Federal Land Sales for Affordable Housing?

[Irrelevant]

I'm generally not supportive of federal lands for housing, but I am in this case.

Stehekin at a crossroads

Soon, Chelan County will publish its draft Community Plan for the village of Stehekin located at the west end of Lake Chelan and it comes not without controversy. It’s part

www.wenatcheeworld.com

The Feds already stated in 1981 that all the private lands they've acquired in the area should go back to private ownership. And now, thanks to all this #winning the feds aren't upholding their end of many deals, including repairing roads and levees. And in the name of "efficiency" all of the actual management and interactions with the "park" are actually just private, for-profit contractors.

I was intending to paste this into the "Everything is going to be okay" thread, but I forgot that one was killed.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm generally not supportive of federal lands for housing, but I am in this case.

Stehekin at a crossroads

Soon, Chelan County will publish its draft Community Plan for the village of Stehekin located at the west end of Lake Chelan and it comes not without controversy. It’s part

www.wenatcheeworld.com

The Feds already stated in 1981 that all the private lands they've acquired in the area should go back to private ownership. And now, thanks to all this #winning the feds aren't upholding their end of many deals, including repairing roads and levees. And in the name of "efficiency" all of the actual management and interactions with the "park" are actually just private, for-profit contractors.

I was intending to paste this into the "Everything is going to be okay" thread, but I forgot that one was killed.

I'm confused buy the article. I'm not sure it needed to give me an entire 150yr history on a town of less 100 people, but whatever. Most of the Private land is on a floodplain. I think it would be a waste of fed money to improve a bunch of infrastructure for when such a small number of benefit from it. In the end, The story sounds similar. It sounds like some want a vacation and others want some people imported every summer to serve them their lattes. But of course to maintain the "character" of the area. I'm sure I'm missing something. The article was confusing.

Most ironic quote....
“Locals figure out a way to get things done,”

There does seem to be agreement that no one wants a high-density subdivision or any high rises.
“We just want sufficient housing for seasonal and full-time workers who are providing necessary services to the many visitors who come to Stehekin,”

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm confused buy the article. I'm not sure it needed to give me an entire 150yr history on a town of less 100 people, but whatever. Most of the Private land is on a floodplain. I think it would be a waste of fed money to improve a bunch of infrastructure for when such a small number of benefit from it.

Except that as part of creating a National park around an existing community, the feds agreed to a laundry list of things and then haven't done jack, especially the last decade or so. They have a well visited national park attraction that they want to maintain access to, but then don't actually support any of the infrastructure necessary to have that access. The only two viable options are to condemn the rest of the private land, demo the buildings, and eliminate a community, or own up to your responsibilities to actually fund something. Yes I recognize we have a multi-billion dollar backlog of maintenance within the NPS system, but we're going the wrong direction and defunding it even more while visitation continues to increase.

In the end, The story sounds similar. It sounds like some want a vacation and others want some people imported every summer to serve them their lattes. But of course to maintain the "character" of the area. I'm sure I'm missing something.

It's pretty easy to see that they want some single family homes, some small tourism businesses, and just enough support business to get by. They don't want a giant resort. And they don't want to give up multi-generational homesteads. You point me to another place in the lower 48 that isn't connected to the outside world? No power, no roads. The county collects tax revenue but then doesn't use it in the area.

The article was confusing.

I think it was mostly AI written.

 

[SAJ-99]

Except that as part of creating a National park around an existing community, the feds agreed to a laundry list of things and then haven't done jack, especially the last decade or so. They have a well visited national park attraction that they want to maintain access to, but then don't actually support any of the infrastructure necessary to have that access. The only two viable options are to condemn the rest of the private land, demo the buildings, and eliminate a community, or own up to your responsibilities to actually fund something. Yes I recognize we have a multi-billion dollar backlog of maintenance within the NPS system, but we're going the wrong direction and defunding it even more while visitation continues to increase.

It's pretty easy to see that they want some single family homes, some small tourism businesses, and just enough support business to get by. They don't want a giant resort. And they don't want to give up multi-generational homesteads. You point me to another place in the lower 48 that isn't connected to the outside world? No power, no roads. The county collects tax revenue but then doesn't use it in the area.

I think it was mostly AI written.

Makes sense. Sounds like the NPS gave up after the last flood? I'm not sure what the optimal solution is or what the locals want. It kind of sounded like the locals had different opinions. I had to look up the number of visitors (11,000 per year). I assume most are pulling boats for the lake in the summer. Seems substantial for a town that size. Guessing they would be forced to use a different launch? I just tend to think if the Feds sold some of the land it would end up as Air BnBs and the problem wouldn't be solved.