plan isn’t a scientific document. It has an impact on people’s lives and that impact is what the discussion is all about.
Emotion is what drives the controversies. These aren’t personal attacks. These are opinions meant to challenge one’s point of view.
As they say:
“This process is founded on respect for each other, nature, private property rights, present + future neighbors and the community as a whole.”