ISSUE #270: Post-Vacation Musings (2/25/24)

"You can never really own real estate for instance; 

if you think you can, just try not paying your property taxes for a few years."

-- Michael Maloney

Apologies for the brevity of this installment, but I have been traveling overseas and decided that updating you on a few things I am thinking about would be preferable to simply skipping an issue. So let's dive in... Property taxes. How'd those pan out for you? I've heard the average Pitkin County property tax bill increased 27%, but anecdotes are of course all over the board. The county is implementing its first-ever property tax relief program targeting residents with household incomes below 500% of the federal poverty level using $200,000 from the general fund to dole out rebates in $2000 increments. It caught my attention when I learned that thankfully "APCHA-aligned" properties are not eligible because their tax increases are "already capped." But what on earth does that mean? Why wouldn't APCHA housing be taxed like everything else based on assessed value? Capped. Hmmmmm. With the help of a colleague, I did some cursory digging just to get a handle on what's what. Nothing personal against Kelly McNicholas-Kury of the BOCC, but I looked at her APCHA property first. (She lives at Burlingame in the city and is a county elected official who sits on the APCHA Board - a perfect subject, that's all.) Her property taxes in 2022 were $647.08, but in 2023 these decreased 32% to $438.96. Curious. She paid $266,619 in 2021, yet her actual value in 2022 was $254,000 which further decreased 14% to $217,600 in 2023. The assessed value also decreased year-to-year.  How do Burlingame units decrease in value when all other property values in Pitkin County increased dramatically? A great question for the assessor, right? "You would need to talk with APCHA about the deed restricted properties. We get the list from them and just enter in the amounts they tell us." WHAT?!?! For free market properties, the assessor values the subject property using comparable sales during the 18 month period prior to the valuation, but for APCHA properties, APCHA just submits a list of valuations to the assessor?!?!? Based on what? And who specifically compiles and submits this "list"? Clearly, the result of this non-transparent policy has resulted in the shift of EVEN MORE of the already substantial property tax burden from the subsidized housing sector to the free market. (Recall that my earlier investigation into Torre's sketchy real estate purchase yielded another anomaly with APCHA and the assessors office: APCHA reports the amount they sell units for but they do not report what they pay for them. These two instances where the county assessor blindly does what APCHA tells her to do can and should easily be tightened up in the name of transparency. Why the secrecy???) I'll be chasing this one down! "More housing" through buy-downs. Ugh. Thinking they're great leaders and because money apparently grows on trees at the county (see property tax increases, above), the BOCC has recently committed TWO MILLION DOLLARS to the West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition, a brand new non-profit seeking to solve the scientifically unverified regional housing crisis. (The coalition relies on numbers from a 2019 debunked housing needs study that the consultant admits did not use a scientific formula to support its conclusions.)  The BOCC is all pumped up to support the buy-down of free market homes purchased in the region for $1.5 million or less by people (with no income cap) who will make these their full-time, primary residences and won't own residential property anywhere else. The coalition will provide up to 30% of the purchase price in exchange for the buyer deed restricting the property in perpetuity. Crazy, huh? Especially when there is no mention of where or even if these potential beneficiaries will work in Pitkin County. And just who is going to handle compliance? Don't say APCHA. We know how that will go. None of this has been worked out yet, but the county is all-in solely because such buy-downs represent housing solutions without development! But the $2 million ($1.2 million from the American Recovery Plan Act that must be spent in 2024, if it's even legal to spend it this way, and the balance from the county's housing fund) is expected to only yield 5 to 7 homes in year one. FIVE to SEVEN. What a complete joke. I'll be watching closely as details come together, but best I can tell, there was no discussion of where the money, if any, will come in years two and beyond. In fact, there was suprisingly little discussion for an expenditure of this size - amazing given all the issues with APCHA and zero political will to admit or address any of these. Entry level home-buying. Only in Aspen is the "entry level" $1+ million. But keep in mind that the already tight market for free market housing below $1.5 million is now set to get even tighter with the buy-down program. The Aspen schools have been on a buying spree with their 2020 bond proceeds while the city of Aspen outbids most buyers while building its own proprietary housing portfolio by targeting these exact units. Good luck to the first-time homebuyers and businesses seeking units for their employees - the competition at the low end of the market is about to get fierce and you know what that means for pricing. I'd like to put together a tracker on the entities buying up such properties. As always, more to come. EM

ISSUE #269: In the Rough at the Aspen Golf Course (2/11/24)

"All paradises, all utopias are defined by who is not there, by the people who are not allowed in."

-- Toni Morrison

It should come as no surprise that the COVID-era enthusiasm for golf in Aspen has not died down. Time spent outdoors in the fresh air, with views of the Continental Divide, Pyramid Peak, Mt. Hayden, Independence Pass, Hunter Creek Valley, Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk - it’s right up our alley, especially when the Aspen Golf Club, our municipal course, is so noteworthy: ranked as the #1 muni course in the state and #21 nationally in 2009, the 7100-yard Parkland-style course is one of the longest in the state with water featured at almost each hole. What’s not to love? Apparently nothing. The course has apparently been getting loved to death, with 30,000 rounds played last year. And according to “the club,” part of the city’s parks and rec department, the biggest complaint is that “locals are getting squeezed” by the increased demand. Peeling back a layer or two of the onion, this non-golfer was surprised to learn how the Aspen Golf Club has slowly crept from being a public amenity not unlike our parks, trails and open spaces albeit with reservations and greens fees, to what is practically a private club with a privileged class of members and a self-serving citizen advisory board that sets the rules. But it may not be what you think. Despite the 100 Platinum passes ($3250), 185 Gold passes ($1600) and 225 Silver passes ($1050), the Aspen Golf Club has actually morphed into a “local’s only” bastion, with a mission statement of “affordability and accessibility for primary residents” and a recently stated (by the GM) challenge of “balancing those who want tee times while maintaining access to others.”  Passes go on sale February 16 so let’s dig in.  ·      Just who are these “primary residents” aka locals, as far as golf passes are concerned? According to the AGC, those with Colorado driver’s licenses stating a residence in the following zip codes qualify: 81611 (Aspen), 81615 (Snowmass Village), 81656 (Woody Creek), 81654 (Snowmass), 81621 (Basalt), 81623 (El Jebel, Carbondale, Marble, Redstone) and 81642 (Meredith). These are the “verified residents” throughout the Roaring Fork Valley who get first dibs on passes. Then, after March 4, whatever passes (if any) are left will be made available to the public at large. And beyond that, just two (2) tee times per hour will be available for everyone else. All season. ·      Is there ever a “balance” when weighing “those who WANT” access against a limited supply of highly-desired access?  This is crazy. Can you say “mission creep?” Yes, of course there need to be rules and tee times at a public golf course, and it’s great to offer affordable season passes. But why just to “locals?” And with all due respect to those from Carbondale, you’re hardly an Aspen local. Sorry. Like so much else around here, (think: little fiefdoms like the Community Garden), despite being under the city’s umbrella, the AGC operates unchecked and with so much autonomy that things cease to make sense anymore and frankly run unabashedly amok. The AGC is a MUNICIPAL course. Public. MUNICIPAL. Synonymous with “city.”  As in the city of Aspen’s general fund covers the costs of running the AGC above the revenues the club brings in. That’s called a taxpayer subsidy. Why then do full-time residents of Meredith and Redstone (both over 40 miles from Aspen) take precedence over city of Aspen property owners and taxpayers when it comes to accessing the AGC?  It defies logic. By design. The word “fair” gets regularly bandied about, and in the context of golf passes this is no exception. “It’s not fair” has become Aspen’s siren song of woe; the lament that somehow living “here” full-time (within a very wide net, apparently) makes one uniquely more deserving of an increasingly long list of benefits than those who actually pay for them. For those who are excluded from golf passes by the new rules, it should really come as no surprise: you want something that “locals” honestly think belongs to them by divine right – they live here and you don’t. And for that, you will be punished: no golf for you. (And isn’t it interesting that most non-Aspen golf pass holders come from Snowmass Village, where Aspen employees cannot qualify for SMV subsidized housing, but SMV employees are of course qualified for APCHA units? I digress.) What would actually be “fair” would be for those desiring golf passes to line up with their 81611 city-limits property tax bill, in order of taxes paid.  Pay most, go first. Then those passes remaining, if any, could be lotteried to “others” or left open to the public - there being no true distinction between a resident of Dallas who is visiting Aspen and someone who lives in El Jebel when it comes to the innate “right” to an Aspen municipal asset.  I’m not suggesting this as the solution, but it certainly would be “fair.”  And let’s not forget that we are an international tourism destination. Shouldn't some of our tee times be made available to our visitors - you know, the ones who pay the bills? But “fairness” is not what they seek. It has nothing to do with “fairness,” clearly. It’s about taking stuff and making it available only to a moving-target definition of “locals” because our elected city government and the administration thinks this is ok. It’s about control and retribution. And it’s a selfish and dangerous philosophy for an economy that relies on tourism and recreation. This notion of acting on what people “want” has become a warped rationale for building more subsidized housing, potentially subsidizing retail and restaurants, and now prioritizing golf pass sales. Where does it end? (Hint: it doesn’t. The desire for “stuff” people WANT yet cannot afford is infinite.) I know, it’s “just” golf passes. This time. But it’s yet another example of how far off the rails another fiefdom has gone. I bring it up to raise your awareness of next year’s MUNICIPAL election – your opportunity to weigh in and put an end to this nonsense and so much just like it. For now, it appears that only Aspen residents can vote, but at the rate we’re going, who knows.  The election will be on March 4, 2025. There will be two council seats up: those held today by Ward Hauenstein and John Doyle. Good riddance! Ward is term limited off council but could (foolishly) run for mayor, and John can (but shouldn’t) run for council again. Let’s work to make sure they both know the harsh opposition they will face! The good news is there will be at least one open council seat.  Torre is also term limited and thankfully cannot run again for mayor. In other words, we could easily see three open seats. This is a real opportunity to add a rational thinker or three to Aspen’s elected leadership.  Interested candidates, you have a fan right here! EM PS Please continue to share The Red Ant with your networks! I appreciate it!

ISSUE #268: Aspen and the Politics of Public Memory (1/28/24)

"If anyone tries to penetrate the past with the knife of the present will always act in vain. The past is invulnerable. Such attempts can only cause the present or the future to bleed."

-- Simon Schwartz

ASPEN TIMES COLUMN Welcome new subscribers! And thanks to all of you who continue to forward The Red Ant to your friends and neighbors. The recent enthusiasm has been unbelievable and I am eternally grateful for the support! A couple of housekeeping items as we get used to "the newsletter" again: I am planning to continue writing "a column" every two weeks, but we'll see how that shakes out. There may be "Ants" more frequently too as news of the day dictates. Say hello to "The Naughty Box." I heard the term on a recent vacation and knew it was just the vehicle to share "highlights" from our elected representatives, public servants and members of the press. Think of it as a police blotter, Red Ant style. See below. (Please feel free to contribute - I protect my sources!) And lastly, the pins are in! Contact me for your Torre-Gate pin. It's never the crime. It's the cover-up. Aspen and the Politics of Public Memory What is going on around here? This past fall, the community was surprised by SkiCo’s strange and unexpected re-naming of the newly-expanded Pandora’s terrain on Aspen Mountain and literally rocked by the sudden announcement that the Aspen Music Festival and School’s iconic Benedict Tent would be renamed following a $17 million philanthropic gift by the organization’s board chair.   In a place where perhaps the one last thing we all have in common is the value this community places on maintaining its shared history, are these just two alarming attempts at revisionist history, or does it portend more ill-conceived name changes to come? Re-naming is not a new phenomenon. The George Floyd incident and BLM riots of 2020 exacerbated the widespread pressure on public institutions and universities to remove statues and re-name buildings that previously honored individuals whose beliefs, affiliations and activities no longer align with their current missions and values. Included in recent de-naming efforts have been slave owners and segregationists, pharmaceutical manufacturers and Jeffrey Epstein affiliates, among other unsavory names and contentious figures. But locally, those reasons had no bearing on why “our” names were changed. Here, as is our penchant, it’s more often than not the result of unforced errors: someone trying to be clever, or maybe even an emotional reaction to the loss of a leader or an unexpected financial windfall. For whatever reasons, both name changes are unmitigated fails. Pandora’s  In September 2023, SkiCo announced it was re-naming the soon-to-open new terrain formerly known as “Pandora’s” in an effort “to honor all of those who played an instrumental role in the exploration and opening of Aspen Mountain’s new terrain.”  Sounds well-intended enough, aside from the fact they re-named it “Hero’s.” Hero’s? Who is this Hero for whom we have supplanted Pandora and named not only the terrain but also the lift? Gramatically, “hero’s” is singular possessive, as in “a hero’s welcome.”  And as it turns out, “Hero” is actually a slew of local ski icons, which further begs the question, why not “Heroes,” as in “the heroes of Aspen?” Or better yet, why not name the new runs for honored individuals but simply keep the area “Pandora’s,” the name we’ve called it for years and by which it went through the lengthy and controversial public approval process?   I personally think of “heroes” as veterans, first responders and the like – those who put their lives at risk to save to save others, who run into burning buildings, etc. Best I can tell, those bestowed with trail names are arguably well-deserving “honorees,” most of whom are locally well respected and several who notably lost their lives in tragic accidents. But are they “heroes?” The new quad lift takes just four-and-a-half minutes to reach the top, plenty of time to contemplate the odd name choice. Undoubtedly an emotional and reactionary response to the tragic death of SkiCo managing partner Jim Crown in June, surely there was a more appropriate way to honor the man. Even “Jim’s” would have been better.  Just call it Pandora’s.  The Benedict Music Tent Then in December, it was announced that the Aspen Music Festival and School had received an unprecedented gift from board chair Michael Klein, and for this donation, the AMFS would be re-naming the 2050-seat music tent the “Michael Klein Music Tent” for the next 25 years. While originally deemed the “Aspen Ampitheater,” in 1993 it became the “Bayer-Benedict Tent” to honor its architects Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict. The 2000-era Harry Teague-designed tent was then named the “Benedict Music Tent” to honor the longtime leadership of Fritz Benedict, both in the community and of the AMFS. While marked by name changes over the years, the tent’s name changes were notably never tied to the “sale” of naming rights. The fall-out was swift and unequivocal, and continues in letters to the editor to this day: “stunned” “a bridge too far” “It would be a shame to think that everything in Aspen is for sale” “AMFS may have gotten ahead of its skis” “disregard for history” It would appear that Aspen jumped on the de-naming bandwagon when we really had no reason to do so. As other institutions respond to de-naming pressures and attempt to establish rational and defensible frameworks along with transparent processes (“De-name very rarely and only when necessary under exceptional and narrow circumstances.” – UNC Chapel Hill), Aspen seems to have just hauled off and made changes, public memory and sentiment be damned. According to Town & Country in 2021, “Traditionally, naming rights have been viewed by the rich and civic-minded as a way to imprint their names on history while helping the organizations they support to build endowments, acquire masterpieces and undertake ambitious expansion plans.” Over the past two decades, this has become “a competitive sport” that even includes the ridiculous naming of restrooms and coat checks. Some speculate that this trend is changing and that “parading one’s wealth” is becoming a sign of bad taste.  There are increasing instances of donors declining naming opportunities and even announcements of their gifts. New scrutiny and the risk of public backlash stand to create a chilling effect, and therefore it’s a tricky balance for institutions reliant on philanthropic dollars. That’s obviously where the AMFS finds itself today.  Mr. Klein is clearly an extremely generous and committed donor to the AMFS. I have had a hard time tracking down the genesis of this naming issue: whether it was his idea or the organization’s. No one is talking. But it’s obvious that nobody anticipated the widespread backlash, and for that it’s a true shame. There is surely a way to properly honor Mr. Klein for his extraordinary gift; it’s just not re-naming the Benedict Music Tent.   The same holds true for other local landmarks. Remember when SkiCo tried to rename Buttermilk “Tiehack?” Some things are best left alone. Public memory is an integral part of history. Besides, each time I see the odd nomenclature of “Hero’s,” I can’t help but think of Nero, you know, the guy who fiddled while Rome burned. EM

ISSUE #267: Later, Aspen Times Censors! (1/14/24)

"Well, I won't back down
No I won't back down
You could stand me up at the gates of Hell
But I won't back down.
No, I'll stand my ground
Won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground.
And I won't back down."
 
-- Tom Petty

ASPEN TIMES COLUMN

Hello loyal followers!

I am sharing this week's "column" with you directly because The Aspen Times censors refused to print it. 

The Aspen Times capitulated to demands and threats from the city manager regarding my last column, editing it online after it ran. And my new editor declined to educate himself on the critical details and chose to ignore independent legal analyses of Mayor Torre's suspect real estate transaction last summer. 

Recall that I stayed with the Times throughout its serious and damning legal challenges because of the paper's iconic masthead and rich history, but cannot in good faith remain part of an editorial regime that doesn't (and I quote) "want to piss off the city because (he) has to work with them every day. Besides, it's a small town." 

As a result, I will no longer be contributing as a columnist to The Aspen Times. My pursuit of truth in journalism wherever it leads is not compatible with the culture and direction of that paper.

The Fourth Estate and holding the government to account is officially dead at The Aspen Times. Censorship is alive and well. Consider it Aspen's Pravda.

I stand by EVERY LAST WORD of this week's column and have received legal advice from an attorney who regularly beats the city like a drum. Are you really going to believe APCHA executive director and city manager puppet Matthew Gillen's defensive justifications for Torre's sketchy deal? LOL.

APCHA broke its own rules. Torre benefitted. The seller (his landlord) got royally screwed. Everyone involved kept quiet. Then the city lied when confronted with the evidence. 

The Red Ant is not going anywhere in its 16th year. I won't be silenced. 

Remember, before The Aspen Times column, together we killed the Hydro Plant and got city manager Steve Barwick fired, among many other notable victories. Lately, we prevented Mick Ireland from being elected county assessor, kept fools like Skippy Mesirow to one term on city council and have APCHA on notice. We also make several councilmen and citizen boards very nervous, with good reason. This will not change.

Contact me for your "Torre-Gate" pin (see the square above) to show your unwavering support, follow @theredantaspen on Instagram and stay tuned for UNCENSORED content as we march forward in earnest toward good governance in Aspen.

 Principles matter.

EM 

* * *

 THE RED ANT

A Highly Unusual Home Purchase

It’s never the crime. It’s the cover-up.

My last column kicked the hornet’s nest. I made bold assertions about how APCHA facilitated a special home purchase for Mayor Torre. I stand by my story.

Despite APCHA executive director Matt Gillen’s desperate attempts to diffuse the issue, he only dug himself into a deeper hole, beginning with the claim that the transaction was “completely normal.” It was anything but.

I said the transaction was “sketchy” and “squirrelly” because standard APCHA policy was not followed in a complicated and highly unusual transaction that specifically awarded Torre the 419 sf unit he now owns.

It was highly unusual that Torre’s unit had been a free market unit, encumbered by a 50-year deed restriction that was set to sunset in 2032. This is entirely different from an ownership unit in the APCHA portfolio with an expiring deed restriction. Torre’s unit could absolutely have been sold on the free market with its deed restriction intact, not unlike the sale of the Centennial Apartments in 2020. A301 was in fact not required to be sold to an APCHA buyer at a set price despite The Aspen Times’ cub reporter’s flawed reporting. APCHA can change its own rules, regs and definitions but it cannot change a deed restriction until it actually owns a property. It simply does not have the jurisdiction to do so. (This has been independently confirmed by an esteemed local attorney who is best known as "the city’s nemesis.")

It was highly unusual that Torre’s unit was Category 2 when Mr. Gillen insisted that 18 other similar transactions APCHA conducted made this one “completely normal.” What Gillen omitted and the Times’ inexperienced reporter did not properly research was that the other 18 “similar” transactions were actually APCHA resident occupied (RO) units, which never require a lottery. These transactions were in no way similar to Torre’s. 

It was highly unusual for a free market unit with a deed restriction to transact at such a shockingly low sales price considering its increasing net present value given the approaching deed restriction sunset date. The fact that Torre negotiated this unbelievable deal for himself made it a priority sales transaction for APCHA because council had made buying-down expiring deed restrictions its #1 housing priority for 2023 and this one cost them nothing.

It was highly unusual that given the attaiment of such a high profile council goal, the sitting mayor “rescuing” a unit from its impending return to the free market was not shouted from the rooftops as a huge success story for a program that doesn’t have many.

It was highly unusual that when APCHA bought the unit and quickly updated the deed restriction into perpetuity once it had jurisdiction, it did not conduct a lottery at this critical nexus of momentary ownership before it sold the unit to Torre.

It is standard policy when APCHA acquires a unit, unless it is RO, to sell it in a lottery. If APHCA purchases a unit and can legally update its deed restriction, it can also conduct a proper, fair, honest and transparent lottery. Someone at APCHA apparently chose not to.  If this has occurred before, it’s highly unusual and not adherent to policy.

Gillen dug himself a deeper hole claiming this action was because “there was nothing in this old deed restriction that said it had to be purchased in a lottery.” The 1982-era document was written pre-APCHA when there weren’t lotteries! Besides, Torre’s had been a free market unit.  Please dude, stop digging. In the absence of specific language that precludes a lottery, you conduct one!

Torre bringing the deal to APCHA likely saved the city hundreds of thousands of dollars on the unit buydown.  It’s a financial travesty for the seller, but not illegal. Perhaps this savings was grounds for APCHA to discuss allowing Torre to buy the unit. I wouldn't, but someone could probably make a case. But then own it and discuss it publicly. Instead, someone at APCHA made a highly unusual decision, then took steps to keep it quiet.

Way deep in the hole of his own digging, Gillen told a local reporter the highly unusual sales transaction was omitted from APCHA’s monthly sales report because it “had not been updated.” Pressed with proof of recorded sales from the very next day and throughout the fall and December, Gillen, with his shovel, stuck to his story.

There are hundreds of complex deed restrictions out there and it is going to be pricey and difficult to update any of them. The free market unit owners would be foolish to do so. It will not be an easy process. Special exceptions may have to be made. The key is transparency, unfortunately a foreign term at APCHA.

But APCHA has rules for a reason. It simply must live by them if they require everyone else to. Bring these anomalies to the council table, or better yet the APCHA board to give them something to do. Air them in public. But do not cheat, then deny, obfuscate and make absurd justifications after the fact. This only further muddies the already murky waters and suspicions surrounding the corrupt agency that is APCHA.

A sale to the sitting mayor should be the most transparent of all. Can you imagine what else APCHA is hiding?

The lady doth protest too much, me thinks. 

*** Now forward this to 10 friends, neighbors and your HOA,and tell them to subscribe today!

ISSUE #266: APCHA's Under-the-Radar Sale to Mayor Torre (12/31/23)

                                                "He wasn't sorry when you didn't know. 

                                                     Think about that and remember it."

                             -- Anonymous

Well, 2023 wrapped up with a doozy. Following a lead I received last summer, I unraveled this "story" through some good old fashioned detective work, research and open records requests to unveil a sneaky deal that netted Mayor Torre a condo in Aspen for life.

In case you were tiring of housing-related generalizations (no less factual, but without names), this one, if nothing else, puts a name and a face on the corruption and mismanagement of our subsidized housing program.

I apologize for the delay in getting this out to you. It's been a whirlwind.

Read it here... (I am intentionally NOT linking to the actual column in The Aspen Times today. The censors at the paper reacted impetuously to the city's pushback about the column and heavily edited my piece after it ran, making it flat, untrue and frankly lame.) Here is the piece - as submitted:

Hundreds of local deed restricted housing units that were established long ago exist within the APCHA portfolio. Due to archaic policies from the earliest days of subsidized housing, each is a complex puzzle, and many stand to revert to the free market in coming years.

APCHA recently implemented a policy that updates these deed restrictions into perpetuity when affected units change ownership. It’s a small but important effort to preserve our housing inventory.

But what happens when APCHA, operating as a department of the city, bends the rules, sets a fellow bureaucrat up for life and takes steps to keep it secret?  Ask Mayor Torre. 

Last summer, on August 17, Mayor Torre purchased a 419 sf studio apartment in the Tom Thumb Building at 400 E. Hyman Avenue for $106,363. Prior to August 17, Torre had rented this Category 2 unit for 19 years. 

One of three residential units in the downtown mixed-use building that was built in 1982, unit A301 was privately owned but bound by a deed restriction to house an “employee” of “moderate income” there.  This early deed restriction pre-dates APCHA, yet today’s housing authority oversees its resident tenant qualifications.

In the case of unit A301, August 17 was a busy day with three related transactions recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk: an affidavit cleared the title to an individual owner who transferred it to APCHA and APCHA transferred it to Torre. 

APCHA had the sales listing and is in the chain of title: seller to APCHA then APCHA to Torre, but strangely, on the settlement documents the sale is just between the seller and Torre. Even the title company said regarding the sale, “It’s a weird one.” 

A public records request revealed the great lengths APCHA went to in facilitating this unusual transaction: formally involved when convenient so as to exempt Torre from paying the RETT (ironically the tax that funds subsidized housing) and uninvolved so as to avoid its own rules. Only the appraiser inquired, “Was this sold through a lottery process?” 

No, it wasn’t. When APCHA acquires a property either by purchase or in the chain of title, it is then sold to a qualified buyer via an often very competitive housing lottery. I recently asked the APCHA board and staff if there was ever a reason that APCHA would not conduct a lottery when selling a unit. I was reminded that Resident Occupied (RO) category sales are not conducted by lottery, but there are no other exceptions. Yet A301 was sold directly to Torre.

This sketchy transaction was also omitted from APCHA’s Sales Activity Report, an online summary of annual transactions updated monthly, which notably lists other APCHA sales that occurred between August 14 and August 25. 

With residential property values in the downtown core currently far exceeding $2500/sf, the value of A301 even with the deed restriction was rapidly increasing because the original deed restriction was set to sunset on June 29, 2032, less than nine years from now. At that time, the unit would have reverted to the free market and would likely have been worth over a million dollars. Yet the seller received just $106,363, exactly what Torre paid for it. 

The one bit of good news is that the deed restriction for A301 was extended in perpetuity so Mayor Torre won’t get rich. But this only begs a bigger question. What motivated the seller, his longtime landlord?

It’s actually quite sad. The seller is infirm and her daughter is liquidating assets. “I have been so emotional… I am watching everything go and it’s tough,” she wrote to the title company amid the heartbreaking process. The complex transaction tested APCHA as well. “I would definitely not have brought things to this point if I had known,” wrote an APCHA representative. But despite paperwork that “doesn’t look real official,” the shady deal eventually got done. 

At no time, however, does it appear that anyone involved informed the seller’s daughter of the gold mine she was sitting on. Apparently the end justified the means. According to APCHA’s deputy director Cindy Christensen, “We are getting an updated deed restriction and it will now be an ownership unit.” The rules enforcer herself signed the deed transferring the title of A301 from APCHA to Torre. Rest assured, however. “In the future, it will be lotteried through APCHA,” the housing authority claims.

For those who dream of winning an APCHA lottery one day, those who believe Torre is the housing advocate he claims to be, or those who quietly and desperately play the subsidized housing game by the rules, you’ve just been had.

It’s an insiders game with special rules for special people and a corrupt system that enables them. This under-the-radar sale of a housing unit to the sitting mayor without a proper lottery and an exemption from the RETT was squirrelly at best.

APCHA can justify this however it wants. It just looks really, really bad.

I am happy to share all related documentation of this brazen abuse of power and discretion.  Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #265: APCHA Renters: Second Class Citizens (12/20/23)

"Total ghettoization, because they were in charge of public housing, the local council, they deliberately located people in a ghetto situation in order to ensure that they maintained control."

-- John Hume

Apologies for the delay in getting this one out to you. This week's column illustrates yet another unintended consequence of enabling our housing program to grow unwieldy without proper oversight. It turns out that the program greatly prioritizes owners while relegating renters to a far lesser class of citizen.

Read it HERE.

* * * * * 

Living in an APCHA rental can be a blessing or a curse. Some renters have figured it out: amid the outlandish cost of maintaining a property in Aspen, the freedom of simply paying rent without the financial responsibilities of home ownership has served them well. Others have fallen prey to a system that relegates them to a lesser class of citizen.

Picture two identical families, each with two parents and two formerly school-aged children. Both long-time local families live in APCHA housing in similar 3-bedroom units. The only difference is that one family won the lottery and owns their unit while the other still pays rent according to an income category that is assigned to that unit. 

Since winning the housing lottery, the owner-family is set for life. The parents still work locally while the kids, each with their own bedrooms, attended Aspen’s top-notch schools. It only mattered on the day of purchase where Mom and Dad worked and what their combined income was. Once in ownership housing, income and assets are unlimited and employment is verified as a mere checkbox on a biennial affidavit.

For owners, household repairs are a dreaded cost burden at free market prices, but there is 3%  annual appreciation (or CPI, whichever is less), and after just 10 years of work history and four years of ownership, the couple is eligible to retire in their unit. Each child has gone away to college but can forever come home to their childhood bedroom. And down the line, the parents can pass the family unit along. It’s practically a Hallmark movie.

The renter-family outwardly appears the same. With similar employment to the owners, they pay rent based on income according to their unit category, and when something goes awry with the disposal or the dishwasher, a call to the landlord usually results in a fix. But at least every other year, as renters, they are stringently re-evaluated. Have their salaries increased beyond their unit’s income category? Has a performance bonus made them ineligible? What is the size and makeup of the household?

Housing insecurity for local workers who have lived in rental housing for years is very real. Success is punished. Earn too much and you’re out. Another way to lose your rental housing is when your children go off to college. After age 19, the oldest kid’s empty bedroom became a no-no. Time to down-size. The couple kept a 2-bedroom after the second kid left since they are both working adults, but had this been a single-parent household it would have been time to downsize again.

This snapshot illustrates how APCHA owners have become a protected and entitled class while renters are held to far different standards. Owners are the first to assert their “property rights” when existing policies are questioned or challenged. They don’t want the increased scrutiny. There are even incentives offered to owners who might consider downsizing to smaller units.

Meanwhile, renters’ employment and incomes are closely scrutinized. When household make-up and/or income changes, so does everything else. And mandatory downsizing in no way implies simply stepping into a smaller unit. It’s often a matter of moving out and starting over.

The question is do we or don’t we care about under-utilization of our publicly subsidized housing inventory? In other words, are empty bedrooms ok or not? The answer is unclear as APCHA policies promote having it both ways.

On one hand, we care deeply about empty bedrooms. They’re essentially forbidden in rentals, and extensive effort is undertaken to right-size, even if it means kicking long-time locals out. Yet in ownership housing, no one asks because no one cares. Countless cases of numerous empty bedrooms abound because it’s entirely legal. The most famous example is APCHA’s assistant director who lives alone in her 3-bedroom ownership unit.

In short, we give lip service to maximizing utilization. We enforce it upon renters because we can. But it’s not fairly applied across the portfolio. And that’s just not right.

The concept of maximum utilization is an important consideration in the current environment where housing supply will never meet demand. But as a practical matter, the fixes won’t be easy, popular nor pretty. The precedent for ownership has been set and today there is zero political will to make any changes. But at a minimum, we must rectify the horrible inconsistency of having two separate and unequal classes of subsidized housing beneficiaries. This was never the intent of the housing program.

Critical to a productive workforce is housing security, and not just for owners. We must find the middle ground. There are many benefits to renting in Aspen. Our workforce should not be punished for doing so. 

It’s time to establish one central waitlist for rental housing, with APCHA coordinating the approval process, qualification, employment verification and determination of appropriate unit size. Eliminate the income categories. Charge rent according to unit size and income. When empty bedrooms open up, people are rational, they’ll choose to pay less rent when presented with a smaller, less expensive units to easily move into.

APCHA rentals comprise 42% of our inventory. Those 1368 households deserve the same housing security and opportunities for advancement as everyone else. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #264: The Burlingame Curse (12/4/23)

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

-- George Orwell (perhaps)

The city of Aspen really doesn't want you to read this column. But I do. HERE it is.

Things at Burlingame Phase 3 are nothing short of an unmitigated disaster. But you won't read about it anywhere but here. "There's nothing to see here" is the city's mantra - an attempt to keep the nightmare contained to the 79 households that will eventually be living there.

But the domino effect is real: those hoping/planning to move into BG3 are on hold, therefore the people who hope/plan to move into the units being vacated are jammed up. And those hoping/planning to move into their units are too. And it's December. And that's just scratching the surface...

THIS is what happens when the city develops subsidized housing. There is zero oversight and even less accountability. It isn't a one-off. Burlingame shows that it's the status quo.

But just think, last week council approved spending $14 million to begin work on The Lumberyard. What could possibly go wrong?

INSTAGRAM

The Red Ant is now on Instagram. Follow @TheRedAntAspen today and keep up with all the shenanigans!

* * * * *

As the lottery winners of new subsidized housing units at Burlingame Phase 3 prepare to close on their future homes, the evil construction defect specter that haunts the former Bar X Ranch has raised its ugly head once again.

In form letters from the city communications department, lottery winners and the APCHA board were recently informed that impending closings at the third phase of the beleaguered Burlingame housing development have been delayed due to the project’s failure to pass a state inspection in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Notably, APCHA staff already conducted sales lotteries and the city is under contract with the winners, but the 79 units won’t all be inhabited for the foreseeable future.

Amid haunting echoes of prior Burlingame nightmares, BG3 had intentionally been designed to avoid the prior construction defect disasters and lawsuits experienced at both earlier phases of the project. 

The city, the builder and the siding manufacturer of Burlingame 1 were named in and settled a lawsuit in 2015 that held the manufacturer responsible for poor quality siding and the developer for installing it. 

In ongoing litigation, Burlingame 2 is suing the city for catastrophic construction defects that have bedeviled residents since their 2014 move-ins. Envision failing roofs and malfunctioning solar systems, damaged patios, handrails, siding, sidewalks, exterior stairways, water heater plumbing, fan coils, coaxial cable, fire alarm pulls, pressure valves and water quality issues. The BG2 HOA has retained counsel on contingency to fight the city and its claim of governmental immunity despite serving as developer, funding and managing the project, and maintaining control of the HOA board throughout the warranty period. 

The tortured saga at Burlingame continues as future BG3 households twist in the wind. Some relinquished their rental units in anticipation of November move-ins. Others have had their existing APCHA units “lotteried” to new buyers. The massive domino effect is already affecting hundreds of local families, just as ski season begins. Most are caught in no-man’s land, many without secure housing, while mortgage rates increase, credit ratings get dinged and the city repeatedly tells them, “It’s not our fault.”  

BG3 was approved for development in 2011 and construction began in 2019.  Plagued ever since by delays attributed to labor shortages, supply chain problems, construction complications and delivery challenges, BG3 is the scariest nightmare of them all.

The plan for BG3 was to simplify the construction process. Comprised of 230 pre-fabricated modular boxes built in Boise, Idaho, and shipped to Aspen to be “stitched” together atop poured foundations, BG3 arrived nearly complete with flooring, cabinets, appliances, drywall and paint, windows, carpet, water heaters, bathtubs, showers, shelving and the kitchen sink already built-in, to which the builder added the roof, siding and walkways. Despite lengthy delays when “the boxes” sat for years, by September 2021 the builder was bragging, “The only thing that’s missing is the towel to hang on the towel bar.”

The optimism didn’t last. By spring of 2022, significant problems emerged, starting with moisture around the windows indicating faulty sealing. After much finger-pointing, 280 windows were replaced; a complex fix involving the removal of exterior siding and significantly impacting interior drywall. Fall 2022 move-in dates were pushed back. 

But by October 2023, the public was informed by the city that “only punch work is left.” But this was far from the truth. The city was only just beginning its cruel and deceptive plan to prey upon local working families and individuals, desperate for subsidized housing, by selling them the grievously defective properties.

In the buyer’s contracts, there is no seller’s disclosure of “adverse material facts” pertaining to “construction defect actions,” specifically despite the leaky window issues and other vague “complications” referenced throughout the project timeline. And notably, the city/seller is conveying the property in “as-is” condition, “with all faults” and “no warranty.” In fact, by agreeing to the contract, the “buyer waives any and all claims against seller … for any defects or any damage to the property that may exist at closing or shall be subsequently discovered by buyer.” 

Rightfully spooked by these stipulations, and all too familiar with the city’s unconscionable behavior at BG2, many contracted buyers obtained independent inspections. One report revealed a serious issue where the circuit breaker flipped when the stove was in use, uncovering a massive electrical system failure across the entire project. BG3 is now undergoing an extensive electrical overhaul. There are numerous reports of refrigerators that don’t hold temperatures, malfunctioning appliances long past their warranties, faulty dishwasher and disposal drain lines, and even black mold. 

BG3 is currently uninhabitable. 

Once again, the city proves it’s a lousy developer that doesn’t hold itself to the same standards it holds others. Responsibility for BG3 lies with the city manager. She is the developer, the financier, the construction manager and is the listed seller of BG3. She also manages APCHA, which serves as the city’s broker for each sale. Her appalling lack of respect for BG3 buyers is shameful and contrary to Aspen’s community values. It’s time for city council to finally hold Sara Ott accountable.

After all, she’s preparing to build The Lumberyard next. 

At press time, nearly 20% of BG3 lottery winners have walked away, leaving their defective units to the next guy in line.  Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #263: Willful Ignorance and Housing's Known Unknowns (11/20/23)

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

-- Donald Rumsfeld

Yesterday's column (read it HERE) illustrates several facts about Aspen's APCHA housing program that you might not know. It's a tangled mess, by design, to obfuscate information and to deny responsibility. In short, there is zero accountability at any level.

The actual responsibility for EVERYTHING housing-related lies solely with city manager Sara Ott. The APCHA staff reports to her, not the APCHA Board. City council is technically Sara Ott's boss, so they can direct housing policy and priorities, but they don't - even with two of them on the hapless APCHA Board. 

Sadly, the APCHA Board has been revealed to be useless. With no budget and no staff oversight, there is nothing they can do even if they wanted to. Yet these community volunteers and elected officials spend countless hours listening to APCHA staff tell them what's going on.

The "feedback loop" that is designed for councilmen Ward Hauenstein and John Doyle (yes, the A-team can't get out of their own way) to liaise between city council and the APCHA board simply does not exist. Hauenstein and Doyle merely occupy chairs at the APCHA board table and consistently fail to communicate its critical issues to city council - and vice versa. They're useless. And therefore, the circular irresponsibility for Aspen's critical housing issues continues.

The city of Aspen is SOLELY responsible for our housing program and all its problems, whether they admit it or not. Now you know.

* * * * * 

Following Aspen’s subsidized housing issues for over 15 years has taught me a lot, but what’s unbelievably frustrating is how much I still don’t know. That’s because no one does. And no one who should know wants to know. In a previous life, I’d call these the known unknowns. Today, it’s simply willful ignorance.

We don’t know how many worker housing units exist. We know the APCHA portfolio has nearly 3200 ownership and rental units, but this does not include units owned by the schools, the hospital, the city, SkiCo and countless other businesses that have built or acquired proprietary staff housing. This is important because there are over 14,000 jobs in the county, so knowing how many employees we currently have the capacity to house is a critical datapoint toward determining our future needs.

We don’t know where the occupants of our publicly subsidized housing work or the jobs they perform.  Are we housing a lot of architects and realtors, restaurant workers, government employees and store clerks or ski instructors and retirees?  We don’t know because we don’t ask. This is important because we need to know which jobs are under-represented so we can prioritize housing the very workers our economy needs in order to function, not benefit over-represented sectors. 

We don’t know what APCHA does. Even the APCHA board is unsure. Notably APCHA, the organization, is fraught with troubling contradictions. Legally, it’s an intergovernmental agency, independent of the city and county, but it functions as a department of the city, where the executive director and staff are city employees who report to the city manager, not the board. Its purposely vague mission is to “support affordable workforce housing for a sustainable community and prosperous economy.” APCHA staff manages just 358 rental units at Truscott and three other properties, but handles the entire program’s qualification and compliance matters as well as lotteries and ownership transactions. The remainder of the portfolio, especially the ownership units, exists mostly unsupervised. The APCHA board has no budget and no staff oversight so it’s effectively ceremonial, occasionally giving feedback and rubber-stamping staff’s activity. This is important because those who are closest to the issues have little ability to affect them. 

The electeds on both city council and the BOCC demonstrate willful ignorance, specifically the four members who concurrently serve on the APCHA board. They are keenly aware that the program is catastrophically broken and unsustainable, yet they do nothing. The program has become so complicated and unwieldy with labyrinthine regulations, entangled exceptions and literally hundreds of different deed restrictions. There is preference and privilege granted to those who own, while renters are second class citizens who live in an perpetual state of housing insecurity for fear their incomes might rise. 

Our electeds’ sole focus is on the narrative that we need more housing, but they have no desire to quantify and qualify what is specifically lacking, and even less will to take bold steps to overhaul the program in order to ensure it remains viable for the next generation.

City council loves the big stuff like designing and approving half billion dollar housing projects and determining the income mix for those who will eventually live there, but they deliberately ignore learning which jobs are unfilled in our community to inform their decisions. That’s why we’re randomly building units, regardless of whether these will meet any actual need.  John Doyle and Ward Hauenstein, council’s two members of the APCHA board, continually fail to notify city council of the program’s horrific shortcomings and the dire need for comprehensive reform. The unfortunate reality is, only council can create housing policy and direct its employee, city manager Sara Ott, to implement it via APCHA.

Why the resistance? We don’t prioritize essential workers because we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. For decades, Mick and Rachel told us that where people work should not matter, and housing should not be tied to an employer (but outside of APCHA it is). This is ludicrous. We don’t track where people work and what jobs they hold because of “privacy concerns,” never mind this is publicly subsidized housing, so it is very much the public’s business, especially given the looming specter of massive taxation to further expand the program.

But we do know a few things. We know that APCHA operates like a self-licking ice cream cone: circular, self-congratulatory fluff with no chance of long-term survival. We know our electeds give lip service to “fixing” APCHA but they refuse to demand program metrics to establish a factual baseline. (Preferring a political narrative, they simply don’t want to know the realities.) We know the APCHA board has been stripped of all meaningful responsibility. We know the APCHA staff works for the city manager whose agenda is to play developer while keeping APCHA’s inner-workings secretive. (She quashed any hope for program transparency after spending well over $1 million before locking down the HomeTrek database that stood to publicly reveal inconvenient facts.) 

We know that APCHA fails at its mission.

Willful ignorance will not make our housing issues go away. The known unknowns are where the straightforward solutions lie. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net