ISSUE # 60....Ant Byte: SycophANTs Unite to Protect Mick

"Nobody thought about it... That this program (subsidized housing in Aspen) would last 30 years and that these buildings would need to be maintained." 

-- Jackie Kasabach, Housing Frontiers Group member and former member of City Council, 4/18/11.

"APCHA doesn't have the time to do this stuff." 

-- Marcia Goshorn, APCHA board member, Housing Frontiers Group member and current candidate for City Council, 4/18/11.

HOUSING FRONTIERS: A LEADERLESS GROUP THAT MEETS IN SECRET, KEEPS NO NOTES

The Red Ant recently attended a meeting of the Housing Frontiers Group (HFG), an obscure extension of the housing authority (APCHA) according to some, a group working for the city manager through assistant city manager Barry Crook according to others, a group recognized and funded by city council according to council minutes, and an "independent advisory body" and "off-shoot of the (now-defunct) Citizen's Budget Task Force with no subservience to APCHA," according to two HFG members.  Go figure.  "Most of the group's time (over the past 2.5+ years) has been spent on developing a program that helps affordable housing homeowners associations complete studies on capital reserves needs," according to HFG member Andrew Kole, in a May 2010 interview with the Aspen Daily News.  The need to study the capital reserves scenarios (or lack thereof) at the subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio stems presumably from the dire situation at Centennial that is estimated to cost in the $10-$20M range to repair, and the revelation that the HOA there has an abysmal capital reserves collection record and a grossly inadequate reserves balance. 

All current candidates for office were invited to the same meeting I attended to learn about what the HFG has been doing, as "subsidized housing capital reserves" stands to become a hot campaign issue.

A PUBLIC BODY, OR NOT?  SHOW US YOUR RECORDS!

Despite allocating $130K in public funds for the capital reserves studies (in a 70/30 split with the various housing projects), APCHA director Tom McCabe and members of the HFG do not and will not  voluntarily make their records publicly available, nor do they keep minutes of their meetings.  When the records (specifically, the draft results of capital reserve studies conducted to date at 22 of 35 subsidized housing projects) were requested using the Colorado Open Records Act, MAJOR deflection and dissention on the HFG began.  Colorado Revised Statutes define a "local public body" as "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of a political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body."   

In other words, McCabe's unwillingness to take minutes aside, it's pretty obvious:  the HFG is a public body, given that its members were appointed at the city manager's recommendation during the summer of 2008 and the group has made many major decisions and recommendations on public policy matters.

And notably, 3 members of the HFG are running for office (Andrew Kole, Adam Frisch and Marcia Goshorn).  Now's the time that this get resolved!  Information has been leaked that the 22 studies to-date show frighteningly deficient capital reserves scenarios.  We're talking tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate. The subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio are "community assets" and the public has a right to know what's going on, where the candidates stand on the issue, and especially what we might be on the hook for!

DENIALS ABOUND

There is great denial that the HFG is a "public body" that must make its records public.  HFG member Pete Louras insists that city attorney John Worcester, acting in his self-ascribed role as the city's supreme court justice equivalent, "issued a ruling" that the HFG is not a public body therefore they do not need to keep minutes or adhere to open meetings laws.  When pressed, Louras could not produce said ruling.  McCabe even went so far as to state, "Because we do not take minutes and do not make public notices of our meetings, then we are not a public body."  Nice circular logic between the two, huh!?  As reported by the Aspen Daily News in January 2010, Worcester has stated in the past, based on his reading of the above quoted law, that unless a body has a "governmental decision-making function," it is not subject to open meetings laws.  The groups either are public and therefore must follow all open meetings regulations - such as noticing meetings, taking minutes and providing e-mails if asked - or they are not.  There is no gray area in the law that would allow a public body to meet in the open but not require it to take minutes or disclose their documents, for example, according to Worcester. 

But Worcester has gotten himself into a pickle before on the public meetings/open records front with his thinking.  Attorney Steven Zansberg, who specializes in Colorado open meeting laws, disagrees with Worcester.  Using another "secret meeting" that Worcester approved as an example, Zansberg told the Aspen Daily News that both formally constituted advisory bodies and delegated governmental decision-making authorities must adhere to open meetings laws.  "When they are meeting to discuss public business, the public has a right to attend."  In the case of the HFG, the public can attend (if they happen to learn of the meeting), but no records are kept or shared with the public in clear violation of open meetings laws.

Does anyone - particularly candidates Goshorn, Frisch and Kole - actually believe that information about significant deferred maintenance exposure in APCHA complexes is NOT public businesses??  Even the HOAs were told up front that the reports would go to APCHA, a public entity.

WHY THE SECRECY?

Some on the HFG argue that people's feelings might be hurt by public discussion and dissemination of the information they have compiled.  Attorney Zansberg points out that almost any topic can receive a "more frank discussion" in private, but that's not an option.  "It's not up to the board, committee or city attorney to make the decision" about what can and cannot be discussed in private.  "You don't get to say that because we discuss sensitive things that we are not subject to open meeting laws," he said.

Incidentally, Louras and Goshorn have a track record on anti-transparency.  Both served on the Citizen's Budget Task Force when the $75M Burlingame "discrepancy" was uncovered.  Louras went so far as to demand that the committee vote on whether or not to have open meetings as the debacle was unfolding, as if that was a legal choice.  He was of course voted down and the Burlingame bomb went off.  He's simply using the same playbook here.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

The HFG's Pete Louras, Jackie Kasabach and Marcia Goshorn are all servile flatterers and long-time campaigners for our dear leader Mick.  And as you know, Mick is running for re-election.  These three awkwardly hijacked the April 18 meeting with ridiculous filibustering (the first 20 minutes were spent debating everything from meeting calendars to the genesis of the HFG - a problem easily solved had someone/anyone taken the minutes) and in doing so, prevented the normal weekly distribution of an updated spreadsheet on the status of the capital reserves studies at the 35 targeted housing projects. (It's likely that because "others" -- the public AND The Red Ant -- came to the meeting the "sensitive" records were kept under wraps!)   Jackie even went so far as to tell her colleagues Andrew, Adam and Marcia that they "shouldn't talk during the meeting since they are running for office."  (Do ya think she'll go to council and ask Mick, Steve and Ruth to zip it?)  And Louras even moved to suspend all HFG meetings until after the elections are over -- in order to keep the secrets safe (that could be June 7 if there is a run-off)!

Here's what's REALLY going on:

• Goshorn (a candidate herself and APCHA board member) is a  neighbor of mayor Mick's in the Common Grounds subsidized housing project.
• It has been leaked to The Red Ant that Common Grounds has one of THE WORST housing  capital reserves scenarios on a per-unit basis among the 22 draft studies thus far. 
• In other words, mayor Mick does not in any way lead by example, but rather, lives in a subsidized housing project that operates by and advocates for MINIMAL/NO collection of reserve assessments in favor of "special assessments" when needed.  (Yeah, right:  a $100+K cash call for a new roof in subsidized housing!?)
• The dissemination of the capital reserves study results (albeit in draft form) will reveal Aspen's "man of the people" as a subsidized housing hypocrite amongst his key demographic:  with Mick as mayor, the city has garnered a citizen's group (the HFG) to educate/convince/induce the various APCHA properties to step up their capital reserves commitments while his HOA does nothing of the sort.
• The study results will expose the long-hidden liabilities and structural problems in the housing program, and this will frighten residents, especially owners.
• The realities of the city and county governments' turning a blind eye to critical housing program shortcomings, oversights and mismanagement from the start will negatively impact plans for more subsidized housing development, particularly Burlingame 2.
• When housing is sold by one owner to the next, APCHA oh-so-briefly assumes ownership in the chain of title.  This inherently puts the local government at great financial risk when they do not disclose problems and deficiencies (financial or otherwise) to the buyer.
• As if getting financing (which now requires 10-20% down) isn't difficult enough for aspiring subsidized housing buyers, deficient HOA capital reserves scenarios will make it even more so, and may likely make it impossible.

The Red Ant believes the big effort to keep this mum by Pete, Jackie and fellow candidate Marcia is two-fold:  first, to keep Mick's hypocrisy from becoming a personal campaign issue for him.   And secondly, it's to avoid the ugly truth about the long-ticking time bomb of the housing program's Achilles heel that Mick and other creators of the program have kept secret for years.  Sorry, it didn't work.  And now the cat's out of the bag.

CITY ATTORNEY'S PUBLIC OFFICE HOURS?

John Worcester.  So, Aspen's overpaid ($161,720 in 2010), and in the eyes of The Red Ant, dishonest and corrupt Aspen city attorney allegedly "issues rulings" for entities that purportedly aren't public??  Does he additionally hold court for the purpose of dispensing legal advice to other non-public local entities?  Really??  Is THAT in his job description?  When are these office hours?  This should be advertised because local attorneys charge upwards of $250/hour! (NOTE:  The Red Ant personally wouldn't take Worcester's legal advice - nor pay a nickel for it - even to get my dog out of the pound.)  

NOW THAT IT'S KNOWN OUR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROJECTS HAVE NO MONEY, WHO PAYS?

That's the $20M question.  For the owned units at the Centennial subsidized housing project at least.  The Red Ant has asked all of the candidates to address this question and will share their answers in the next issue of The Red Ant -- the endorsement issue.

But in the meantime, remember, subsidized housing has been a voting tool in Aspen for over 30 years:  "Vote for me, I got you a house."  While the housing we've paid for as a community is not yet in shambles, their financial resources certainly are.

Make this an issue this week at the candidate forums and debates!  Ask the candidates questions about their views on solutions to this major financial issue and on adherence to open meetings laws and principles of transparency.  And look for the endorsement issue of The Red Ant - coming soon!

If you need my preliminary endorsements in the meantime, please reply to this email and give me your phone number.  I will call you with my most current thoughts.

ISSUE # 59 .... A New SLANT on Aspen Politics

"Those who are too afraid to voice their conscience and make it felt politically, by any means, are already slaves; they simply have not yet heard the rattling of their chains."    --John Murphy    dissidentvoice.com 2010

DEFLECTION FROM THE ISSUES!

Ahh, political season in Aspen.  (Simply put, The Red Ant loves it!)  But again this year, like in years past, and especially two years ago when our friend Marilyn Marks ran for mayor, the "entrenched political class" is all spun up.  Anyone with a different voice, a new viewpoint or the guts to launch a "campaign" based on widespread sentiment that doesn't even say whether or not to vote for the incumbent (just that we're all SICK OF MICK), is a destroyer, a hater, evil, unethical, mean-spirited, a jobless dilettante.  The Marcella Larsens, Pete Louras', Tim Cooneys, Su Lums and Carl Hecks of the community carry most of the water for the vapid Ba'ath Party hatemongers, spewing their venom both publicly in letters to the editor and "anonymously" using psuedonyms in the blogs.  But all I see is FEAR:  fear of the possible, fear of positive change, fear of other voices making an impact and especially, fear of addressing the real issues, all of which the incumbents (especially Mick) will have a hard time explaining!

Sticks and stones.  Go ahead, keep trying to shoot the messenger.  But this messenger will never quit.  And the message is real.  The tactic of obfuscation has grown old (and predictable):  vilify the opposition in order to avoid addressing the issues.  So tired, so vicious, so desperate and so fearful.  Optimism rules the day at this end!  And hope springs eternal.  The only direction we can move is UP!!!

Therefore, The Red Ant will focus, as you've always come to expect, on the ISSUES -- like a laser, and hopes that you will research, call, email and ask each and every candidate (contact info below) where they stand and how they would vote on these critical issues.  DO NOT support a candidate who is wishy-washy and does not commit! 

THE CRITICAL ISSUES

1)   THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN (AACP)

The latest news:  A revision of the AACP was released last week.  The tone has been dramatically toned down, but don't be fooled, the content is still draconian: replenish the lodging base with economy/moderate lodges, ensure the sustainability of (read: subsidize) local-serving retail businesses,  offset job generation by mandating the provision of subsidized housing for 100% of the new employees (preferably on-site), encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a zero waste community, ensure the availability of affordable high-quality childcare, ensure the existence of a comprehensive healthcare system, ensure access to primary care and mental health/substance abuse systems, ensure access to a comprehensive dental program --- just to name a few gems!   And the Daily News reports that AACP costs-to-date exceed $500K, not including 9700 hours of staff time the city values at $45/hour (an additional $436,000).  That puts the embroiled document at nearly $1 million, that is, if you really think that staff time is $45/hour.  I'd say it's more than double that!  Who is in charge over there?  Was there no budget for this endeavor either?!  The vote on AACP approval is not expected until the fall.  How much more will we ring up?

The specific questions:  1) Should the AACP be a guiding (aspirational) or regulatory (legally binding) document?  2) Would you vote to approve the AACP as written?  And 3) for the incumbents - Mick and Steve Skadron -- Who approved what will be a nearly $2 million budget for this project?

Look for:  1) The "guiding" answer, period.  (We have zoning and building codes for a reason.)  That is, unless a candidate says they'd scrap the whole thing!  This thing is DANGEROUS.  And, 2), look for a NO to the approval as is.  There is still plenty to work out.  (Please plan to attend the April 13 Aspen Business Luncheon at the Hotel Jerome to learn more about the industry-by-industry specific impacts of this document!  Contact Todd Shaver at toddshaver@aspenbusinessluncheon.com)   3) I'm very interested in who the incumbents (Mick and Steve Skadron) say approved this budget?  If you get an answer, please let me know!  (My guess is city manager Steve Barwick - once again spending taxpayer dollars like it's monopoly money!)

2)   PLASTIC BAGS

The latest news:  The ordinance to place a $.15 fee on plastic bags in the city of Aspen has been put off until after the election.  It will likely be brought up with the new council when they take office in June.  The delay makes this a pertinent campaign issue as the plastic bag ordinance will likely be the first matter of official business for whoever we elect.

The specific question:  Do you favor a fee, an outright ban, or the status quo that could include incentives for using re-usable bags? 

Look for:  The Red Ant prefers a carrot to the stick.  Surely there's a way to reduce plastic bag use through an incentive vs a punishment......

3)   SUBSIDIZED HOUSING & THE UNFUNDED RESERVES

The latest news (on the Unfunded Reserves):  According to an as-yet-incomplete study by the Housing Frontiers Group, capital reserves at our local subsidized housing projects is in the RED big time - in excess of $10 million.  In most cases, the money is not needed tomorrow per se, but after a number of years of neglect, roofs, parking lots and other exterior items do need attention.  The root of the problem?  No oversight of homeowner's associations by the housing authority, irregular (if any) collection of dues, little-to-no understanding of the responsibilities of home ownership.

The specific question:  Who should pay for the repairs when there is no money in the individual reserve accounts?

Look for:  If someone says "the public" or "a tax," remember that we paid 1.5% of our free market real estate purchases toward the real estate transfer tax (RETT), of which 1% went to the housing fund.  As far as I am concerned, we've already paid.  I'm not sure what the right answer is here, so listen carefully to the ideas the candidates have!  I will be doing the same thing because doing nothing is not an option!

The latest news (on Subsidized Housing):  City geniuses presented a $140K plan to council that would serve as the "initial step" of a pre-sales program for the Burlingame subsidized housing project Phase 2, including $50K for "graphics."  (The city has already spent $2.5M on planning for Phase 2, a 167-unit addition to Phase 1 that is estimated to cost between $90-$103M.)  The "pre-sale" concept was presented with a November 2011 general obligation bond measure in mind.  Council thinks the timeline might be too aggressive.  (Ya think?)  A week later, the housing authority (APCHA) went on record with the Aspen Daily News, stating that more Resident Occupied (RO) category housing, which makes up 34% of its inventory, isn't needed.  Numerous RO owners are having difficulty selling these homes. In fact, APCHA went on to say that demand for the lower-income worker (Catoegories 2, 3 and 4) has also waned.  And recall that the excess housing inventory at the Marolt subsidized housing project is currently being used to house the local homeless.

The specific questions:  1) Continue spending money on plans for Burlingame Phase 2 when there is ample housing inventory currently available, yes or no?  2) In the current environment, build more subsidized housing, yes or no?

Look for:  TWO BIG NOs.  APCHA needs to be reworked in its entirety.  Before we build another unit anywhere, we need an assessment of who actually lives in our subsidized housing, whether or not they qualify, rules to closely and more comprehensively monitor and enforce compliance, a plan for HOA management to maintain what we already have, etc, etc.

4)   HYDRO

The latest news:  The city convened several (but not all) parties involved in the hydro plant "issue" for a closed mediation session last week.  Participants could not bring their attorneys nor could they speak to the press about what transpired.  Landowners along Castle Creek and Maroon Creek for the most part decided not to participate because of the secrecy behind the mediation and because all parties agreed that the existing science is inadequate and faulty, making the mediation premature. (To call a process a "mediation" without the most affected parties at the table is not accurate.)  As a result, it is highly likely that nothing of any substance was resolved.

The specific question:  Should the city continue to pursue a federal exemption from conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on Castle and Maroon Creeks in order to complete the hydro plant, yes or no? 

Look for:   The obvious answer - NO!!  Of course Aspen should do right by the environment and conduct an EIS!!!!  The health of our rivers and streams is FAR more important than some silly hydro plant, sold to the voters under false pretenses, that will only operate a couple of months a year at best!

THE CANDIDATES - THE LIST IS IN, THE GAME IS ON

Remember, these are NOT full-time jobs.  (Some make them into full-time roles because they do nothing else.  It's called "mission creep.")   Please contact the candidates, learn where they stand on the issues and be sure to donate to your favorites!

Mayor:  This office is a two-year term, for which the elected official receives $2,325/month plus a stipend equal to the cost of health insurance benefits for full-time city employees (as long as that stipend is used to purchase health insurance).  This office is limited to three consecutive terms.

Mick Ireland              Mick@sopris.net  (Running for 3rd consec term)

Andrew Kole              AndrewKole@mac.com

Ruth Kruger               Ruth@KrugerAndCompany.com

City Council:  Two council seats are up for election every two years.  These four-year terms earn the office holders $1700/month plus the same health care stipend as the mayor.  This office is limited to two consecutive terms.

L J Erspamer             Walkabout@sopris.net

Adam Frisch              Adam@AdamForAspen.com

Marcia Goshorn         MarciaGoshorn@hotmail.com

Steve Skadron           RunSkadRun@gmail.com  (Running for re-election)

Cliff Weiss                CliffWeiss49@gmail.com

Scott Writer             Writer@sopris.net

The next issue of The Red Ant will have my endorsements and rationale.   (If you need these earlier for your absentee ballot, please be in touch with me directly by hitting "reply" to this email.)

ASPEN ART MUSEUM - A SURPRISE ISSUE THIS CAMPAIGN SEASON

Political season always brings a few surprises.  It's still early, but the Aspen Art Museum has provided this year's surprise.  It seems that until the Wienerstube was torn down last week, the folks at the AAM kept it under wraps that, oops - they really don't have the money needed to build the in-town museum on the site they purchased under controversial conditions late last year.  "We're not going to put a shovel in the ground until (an additional $15 million) is raised," according to AAM director Heidi Zuckerman Jacobson in an interview with the Aspen Daily News.  In fact, a MAJOR fundraising campaign is now underway to make up the difference. 

This is an BIG issue during campaign season because mayor Mick and the boys decided in a closed-door executive session to settle a lawsuit with the prior owners of the Wiernerstube property owners by granting a bypass of P&Z review to The Aspen Art Museum, which claimed they had the funding on-hand to buy the land and begin construction this summer. 

Can anyone say "due diligence?"  Why did council not require proof of the AAM's ability to finance their construction as a condition of this special agreement?  The public had a right to know that AAM's funding situation had changed, but city council prioritized settling a lawsuit over the long-term interests of the community they serve.  So, here's a little inventory:

• The Art Museum gets its in-town land.
• The Wienerstube property owners get their sale.
• The city gets to settle a lawsuit they could never hope to win outside of the friendly judicial confines of the Roaring Fork Valley.
• The community gets a demolished landmark, a vacant lot, and a promise without accountability of a new art museum that is incidentally about the same mass and scale as the building council denied that led to the lawsuit in the first place.
• Can anyone say "unprincipled leadership?"  Add this to the long and expensive list of horrible "cart before the horse" public policy decisions by our city "clowncil" under the leadership of mayor Mick!

How, pray tell, did The Red Ant come to learn of this "funding" issue?  I was contacted last week by an AAM board member, telling me of the financial shortfall ("it is not insignificant") and requesting my resignation from the AAM's Community Advisory Committee, a small "group of unique individuals from throughout the Roaring Fork Valley (who) add their voices to an open and ongoing dialog about museum programming and practices and the role of the museum within the community," as defined on the AAM website.  (I was asked to participate upon the group's inception in early 2010.)

I was told the AAM does not approve of my political activism in Aspen (The Red Ant, the Sick of Mick campaign) and they believe an "association" - however small -- with me stands to negatively influence their critical fundraising prospects.  Yes, our local arbiters of freedom of expression (dead cats as art?) wish to silence a citizen's first amendment right to the same.  Could this be a payback to Mick for his vote on the beneficial settlement?  Or mere hypocrisy?  You decide. 

MICK vs BUSINESS

You can't make this up!  When mayor Mick made his "I'm running again" announcement last week, he elected to do so on the patio of Peach's, across from City Hall.  Touting Peach's success as a thriving new business as an example of his mayoral success revitalizing the local economy (huh??), he characteristically failed to notice that his little gathering (attended by about 25 diehard fans) completely blocked the front door to the popular café and coffee shop, thwarting its business for the duration of his event. Only Mick could be so oblivious to the tempo of capitalism and wreckless about decisions that directly and negatively affect small local businesses!  (At least he promised that if elected for a third term, he would never seek the Aspen mayor's post again!)

THE "SICK OF MICK" CAMPAIGN - IN FULL SWING!

In an effort to encourage challengers, The Red Ant and co-conspirators launched the 2011 "Sick of Mick" campaign on March 21.  Visit www.SickOfMick.com  At the time, mayor Mick was running unopposed!  Thankfully, just 2 weeks later, there are now 3 candidates for mayor.  We've got ourselves a REAL RACE!   I'm ecstatic!  This is a HUGE victory -- to be sure.  Thanks to all who have already supported the SICK OF MICK campaign.  We've only just begun.

 Please join us. Fundraising for this effort is underway and progressing nicely.  Donors are limited to donations of $250, however, The Red Ant encourages donations of just $19.99.  This keeps your name off any and all official donation lists because the Secretary of State's campaign finance laws require the "itemization of all contributions and expenditures of $20 or more."  And yes, we know too well that here in Aspen, reprisals are real.  Please make checks payable to SICK OF MICK and send these to THE RED ANT, PO Box 4662, Aspen, CO 81612.  Or just stop me on the street with a $20 - I've made it a point to carry a roll of pennies!

If you want yard signs or bumper stickers, please contact The Red Ant at TheRedAntEM@comcast.net and we will make arrangements to get these to you!  Again, donations are encouraged but certainly not mandatory.

ISSUE # 58 .... These Stories WarrANT Telling

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."    

            -- Machiavelli                 

THE "SICK OF MICK" CAMPAIGN -- GAME ON!

In an effort to encourage challengers, The Red Ant and co-conspirators launched the 2011 "Sick of Mick" campaign this morning.  Here is the cover story on it in today's Aspen Daily News.

Fundraising for this effort is additionally underway.  You are limited to donations of $250, however, The Red Ant encourages donations of just $19.99.  This keeps your name off any and all official donation lists.  (Donations above $20 must be reported to the city clerk and become part of the public record.) Please make checks payable to SICK OF MICK and send these to THE RED ANT,  PO Box 4662, Aspen, CO 81612.  Or just stop me on the street with a $20 - I'll be carrying a roll of pennies!

If you want yard signs or bumper stickers, please contact The Red Ant at TheRedAntEM@comcast.net and we will make arrangements to get these to you!  Again, donations are encouraged but certainly not mandatory.

(UPDATE on my PAC:  I am currently navigating the complex campaign finance rules and laws, and intend to have a legally established and registered Political Action Committee up and running in time for the November county elections.)

SAVE THE DATE - THE AACP STANDS TO AFFECT YOU AND YOUR BUSINESS!

Please join these local community leaders in a dialog at the Wednesday, April 13, Aspen Business Luncheon at the Hotel Jerome as they discuss "The Practical Ramifications of the AACP" on an industry-by-industry basis.  Come learn how the AACP will directly affect you!  At press time:

   Real Estate:                                      Penney Evans Carruth

    Lodging & Tourism:                           Warren Klug

   Building & Development:                    Tim Semrau

   Financial Impact:                               Paul Menter

   Entitlements:                                    TBD

For information, please contact ToddShaver@AspenBusinessLuncheon.com

DWAYNE'S SEAT -- IT'S NOW RUTH'S 

The interviews of the eight applicants for Dwayne Romero's recently vacated council seat were conducted in an informal group format.  And we did garner several poignant responses, notably:

On the subject of "The Most Important Thing the City Should Be Working On," the AACP was at the top of nearly every applicant's list.  Howie Mallory felt that the AACP should be approved PRIOR to the elections so as not to let it be politicized!?!  (Huh??)  He also pulled what The Red Ant calls "a Pelosi" by stating that the document should be approved although it is "admittedly flawed."  (Good thing he subsequently withdrew his application in order to retain his position on the Open Space and Trails board!)  Applicant Cliff Weiss questioned the intent of the AACP, calling it an "honorable but misunderstood" document, and feels that as such it should be adopted as "guiding" (vs regulatory).  Marsha Goshorn deviated from the AACP priority and suggested that the city should make its #1 focus working with the Forest Service and Snowmass on developing eco-tourism, presumably stemming from the discovery of prehistoric bones in the area last fall.

Regarding "The Wienerstube Lawsuit Settlement," applicant Adam Frisch pointed out that the current building code is a "goalpost" that the city, under the AACP, continually moves around. Howie Mallory stated that the city was defensible in over-riding its own building code because council should have subjective judgment beyond what's in the code.

When questioned about "The Future of The Given Institute," Marsha Goshorn felt that finding a "non-profit use" for the facility would be best.  She didn't elaborate on the financing for such use (nor was she asked), but stated that she saw added density on the site as far worse than losing the building itself.  Cliff Weiss succinctly told the boys, "Find a compromise you can live with.  You will have to give up something."  Ya think?

Mayor Mick took time from each interview session to lament the declining population of working-age residents and asked the applicants about their thoughts on "How the City Would Provide A Workforce When Our Population Is Stagnant."  Jag Pagnucco didn't share the mayor's woes, stating "Aspen is a draw.  There will always be people who come here to work."  Ever to the point, Cliff Weiss stated, "Make the commute better."

The most despicable aspect of the interview process was experiencing mayor Mick's lack of self-control as exhibited by his constant and undying need to argue with each applicant when their answers didn't jive with his personal politics.  The worst was his beyond-the-pale attack on Patti Clapper when she noted that the city's "process" of settling the Wienerstube lawsuit behind closed doors was one city decision she would rethink.  Mick literally came unglued, and berated Clapper for "misleading the public" with her answer.  It was truly shameful, especially since the other 3 buffoons just sat there.

Speaking of the other buffoons, Derek and Skadron predictably proffered lame, softball, open-ended, non-policy, unimportant questions.  And in my humble opinion, Torre behaved as though he'd just completed a city-wide quality-control tour of our four medical marijuana dispensaries -- only asking the applicants whether or not they'd be running for office in May -- as if that mattered.  Both Torre and Derek then said they couldn't support applicants who would be running just 6 weeks from now, seemingly oblivious to the fact that both Mick and Skadron would be doing just that as they seek re-election for their current seats.  (This idiotic stance prompted my LETTER to the editor of the Aspen Daily News.)

In the end, the applicants' written statements and interviews had ZERO bearing on the outcome. The selection process was as much of a joke as anything I've witnessed in recent years by these clowns.  They all but drew straws for the winner in order to avoid a discussion of the candidates in front of the public!

Thankfully, Ruth Kruger emerged the victor.  Her 5 years as a city P&Z member and current ownership of a commercial real estate brokerage won the day.  Sadly, Ruth has stated that she will not be running in May, as she would be a very strong candidate with a good head on her shoulders.  We can only hope that her business sense and maturity will help prevent chaos and corruption in the weeks to come.  Congratulations, Ruth!

A BAD DAY FOR THE "BUILDING HUGGERS"

In an "I told ya so" moment last week, The Red Ant was less than surprised to learn that The Given Institute is indeed scheduled for its demise.  It seems that demolition will occur in late April per the terms of a $13.8 million sale to Given neighbor Jonathan Lewis, a longtime resident and steward of the bluff overlooking Hallam Lake.   Murmurs of last minute compromises continue, but for $13.8 million, if I were Lewis, I'd just tear the thing down and be done with it!

On the same day, we read news of the sales of the 1930's era Deep Powder cabins, which begs a key question:  Why were city historic preservation czarina Amy Guthrie and her merry band of "building huggers" terrorizing and tormenting private property owners via Ordinance 30 for the past 4 years (failing in the end) when the owners of these cabins were all for historic preservation and donated them to the city?  The city missed a great opportunity to lead by example now that historic preservation is voluntary, but instead quickly sold off these historic resources (for just $600 each).  Does the city not want the voluntary program to succeed?  My guess is that now the historic cabins are gone, this episode will be used as an example of "voluntary" designation's failure.  Don't buy THAT argument for a minute!

Besides, speaking of Historic Preservation and Guthrie -- she was recently given public recognition and a cash award for her work on Ordinances 30 & 48, presumably for doing such a great job on a "shoe-string" budget.  What!?  The multi-year Historic Preservation Task Force process cost taxpayers approximately $250K, and in the end, the draconian "involuntary designation" objectives of the Ordinances were shot down.  A tax-payer-funded reward for failure.  Only in the city of Aspen.

MICK'S FOLLY? THE QUIZNOS RACE

Woulda, coulda, shoulda?  We booed, hissed and laughed out loud at mayor Mick's proposed man-crush event to honor Lance Armstrong in 2009.  But paybacks are indeed hell.  The city is now kicking in $190K to "bring" a stage of the Quiznos Pro Challenge professional cycling race to Aspen this summer, despite the requirement of 700 complimentary rooms for racers, support staff, sponsors and whatnot. (Technically, the chamber is kicking in $50K, leaving the city to cover $140K, unless they can offset this cost through private sources!)  Thank goodness SkiCo is on-board to co-manage the live televised event!  

The idea is to bring summer business to Aspen in a typically quiet period:  this event falls August 23-24, just after the Music Festival ends and before Labor Day.  The lodging community's willingess to "play ball" to this degree was surprising, but they know their own year-to-date numbers and obviously see the potential for business despite the large inventory donation.

In support of the expenditure, mayor Mick stated that the event will "project an image to the world as a place that people want to come and visit - not necessarily come and buy a piece of and leave empty behind,"  taking his predictable stab at second-homeowners, who he regularly vilifies.  Overall, The Red Ant is cringing, but trying to be cautiously optimistic. 

HYDRO: FLOATED DOWNRIVER

When in doubt, procrastinate.  At least that's what the city of Aspen does.  Presumably to keep the Castle Creek Hydro "mess" out of the political realm this election season (yeah, right), council has tabled the hearing on how to deal with its controversial (and I would say corrupt) application for a "conduit exemption" from the feds until July 11.  Yep, 4 months from now.  The stated reason is to allow the two sides to "mediate" and arrive at a mutually acceptable solution.  But that ain't gonna happen.  When environmentalists, neighbors, government watchdogs and national organizations are all on one side against the city, there's simply not much to mediate!  (Why the city can't see this is yet another example of their collective incompetence!)

As the debate heats up, we've seen a flurry of excellent hydro-related editorials lately.  Connie Harvey started the rally with a piece in the Aspen Daily News (HERE) claiming that the city used "twice-recycled information that never covered all the bases to begin with and hasn't been current since the original study many years ago" to justify the hydro plant, equating the destruction of the streams as "logic on par with the Vietnam War-era statement made by an American major about Vietnamese villages: 'We have to destroy them in order to save them.'"

Harvey then went toe-to-toe with SkiCo's VP of Sustainability Auden Schendler and energy analyst Randy Udall the next day in the Aspen Times (HERE), continuing her assertion that the hydro plant "is actually a devastating attack on Castle and Maroon creeks."  Furthermore, "The city now admits that its projections overestimated the amount of water by 30 percent, hardly a trivial error." 

In a joint effort (HERE), Schendler and Udall presented a rationale for the hydro plant based on global warming warnings and a directive that "the only way forward, now, is for communities like Aspen to lead....We've been blessed with a great natural opportunity, one we ought to seize." Alluding to the not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) neighbors of the creeks as the primary threat to the project ("if the citizens of Aspen can't take the lead on climate action, it's not clear exactly who will"), the authors opine that "responsible energy production in our backyards and on our rooftops and local streams is not something to oppose but something to celebrate." 

A week later, Matt Rice of American Rivers wrote (HERE) to the Aspen Times, reminding readers that this "is not a debate about the merits of hydro power," rather it's a case where the city is attempting to "avert the law and avoid meaningful public review of the project forever."  He continues, "It is a mistake to assume that because hydropower does not produce carbon emissions, it is unequivocally green."  Warning the city to work toward "a responsible plan," Rice makes it clear that American Rivers will "vigorously oppose any plan that limits public review and further degrades the creeks."

The following day, former city finance director Paul Menter likely put the nail in Hydro's coffin.  His submission to the Aspen Times (HERE) outlines a half-century of US hydropower history and its unintended consequences, and questions Aspen's "leadership" in building a hydro plant while others are tearing them out.  He minces no words by stating, "The Castle Creek project, for which much of the voter-approved funds have already been spent, is likely a $5-$6 million mistake."  His solution?  "Scrapping this project is the only way to limit financial and environmental damage.  It may be a hard pill for some to swallow, but it's never the wrong time to do the right thing."  The Red Ant is inclined to agree.

Clearly, this must become a MAJOR campaign issue!

DEVELOPMENT FEES

The city of Aspen was hell-bent on raising its planning and development fees as early as this summer.  It became abundantly obvious to me that the proposed increases are solely a result of the building department not covering its overhead costs (office rental, employees, etc.) that have not been reduced despite the enormous reduction in permit valuations (down $100 million between 2008-2010).  THIS is the statement that I read to council on February 28 in objection to the fee increases.  It was quite a shock to have been the only citizen in attendance to speak out against the proposed fee increases!!  Not a builder or developer was in sight. 

At the end of that meeting, decisions on the "fee" ordinances (#3 and #4) were continued until March 14, when council decided to indeed raise development fees beginning this summer.  Their rationale:  classic.  They believe that 2010 represented a "normal" year in which the city "subsidized" the local building and development industry to the tune of $1.8M.  Yep.  They see their current heavy overhead and its resulting costs to the city's general fund as a "subsidy" of the construction business.  The new higher fees will "reduce that subsidy."  Puh-lease!

Don't like that outcome?  Neither do I.  But The Red Ant can't do this alone, folks!  I tried.

MAY 3 ELECTION INFO

So who's running?  There is hot speculation out there and rumors are swirling, but we won't know for certain until the petitions (currently available from the city clerk) are turned in.  The deadline is Friday, April 1.  (Is it just me or is that date somehow fitting?)  Mayor Mick has indicated that he will run for his third term.  Councilman Skadron will run to keep his council seat.  And at press time, Adam Frisch has submitted his petition to run for a council post. 

Voter registration ends on April 4.  Register or update your address at www.PitkinVotes.org.  Need an ABSENTEE BALLOT?  You MUST request one by April 29 and the application is available HERE.  Ballots will be mailed out the week of April 18.  (Please take care of this TODAY and be done with it.)  Absentee ballots must be received by the city clerk by May 3 at 7p.

As we gear up for the election, be thinking about the following issues.  We actually have several to specifically ask the candidates about.  Please prioritize these issues and ask each candidate where they stand.  For background on these topics, visit www.TheRedAnt.com and research the pertinent issues archived there:

• ·         The AACP (Issues #52, #54, #55)
• ·         The Castle Creek Hydro Project (Issues #45, #47, #49, #54, #55)
• ·         A Plastic Bag/Bottle Tax (Issues #54, #55, #56)
• ·         And, add the subject of Subsidized Housing and Lack of Reserve Funds

The Red Ant will provide endorsements the week of April 25.  Please feel free to contact me if you must fill out your Absentee Ballot before then.

FREE MONEY - DEADLINE IS APRIL 15

Don't forget your $50 food sales tax refund!  The refund is $50 per person per year.  If you are over 65, you will receive an additional $50 plus another $50 senior citizen allowance.  Yes, these amounts are cumulative!!  Anyone who can prove they were a resident of the City of Aspen for the entire 2010 year is qualified.  And it's simple.  Just print and fill out this form and submit it to the city finance department - they must receive it by 5pm on April 15, 2011.  If you were registered to vote with a qualifying city address in 2010, simply complete the application.  If you are not registered to vote here, you may prove your residency using one of the criteria on the back of the application: lease agreement, utility bills, etc.  For questions, the city finance dept can be reached at 970-920-5040.

ISSUE # 57 .... ContestANTs for Office: Elected and Appointed

YES, IT'S ELECTION SEASON AGAIN... ALMOST

The Red Ant LOVES election season!!  And here it comes.  On Tuesday, May 3, city voters will elect a mayor and two city councilmen.  Mayor Mick has indicated that he will run for his third 2-year term (he is term-limited to 3 terms), and both Steve Skadron's and Dwayne Romero's city council seats are up for grabs.   There's a lot of time yet for the politicking, and I promise there'll be plenty, but for now, just a couple of important dates and house-keeping matters:

·         Need an ABSENTEE BALLOT?  The application is available HERE.  Ballots will be mailed out the week of April 18.  Please take care of this TODAY and be done with it.

·         INTERESTED IN RUNNING for mayor or city council?  Petitions will be available on March 14 (you will need to get the signatures of 25 registered city voters) and are due to the city clerk on April 1.  HERE is the info.

·         As you know, we got rid of Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) in November, so we'll be holding a traditional run-off election, thank goodness.  Should a mayoral candidate not receive 50% + 1 vote, and/or should two council candidates not receive 45% of the votes cast + 1 each on May 3, there will be a run-off election on Tuesday, June 7.

·         The city clerk will have a grown-up supervisor for the election!  Dwight Shellman III, election manager for Pitkin County, has been hired as a consultant for our municipal election!  This is a great victory and a step toward proper and fair election management in Aspen. 

·         If there is a Run-Off election in June, absentee ballots will additionally be available.  You may request one HERE.

DWAYNE'S DEPARTURE

Recently appointed to be the new Executive Director of the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) in Colorado democratic Governor Hickenlooper's administration, city councilman Dwayne Romero has already left the council table -- this, before his official term is up.  As a result, council will be appointing a councilman to fill Dwayne's seat by mid-March as dictated by city charter.  The seat, however, is up for re-election on May 3 so it will be a short tenure for Dwayne's replacement.  (But don't be fooled, every council meeting presents the opportunity for legislative action, so it's very important that we don't get an idiot in there, even for a matter of weeks!)

The Red Ant had a mostly positive relationship with Dwayne over the past 2.5 years of its existence.  Dwayne took a strong stance - often unpopular with his fellow councilmen - on several high-profile issues during his tenure:

·         He threw the brakes on a Burlingame Phase 2 bond in 2008 and insisted on an audit of the spending on Burlingame Phase 1.  (He was the first to call for a halt to the plan until there was some/any accounting of what had been spent.   This was the beginning of the uncovering of the ridiculous expenditures and subsidies on a project that had no budget and resulted in per unit subsidies of approximately $400,000 each.)

·         He was the only councilman to vote NO on emergency ordinance 30 of 2007 that placed countless Aspen properties on a "historic" list, preventing owners from changing so much as a door knob.  Dwayne tried to persuade the others not to go through with this disastrous plan, but lost the battle.  In the end, however, the war was won in early 2011 when council finally voted to make "historic designation" a voluntary program.

·         He was the first to call for a repeal of Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV).

·         He insisted on budget cuts in 2009 when Mick and Jack were refusing to lay off government workers.

While being fair, honest and open in his dealings, Dwayne was sadly reticent to regularly engage mayor Mick when the latter got out of hand.  (Which is often!)  We had really hoped to see more of that "Army Strong" from our elected West Point grad.  The Red Ant's favorite exceptions were when Dwayne schooled mayor Mick on "civility" (watch the video below):

Incidentally, Dwayne had several regrettable votes:

·         He voted to grant our inept city manager Steve Barwick a $170,000 annual contract.

·         He voted in favor of IRV when it was originally brought forth by then-councilman Jack Johnson as a new-fangled voting mechanism for Aspen.

·         He voted in executive session to settle the Wienerstube lawsuit, controversially exempting the property from P&Z review for the new building to be built on the site.

The Red Ant was particularly disappointed that during the past two years (likely because of his professional role as president of troubled Related-WestPac and the mess with the Snowmass Base Village development), Dwayne seemed distracted and less than engaged in city matters, sadly not serving as the mentor we'd all hoped he would be to councilman Derek Johnson, who instead seems to have become yet another lemming of mayor Mick.

But all that being said, Dwayne was ALWAYS THE MOST POLITE AND RESPECTFUL to all who came before council.  For that, he had widely been the hope to challenge (and beat) Mick in the 2011 mayoral race.  Alas, it is not to be.

Dwayne will now go from being a popular local political figure to one of "puzzlement" in our state's capitol.  In the Denver version of the examiner.com, a January 19^th editorial said of Dwayne, "A man respected, a member of the Aspen City Council and the president of a business, however his selection to lead the State of Colorado in economic development is a puzzle:

·         Mr. Romero appears never to have started a small business

·         His international experience is limited to serving in the Persian Gulf War

·         His current business is building residences for the wealthy as a division of a New York company

·         He appears to have no training in economic development

·         He appears to have never held a job as an economic developer"

The Red Ant thanks Dwayne for his service, and wishes him great success in his new role, including a safe commute back and forth to Denver for the position.  (His wife Margaret and three school-age daughters will remain in Aspen.)

WHO WILL THEY APPOINT TO FILL DWAYNE'S SEAT?

The following Aspen citizens have officially applied for the appointment to fill Dwayne's vacated seat on council, including the tidbits and opinions you've come to expect from The Red Ant:

·         Adam Frisch, who narrowly missed winning a council seat in 2009 (he had 33 more first place votes than Torre, but through the mystery magic of IRV, lost the seat), has distinguished himself in the past two years on the Housing Frontiers Group, responsible for assessing the financial situations at local subsidized housing projects and working to develop solutions to the lack of financial reserves amassed by the various HOAs.   Will run in May.

·         Cliff Weiss, a resort marketing consultant and ski instructor, has served on the city's P&Z board.  An independent thinker, Cliff is no rubber stamp for mayor Mick and likely sees the AACP as a guiding (rather than regulatory) document for Aspen.  Likely to run in May. 

·         Patty Kay-Clapper - Recently term-limited off the BOCC (Rob Ittner was elected to fill her seat), the former nurse is looking for employment.  (Her full-time BOCC role paid $70K a year.)  Patti was a dedicated public servant, but The Red Ant seeks to end the practice whereby city and county voters enable the same people to bounce back and forth between BOCC and council.  Likely to run in May.

·         Marcia Goshorn - Mayor Mick's neighbor and a long-standing Ba'ath Party stalwart, this housing authority (APCHA) board member is famously known for her advocacy of rent reductions for subsidized housing tenants in projects where they must now pay for their own electricity.  She also supports using our excess subsidized housing inventory for the homeless. Planning to run in May. 

·         Jag Pagnucco, a  current SkiCo ambassador, has served 6 years on the city's board of adjustment.  Likely to run in May.

·         Dan Kitchen - Outspoken activist and protector of wildlife, this self-proclaimed "master window-washer" advocates for a big-box store in Aspen.  It's hard to take this one seriously, besides, we already have a tennis teacher on council.  Undecided about running in May. (At press time, Kitchen had just withdrawn his application.)

·         Howie Mallory - A retired local banker who likely sees the AACP as a regulatory document.  This long-time supporter of mayor Mick has a well-known reputation for not doing his preparatory reading while serving on local boards (Citizens Budget Task Force, Open Space and Trails), slowing the meetings to near stand-stills while he is briefed.  Undecided about running in May.

·         Cathy Markle - This self-employed landscape architect and planner has distinguished herself on the Wheeler Board and is known as a quick study.  Cathy is not planning to run for council in May, but wants to serve in order to bridge the gap created by Dwayne's departure. 

·         Ruth Kruger, local commercial real estate broker and former city P&Z member, knows the retailers, knows the landlords, knows the restaurateurs.  Her practical business experience, especially in this climate, is perhaps her greatest attribute.  Does not plan to run in May.

Is this "appointment" an election advantage for whoever is appointed?  Perhaps, but only a small one.  (Note that several applicants have already said they do not plan to run.  And there are likely others who plan to run who did not apply.)  The replacement will certainly get to run as an "incumbent," however, with just 2 or 3 council meetings under his/her belt before the election, the advantage is really OURS.  Could there possibly be a better way to learn just how a candidate will be -- politically, personally and ethically -- than to actually witness and experience their behavior, leadership and voting record?  And how fortunate for us that the "test drive" period is brief!  Unlike other buffoons we've elected to 4-year council terms, this temporary councilman will be gone if we don't like what we see.

The Red Ant encourages and appreciates council's serious consideration of these applications.  The legislative responsibility of council is paramount to the functioning of our local government.  But in the same vein, The Red Ant was appalled by the information sheet provided to applicants by the city clerk's office.  For such a critical leadership position in a local government that controls an $84M annual budget (2011), was it really necessary to list the following as "requirements" for the role?  Sounds like something mayor Mick would find funny:

·         Speed Reader

·         Adventurous

·         Sense of Humor

·         Ability to See the Big Picture

·         Love Late Nights and Long Hours

Let's face it, a negligent (and dangerous) precedent has recently developed:  appointing and electing representatives who have little fiscal acumen, leadership experience and, all too frequently, no outside employment.   This inherently brings terrible time managers to the table and enables the largely unnecessary long hours and late night meetings.  Joking around about the requirements for the serious role only serves to attract less-than-qualified candidates who want to serve on council for all the wrong reasons.

Council will be conducting candidate interviews in the very near future, and a decision is expected shortly thereafter with swearing-in on March 14.  (Salary for the part-time-at-best city council seat is $20,000 annually, and those seated can opt-in to purchase health insurance on the city's plan.)

We can only hope that the four remaining members of council will ask the applicants about their position on pressing local issues such as the AACP draft, the plastic bag tax, subsidized housing being used for the homeless, etc.

ASPEN TIMES POLL

The Aspen Times is currently conducting an on-line poll. At press time, the results were:

Which applicant do you support for appointment to the Aspen City Council?

Adam Frisch		31.76% (74)
Howie Mallory		22.32% (52)
Cathy Markle		15.45% (36)
Patti Kay-Clapper		11.59% (27)
Ruth Kruger		8.58% (20)
Marcia Goshorn		3.43% (8)
Dan Kitchen		2.58% (6)
Cliff Weiss		2.58% (6)
Jag Pagnucco		1.72% (4)
233 votes

SO MANY GOVERNMENT BOARDS & COMMISSIONS, WHY ALWAYS THE SAME FACES?

I've often asked the same question.  But the answer is simple:  you have to know where to look to find out where the vacancies are.  The city citizen board openings are listed on the city clerk's page, and the county's are listed on the Board of County Commissioner's page.

At the February 14 council meeting, council appointed and re-appointed 10 citizen volunteers to city boards.  There were 22 applications for these positions - darned good odds for those who applied.  Why aren't YOU on this list?

• ·         Howie Mallory - Reappointed regular member of Open Space and Trails board
• ·         Joyce Alger - Regular member of Open Space and Trails board
• ·         Guiles Thornley - Alternate member of Open Space and Trails board
• ·        Brian McNellis - Reappointed regular member of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
• ·        Willis Pember - Alternate member of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) 
• ·         Bill Dinsmoor - Reappointed regular member of Commercial Core and Lodging Commission
• ·        Siam Castillo - Regular member of Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC)
• ·        Jim Pomeroy - Alternate member of Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC)
• Tom Curt - Regular member of Wheeler Opera House board

There remain several city board vacancies, specifically on the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority board, Planning & Zoning, and the Wheeler Opera House board.

The county has several very interesting positions available on the following boards:   

·         Animal shelter

·         Board of Adjustment

·         Board of Appeals

·         Conflict of Interest

·         Financial Advisory Board

·         Planning & Zoning

·         Redstone Historical Preservation

·         Senior Services Council

·         Weed Advisory Board

The Red Ant encourages you to apply today to serve as a citizen volunteer on a board that interests you.  The time commitments and terms vary by board, and the application is basic and straightforward.  Please think about getting more involved in 2011!

JACK WATCH

Local letter-to-the-editor writer (and antagonist of The Red Ant) Carl Heck recently wrote to the Aspen Times, "Maybe Aspen City Council could appoint Jack Johnson to the seat being vacated by Mr. Romero?  That way, Elizabeth Red Ant would have another target to bitch about."  I laughed, but knew it would never happen.  Remember, Mick and Steve must run for re-election in May.  (Jack would have been WAAAY too big a political liability for them.)  And in the end, Jack didn't throw his knit hat into the ring to briefly fill Dwayne's seat.

But it seems Jack has found himself a new gig.  He is now a columnist for the Aspen Daily News, writing weekly on the subject of -- you guessed it -- local public policy issues.  A recent installment was to smack the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) for criticizing his prized Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) draft.  He followed that up with a rant about the lack of subsidized housing and need for more worker entitlements in Aspen.  I was compelled to respond with a letter to the editor.  Read it HERE. 

ISSUE # 56.... The Bag Tax: ANTi-Business & ANTi-Tourist

"The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people - and especially of government - always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.  Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it."    

            -- Rob Norton 

This single-subject Ant Byte is specifically focused on the well-intended but patently anti-business and anti-tourist policy proposed by city council to tax shopping bags (both paper and plastic) in Aspen.  It's a quick read, and I hope you'll respond with your thoughts and recommendations to council and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) using the link at the end.

B.Y.O.B.E. - BRING YOUR OWN BAG EVERYWHERE

Aspen's plastic bag tax idea is growing legs.  It seems that the city's environmental health department is now seriously looking into a local tax on paper and plastic bags, and working with other local municipalities on later implementing a valley-wide BAN ON ALL PLASTIC AND PAPER bags!  (The city department had only intended the tax at grocery and hardware stores, but council wanted to follow the valley-wide preference for taxing ALL usage.)  As locals, we've all gotten pretty good about bringing our own reusable bags when we deliberately grocery shop, but how often do you bring these same bags when you shop at the bookstore, the drugstore or the liquor store?  And that's not to mention that last minute stop for take-out Chinese! 

But there are certainly solutions.  For some.  The Aspen Daily News reports that Tripp Adams, a guy on the "Green Team" in Basalt, recommends carrying a "man bag" bunched up in your pocket.  "No one sees it until I need it," he says.  Okay....

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Who is better at over-looking (ignoring?) unintended consequences than the city of Aspen?  Looking at this purely from an environmental perspective, you can see where Mick and the boys got the well-intended idea that taxing/banning bags could be "socially responsible."  But let's face it, retail outlets will ALWAYS provide their customers with bags.  Only now, they will be faced with paying a "bag tax" to the city for the privilege of doing so, or they will pass the fees along to their customers.  The practical ramifications are nothing short of ridiculous:

• ·         The bureaucracy will grow: think of how many city staffers it will take to "police" the retail community, counting bags and collecting fees
• ·         Retailers will have added accounting aggravations, not to mention the philosophical decision of whether or not to charge customers or incur the fee themselves
• ·         Ever seen how high a milk carton bounces? 
• ·         The city will get a new source of revenue
• ·         In the end, there will still be bags: people will just have to pay for them
• ·         Dog owners will now have to buy plastic bags specifically for dog poop

GOVERNMENT INTRUSION AD INFINITUM

It's about the bags, but then again it's not.  Look at the big picture: if the city of Aspen has the power and authority to impose bans and levy fees on a product or service of their choosing without a public vote, then what's to stop them from taxing goods deemed not financially accessible to "locals." They already tax our real estate purchases. Why not wine?  Down jackets?  Gasoline?   It could be anything.

The Aspen Times recently printed a letter to the editor from Basalt resident Jeffrey Evans (read it HERE) that echoes this exact issue.  He states, "It is nice to know that cities won't need to slash their budgets in the face of economic downturns given a vast source of revenue from fees which can be imposed without voter approval."  Evans goes on to contemplate whether sodium and sugar are next, albeit for "a different set of equally altruistic rationalizations."  And, "there is no practical difference between paper and plastic bags or any other product which consumes resources and landfill space, so a 'fee' on any product sold in non-recyclable packaging is an obvious and probably inevitable extension of our scenario."  Orwellian for sure, but this is Aspen and we've seen what these guys are capable of.

The Red Ant checked with Aspen's city attorneys who, in their hallmark manner, rudely responded to an official Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request for "the charter provision (or other applicable law) whereby the city has the power and authority to impose bans and levy fees on a determined product or service of their choosing without a public vote." 

Here's attorney John Worcester's response: "The city attorney's office does not feel that it is appropriate to provide legal opinions to private individuals, particularly in a case such as this where it is unclear as to whether the city will proceed with a particular action."  WHAT?  A legal opinion?  Nobody wants Worcester's legal opinion, just the facts.  Just show me where it says the city can proceed down this path! Worcester did go on to quickly warn, "We would note that fees charged by a municipality have been upheld in Colorado."  Why so defensive, John?  Nobody is threatening litigation, just inquiring about where it says in our local laws that actions of this type are legal.  (Yep, you and I both pay the high six-figure salary of this dishonest buffoon!)

The "bag tax," while well-intended, is rife with problems and sets a dangerous precedent for future government over-reach.  We need to fight this.   

A BURDEN TO TOURISTS AND RETAILERS ALIKE

Even the draconian Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) concedes that we are a tourism-based economy.  As such, isn't it anti-tourist to blindside our economic base by nickel-ing and dime-ing them at every turn with a bag tax?  Of course, some will just pay the fee. (What's their choice when they're checking out at the grocery store and the fee comes once the whole cart has been rung up?)  Others may argue, and the retailer will incur the cost.  But in both cases, we'll look like a bunch of jerks.  

This bag tax is both anti-business and anti-tourist.   ACRA President Debbie Braun tells The Red Ant that the organization will be immediately conducting a survey of its membership, similar to the survey they did in 2009 when the bag tax issue was previously discussed.  (In that survey, 56% of respondents felt that charging consumers for the use of plastic bags at grocery stores was okay, but at other retail establishments, only 36% supported the idea.  As for paper bags, just 45% supported a charge at grocery stores and only 25% did so at other retail.)  According to Braun, "I'd have to think it will be similar this time around." 

She went on to say, "Our greatest concern is a ban on bags in retail establishments.  Many of the retailers have said they would not charge/pass-through (the tax) to the consumer therefore it would appear to be an additional tax on them.  Furthermore, many of the retailers use the bags as 'walking' advertisements for their stores."

PICK YOUR ICK

You knew it was bound to happen.  One more unintended consequence of requiring the use of reusable shopping bags is that these are likely to "bring dangerous bacteria like E. coli in contact with your food."  This, according to J. Justin Wilson of the Center for Consumer Freedom in D.C. in a recent letter to the Aspen Times editor.  It seems that a new survey shows that "more than half of the people who do their grocery shopping with reusable bags have never washed them."  Unsafe levels of coliform and lead have also been found in these bags.   Wilson concludes, "What we're seeing are the unintended consequences of ill-thought-out government regulations.  Often when the government rushes to push through feel-good regulations designed to shape public behavior, they usually introduce new problems.  In this case, they might introduce new and potentially dangerous problems."  Ya think? 

LOCAL POLL

The Aspen Times has been conducting an online poll this week, inquiring of readers: "Should businesses in Aspen be forced to charge a fee for plastic or paper bags in order to promote the use of reusable bags?" At press time, the results were:

• ·         Yes                  28%
• ·         No                   68%
• ·         Not Sure           4%

WRITE COUNCIL AND ACRA NOW

Please send an email TODAY to city council (public_comment@ci.aspen.co.us) with a cc to ACRA (mmiller@aspenchamber.org) on this issue, with "Bag Tax" on the subject line.  Especially cite how such an ordinance would affect you and your business. 

And, a memo to SkiCo brass from The Red Ant:  It seems councilman (and SkiCo employee) Derek Johnson is a little confused as to what business he's in.  Stating his unequivocal support for the bag tax, Johnson quipped, "I like sending the statement.  It is who we are."  Who we are??  Who are you, Derek??  (Last I checked, Johnson is the retail manager for the largest tourism-driven company in the valley.)

THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN WORK

The Red Ant prefers the carrot to the stick.  In a similar but unrelated action, this week the city's environmental health department provided free reusable coffee mugs to local coffee drinkers in an effort to raise awareness about the recycling challenges associated with the white paper cups used by most coffee shops.  I learned that most coffee cups are made with 100% virgin white paper vs recycled paper because the recycled material cannot withstand the high coffee temperatures.  Furthermore, the cups are coated with a thin plastic resin for insulation which prevents the cups from being recycled or composted. 

Thanks to the participating coffee shops who generously offered special pricing when filling the reusable mugs AND for the awareness. (It certainly made me think, and I will do my best to bring my reusable mug into town every morning!)

• ·         Café Ink
• ·         Peach's
• ·         Starbucks
• ·         Boden's Butter
• ·         The Aspen Corner Store
• ·         French Pastry Café
• ·         Parallel 15
• ·         Paradise Bakery

ISSUE # 55....A Favorable Trend: AdvANTage Aspen

"The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving."  -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

It's never over 'til it's over, but there have been several noteworthy decisions, leanings and endorsements that reinforce The Red Ant's position(s) on high profile local issues in the past few weeks.  Some are done deals, others are still works in progress, but they're trending in a positive direction.  I share them with you as indications that citizen involvement in the issues CAN and DOES make a difference.  Thank you to all who took the time to take surveys, write to elected representatives and government agencies, and spread the word. Together, we ARE making a big difference! 

SHARE THE RED ANT WITH YOUR FRIENDS 

Do you forward your issues of The Red Ant to friends?  Know someone who would enjoy receiving The Red Ant?  Simply reply to this email and let me know whose addresses to add to the list!

VOLUNTARY HISTORIC DESIGNATION - A HUGE VICTORY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

The following is a letter that I received from local residents Marsha Cook and Mike Maple who, along with 19 other citizen volunteers, worked for 3.5 years to resolve "the historic designation issue" in Aspen:

"In July 2007, the newly seated City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance #30 that required all properties 30 years old or older to make an application to the City to determine if their property was a "Potential Historic Resource" and subject to involuntary historic designation and control before making any exterior alterations or demolition.  After considerable outrage from the community, the informal group of citizens referred to as The Aspen Citizens Group (led by Mike Maple and Marilyn Marks) persuaded City Council to replace Ordinance #30 with Ordinance #48.  Ordinance #48 reduced the number to 53 potential properties affected and provided them with what has been called a "Catch & Release Program."  The ordinance allowed property owners to proceed with changes after filing for a building permit and participating in a 90-120 day negotiation period with the City of Aspen.

"A Task Force of 21 citizens was formed to review the Historic Preservation Program.  They met for 19 months and delivered a report with numerous recommendations to City Council in October 2009.  The Task Force was narrowly split on issues such as Voluntary vs Involuntary designation of Post-WWII properties.  Nine of the Task Force members were concerned that, because of the split in support on the most critical issues, the overall report did not yield a workable program.  These nine worked together to create a Proactive Voluntary Recommendation for Historic Designation of Post-WWII Properties in Aspen, dated 19 October 2009.  This report was submitted to the other Task Force members and City Council by Michael Behrendt, Penney Evans Carruth, Marsha Cook, Pam Cunningham, Yasmine dePagter, John Kelly, Mike Maple, Tom Todd and Jack Wilke.  (Read the report here.)

"During this past year, many meetings with Council and staff have taken place in order to create a new ordinance.  A VOLUNTARY ONLY Historic Preservation Program for Post-WWII properties, identifying only those properties listed in Ordinance 48, was approved on 10 January 2011 by all five City Council members.  The ordinance asks future Councils to honor the new code's commitment and not alter the program or target additional Post-WWII properties for at least 10 years.

"We believe that Historic Preservation is important.  The City's new ordinance provides a program that allows for good preservation balanced with property rights. Without your support during the last 3.5 years, we would not have the program that was approved last week."

The Red Ant says THANK YOU to all who served on this committee, especially to Marsha, Mike, Michael, Penney, Pam, Yasmine, John, Tom and Jack for their dedication to historic preservation within the critical realm of private property rights.  (Please thank these dedicated citizens when you see them.)  This was quite a battle, given that there were staffers at city hall and nearly half the committee who preferred subjective judgment and the power to historically designate private property against owners' knowledge, will and control.  But in the end, rational minds prevailed. 

THE AACP DRAFT: DISSED BY SKICO AND THE CHAMBER!

Speaking of rational minds prevailing, The Red Ant was nothing short of elated to learn that the board of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) excoriated the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) draft earlier this week "for turning a blind eye to Aspen's status as a resort, and pilloried the two-year-long process of writing it as rushed," according to the Aspen Daily News.  Board member and Aspen Skiing Company SVP David Perry went as far as to say that the company (SkiCo) "opposes the current draft of the plan and believes it should be stopped."  The board's critical sentiment can be summed up as too much focus on the prevention of development and growth (reactions to the past) as opposed to a guiding document that addresses issues of the present and future, especially given that we are a resort community.

As expected, mayor Mick (who is on the ACRA board) didn't like this a bit.  According to The Aspen Times, Mick fiercely defended the AACP draft and the two-year process that it's taken to get to this stage.  Ignoring the fact that there are still surveys being conducted on AACP issues and the draft is far from complete, in his hallmark style Mick berated the board by saying, "It really is the Aspen way to let the process get near the end and then get around to it."  The Red Ant ascertains that Mick doesn't want community feedback after all.  Neither does his county commissioner pal Michael Owsley (who is also on the ACRA board), who told ACRA that if they want to get involved now, "You're going to have to slap on your clothes, find your shoes and start running." Lovely.  How's THAT for representation?

The Aspen Times reports that more than 9700 staff hours and half a million dollars have been spent on this version of the AACP so far.  Why wasn't it just an update?  Seems the AACP authors, led by Marcella Larsen and our pal Jack Johnson on the county planning and zoning commission, "felt it would be irresponsible to do a simple update.  So they decided to forge a more thorough, all-encompassing plan, one that even includes recommended 'action items' and statements on societal issues."  Good grief! This is a classic case of a citizen volunteer committee running amok, with what appears to be zero supervision and an unlimited expense account!

I've read the cumbersome document, and I thank the ACRA board for doing the same, having the vision to see where this manifesto stands to take us, and speaking out against it.  THIS is local leadership.

What's next?  There is really just one critical question:  Will the AACP be a "guiding" document or a "regulatory" one?  This needs to be immediately determined by council and the BOCC.  If it is deemed to be "guiding," we can all relax.  If it is to be "regulatory," it's time to take the gloves off and put the big kibosh on this once and for all.  Stay tuned.  (The Red Ant is very encouraged by the recent trend.)

HYDRO - ALL WASHED UP?

Don't I wish.  But we're making headway.  And we're far from alone.  The Western Rivers Institute's (www.WesternRiversInstitute.org) recent call for public comment on the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project yielded numerous letters to the city of Aspen and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  Thank you to the many readers of The Red Ant who submitted comments.  Apparently comments were 3:1 in opposition. 

There were also several institutional contributions to the effort, including a particularly damning letter from American Rivers (www.AmericanRivers.org), a DC-based non-profit corporation dedicated to healthy rivers (read it here).  Of note, the organization's Colorado conservation director Matt Rice wrote, "Our review of the record suggests that Aspen is engaged in a deliberate and disingenuous effort to disguise the fact that the Castle Creek project's primary intended purpose is to develop hydropower.  By seeking a conduit exemption, Aspen is trying to avoid the Commission's licensing requirements, including recommendations and conditions from state and federal natural resources agencies and more detailed independent environmental review of the project."  Rice continued, "The city's proposed operations would severely alter streamflows in Castle and Maroon Creeks, and the cursory flow study used by the city to justify its proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposed project will adequately protect the health of those streams."  He added, "We are disappointed by Aspen's lackluster analysis of alternatives to the project... The 582-230 vote in support of the referendum (2C in November 2007) proved by a large margin that the community supports alternative means of energy.  It did not prove, however, that citizens of Aspen would support obtaining non-carbon based energy through hydropower generation at the expense of the health of Castle and Maroon Creeks....The City's consideration of alternatives is deplorably inadequate."  And in conclusion, "If Aspen insists on pursuing this course of action, American Rivers will fully oppose it."

As we wait to learn whether or not FERC grants the city's application for a conduit exemption and waives the environmental impact study amidst all of the extremely negative feedback, there is a big lesson to be learned:  As citizens, we must become increasingly vigilant in overseeing council when measures are added to the ballot.  The language of these measures and how the questions are specifically worded make an enormous difference!  They sure hoodwinked us on this one!

GIVEN TAKE - OR GIVEN GONE!?

In one of the more shameful chapters of city council meetings in recent memory, amidst the most recent "negotiation" with the potential buyer/developer of The Given Institute property, city council came across as five naughty boys who cut Economics 101 class (if they were ever signed up in the first place).  Where in baseball, the tie goes to the runner, in Ordinance 48 negotiations, an impasse with the city favors the property owner.  And CU as the owner holds all the cards.  (They own the land, they already have the demolition permit, but are doing what they can to work with the city to "save" The Given facility within the economic constraints that keep them whole.)  But the boys either ignored this, simply forgot, or just don't get it.  Either way, their behavior was reprehensible and made Aspen look foolish for electing them.

If the city wants to keep The Given facility, then it will have to make some compromises.  The most current "deal" on the table is increased density on the site in the form of two home sites, but this assumes the city (or an angel donor??) will buy the facility and donate a third home site as public open space. 

Please note a couple of irrefutable facts:

• The Given Institute, as it exists today, is NOT public space.  It is not a public park.  It is a private facility that is gated when not in use, so any construction/development activity on this property does NOT take anything away from the public's current ability to use it.
• If The Given is demolished, the developers can legally build a 7000 sf house there

The Red Ant is no fan of the "compromise" development idea.  It's not so much the density concerns, although I much prefer a single house on this treasured property so close to Hallam Lake.  It's the fact that those who hope to "save" The Given have so little (if any) clue about economics and even less respect for property rights.  Apparently the local "save" group, after nearly 9 months of organization, have all of 178 "friends" on Facebook who want to save the old place at any cost.  And at a $10+M price tag, just who is going to pay this and then GIVE it to the city??  But that issue doesn't daunt mayor Mick.  He used the term "public funds" numerous times throughout the most recent negotiation. 

Even councilman Dwayne Romero, allegedly our "smart guy" on council, requested that the developer find a suitable purchaser of The Given and "Lot 2" so that the city doesn't have to deal with it.  (No joke.) That was after mayor Mick introduced an inane idea that the other boys thought would be just ducky: Couldn't the CU's sale of The Given and "Lot 2" be structured somehow favorably tax-wise so that CU would GIVE (yes, give) these parcels (or a large portion of them) to the city!?  What!?  The reason CU is selling this property is because the facility is a tired old money loser and the university needs the CASH -- $15M worth!

While negotiations are obviously winding down, we are not through.  But we are VERY close.  The lack of council's economic acumen and even less understanding of negotiation tactics have illustrated that the buffoons we have elected are far more comfortable basking in their own legislative power and spending public funds than they are making sound decisions.  Mick went as far as to doubt whether the eventual proceeds from sale of the CU-owned property would ever "find its way into the CU programs."  Huh??

A reader of The Red Ant wrote me recently, "I'm reminded of a quote from LeCorbusier, the French architect.  Goes something like this:  "Old buildings like old people have a life span, and when it's over, it's over.  They die or are torn down."  Ya think?

I see this one coming to a conclusion in the very near future.

ADULT SUPERVISION OF THE MAY 2011 ELECTION??

There's a wonderful rumor that a highly-respected and ethical "election professional" will be "overseeing" the city clerk and her conduct of the upcoming municipal election on May 3.  Could this mean that the ballot box will be locked this time?  Could the city's record-keeping of how its citizens vote be a thing of the past?  (At press time, The Red Ant could not get confirmation of this hopeful development.)

OUR RECYCLING VISIONARY

Merely days after proposing a "plastic water bottle ban" in Aspen, Torre, our one-named, tennis-teaching, uber-tan, man-about-town councilman is back, this time targeting disposable plastic bags.  According to the Aspen Daily News, Torre asserts "Legislation is inevitable... One thing I am not in favor of is simply taxing plastic bags.  I'd like to see them eliminated."

The Red Ant could certainly opine on this issue, but I read a recent letter to the Aspen Daily News editor that captured my thoughts exactly.  Tom Kwiatkowski of Lake Geneva, WI, wrote, "I have a condo in Snowmass.  I loved Curtis Wackerle's story on the banning of plastic bags.  Only in Aspen can elected officials ignore dealing with the S-curves (entrance to Aspen) for 50 years but solve our plastic bag problem.  I love our visionaries."

QUOTES I SIMPLY MUST SHARE

Here are a couple of gems from the January 24 city council meeting, pertaining to The Given Institute negotiations:

• Former Mayor Bill Stirling: "Keeping The Given (building on the site) makes the land more valuable."  Huh?
• Dwayne:  "I'd like to see a clean, straightforward deal, without the variances, waivers, reductions and offsets.  Sterilize the deal."  (I think that's the same as killing it!)
• Torre:  "I take what I can get."
• And my favorite, from Mick:  "Our reach ALWAYS exceeds our grasp.  It's The Aspen Idea.  We like having it all.  We want all the good stuff and we want it now."    

JACK WATCH: HE HAS YET TO HIT THE ROAD

In between issues of The Red Ant, I have been known to write in to the local papers.  This was published in the January 20, 2011, Aspen Daily News:

"Reading wanna-be politician Jack Johnson's lengthy diatribe on The Given and Aspen public policy made me laugh, particularly his admission, 'Make no mistake, in its desire to maximize the value of the property, the school (CU) is acting wisely and on behalf of all Coloradans. But it isn't acting in Aspen's best interest.' This singular statement takes all the huff and puff out of the strange and convoluted argument he puts forth. (Best I can tell, it's an admonishment of nonprofits that exercise their fiduciary responsibilities by maximizing the 'underlying free market residential value of the institution's property.')

Who died and made Jack the arbiter of 'Aspen's best interest?' And what does his undefined concept of 'Aspen's best interest' have to do with anything that CU is considering as long as it is within its legal rights? 

High density development on that unique site certainly is not ideal, but it's my guess that CU is calling Aspen's bluff and illustrating that the city can't have it both ways. As I wrote in the recent issue of The Red Ant, 'If you want to 'keep' The Given (i.e. buy it with taxpayer funds despite not having a need for a city-owned and managed conference space), you are going to have to make some concessions that will obviously entail increased density on the site. If you want to maintain minimal density there, then let the old building go so that one private residence can be built.'

Jack and his nemesis, private property, are clearly not through with their multi-year, multi-project feud. Aspen's emotional ties to The Given must be weighed.  Remember, CU holds the cards in the form of a demolition permit. They can very easily scrape the place tomorrow.  But an even greater question mark relates to Jack's directive to May 2011 council and mayoral candidates to see the big picture and take a clear stand on these zoning issues. Could Jack be going for the trifecta and throwing his knit hat into the ring again? Really? How fun."

The latest:  Jack is allegedly still couch-surfing and unemployed, and continues to be a nuisance on the local and state political scene.  He is currently meddling in the city's process of choosing a "local-serving" tenant for the highly subsidized Bentley's restaurant space in the city-owned Wheeler Opera House by submitting a formal "suggestion" amidst formal proposals from local restaurateurs.  Recall that as a city councilman (before being ousted in 2009), Johnson single-handedly drove the then-owners of the Hotel Jerome to sell the property when he pushed them too far in his attempt to micro-manage their plans to upgrade the interior of the historic property.  The Red Ant can't wait to learn what he has in mind to hamstring the new tenants of Bentley's!  But he is clearly lobbying for yet another appointed position on a citizen committee to do just that! 

Additionally, Jack has been lobbying Colorado's Secretary of State (responsible for elections) to implement his baby, Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV), statewide, despite the mess it caused in Aspen (and was thankfully repealed in November 2010 after just one election).  Puh-lease.

ISSUE # 54.... Things to ANTicipate in 2011

"If pleasures are greatest in anticipation, just remember that this is also true of trouble."

       -- Elbert Hubbard           

"Wisdom consists of the anticipation of consequences."

       -- Norman Cousins           

There is a lot on our local plate this coming year.  The following is an update on several ongoing issues that promise to come to a head in 2011.  Looking forward, this spring The Red Ant will be presenting a multi-issue expose on subsidized housing in anticipation of a major government push for a nine-figure general obligation bond to complete the Burlingame subsidized housing project, likely to be on the November 2011 ballot. 

But for now, here's what we've got cooking:

THE AACP:  SEEKING ANSWERS

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  A good mantra for sure, but perhaps it's a little sketchy when you're mayor Mick and what you're trying to do is goose the community feedback data for the soon-to-be-updated Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).  It seems that all of last year's feedback didn't quite provide the anti-development, pro-subsidized housing, slow-the-pace-of-construction data that the mayor and his Ba'ath Party sought.  Ancillary public feedback sessions (with instant vote tabulation) were held in December, but the desired results STILL weren't obtained.  So what do the mayor and the buffoons on city council do?  They commissioned YET ANOTHER survey! For another $15,000 in public funds, 2000 local voters in the city and county will be receiving one.  (It's actually, a form-like letter from city hall that directs the chosen ones to take an online survey.) The AACP team hopes THIS round of surveys will bolster support for their new hard-line controls.  According to the Aspen Daily News, mayor Mick decided that "some recently received feedback may not be representative of the entire community," referring to the December sessions.  "Many community members are too busy to attend city meetings," Mick added.  The Red Ant, who often attends city meetings, ponders -- since when does one's attendance at a city meeting become grounds for having one's opinions taken into account?

Will wonders never cease?  I received my AACP survey in the mail last week.  The 21-question online survey only takes a couple of minutes to answer.  If you receive one, please take the time to go online and fill it out.  As expected, there is great focus on subsidized housing (quantity, mitigation, on-site, off-site, etc) and construction quotas.  And as also expected, the questions are worded so that the answers can be broadly interpreted.  With 2000 surveys "randomly" out there, this round of questioning may just give Mick what he's looking for.  (Remember the May 2009 election??  These guys know what they're doing.  They know how to get the results they seek!) 

Meanwhile, the AACP team met recently to "sharpen goals" for the AACP, according to The Aspen Times, with the intent to adopt the plan by April.  Never mind the latest survey is out there amongst the populace this week!  These guys (and gals) will never let the facts get in the way of a good communist manifesto!

Notably, there are long-term economic impacts from the recent downturn in local construction and development.  With the stringent new restrictions on construction and development proposed by the new AACP, these impacts will only get worse.  For example, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, a quasi-governmental agency, raised its rates 10% this fall.  Their rationale?  As told to The Aspen Times by Bruce Matherly, manager of the ACSD, "The downturn in the economy over the last few years has led to a construction slowdown.  New construction means new business for the sanitation district, and pumps money into the entity's capital fund."  The restrictive revisions to the AACP will only make THIS situation worse, not to mention impact many other taxing authorities.  Clearly, the AACP is a punitive document, designed to continually raise taxes and restrict business rather than improve our community.

The future of the AACP?  Ideally, it would be great if it would just go away.  We have land use codes and building codes for a reason.  All of these other "controls" seem far too subjective and, in my humble opinion, are the hypocritical and angry opinions of the authors of the document rather than the input of the community.  As a refresher on the AACP, see The Red Ant Issue # 52 here. If the AACP must exist, it would be far better as an "aspirational" document for our community rather than a regulatory one.  Even county commissioner Jack Hatfield asked in the recent AACP team meeting, "How is this plan going to be used in the city and the county when we all look at these things differently?"  Good question.

THE CASTLE CREEK ENERGY CENTER, A.K.A. THE HYDRO PLANT

It's still a big mess over there.  (For a hydro refresher, see The Red Ant Issue # 45 here and an update in Issue # 49 here.) The latest is that the city is trying to bypass the regular licensing process for a hydroelectric facility.  They've applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a "conduit exemption" so as to get around a vital and comprehensive environmental impact analysis.   Additionally, the "conduit" that the city cites as rationale for this exemption is a drain pipe from Thomas Reservior that was installed under false pretenses.  Ken Neubecker of The Western Rivers Institute recently wrote a telling editorial in the Aspen Daily News (read it here).  In short, Neubecker states, "The city doesn't have adequate information to operate either a green or a financially sound hydroelectric operation.  They shouldn't try until they do."  And he adds, "Generating electricity for the city's utility operations from hydro power is a legitimate idea.  But it is being done too quickly, with too little thought, too many unbelievable claims and too little understanding of the consequences.  Solving one form of environmental damage by creating another is not green."  And my favorite statement from Neubecker illustrates just how we find ourselves in this pickle -- "Mayor Ireland points out that over 70% of voters approved the hydro plant.  But the 2007 referendum asked the wrong question.  It only asked about bonds and debt, with nothing about potential damage to Maroon and Castle creeks.  The outcome may have been very different if the referendum had stated the situation more forthrightly."  Ya think?  (For more information on Neubecker and The Western Rivers Institute, visit www.westernriversinstitute.org)

Longtime local Connie Harvey, in a recent Aspen Daily News editorial, is in full agreement with The Red Ant.  With regard to the hydro plant, she writes, "The city is breaking faith with residents who are doing their very best to find a good solution to a project that could have a good outcome if done well, or horribly damaging effects if done wrong."  While Connie and others worked to host a panel of water experts at a mediation session to look in-depth at the issues, "the mayor and city manager (Barwick) agreed to this plan, but meanwhile went on constructing the hydro project."  Regarding the FERC application, Connie states, "(The application) completely distorts what the city is up to," it "is deceitful throughout" and "utterly fraudulent." Read her thoughtful piece in its entirety here. 

And local Lucy R. Hibberd weighed in with a letter to FERC stating, "I am writing to ask you to reject the city's application for exemption from an environmental impact statement for the Castle Creek Hydro Plant.  The project has been hastily conceived, poorly planned and deviously presented."

This project is a shameful chapter in a long list of bad ways the city does business.  What can be done?  The city is soliciting public comment on its application to FERC for the exemption from an Environmental Impact Statement.  PLEASE take a minute and send an email today to FERC at THIS address and reference Docket # P-13254 on the subject line.  In addition, please cc David.Hornbacher@ci.aspen.co.us with 1) the message that you do not approve of this distorted and fraudulent application to FERC, and, importantly, 2) that you want your letter added to the public record.  (If you don't ask that they do this, the city of Aspen might just "lose" your letter!)  For more information, see the full application at www.aspenpitkin.com - click on the Castle Creek Hydro link under "City Spotlight."  Thank you for weighing in against this wreckless and deceitful project.  The deadline for comments is January 18, 2011.

THE GIVEN INSTITUTE:  TRASH OR TREASURE?

When Elizabeth Paepcke donated 2.25 acres of land in Aspen's  west end to the University of Colorado in the early 1970s, the university constructed The Given Institute, a 12,000 s.f. building used by its School of Medicine as a facility for medical research conferences.  In recent years, state support for the medical school has drastically declined; at the same time, The Given requires $200,000 in annual operating subsidies.  CU's desire to demolish the facility and sell the vacant lot to a buyer has Aspen in a full-blown tizzy.  Is The Given historic?  The Red Ant hardly thinks so, but those who do have been fighting hard to throw a wrench in the university's desire to sell the property in order to support the medical school's endowment and get out from under the annual subsidy.  Recent negotiations include CU's offer to designate the aging facility as historic (therefore not tearing it down) and subdividing the remaining land for a developer to purchase and build three 5500 s.f. homes.  The city would then have one year to buy The Given facility for $3.75 million. 

Local economic geniuses are screaming for CU to lower the $13.8 million price tag (yes, they have a buyer) so that the developer won't have to build such density on the notable property overlooking Hallam Lake.  The Red Ant says, you can't have it both ways:  if you want to "keep" (i.e. buy it with taxpayer funds despite not having a need for a city-owned and managed conference space) The Given, you are going to have to make some concessions that will obviously entail increased density on the site.  If you want to maintain minimal density there, then let the old building go so that one private residence can be built.  The building is a dump.  But because it came to be as a result of Elizabeth Paepcke's generosity, this has become a local brou-ha-ha.

As former county commissioner Shellie Roy wrote in a recent letter to the editor, "It is lovely that we protect our community, but sometimes, the cause is bigger than 'about us.'  Mrs. Paepcke gave this land to the state's university and the thousands of Colorado residents it educates.  My guess is she is pleased a nest egg is available when CU and its student body needs it most."  The Red Ant wholeheartedly agrees.

Thankfully CU holds the demolition permit and can act on it whenever they desire.  The Red Ant sees the patience of CU administrators wearing thin.  My bet -- a vacant lot by spring.  This is yet another example of the city overstepping its bounds in an attempt to diminish the value of private property.  Evoking the "Paepcke legacy" as rationale for spending public funds on an emotional purchase is irresponsible and insulting.

THERE'S A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN -- A KISS FOR LUCK AND WE'RE ON OUR WAY??

Joe DiSalvo was sworn in as Pitkin County's sheriff on January 11. As protégé and heir apparent to outgoing 6-term Sheriff Bob Braudis, DiSalvo becomes the third local sheriff to champion Aspen's progressive brand of community policing.  Beginning with Dick Kienast in the 1970s ("Dick Dove and the Deputies of Love"), "compassionate law enforcement" and preserving Aspen's peaceful spirit have been the local law of the land.  Braudis, known for providing "extra-legal solutions" to avoid court and avoid jail, has, according to The Aspen Daily News, "long preached legalizing marijuana and other drugs, while championing treatment for addiction rather than legal penalties for possession; he has not conducted undercover investigations because he says they erode public trust of his department; and he has drawn public criticism from officials with the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), who say he impedes their ability to operate in Pitkin County."

The big question for DiSalvo:  Will you continue with the same laissez faire attitude toward illegal drugs in Pitkin County?  Or will you break with the past (it is 2011 after all) and your forefathers to lead our community in a better, healthier and safer manner?  Only time will tell....

ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL (AVH) IS EXPANDING, BUT JUST HOW FAR?

With great fanfare on December 14, AVH board members, administrators and representatives of Haselden Construction donned hard hats and broke ground on Phase 2 of the hospital expansion.  The funding for this project comes from a $50 million general obligation bond approved by taxpayers in November.   Phase 2 will include the expansion of all outpatient areas, including improvements to zoning, segregation of internal traffic flow, privacy and space for upgraded patient care (from 25 to 36 private rooms), cardiac/pulmonary rehab and physical therapy relocated to a second floor, same-day surgery moved to a contiguous space with other surgery, relocation of food service and dining, 12,000 s.f. of medical office space, a basement receiving dock, a 220-space parking garage, 18 subsidized housing units, and site work.

AVH board member John Sarpa assures The Red Ant that "AVH will only build what it can afford."  This means that the planned $80 million, 4-phase expansion will only be completed with what the $50 million from the bonds can deliver, that is, unless AVH is able to augment this funding with a capital campaign or issue revenue bonds.  If no ancillary funds are raised for the expansion project, AVH will stop its expansion when the money runs out.  This could adversely affect Phases 3 and 4 which are designed to provide a new emergency department, expanded surgical operations, 15,000 more s.f. of office space, an elevated helicopter pad above the ER, a new ambulance entrance, and garage and basement space for storage and non-clinical operations (Phase 3), a new front entrance, new registration/admitting areas, better-located outpatient services and completion of garage and external traffic operations (Phase 4).

Thankfully, each expansion phase has been designed to offer self-contained threshold improvements and can stand alone should the money run out.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.  (But when you voted YES on the $50 million bond for AVH, you thought the whole expansion was a done deal, didn't you?!)

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS?

It all began in early December when city council and the Pitkin county board of county commissioners learned that the seasonal rental housing at Marolt Ranch (a 95-unit complex) was only 35% full.  Built to house seasonal resort workers in the winter and music students in the summer, Marolt's vacancies led our elected leadership to consider using the excess capacity as "a short term solution for homeless persons."  Good grief. 

As a parishioner of St. Mary's Catholic Church, I am very aware of the partnership the church has with the Aspen Homeless Shelter whereby the church provides an overnight shelter for the homeless from December through March, housing about 20 people per night.  Of all things, the city should stay out of the homeless shelter business, especially on a short term basis.  It's just one more "business" that the city stands to take on and screw up.

On one hand, it is notable that we have excess subsidized housing inventory.  But on the other, we are spending millions upon millions on the planning and development for 167 additional subsidized housing units at Burlingame that will cost in the neighborhood of $100 million.  I am all for compassion for the homeless, but disagree whole-heartedly with councilman Steve Skadron who stated, "It's unconscionable to have resources sitting there when neighbors are in need."  No Steve, it's unconscionable to build more and more subsidized housing when there is no need.  It's unconscionable to give to some while charging others for the same.  It's unconscionable to think that Aspen can accommodate a growing number of homeless on a long term basis with subsidized housing that is intended to house our local workforce.

Thankfully, Marolt Ranch filled up with seasonal renters throughout December.  But the issue did not go away.  The latest is that city-owned, seasonal, subsidized housing such as Marolt may be used for "transitional housing for the homeless" as early as this spring.  According to The Aspen Daily News, homeless advocates want to "launch a 'pilot program' through which pre-screened homeless people could qualify for transitional housing at Marolt after ski season employees move out in April.  They would only be permitted to stay until June, when temporary summer tenants move in."

Mission creep by the city of Aspen once again.  They have zero sense of unintended consequences.  Clearly.  This will be interesting....

A BOTTLED WATER BAN IN ASPEN?

Earlier this month, Torre, our one-named, uber-tan, tennis-teaching, man-about-town councilman proposed a ban on the sale of single-use plastic water bottles in Aspen.  (City staff is currently researching the issue.)  Torre's intent is for the "plastic bottle industry" to change what it does based on the surety of a "conversation" that will begin with Aspen's actions.  One quick stop at the Aspen Store at local's corner will illustrate how misguided poor Torre is.  This photo clearly illustrates how "bottled water" is just one of many single-use plastic bottle products available.  Banning the sale of water in such containers in the city of Aspen is supposed to change the world?  Torre, Torre, Torre, please.  What about soda, juice and energy drinks?  Wouldn't it be better to look to the professionals and see what they're doing?  (For example, the environmentally conscious Aspen Skiing Company has recently stopped including bottled water in its nightly turn-down service at The Little Nell, instead providing guests with a carafe of Aspen tap water.  Now THIS is a reasonable and responsible action that actually reduces the use of bottled water!)

Torre, your intentions are good, but this is just poorly thought out. The Red Ant suggests that you research a similarly misguided "ban" promoted by then-mayor Bill Stirling in the late 1980's.  Stirling moved to ban the sale of fur in Aspen!  This made national news, but not the favorable kind.  It actually made Aspen look foolish.  And visitors were concerned about wearing fur here amidst the controversy.  We ARE a tourism-based economy, so this was not good.  A bottled water ban would be equally bad.  Sorry, Torre, I just can't see an Aspen visitor grabbing a V-8 for that hike up the Ute Trail.  Besides, those bottles are plastic too.

FREE STUFF!

$100 Landfill Credit:  Pitkin County is now offering county households a $100 credit at the county landfill.  This is an incentive for residents to properly dispose of waste, including hazardous materials, electronics, metal, leaves and grass, as well as household trash.  For pricing and more information, see www.aspenpitkin.com/resourcerecovery or call 970-429-2884.

Residents must bring a driver's license to the landfill along with one of the following documents: car registration, utility bill or property tax bill.

Food Sales Tax Refund:   The refund is $50 per person per year.  If you are over 65, you will receive an additional $50 plus another $50 senior citizen allowance.  Yes, these amounts are cumulative!!  Anyone who can prove they were a resident of the City of Aspen for the entire 2010 year is qualified.  And it's simple.  Just print and fill out this form and submit it to the city finance department - they must receive it by 5pm on April 15, 2011.  If you were registered to vote with a qualifying city address in 2010, simply complete the application.  If you are not registered to vote here, you may prove your residency using one of the criteria on the back of the application: lease agreement, utility bills, etc.  For questions, the city finance dept can be reached at 970-920-5040.

SHARE THE RED ANT WITH YOUR FRIENDS 

Know someone who would enjoy receiving The Red Ant?  Simply reply to this email and let me know whose addresses to add to the list!

ISSUE # 53.... sANTa's Coming!

'Twas the start of the season, when all through the town The skiers were happy, with nary a frown. So much early snow, we revel in the stuff Opening Day gave us a foot of good fluff! But the year has been trying, as one would expect It's Aspen, where taxpayers get no respect! Mick runs the city as if he were king He tries to keep us from knowing a thing. But The Red Ant is here to shine a bright light On hypocrites, secrecy and budgets not tight. The games, they continue, but it's really quite fun To unearth the stories, sparing no one! Burlingame housing, good grief -- here it comes You won't believe the estimated sums! They're spending a fortune with costs sure to soar If they ask for a dime, Aspen voters will ROAR! A young Times reporter covered the tale Of Instant Run-Off Voting: how it was destined to fail. He truthfully covered the saga and foes Of the '09 election: problems everyone knows! The city didn't like how they were portrayed, Times editors were berated in a Mick-Worcester raid. They tried to make amends with propaganda and lies, But the reporter said "Later, I'm through with you guys!" The Hydro Plant was exposed as lots of green hype They're spending a fortune on unneeded pipe! It's all a big plan to bypass the Feds Inviting the lawsuits everyone dreads. The hospital bond passed in a very close vote So they're rushing to issue the $50 million note. But this will not cover it, the funding's not through They'll be back for more soon - this is only Phase 2! Is "The Given" historic, or is it just old? CU wanted to sell it but then they were told It can't be torn down, it's part of our past. I say hurry, bring in the bulldozers -- fast! The "blue roofs" are rotting; all moldy and wet Those subsidized wonder how much they'll get. But the taxpayers paid for the place to be built And won't pay the repairs - won't do it, no guilt! $84 million to spend and to waste They passed the budget with little talk and much haste. Council assumptions, based on who knows just what But according to Mick, not a thing can be cut. Daily News owner Danforth got popped at the store He says he won't shop THERE anymore! (They charged tax for a newspaper, the New York Times He argued and got busted for trespassing crimes.) The community plan is a joke and a sham If it is to pass, we're all in a jam. We are not commies, we want to stay free Let's get rid of this thing - the AACP! Aspen's cultural programming sets us apart And now we can celebrate contemporary art. The building design is a sight to be seen Looking to open in 2013. City Manager Barwick, the incompetent bore With his new contract, he does less for more. But raises for employees, what's council thinking? The boys can't think clearly - Mick's kool-aid they're drinking! The city can't account for nearly half a mil But they're throwing more cash at the recycling center still. Seems the "off the books" deal with a developer failed And as a result, the taxpayers got nailed! The Wheeler is one of our best local jewels With the city in charge, it's a big house of fools. The shows, they are costly and subsidized each year Earned income to expenses, declining - oh dear! $2 mil for the basement, it's leaky and wet What about the millions it gets from the RETT? The endowment is cushy: millions, what for? But the city likes taxing property owners more! Aspen's parking department admitted a goof Seems parking tickets here are really a spoof. 4500 tickets have never been paid That's a quarter-mil in revenue disregarded  -- not made! Where is George Aldrich, he's been missing for weeks?! This isn't the season a snowboarder seeks! Please let me know if you see him around His family really wants George to be found! Historic Preservation:  it's still a big fight It's up to council to make this thing right! Those 60's houses -- it sure could be scary  If the city makes "HP" involuntary! Local paraplegic Amanda Boxtel walked With the help of "eLegs," 12 hours she clocked. The technology provides  a wonderful chance At the rate she is going, Amanda will dance! Construction in Snowmass became an architectural dig They found mammoths and mastodon - we're talking big! The bones, they are ancient, and there might be more there The museum in Denver will remove them with care. CPR saved the life of a tennis playing ace Ed Zasacky was gone but his friend knew the pace. A skill for us all to practice and show Ask "Un-dead Ed" --  I'll betcha he'll know! A record number of voters went to the polls 7500 from our voter rolls. Tommy Clapper deserves a raise of the glass His endorsement of Ittner was nothing but class! There's another election coming up in the spring Good changes for Aspen, let's hope these will bring! They ask me who's running but I haven't a clue But you can sure bet I have a theory or two! Mick, Dwayne and Steve, it's their turn to run If all three run for mayor, it will really be fun! It's easy to show not one has a clue And with only one winner, we'd get rid of two! I hope that the field will be filled with new faces Giving Aspen a slew of good candidates and races! I'm starting a PAC sometime early next year So look for the Ant to shift into high gear! Let's stick together and continue our quest We all love it in Aspen - it's simply the best! We have much to celebrate as 2010 ends, Holiday blessings to you, your family and friends.

Subscribe to The Red Ant!  It's Free!! Please share your thoughts and comments!  I want to hear from you! Elizabeth Milias  TheRedAntEM@comcast.net Correction: The Red Ant strives to be accurate in all facts contained in its commentary, and conducts extensive research and interviews to do so.  However, unintentional and inadvertent mistakes do occur.  In Issue #52, it was noted that county P&Z member Marcella Larsen "owns a number of TDRs that, under the new AACP stipulations, stand to become more valuable than ever."  In fact, she does not own any transferrable development rights.  Rather, her family negotiated perpetual vested rights for other real estate holdings, specifically, property on Richmond Hill.  On the unique deal, according to Marcella, "This land use approval served as a model for what the county does now through its TDR program."  The Red Ant regrets the error.