Mayoral Candidate Questionnaires

In August 2024, we released a questionnaire to both mayoral candidates. We added the bold font to their responses emphasize the most important aspects of their views. Otherwise, their responses are unedited.

We have set ambitious housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan, but we do not yet have enough stable funding to achieve these goals. How would you obtain permanent and dedicated revenue for safe, secure and affordable homes for our community members—especially the most vulnerable and lowest-income among us?

Jessica Chambers: I recently pitched an idea to the Regulatory Reduction Task Force and State Rep. Mike Yin (HD16) that’s similar to the bipartisan YIMBY Act, which is co-sponsored by Senator Cynthia Lummis (WY). The YIMBY Act encourages localities to eliminate discriminatory land use policies and remove barriers to affordable housing. It requires CDBG recipients to report on efforts to remove these policies. A potential path forward is to amend the Lodging Tax statutes to allow communities to use tax dollars for housing if they implement YIMBY-like policies. I spoke with Eric Dombrowski from the state Travel & Tourism Board, and he expressed concern that the state TTB would oppose such a measure, fearing the Lodging Tax could be abolished. My bigger concern is preventing property tax reductions, as Teton County would suffer greatly given Wyoming’s limited tax tools. I’ve suggested employing a municipal finance expert to evaluate how we can better leverage our resources. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to convince my colleagues or the commissioners to support this, but it would pay for itself. As mayor, I plan to call a housing summit to get all community partners working together on housing projects. We need to maximize partnerships and resources, like pairing the school district with community partners to get faster results using state funding, debt capacity, or philanthropic dollars. I know finding a secure funding source for housing is challenging, but I believe creative collaborations are the best path forward. Despite being an original Shelter member and receiving their endorsement in every election, I’ve often felt overlooked. As mayor, I hope to see more collaboration with Shelter to make meaningful improvements in housing policy. To succeed, we need to work together strategically, considering internal politics, staff capacities, and council priorities. By aligning our efforts, we can make real progress on affordable housing. We can’t afford to operate in silos anymore.

Arne Jorgensen: Any discussion about funding starts with the question: are we effectively and efficiently providing sufficient public services? The Town of Jackson continually reviews and adjusts its budgets to ensure that public resources are managed effectively and efficiently. Discussions about taxes should recognize that increases will impact some in our community more than others, which highlights the need to continue to provide effective core services and to be sure that all in our community are able to access public services as they need. Without additional revenue, the town is in a position where our current public services are at risk. I am willing to support additional investments in community priorities of Housing, Conservation, Transportation, and Health and Human Services. Given current state statutes, my preferences for revenue are: 1) county wide general sales tax, 2) specific purpose excise tax (SPET), 3) county wide lodging tax, 4) town only general tax, 5) town only lodging tax, and 6) finally as last measure – review of county or town property tax. These priorities are based on a recognition that while sales tax is generally a more regressive tax, the particulars of our economy suggests that this is not the case in our community. This is primarily due to lack of sales tax on food and that our visitors pay roughly ½ of the sales tax. Additional items should include:

  • Continue to work across the state to allow for a County optional property transfer fee.
  • Aggressively pursue leveraging our limited revenues through bonding, incremental tax increase financing, or private foundation mission driven lending.
  • While not as permanent or predictable, increasing philanthropic efforts to support community housing.

What is your vision for the Virginian neighborhood? Do you support the current recommendation to move forward with Pennrose as the developer? Do you support the new Affordable category (120-160% MFI) incorporated into these plans? Do you support the original breakdown of Affordable and Workforce homes proposed by Pennrose?

Jessica Chambers: This is a complex issue that needs a conversation, as it can’t be fully conveyed here. Unfortunately, the process so far is unacceptable. My biggest concern is that we’re heading toward another 440 West Kelly situation, where a private developer was bailed out with public money, setting a precedent for future developers. Plans were in place to ensure those units went to working people, but we ignored that, and now three units are likely lost. This wasn’t the promise we made to the community, and the process is starting to mirror what happened with the Virginian. I don’t want a repeat of that. If the town and county don’t hold firm on developer agreements, the community loses. From what I’ve seen, we’re already on the path to another 440 W Kelly, which is unacceptable to me. By increasing zoning while releasing proposals, we’ve left room for colleagues to backpedal on density and for public scrutiny. Housing experts have described me as the only true affordable housing supporter between the two boards. We can’t afford to get this wrong, and right now, we’re on the wrong path. Opportunities for affordable housing are limited, and we need to stay focused. As for supporting the new “Affordable category (120-160% MFI),” this category doesn’t yet exist in our rules. While it’s complicated, I believe it would help those who earn too much for current affordable options but not enough for workforce deed restrictions, especially given current mortgage rates. The Virginian RV Camp generates around $1M annually, which could be reinvested in housing in the interim. This touches on the larger issue of super-gentrification. As we exclude working people from visiting, we invite luxury tourism, which draws wealthier buyers and pushes out locals. If we don’t address this, our community will continue to spiral into more upscaling, all tied to the lack of affordable housing.

Arne Jorgensen: I am strongly supportive of the current progress of this exciting community housing project. The current Mayor/Town Council and County Commission have approved a robust transparent public/private process that has produced two very qualified proposals. While I would have preferred the Elmington option that was not selected, I am still very excited that the Town and County are moving forward with Pennrose based on strong direction to increase levels of affordability, increase livability of the units and site, and a wider range of designs to better address needs of aging residents. Our housing needs include a very wide range of price points which significantly impacts required investments. I am supporting an increase in levels of affordability and am looking forward to seeing the range of options that will be presented to the electeds, some of which may require additional public investment. This direction very much reflects my input on this project grounded in over three decades of community housing involvement as well as my background as an architect. When these homes are complete, I fully expect to see a great neighborhood that provides for stable housing for community members – homes that are permanently protected to be available to generations of residents. The additional income restricted Affordable category is an accurate reflection of the needs in our changing community. The key for success is that the restrictions are tied to ability to pay and not simply where income is earned.

What would your response be to community members who expressed opposition to incorporating deed-restricted homes into their neighborhoods? How do you communicate the importance of housing locals locally?

Jessica Chambers: A perfect example of how I respond to pressure from neighbors who do not want deed-restricted homes in their neighborhoods is how I responded to the Presbyterian Church’s housing development. It taps into the last thing I mentioned — the community at large is facing an existential threat due to upscaling and super-gentrification. I communicated with neighbors that everyone is needed to bear some of the burden of neighborhood change — by allowing for the Presbyterian Church’s density request, we have enabled essential services to be provided that offset other expenses people have. The affordable childcare, early education, after-school programming, and summer camps that the church historically provided was no longer available given their lack of staff due to the housing crisis. This had ripple effects throughout the community, further stressing parents/guardians and employers due to the affordable childcare crisis. Without adequate staff the church had to shut down some of the most affordable child care in the community. There is an interconnectedness that cannot be ignored and a cascade of impacts.
I voted in favor and after expressing concerns about the future deed restrictions and again potential for $1m condos that aren’t accessible to average people, the church came back with an agreement to deed restrict now and the project is moving forward.

Arne Jorgensen: For over 30 years, I have been advocating for the inclusion of critical restricted homes in our community and I am proud of the roughly 1,600 units in place now. These restricted homes are serving a wide range of residents through the provision of stable housing to a very diverse subset of our community and are key to maintaining a true sense of community rather than just a resort. I understand that there is concern about changing neighborhoods. It is critical that we never lose sight of the need to ensure that any homes that are presented as affordable or available to members of our community are protected over generations of residents. This is a simple fiscally conservative reality that our public investment in housing, be it public funds or the political will to provide additional density, must be protected! It is helpful to set this discussion as an example that these public/private partnerships are resulting in significant progress on housing and planning goals embedded in our Comprehensive Plan. One of these key goals is the transfer of residential density from unplatted areas of the County to existing nodes of development, including the Town. If we had access to predictable funding sources as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, there could be a greater use of programs that do not rely on new development such as the Housing Preservation Program. This is a program that purchases restrictions on existing homes which is a great win – win for both housing advocates and those that are concerned about neighborhood changes.

It will take unprecedented and strategic partnerships to move the housing needle meaningfully. Which entities (besides other housing-specific organizations) should be working together to address housing insecurity? In practical terms, how would you use the levers of local government to help build collaborative partnerships among stakeholders in this region?

Jessica Chambers: I will immediately call for a housing summit. Given funding constraints, we need strong partnerships. Institutions like the hospital, which aren’t in the housing business, should connect with partners to maximize resources like land, funding, and debt capacity. I’m ready to lead this. The Community Foundation’s housing task force can only do so much—philanthropy creates charity, but policy brings justice. Government must lead to facilitate long-term solutions, as philanthropic efforts can shift or fade. When the hospital changed leadership, its housing efforts changed. We need partnerships with businesses, parks, school districts, and nonprofits. Businesses needing housing but lacking land could partner with homeowners who can’t afford to build, financing construction for affordable rents. Grassroots solutions like this build community, while top-down approaches increase property values and lose workforce homes to wealthy buyers. Shelter JH should collaborate with developers to understand housing needs. Developers build within town guidelines, but current barriers limit affordable housing. Partnering with them would offer insights and help reduce these barriers. Local control matters, but state involvement can help depoliticize housing policies. As working people get priced out, we lose housing champions in office. Running for office is hard for working people, so advocates need to be strategic—endorsements alone aren’t enough. More support for housing champions is essential. Without the support of two council colleagues, I can’t achieve much as an official. A majority of three votes is crucial. You need housing advocates in office or a mayor who can set the agenda. Political expertise is vital for progress on housing goals. Right now, poorly run meetings result in anti-growth, anti-housing decisions. A strong chair and clear agenda will improve decisions. Solutions are rooted in the community and could be shared regionally if we succeed locally.

Arne Jorgensen: Our community benefits anytime we can increase meaningful respectful dialogue around housing. The question suggests an effort such as the Mountain Housing Council of Tahoe Truckee (MHC). This regional effort seems to have helped that community focus on building support for housing solutions. The Community Foundation of Jackson Hole has been making significant progress in enabling a community based collaborative. This model would make sense in our region in that a governmental led effort may not be as widely embraced. I have stood ready to take part in any community discussion around housing, and continue to do so as well as supporting the involvement of the Town and Joint Housing Department. Given my over 20 years serving on the board of the Wyoming Community Foundation, I have the additional understanding of how our local Community Foundation could continue to play a leadership role. In addition to local and state government and our non-profit housing providers and advocates, we should be looking to include: staff and donors of local non-profits including Health and Human service providers and those with a conservation focus, small and large business owners and advocates, private developers, engineering and architectural design teams, property owners, real estate industry, and our local philanthropic community. I feel that it is important to note that the housing related work of each of the stakeholders, including local government, should continue in parallel with any type of broader based community dialogue. It is critical that we never lose sight of the need to ensure that any homes that are presented as affordable or available to members of our community are protected over generations of residents. This is a simple fiscally conservative reality that our public investment in housing, be it public funds or the political will to provide additional density, must be protected!

Town of Jackson elected officials have recently pushed the pause button on commercial development in certain town zones so we have time to recalibrate our land development regulations (LDRs) to incentivize the development we want to see in our community. What changes would you make to LDRs, zoning regulations, or other local government systems to house more locals locally?

Jessica Chambers: To be clear: we paused “big buildings” with this emergency moratorium, but this is not the comprehensive overhaul we need. That overhaul is my top priority when elected in January. Extending it too long risks unintended consequences and further damage. Legally, we’re limited in what can be changed during this time. Design guidelines also need to be scrapped to enable housing construction without the subjective barriers that delay projects and increase costs, sometimes bankrupting local developers before their projects can be completed. On August 23rd, I sent this email to ShelterJH, Conservation Alliance, Protect Our Waters, Riverwind Foundation, and JH Climate Collective: “I appreciate your advocacy on understanding the unintended consequences of the moratorium. I agree that we need to explore these impacts fully… The longer this moratorium lasts, the longer it will take to address these pressing issues. I’m committed to tackling these larger concerns once this issue is resolved with minimal harm to the community.” Since elected, I’ve repeatedly called for this work. It’s one reason I decided to run for mayor — so I can put it on the agenda immediately, which I haven’t been able to do without the support of two colleagues.At a basic level, we need to eliminate exclusionary zoning for development across the community. Had we done this earlier, we could have had affordable, accessible density. It’s late, but I’m committed to addressing this within my first month in office. I’m not a comprehensive housing policy expert, but several books I have found to be guides are The Affordable City, by Shane Phillips; Escaping the Housing Trap, by Marohn Jr & Herriges; Suburban Nation by Duany, Palter-Zyberk, & Speck; The Slums of Aspen by Sun-Hee Park & Pellow; and Fixer-Upper by Schuetz. I’ll push for solutions and move this process at hyperspeed. My goal is to prioritize changes that will result in true affordability for working people, with housing being the top priority.

Arne Jorgensen: I voted to approve the moratorium, the vote was unanimous by the current Mayor and Council. This moratorium is narrowly focused on large building developments with a defined time frame that allows the town to reset our priorities and make targeted changes to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). There is no reason that future Councils require the use of a moratorium tool to do the work of revising LDRs. I view this discussion as founded in three phases:

  • Immediate LDR changes, by the end of 2024; I am supportive of changes tied to building size and targeted to be completed by the end of the year. Adjustments include limiting building size, Conditional Use Permit based on site area, and others.
  • Midterm LDR changes, over the next year or two; I have been advocating for LDR changes for several years that would address: Large Buildings, Scale of Residential Single Family Development, and Updating Housing Mitigation. The current LDRs contain a mix of incentives and requirements that increase our community housing opportunities. As we review changes, we should be looking to make adjustments that ensure that larger ratios of new development are available to locals.
  • Comprehensive Plan Update, over the next three or so years; As needed as the moratorium is, the underlying issues are grounded in our Comprehensive Plan. While we have annual Comp Plan check-ins, I feel it is time to revisit the Comp Plan as a whole and would like to begin that process after our immediate Large Building LDR changes are done. These documents, with the Town and County budgets, serve as foundational guidance that should be reflective of our community priorities and should be true to our community vision. They are not static and require ongoing review and work to ensure that our path forward achieves the goals we have set for ourselves. It is critical that LDRs be designed to achieve clearly articulated goals.