ISSUE #249: Ant Alert - A New Property Tax? (5/30/23)

"The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward."

-- John Maynard Keynes

HEADS UP: A POLL ON A NEW TAX FOR THE NOVEMBER BALLOT

Yes, you read that right. Beginning today, May 30, Pitkin County will be polling residents on their appetites for a county-wide subsidized housing tax.

In spite of the efforts by BOCC member Greg Poschman, the commissioners will not even get to review the questions. Look for leading questions and ones that do not to even mention a tax but instead ask something like "Does Pitkin County need more housing?"

The goal is to get enough "support" for "more housing" and perhaps even "more childcare" so that a new sales or property tax measure can be justified for the November ballot.

In an effort to move things quickly (when most people are not in town), commissioner Patti Clapper told her fellow commissioners to "trust the pollster."

This of course comes on the heels of the SUBSTANTIAL property tax valuation increases recently revealed to Pitkin County property owners that foretell ENORMOUS property tax increases this winter.

DO NOT ANSWER THE SURVEY IN ANY WAY THAT INDICATES YOUR SUPPORT FOR MORE HOUSING OR CHILDCARE. It will be counted as your willingness to increase taxes.

Why would we reward APCHA, that broken system, with more public money?

HERE is the news on the upcoming poll that will be conducted by phone and text over the next 10 days. If there is another way to participate, I will let you know.

Remember, the city justified putting its STR tax on the 2022 ballot with just 300 responses in favor of "more housing."

JUST SAY NO.

ISSUE #248: The Case for Pausing The Lumberyard (5/21/23)

"Sometimes all it takes is a subtle shift in perspective, an opening of the mind, an intentional pause and reset, or a new route to start to see new options and new possibilities."

-- Kristin Armstrong

The time is upon us. City staff is pushing council to memorialize the development plans for The Lumberyard so they can begin "horizontal development" of the 10-acre site, which means demolishing the existing lumberyard and the mini-storage, both revenue generating tenants.

Critical to any development, especially massive ones, should be how to pay for it. But no, not in Aspen. There is strong council sentiment to "move forward" because staff has been working on this for a long time.

We are talking $500 million to build the 277-unit project. Mayor Torre and councilmen Doyle and Hauenstein are in the "more is more" camp, where catchy ideas like "public-private-partnerships" and "phasing" are all they need to hear. Never mind neither of these options pencil out.

It will be interesting to hear what the new council members have to say. It's clearly in their best interest NOT to get neutralized by city staff with go-along-to-get-along votes simply because it will inevitably pass. Their oversight as time progresses is critical, and "yes" votes will render them supporters of the status quo.

It's a bad project, with no goal other than "more," that will not address our labor shortage. And the financials are OUTRAGEOUS. 

Read my column in yesterday's Aspen Times HERE.

***

City council will meet on Tuesday to memorialize the development entitlements for The Lumberyard, a 277-unit, 467-bedroom subsidized housing project on 10 acres just east of the ABC. These entitlements, if approved, will effectively green-light the project.

As the new council differentiates itself from the prior 5-0 echo-chamber, the first reading of an ordinance presents great opportunity to probe staff while leaving room for changes. In the past, first readings were simply a formality followed by a later second reading where each member made a gratuitous comment about staff’s proposed legislation before voting to approve it.

The Lumberyard, despite its slick drawings, is not at all ready for primetime and should not advance to second reading. More work needs to be done. 

Here are five reasons for council to push the pause button:

There is no goal other than “more” and this will not take pressure off the system. “More” is not a “release valve” that addresses the community’s actual workforce needs. The city prioritizes “essential workers” in its proprietary housing. Will we prioritize teachers, nurses, first responders, bus drivers, snow-plow drivers, bartenders and housekeepers? What about retirees willing to downsize? Where is that policy? Will there be options for the Latino community and can employers purchase units?

Adding more units to a broken system won’t change a thing. Building more and “figuring it out later” has gotten us exactly where we are today.

There is no funding mechanism in place.  Land for the project was purchased with nearly $30 million in RETT money, however, there is no financial plan for construction despite cost estimates approaching $500 million. A general obligation bond won’t pass muster with Aspen voters. More costly Certificates of Participation would bypass them, but this precludes ownership units. Declining RETT ($21 million in 2022, down 19% from 2021, and already down 40% YTD in 2023) and STR tax collections (projected $6 million a year) aren’t but drops in the bucket.

Only unqualified bureaucrats with bags of Monopoly money could advance this project past the idea stage without a defined goal and sound financial pro forma.

A Public Private Partnership (PPP) sounds nice but the numbers don’t work. PPP has become the latest funding idea and city staff hopes council likes the sound of it. (Most don’t understand the business of development.)  APCHA sales prices wouldn’t put a dent in the construction costs nor deliver a profit to the developer so the project would have to be all rental. Simple math: 277 rental units at $2,500/month average (which is high) yields $8.3 million a year. A development cost of $500 million at 5% return is $25 million to cover the interest cost on the debt. (It’s probably closer now to 10% and $50 million.) The city would have an ongoing subsidy of $16.7 (or $41.7) million simply to cover the annual debt service. It just doesn’t pencil. 

277 units doesn’t even off-set expiring deed restrictions.  In coming years, 79 ownership and 244 rental units will revert to the free market unless the city intervenes. Oughtn’t we save what we already have instead of building fewer new units? This certainly won’t cost half a billion dollars.

“Build now or costs will only go up” is not a reason to move forward. Look what happened with the Snowmass Village transit center. They spent a lot of money and but stopped when the community pushed back. It’s okay to pause in order to get it right. The Taj Mahal City Hall was similarly rushed and look at that travesty. (We’ll never know its true costs.) What’s best for the community is the only thing that matters, and that starts with a viable and responsible financial plan.

The Lumberyard must be part of a larger “Entrance to Aspen” masterplan.  The Highway 82 corridor in the upper valley links multiple major upcoming civic projects. We are expanding the Park-and-Ride intercept lot at Brush Creek Road, the airport is facing a major overhaul and terminal expansion, the ABC has become an Aspen suburb yet lacks proper infrastructure like sidewalks, The Lumberyard necessitates a new traffic light and the Castle Creek Bridge is nearing the end of its lifespan. These projects must be considered together as part of a formal, integrated master plan rather than developed individually. 

In the absence of hearing “no,” city staff hears “yes.”  Their goal is to politically neutralize city council by pushing them to go along with existing plans because of how much has gone into these so far. When things go sideways, the co-opted electeds then can’t distance themselves from the project nor their ill-informed predecessors who started us down this path.

To entitle the Lumberyard now only ensures that this incomplete, ill-conceived and fiscally irresponsible project moves forward at enormous uncertain cost to the community. We all know the city loves to play developer as opposed to fixing what it already has, and there’s no going back once they demolish the revenue-generating lumberyard and mini storage, and install the horizontal infrastructure.

Just because the drawings are done, the Lumberyard project is far from ready. Hit the pause button. 

Pretty construction drawings are not development plans. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #247: What "Disappearing Locals?" (5/7/23)

"It is an illusion that youth is happy, 

an illusion of those who have lost it."

-- W. Somerset Maugham

It's off-season in Aspen and a lot of people are out of town, but the recent outcry over "disappearing locals" is a myth. In fact, we're about to add 356 new APCHA units' worth of new full-time residents with Burlingame 3 and The Lumberyard. That doesn't count employer-owned housing.

Strangely, the way Aspen measures and restricts "growth" because it supposedly destroys community character, none of this subsidized housing counts.

Read my column from yesterday's Aspen Times HERE.

***

Where did all the locals go? Well, it’s off season, so there’s no end to the world traveling. Whether it’s Moab, Morocco or Montrachet, now’s the time to get away. But it’s important to note that everyone is coming back. After all, the Food & Wine Classic begins on June 16. 

The latest gripe we keep hearing about is “the missing middle” in Aspen.  More recently, it’s become a desperate outcry over “disappearing locals.” The problem is, “the missing middle” is hardly missing, and locals are not “disappearing” in the sense that’s implied. 

Locals may be disappearing from the resort/service industry workforce in such numbers that town undoubtedly feels different, but the people themselves haven’t left. They’re just doing other things. And “the middle” is actually here in droves. Plus, countless young families and urban refugees have relocated to Aspen since the pandemic to join them, and if you’re to believe all the chatter about a growing housing crisis, they keep coming. Furthermore, since the demand for subsidized housing continues to escalate unabated (who doesn’t want to live affordably in Aspen), it shows that no locals are going anywhere. The locals who are already here are staying put. That’s why there’s no room for the new guys.

But for “the middle,” something is in fact “missing.” Those in “the middle” are missing how it had once been possible to live large just like our tourists, sometimes even larger. But the times have changed and many of the old freebies have dried up. What’s “missing” for this group today is all the cool stuff that used to be accessible in an earlier, less expensive version of Aspen. A columnist for the other paper laments that local businesses sadly now cater to the people who actually pay for goods and services instead of giving free access, free parking and free drinks to locals, even if it meant putting these on an unsuspecting tourist’s tab. Having to buck up now for such things is her rationale for missing the good old days, but no, no one has gone “missing.”

The greatest contributor to this phenomenon is actually the bureaucratic state that continues to create more locals through unchecked subsidized housing development - 79 new units at Burlingame 3 and 277 at The Lumberyard in the near term – and the refusal to call this growth. While free market residential development is strictly capped at 0.5% annually (13 new units and 6 redeveloped units), there is no limit on subsidized housing development. We actually have a “growth” policy that’s mission is to protect our small town community character yet our formula for measuring growth ignores its greatest driver.

Among other problems, this results in many hundreds more locals on the same budget who will inevitably join the chorus to complain about how expensive everything is. Not exactly the definition of “disappearing.”  There are actually so many “middles” in “the middle” that from the inside, it surely feels like there’s a lot more competition to be one. Because there is. But no one is talking about it. More people are earning the same low wages and competing for fewer scarce resources (think bar stools at Mi Chola).  

This inevitably leads to talk about restaurant price inflation which is a national phenomenon, not something unique to Aspen. And notably, most “middles” have changed as much in the past 20 years as the restaurants have. They just don’t want to acknowledge it.

Could this be the result of chickens coming home to roost? Years of living the high life while paying pennies on the dollar for subsidized housing, not saving, not building equity but collecting 100-day pins and passport stamps? Nearly 40 years into our subsidized housing program brings new awareness daily to the harsh realities of owning deed restricted property in one of America’s priciest zip codes where the cost of every last thing is higher than practically anywhere else. There are so many “middles” in “the middle” that people are no doubt getting lost, as in left behind, but they’re not disappearing.

Even the “middles” are turning on themselves. A class system is evolving within the housing program. Apparently when top realtors live in APCHA housing, this is a bad thing. But they’re locals too, right? I’d say just as much as the longtime bartender who recently retired is one. I question the guy who works at home for Google but only the appropriateness of APHCA’s rules that allow it. He’s still a local despite “disappearing” from the local workforce. But personal purchasing power in our little hamlet has now become a delineating factor. If you’re not complaining, you’re clearly not a local. 

Lamenting “the missing middle” and “disappearing locals” has become an acceptable way to express nostalgia for how one remembers a place to be when one was at one’s most fun and youthful best. And today, when prices everywhere have risen, in Aspen it’s always someone else’s fault: the tourists, the landlords, the second homeowners. But this just a canard.

The only locals who have “disappeared” are the younger versions of themselves.

How can free market growth be detrimental to community character yet subsidized housing growth has no impact at all? Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #246: Housing Utilization - The City is The Worst (4/23/23)

"Success means doing the best with what we have."

-- Zig Ziglar

The hypocrisy is unreal. While the city of Aspen drives the "housing crisis" narrative, they run a lax and underutilized, proprietary housing program of their own. And they continue with a taxpayer-funded shopping spree to buy more units, up and down the valley.

City-owned units don't even house city employees. It's a mess. 

Read my column from Sunday's Aspen Times HERE.

***

As it pushes the community toward more and more subsidized housing construction at any cost on the last remaining vacant parcels in town and atop cherished, historically designated Victorians, the city of Aspen quietly maintains a small portfolio of housing of its very own. With 67 units comprised of 121 bedrooms, select city employees are rewarded with ownership and rental opportunities for studios up to 4-bedroom homes.

This little fiefdom has been made possible by the 505 Fund, established in 2008 and funded by all departments in the city as well as the general fund, where each allocates a percentage of their budget. In 2023, over $2.8 million will be transferred from individual city department budgets to the 505 Fund. Noteworthy contributions include $185K from the Wheeler fund, $134K from the parking fund, $77K each from the golf and daycare funds and a whopping $1.3 million from the general fund.

While loudly espousing that housing ought not be tied to employment, the city’s housing most definitely is, so when someone leaves their job, their unit must be vacated and returned or sold back to the city. Uniquely, however, those in city housing can pass along their maintenance and improvement costs to the city because such expenditures are seen as capital investments toward the long-term upkeep of the units. APCHA, in contrast, caps its reimbursements so there is no incentive for residents to improve yet alone even maintain their units.

Anyone who does business with the city has come to learn that things there take forever.  A visit to the city offices reveals how many work from home these days, yet the excuse for everything from building permits to open records requests taking an insulting amount of time is constantly blamed on “the housing crisis.” I’m not buying it.

A simple analysis of the city’s 67 housing units is telling. According to the city attorney’s office, just 53 are currently occupied.  Fourteen are vacant; this represents 27 empty bedrooms and 22% of the inventory. And of the 53 occupied units, recent information provided lists a SkiCo employee in a 3-bedroom, an employee of the animal shelter in a 1-bedroom and another random dude with no employment noted who occupies a 2-bedroom unit. 

For an entity that continues to blame its poor service on the lack of employee housing, one might think they’d have darned tight controls on who resides in their rare and valuable units. Instead, they don’t even bother to keep good records! But city council did just allocate nearly $3.6 million to cut the line to buy 5 new units (8 bedrooms) at Burlingame 3 for “essential” employees. Notably, such essential city employees already in city housing include an apprentice line technician, a recreation supervisor and a parking ambassador. (Somehow the city can determine who is and who isn’t essential, but it’s “classist” to suggest the same of APCHA.)

Furthermore, according to city manager Sara Ott who admits that many city jobs can be done remotely, enabling these to be filled by people who do not need local housing, the city is looking to provide housing for a full third of its 368 full-time equivalent staff. That’s 122 people. Today there are 121 bedrooms in the city’s existing 67 units, so, from a optimal utilization standpoint, we’re practically there. Add the new 8 bedrooms at Burlingame and voila, goal met. It’s certainly not the crisis they make it out to be.

But the death is always in the details. Further analysis of the city’s housing utilization reveals that they house just 0.45 employees per bedroom. That’s a lot of unused space, especially for an entity that is driving the “housing shortage” narrative. Just because APCHA runs a similarly lenient program when it comes to inventory utilization, the whole premise is incredibly irresponsible, and nothing short of a slap in the face of every taxpaying citizen whose hard-earned money pads both the APCHA and city coffers.

And don’t forget, plenty of city employees also live in APCHA housing. It’s just that the city doesn’t keep track of this. Or if they do, they won’t tell. I asked. If APCHA provided any semblance of transparency regarding who is living in our publicly subsidized housing inventory and where they work locally, it would be simple to determine what percent of city staff is currently being housed either by the community or the city itself. It’s just a guess, but I’ll say that number is well over 66%.

Meanwhile, as the city continues its housing shopping spree by picking up units outside the city limits along the transit routes with your tax dollars, it still insists that the development requirements for housing mitigation provide housing in Aspen proper. It’s more about the financial extraction from developers, not the provision of housing; fitting from the very entity that “generated” 51.6 full-time equivalent employees when building the Taj Mahal City Hall, but instead of mitigating as other developers are required to do, put this number against “credits” it granted itself from existing housing it already had in inventory.

At city hall, “h” is for “hypocrisy,” not “housing.”

Funny to criticize new councilmembers for not joining time-suck regional boards while specifically keeping them from the APCHA board. Can’t imagine why. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #245: The Housing Solution Must Address the Issues (4/12/23)

"You don't get unity by ignoring the questions 

that have to be faced."

-- Jay Weatherhill

ASPEN TIMES COLUMN

Apologies for the delay in getting Sunday's column to you. 

We have a labor shortage, not a housing one. And if we are not going to house actual workers, we cannot lament the lack of them. 

Read my column from Sunday's Aspen Times HERE.

***

Habitat for Humanity’s recent regional housing summit welcomed well-intended bureaucrats to Aspen to address the western slope’s “housing crisis.” I tuned in online and immediately identified its flawed premise. Slide number one presented a housing “need” for 6,826 units in the greater Roaring Fork Region by 2027, as determined by a consultancy called EPS in 2019. 

Bureaucrats love a report that supports their wishes, but the “landmark” EPS study has been debunked. When questioned to better understand the stated 5,200 unit shortfall in Aspen/Snowmass, the principal of EPS revealed that there was no formula. A young staffer simply made that conclusion, and that individual is no longer at the firm. 

And, as preposterous as 5,200 new units may sound, it’s actually off by an order of magnitude.  The desire for housing that enables people to live affordably in Aspen is infinite, and therefore a nonsensical goal to chase. The question not asked is one of economic need: businesses needing workers, as opposed people wanting subsidized housing.

Aspen’s role in regional solutions is dubious. We already have 7,000 subsidized bedrooms, not including Snowmass Village and employer-owned units, and exist in a real estate environment far different from that of our regional neighbors. Besides, our issue is unique: we don’t have a housing shortage, we have a labor shortage, the result of our housing program not prioritizing workers.

Aspen leaders should be asking three simple questions:

• ·      What do we currently have? When counted by bedrooms, not units, across the APCHA portfolio plus Snowmass Village, AVH, the school district, SkiCo and countless employers, we would know our existing housing supply and the capacity we can reasonably accommodate today.
• ·      Who lives there and what jobs do they hold?  Knowing which jobs are being provided for with housing in our inventory will illustrate housing utilization. Empty bedrooms and non-workers negatively impact housing utilization. The community should determine the amount it is willing to accommodate.
• ·      How many workers does the economy need to fill its vacant jobs? This number is the economic demand side of the equation. 

The city inventories its trees, ADUs and STRs, but wants to keep secret how many empty bedrooms and non-working residents we have in our housing in order to perpetuate that infinite “demand.”

Such active avoidance is politically expedient for building more housing, which has become our de facto community vision despite a stated aversion to growth and development. Meanwhile, anti-worker APCHA has zero interest in solving the labor shortage by prioritizing resort and community service workers. Aspen’s “housing” discussion is merely a ploy to build more, regardless of where people work.

Then there’s the “company town” argument perpetuated by class warriors Mick Ireland and Rachel Richards who talk out of both sides of their mouths saying locals should not have their housing tied to employment, yet the city, the hospital, the schools, SkiCo and countless local employers who have secured proprietary units for their employees provide exactly that. Housing utilization is optimized when tied to employment, yet prioritizing workers is somehow antithetical to the goal of “building community.” Shouldn’t all workers be welcomed as community members?

Take the long-delayed 170-bedroom Burlingame 3 project where the city plans to poach 8 bedrooms for “essential” workers despite already owning 67 units elsewhere. Are their “essential” workers more essential than the community’s? Then, APCHA wants to usurp 5 more units for its right-sizing experiment where current households with unoccupied bedrooms can purchase new, smaller BG3 units. Since APCHA owners are not required to be workers, actual workers in need of housing may be shut out. We are constantly negotiating against ourselves.

Worst, however, are the local housing-industrial-complex NIMBYs who ignore the Latino community. We’re told, “They don’t want to live here.” Local social justice non-profit MANAUS disagrees. They say it’s because the housing system in Aspen is not designed for the needs of the Latino population, never has been and hasn’t evolved with our changing demographics. Advocacy organization Voces Unidas de las Montañas was not at the recent housing confab but reminds that those who work the hardest at the resort and community service jobs we need filled are the ones continually pushed increasingly farther from where they work. 

These organizations are critical to solving our labor shortage and must be part of any housing conversation intended to address it. We should be talking about appropriately accommodating a critical mass of this vital workforce in the upper valley where the jobs are instead of building more for the middle class.

No one wants to talk about a numerical bedroom goal or the community’s carrying capacity either. They know that if we reach a given number, it still won’t solve the labor shortage since our housing program does not prioritize workers. No amount of new housing will unless things change.

It’s time to shift our priorities to provide housing for workers by immediately enabling local employers to acquire APCHA units and dramatically reconsidering plans for The Lumberyard. Service workers are essential to our economy, as improved unit utilization is to the long-term sustainability of our housing program. The solution is right before our eyes.

If we don’t provide housing for workers, then we can’t lament the lack of them. It’s that simple. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #244: Startling Housing Truths (3/27/23)

"Government is not a solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

-- Ronald Reagan

ASPEN TIMES COLUMN

Saddle up! The city is hoping to fast track the entitlements to develop the Lumberyard.

Keep in mind, the plans they have for the site are for 277 subsidized housing units at a time when the APCHA portfolio is facing the loss of 244 other units due to expiring deed restrictions. The willingness to even contemplate spending an estimated $500 million we don't have on net 33 units is incomprehensible.

Digging into the subject, several other previously unknown and alarming facts became clear.

Read my column in yesterday's Aspen Times HERE.

***

As The Lumberyard subsidized housing project barrels toward its development entitlements this spring, the “major public project” process consists of just two steps: P&Z sign-off followed by council approval. The details are in place: 500,000 sf of construction on nearly 11 acres for 277 housing units comprised of 467 bedrooms in three 49’ tall buildings, plus a street network, landscaping, parking for 436 cars, a bus stop and other site improvements. Early cost estimates approach $500 million.

The entitlements require many variances, including drastically rezoning the parcels from SCI (service, commercial, industrial), CON (conservation) and RR (rural residential) to RMF (residential multi-family), and other considerations for the planned development such as design, height, bulk, mass, density and a new stoplight on Hwy 82, not to mention a growth management review and design standard variations, several of which are incomplete or not to code.

Buried in the dense P&Z packet on The Lumberyard are several interesting and here-to-fore unknown tidbits. Coupled with the results of other housing-related research I’ve done recently, here’s a quick housing update:

• ·      Voters will NOT be asked to approve the financing of The Lumberyard, despite its nearly $500 million price tag. Even with the more favorable borrowing rates associated with General Obligation debt, because of required voter approval the city appears to be planning to again pursue Certificates of Participation (COPs) as it did when building the disfavored Taj Mahal City Hall.  The COPs are more expensive but the city can again skirt the taxpaying public because these do not require a public vote; a tactic employed with increasing frequency for unpopular and fiscally irresponsible endeavors.

• ·      The Lumberyard will be all rental housing.  Revealed for the first time in the P&Z packet is this all-rental scenario, notably because the city cannot sell a COP-financed asset. Despite the city’s aversion to publicly discussing the project’s financing to-date, such considerations are integral to the project itself, particularly the unit mix. Why so many 2 and 3-bedroom units in an all-rental complex?

• ·      Free market “buy downs” will not happen in Aspen. In fact, they specifically “will not be pursued” as highlighted in the much-celebrated 2022-2026 Strategic Housing Plan because of the obvious, prohibitive expense. Yes, they’re doing them in Eagle County, but no, not here.

• ·      Regional collaboration on housing might benefit the western slope, but not Aspen. The upstart regional housing coalition comprised of eight Roaring Fork Valley government entities aspires to enact a buydown program using use-it-or-lose-it American Rescue Plan grant money from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs earmarked for housing solutions. Given that grants will go to “locals” purchasing homes for $800,000 or less who place deed restrictions on them, the local real estate market puts any implementation well outside of Aspen’s borders and likely the county’s as well.  

Aspen’s seat at the table can, however, still serve a constructive purpose: with nearly 6000 subsidized housing bedrooms in the APCHA portfolio which does not include 865 additional bedrooms in Snowmass Village nor countless others owned by local employers, we are a shining example to the other jurisdictions of how not to run housing program.

• ·      APCHA regulations do in fact permit remote work. On page 6 of the APCHA regulations, Section 6 on APCHA eligibility, it clearly states that “To be eligible to rent or purchase a unit in APCHA’s inventory, unless an applicable deed restriction otherwise requires, eligible applicants/households must work full-time, 1500 hours per calendar year in Pitkin County and/or for a Pitkin County employer and earn at least 75% of household total income in Pitkin County.” APCHA likes to deny that remote work is allowed because it is clearly not the intent of the program, however, from a legal standpoint, remote work is a-ok.

In fact, I asked several Colorado attorneys to review the matter and all agree that according to the regulations, an APCHA resident working the requisite hours remotely from his unit in Pitkin County is indeed in compliance. The “and/or” is read as “or” by the courts in Colorado, and is consistent with statutory interpretation principles everywhere. 

This is great news for the hundreds of APCHA residents who work remotely from their units. And remote work has become the de-facto “next step” once someone wins the housing lottery, knowing that their employer and income never matter again. But what about the long-term sustainability of the program? Shouldn’t APCHA change this poorly conceived provision so as to require local employment?

It can’t. Imagine having literally hundreds of blatant cases of non-compliance, easily proven with 1099s and W-2s. This would create a massive upheaval to the system, forcing many households to forfeit their units and likely leave the valley. APCHA does not enforce its own rules as they stand today. They would never enforce rules that disqualify a broad swath of current residents, even if they do live subsidized and work for Google, Facebook and Amazon from 81611. Remote work is allowed. Case closed.

Despite being contrary to community values, building more housing remains the political solution, but is it the best one? Why aren’t we talking about taking care of what we already have and ensuring it’s still standing for the next generation?

Is $500 million best spent developing 277 new housing units when 244 existing units are set to evaporate when their deed restrictions expire? Perhaps we should preserve these first? Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #243: Aspen Has Spoken (3/13/23)

"I vote because it gives me the right to 

complain about the outcome."

-- Unknown

ASPEN TIMES COLUMN

The election is over - and without a run-off, Aspen has two new councilmen and an incumbent mayor. As such, the dynamic on council will still change dramatically.

Read my column that ran in yesterday's Aspen Times HERE.

And congratulations to Bill Guth and Sam Rose, with honorable mention to mayoral candidate Tracy Sutton for a spectacular showing against a long-time local politico. Well done.

***

Like the 2022 “living lab” parking experiment, the Skippy Mesirow experiment is over.

Incumbent Skippy Mesirow was shown the door in Tuesday’s municipal election.

There is new optimism that we might finally see some debate and discussion in city hall, not to mention provocative questions and fiscal responsibility. It’s a seismic shift to add two guys who can read a financial report to a body that has notably been led around by city staff toward ridiculous experiments, unfunded developments, punitive policies and legislative over-reach. 

It wasn’t even close. Sam Rose ran away in the 3-way council race, capturing 2323 votes (you could vote for two) in an election where just over 2800 voted. He shot the inside straight with a brilliant strategy of not taking much of a position on anything because he never had to. Rose had a strong following of his own, and, given the dramatic ideological battle lines between Mesirow and Bill Guth, Rose became everyone’s second vote.  

Business owner Guth, who offers real-world, matter-of-fact pragmatism, garnered 1499 votes to Mesirow’s 1286, and will quickly assume the role of the grown-up in the room. 

Torre retained his mayoral seat for a third and final two-year term, but not without a valiant fight by his challenger Tracy Sutton. He had intended to coast to re-election unopposed, but when Sutton threw her hat into the ring in the 11^th hour, Torre was forced to actually campaign. In the end, despite his record of failed policies and weak leadership, Torre prevailed, 1675-1114.

But the real story is how a well-respected businesswoman who had never flirted with elected office managed to come so close and left Torre without a mandate. It was nothing short of baptism by fire for Sutton, who endured some of the uglier moments of this year’s campaign season, notably from Torre himself as well as fellow councilman Ward Hauenstein. We owe a debt of gratitude to this newcomer to the Aspen political scene who surprised everyone. Let’s hope she isn’t done.

And as Mesirow packs his chakras and retreats to a safe space where he can do yoga with kittens and rainbows and sing kumbaya around the campfire, we can thank Rose and Guth for joining the race and saving us from more pie-in-the sky lunacy. Mesirow’s final undoing was likely his misguided pandering to the nostalgia squad about an Aspen “revival” that longs for the 1970s instead of being future-focused and solutions-based about the issues of today. Yes, the past is to be respected, cherished, and where appropriate, preserved. But Aspen is most certainly not going backwards. 

The community made itself clear that a future that respects our small town values is the challenge before us, and we can’t get there with elected leadership that espouses nonsense like “we are a single organism, connection feeds compassion, and well-being is contagious” when we have a bridge to replace, a rogue housing program to fix and a community to unite. 

On election day, I received a get-out-the-vote message that said it all. “We don’t need any more well-intentioned but impractical goals. Vision without action is useless. Action without vision is reckless. True progress requires both.” Clearly Aspen agreed. In a notable uptick in voter participation, 45% of registered voters showed up and brought the change we so desperately need.

Now two new city councilmembers is not a panacea, but it’s a step in the right direction. New eyes and ears, and the willingness to ask the tough questions, are reasons for optimism.  With new electeds who can think independently and have sound financial skills, gone is wasteful spending on countless consultants whose reports go unchallenged. Gone is the evil specter of a vacancy tax. Gone are unquestioned expenditures on the Lumberyard when how to actually pay for it has never been discussed. Gone is back burner-ing a renovation of the Armory for community use. Gone are ignoring expiring deed restrictions and construction defect lawsuits within our housing program in favor of developing new projects. Gone is blind acceptance of staff priorities as policy. Gone is ignoring citizen outreach and feedback. Gone are ill-informed 5-0 votes at the council table.

The new dynamic will be interesting to watch.  In a post-election interview, Torre notably said (to the 40% of voters who went with Sutton), “I hear you.” Darned right, he did, and loudly. But the question remains, will he listen?

I’ll take winning 2 out of 3 any day. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #242: Conspiracy? Or Common Sense? (2/28/23)

"Common sense is like deodorant, those who 

need it the most never use it."

-- Unknown

With one week to go, it's unfortunate that voter turnout has been remarkably low so far. Given the widespread discontent in our community and the very straightforward solutions at the ballot box, I implore you to turn in your ballot today.

The CITY HALL drop box is easily accessed on Rio Grande Place - and there is free parking right in front of it. Do you need me to come pick up your ballot and deliver it? If so, I'd be happy to. 

It's time to let the non-schievers Torre and Skippy know that their actions have been detrimental to the community and their inaction toward addressing very real issues can no longer be tolerated.

Please vote TODAY!! Incumbents out - Challengers in.

Read my column in Sunday's Aspen Times HERE.

* * *

It’s the final week of election season in Aspen. The mayoral and council races are in full swing, with one challenger to the sitting mayor and three candidates running for two council seats. It’s rare to have such a narrow field in which more candidates will win on March 7 than will lose.

Battle lines have formed, notably between the incumbents and the challengers. The palpable outrage in the community marked by widespread discontent and dissatisfaction with the current council’s policies and regulations (71 of 72 decisions in 2022 were made in 5-0 votes) has resulted in loud cries for change. 

These cries aren’t just coming from the usual city hall critics and fiscal hawks like myself; I’m joined by childcare families, downtown businesses and restaurants, subsidized housing residents, West End residents, anti-growth advocates, local homeowners, second homeowners, historic preservation supporters and those looking for a responsible and transparent 2023-era process for the Castle Creek Bridge replacement.

It’s been a relatively civil process thus far. Town is peppered with colorful yard signs from all five candidates, and for the first time in many election cycles, such signs are not mysteriously disappearing in the night.  It was, however, hard to stomach Mayor Torre’s rude public rebuke of his opponent Tracy Sutton about how infrequently she skis, ignoring her notable knee injury. He is obviously feeling the heat. 

So too, apparently, is sitting councilman Ward Hauenstein. Writing to the papers in support of his colleague Torre, Hauenstein clarifies what city hall watchers have been saying for years, “Tracy knows the business side and Torre knows the government side,” adding that Torre’s job “ushering us through COVID-19 is reason enough to reward him with a final two years as mayor.” Even Hauenstein sees Torre’s re-election campaign as one seeking a “reward” vs. something earned.

A 33-year Aspen resident, Sutton is a popular, successful businesswoman and thoughtful problem solver, with a background in construction management, real estate and accounting. Given the over-$150 million annual city budget, in Hauenstein’s laughable opinion, she would be a “mayor with no experience.” As arguably one of the largest developers and real estate owners in the valley, the city of Aspen would undoubtedly benefit from a leader who specializes in these fields, just as it would under Mayor Torre if Aspen were a tennis club. But we’re not. Perhaps this is why we have the problems we do.

Despite the relative civility, don’t be fooled. Conspiracy theories abound. In fact, after being shamed for proudly touting his dubious record as mayor, Torre is now running campaign ads that call for “community not commodity.” Cute. He claims “this election is about a single interest group commoditizing our community to benefit clients not constituents.” Councilman Skippy Mesirow of vacancy tax and psychedelic legalization fame has joined the chorus, vocalizing his angst over Sutton, Guth and Rose yard signs being found together throughout town. Palace intrigue indeed.

Sutton, with council challengers Bill Guth and Sam Rose, clearly offers a stark departure from the status quo. Guth is a 13-year successful local entrepreneur and father of three young children with experience in real estate, development, historic preservation and hospitality, as well as tenure on the commercial core and lodging commission (CCLC) and with The Buddy Program. Rose is employed by Pitkin County and serves as an Aspen Volunteer Firefighter/EMT, planning and zoning member, and Response Hotline advocate, and recently completed his masters in finance and risk management at CU.  

In short, the challengers are highly qualified, far more so than the existing council where no member has ever signed the front of a paycheck.

But “commoditizing our community?” Poor Torre is simply lashing out the challengers’ comprehension of basic business principles. Isn’t retiring councilwoman Rachael Richards supposed to be the business hater? Perhaps it’s their abilities to read spreadsheets and budgets, or their management experience and willingness to challenge city staff that intimidate Torre. And just who exactly are the challengers’ vilified “clients?” Locals? Homeowners? Families? Restaurant patrons? Commuters? Women? Tourists? 

Elected leadership in Aspen should be representative of a broad constituency, not just city voters. The challengers represent a group alright; not a nefarious “single interest group” but the greater community itself: diverse, self-aware and looking for actual common sense solutions to local issues. 

There’s nothing scary about that, unless you’re an incumbent with no record to run on for re-election. Or unless local registered voters do not participate in the election. Without a controversial tax or development measure on the ballot, Aspen voters have historically been relatively indifferent to municipal elections regardless of the election date, with only around 40% casting ballots.

If you’re an Aspen voter, how well have Torre and Skippy have acknowledged and addressed your specific issues? Or were you ignored and steamrolled by one of their detrimental 5-0 decisions? Are you better off today than you were two or even four years ago?

This year’s ballot, while short, is a referendum on the status quo. There is no conspiracy. There are only common sense solutions. Vote for change.

The election is March 7. Drop off your ballot at city hall today. You can also go inside to vote in person. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net