By William F. Hughes
William Hughes is a resident of Hailey
Finally, the ensuing legal battle over the city of Hailey's conduct in negotiations with a developer will focus attention more tightly on future growth and associated issues.
A decade ago Hailey citizens rejected a sewer bond that raised concerns over the impacts of growth. Citizens understood that rapid growth is malignant, stressing all systems—transportation, schools, law enforcement and fire protection, water and sewer—of a community. A second sewer bond passed due in large part to a referendum on the same ballot suggesting that growth should be managed. A committee representing disparate interests came to a compromise on how to control distribution of newly created capacity to regulate growth.
It is ironic that the city is now using that capacity to promote growth, abandoning the wisdom of sustainability supported by an overwhelming majority of citizens, submitting to the inexorable pressure of special interests addicted to easy money.
I was encouraged recently by Hailey creating and adopting a growth management amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in response to prospective requests for annexation. This document concluded that added density was appropriate within the city core, while expansive development of lands currently in the county but within Hailey's area of impact was to be discouraged.
The moratorium on annexation applications was lifted, and I attended a recent Council meeting with the Cutter's application on the agenda to observe how this new tool in the Comprehensive Plan might be applied.
In the absence of any specific definition of what area constitutes the city core, I took to the meeting my perception of the city core as the area where non-motorized transportation to amenities is the more convenient, and consequently the preferred alternative. I believe a motor vehicle will be the primary method of travel to and from the Cutter's location. Apparently Hailey P&Z and at least two members of the council see the city core as some arbitrary and continually expanding area created to accommodate added density through annexation.
Please don't feed me that tired R.4 nonsense anymore; the county is not going to allow a sewage lagoon and the applicants have nowhere to pump the effluent from a package plant without the city. Perhaps the city is trying to grow its way out of a tight budget. This is just as irrational as it sounds. Any honest land-use planner will tell you expanding the tax base has never, in the history of this nation, provided anything but temporary relief to strained budgets.
Until the city and county integrate their consideration of the manifold development issues facing this valley, we are, as we should be, at a stalemate. A lawsuit against the city, combined with the council's prudent insistence on a detailed analysis of the financial implications of the Cutter's annexation proposal, will hopefully eliminate taxpayer subsidies of development citizens don't want.
It is the pattern of developers to portray the denial of a proposal adding density as somehow a "taking" or a violation of their property rights. This is entirely illogical. How can someone take away something you never had? Today, there must be a huge net public benefit to justify adding density anywhere in this valley.
This winter Harry Rinker negotiated a deal with the city of Hailey to circumvent possible county limitations on density resulting from concerns over potential groundwater contamination. Harry throws out a number like 350, so later on 200 might sound reasonable. A legitimate process requiring more time and study would probably allow only half that. A lot of variables can influence this equation. With real estate development there are no mulligans. From an impact standpoint, 100, $2 million homes are preferable to 200, $1 million homes. Both maintain construction revenue and jobs, although I suspect much of that money and many of those paychecks are leaving the valley these days.
Once again, in some nice place, vast sums of money are being extracted with minimal investment of time and energy, and certainly no conscience. It is all beginning to have the feel of buzzards at a carcass.
This is my home. My quality of life is a reality I experience every day when I walk out the door. I would like elected officials to understand that my quality of life is not for sale, at any price.
The decisions being made today have real and significant consequences.
Development interests who choose to respond to my concerns with the tired, worn-out invocation of "nimby," should first consider the homogenous exclusive enclaves they have already created, and the reality that any future development will be exactly the same as the result of market forces.
Some consideration is being given to affordable housing. At the Cutter's meeting, some bright and considerate individual asked about the future of those property owners earning well below the median income, and hanging on for dear life. Apparently they will be just another casualty of poor decision-making by government.
Occasionally someone submits a letter with words that succinctly and eloquently capture the heart of an issue. I will conclude with the following paragraph that appeared recently as part of Rod Kegley and Pam Rheinschild's Guest Opinion.
"Increasing density requests for each new development or annexation application bodes the question of the future build out of Blaine County; just how many people are too many? Without a doubt there exists a demand in today's market for the product proposed in the Rinker development; however, growing demand nationally to relocate to a semi-rural area like the Wood River Valley will likely never be fully met, nor should be. The Comprehensive Plan was drafted to incorporate a manageable maximum population, a number which should not be exceeded due to a developer's wish for higher density simply to satisfy possible inexhaustible demand or to realize greater financial gain."
