The ongoing debate about new hotels proposed in Ketchum is getting stale.
In the most recent rounds, the arguments against hotels were hackneyed and repetitive: They're in the wrong place, they're too big or too tall and will block someone's view. They create too much traffic or require too many parking spaces. They will compete with existing hotels and employ too many people who will need a place to live.
The vocal hand-wringing is often punctuated by statements including "We don't want to be Aspen" and "This hotel will steal Ketchum's soul."
It's a whole lot easier to be against something than to solve big hairy problems like the economic challenges that will face the Wood River Valley in the next decade. It's easier to try to protect narrow self-interest without looking to balance that interest with the needs of the community at large.
That said, it would a lot more fun if the combatants in this debate managed to spice it up a little and offer up some surprising rhetoric.
For example, hotel opponents could offer an argument in the affirmative. How about, "We don't want to be Aspen, but we'd really like to be Pierce or Leadore," or some other near-ghost town in Idaho that few people have ever heard of.
They could substitute new fears for the fear of traffic. How about the fear of too many golfers with horrendous swings shattering neighborhood windows and knocking down bystanders? Or the fear that visitors will bring too much stylish fashion to the valley and drive up the cost of living for locals who will feel compelled to compete?
The arguments sound absurd, but at least the community might find some humor in what's become a deadening debate.
