A letter from our Executive Director

We have a vision that Jackson Hole can be a national model of a strong community living in balance with nature.

Dear conservation friends:

This past year, we had to react to major subdivision proposals to turn agricultural land into hundreds of homesites in Hog Island and Northern South Park. The hopeful developers framed both proposals as housing for our local workers, which set forth two challenging questions for us at the Alliance. First: where do we stand on the supposed conflict between housing and conservation? Second: can we stop or improve these proposals or are they unstoppable?

Some in our valley believe that housing and conservation are intrinsically opposed, and you have to only pick one. Then they disagree on which one matters more. I think we have to do both.

I moved to Jackson to do conservation, work I’ve been passionate about since I watched vast forests chopped down to become subdivisions and strip malls near my childhood home. In my time here, I’ve met amazing people and made many good friends. A couple years ago I counted and found that 8 of my 10 close friends had moved, mostly because of housing costs. The place across from me, which used to house five local 30-something workers – one a Search & Rescue volunteer, another a welder – sold last year for $675K. The buyers remodeled it and immediately sold it for $1.3M. It no longer houses local workers. After spending enough years building community only to have your friends leave and your community dissolve, when do you give up?

I don’t think we can do conservation long-term unless we do housing too.

We need volunteers and activists. We need wildlife, ecosystem, and community stewards. Half the graduates of our Conservation Leadership Institute are gone, almost all because of housing costs. At the Alliance, like many other businesses and organizations, it’s hard to recruit and retain talented staff. We are up against entrenched, well-connected, and well-funded developers. If we want to win, we need staff with relationships and institutional memory and roots in our community.

While “no growth” is an attractive idea, we must be clear that it is not realistic. The American private property system, starting with the settler-colonial taking of the land in this valley, led to “entitlements” for additional development. Our Comprehensive Plan and zoning allow a “rough doubling” of homes and population – from 20,000 to 40,000 residents. Tourism and jobs are growing much faster than housing. Like it or not, thousands of additional homes will be built in Jackson Hole. Will they mostly be second homes, retirement homes, or AirBnBs? Will they only house the highest-income local workers? Or will they be homes for the whole range of local workers, including those working to steward our ecosystem?

Luckily, we can do both conservation and housing.

The easiest way is to focus new housing in our existing developed footprint: town and other “complete neighborhoods” (places you can do everything you need – work, groceries, schools – without having to drive on a congested highway). More homes for local workers in our existing footprint will have a very small impact on our ecosystem – less than if the same workers were living in Alpine or Victor and driving climate-polluting vehicles down highways and tragically crashing into wildlife along the way.

And sometimes, our community will decide to expand the urban footprint, like in Northern South Park. Turning what is currently farmland, open space, and wildlife movement corridors into a subdivision obviously has a negative impact on wildlife. But if done right, that impact can be mitigated – balanced out – with real conservation measures. Permanent protection for wildlife moving from Snow King and Josie’s Ridge to the Snake River, for example, could be a fair trade for more homes near the high school.

We have a vision that Jackson Hole can be a national model of a strong community living in balance with nature. Some call this the “New Alliance.” I’m not sure it’s actually different from who we’ve always been – many of our founders and elders are still involved and are still strongly advocating for this holistic approach.

Bringing these values to the Northern South Park proposal, we decided that we could only support development in the area if it’s done right.

The upzone proposal on the table was missing key components: holistic planning for the whole neighborhood; permanent affordability for the whole range of local workers; a plan for infrastructure including wastewater and transportation; and meaningful conservation. So, we advocated for a neighborhood plan with a mix of housing types (apartments, duplexes, triplexes, and single family), bounded to the south by protected wildlife movement corridors and permanently-conserved working ranchlands.

Housing AND conservation.

The subdivision vote was a nail-biter to the end.

The County Commission ultimately voted 4-1 to deny the proposal and instead start into a neighborhood plan for all of Northern South Park. We are grateful to commissioners Natalia Macker, Greg Epstein, Luther Propst, and Mark Newcomb for choosing responsible planning, especially since they took pro-development heat and intense political pressure during an election. This was an example of bold community leadership, and of saying “no” in order to get to a much better “yes.”

“Wins” are few and far between in the conservation world – whether locally or globally. So when we do get the right outcome, we should take time to celebrate. Thanks to our team and our friends, and to all of you who sent in comments, talked to your friends about Northern South Park, and helped us get the right answer on a problematic subdivision proposal.

Now we all need to engage positively in the neighborhood plan. We’ll be there, pushing the envelope for creative solutions for our community and conservation. I hope to see you there.

Sincerely,

Skye Schell

Executive Director

Skye nearing the summit of Mount Moran in Grand Teton National Park.

Photo credit: Mac Dukart