| THE AACP
You've probably read a bit about this of late - the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) - which, since it's origination in 1993, is going through its once-a-decade facelift. The AACP, jointly adopted by the city of Aspen and Pitkin County, is, according to its most recent draft, a "character-based plan that guides our land use decisions" while "setting forth our philosophy, establishing policies and providing and action plan to implement our shared vision." The 2010 installment is approaching its final approval phase and stands to change more than you can imagine about Aspen. The word "draconian" comes to mind, but even that doesn't rightly describe what several members of the city's and county's Planning & Zoning commissions have in store for us if Chairman Mao's Directive passes without vociferous community outcry.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
Since 2008, the two Planning & Zoning commissions (with the help of Design Workshop, a local firm that provides landscape architecture, urban design, sustainable environments and strategic services) have been gathering and disseminating info on all that's changed in the Aspen area since 2000. Then, a public feedback phase ensued - perhaps you participated in the large "clicker sessions" at the St. Regis and/or other related surveys? It's reported that over 1000 citizens have weighed in. Allegedly, with the raw feedback data, the P&Zs have drafted the updated AACP. And that is where we are today - looking at a draft that would severely alter our very way of life though unbelievable government intrusion and unforeseen regulations.
Squeezed into two short weeks amidst the off-season (October 2010), the local governments wedged "small meetings," organized by topic, into lunch hours to garner feedback on their draft, in the hope that all would progress smoothly and the Great Leap Forward would sail through approvals by city council and the board of county commissioners. The Red Ant attended the very first "small meeting," only to quickly learn that they didn't want feedback at all. Rather, city and county employees drove the sessions, writing nonsense on whiteboards while other government colleagues argued with attending citizens in defense of their draft. (Thus my one visit. However, I heard that the series did not improve as time went on.)
Most shocking was the conversation I had with a young associate of Design Workshop when I asked, "Why are we not reconciling the feedback data from 2008-2010 with the text of this AACP draft?" She responded, "That's not how the city and county want the draft evaluated and we have a contract with the city and county." Bureaucrats - they never let the facts get in the way of a good communist manifesto!
A FEW TIDBITS ON WHAT "THEY" ARE THINKING
While I prefer to write the prose of The Red Ant, sometimes I cannot make this stuff up and simply have to quote directly. The following provides a little insight into the AACP and the mindset of its authors. Are you sitting down?
- Recognize that free-market development cannot continue to be publicly subsidized and must pay its own way. (Yes, you read that correctly.)
- Our most important community goal is ensuring that our town is accessible and affordable to a diversity of people.
- Provide services, such as education, public safety and a range of health services for people in all phases of life.
- Pace all development to ensure a high quality of life.
There is enormous disdain in the AACP for construction in general, and the document singles out "development" as the consummate evil in our community. "This plan identifies the resort economy as the only sustainable economy" it says. Furthermore, "during the last 20 years, development-related economic activity has degraded the natural environment and changed the built environment to the detriment of our community and the resort economy" (emphasis added).
THE KEY ISSUES
As a "philosophical" or "aspirational" or "guiding" document, the AACP would be a touchy-feely, "wouldn't it be nice if" wish list. However, as a "regulatory" document that dictates land use code changes and mandates quotas, restrictions, inclusions, exclusions, phases and other regulatory elements, this is where it really gets scary. (City staff cannot clearly answer which it is.) And given that the city settled a recent lawsuit rather than facing the judge on appeal, it would appear that the city is afraid that the current AACP will not stand up as a regulatory document when challenged in court. The 2010 AACP will certainly be taking steps to prevent such a situation in the future! The new version is certain to be iron clad.
In addition, it is abundantly clear to anyone who has participated in the survey/feedback process that what's in the AACP draft IS NOT what was determined in the public sessions. If you'd like to see earlier data that was supposed to be interpreted the draft, here it is.
AT FIRST BLUSH
The AACP's ideas and concepts at first may seem appealing. But when you look into the details, the many objectives of the AACP are likely to increase our cost of living, diminish free market property values and rights, and severely aggravate our local economy. Proponents of the new AACP intend to further expand its legislative authority in order to over-rule the existing codes and put the subjective decision-making squarely in the hands of the high priests on city council and the BOCC.
With over 500 specific "action items," the assignment of implementation responsibility and a call for annual tracking/measurements, the AACP clearly strives to expand regulatory control in general, with a specific focus on land use. From the perspective of The Red Ant, the AACP will bring a new level of government control, which will of course require extensive hiring to create and police the new regulations.
THE SUBJECT OF GROWTH - HEADS UP BUILDERS AND REALTORS!
The AACP calls for reductions in allowable house size throughout the Aspen Area and seeks other limitations in commercial and lodging development, including subsidies and quotas. These will be accomplished through comprehensive management and strict "pacing" of all construction-related activity.
Noting that residential redevelopment "typically means the demolition and replacement of currently existing homes with expanded structures that are almost always built to the maximum square footage allowed," the AACP calls for reducing allowable house sizes and creating "more rigorous regulations." A justification for this is to "reduce employment generation." Yes, you are reading that correctly. Let's do what we can to kill jobs.
The lodging sector is worse. The recent trend toward deluxe, high-end and fractional lodge projects has resulted in "excessive job generation." Isn't that awful - we've created an excessive number of jobs!? In addition, look for mandates that stipulate a diversity of lodging choices through the preservation of existing lodges and a "re-balancing" of our lodging inventory. The AACP calls for "methods to maintain the inventory of smaller lodges" and "incentives" for "small room sizes," not to mention the elimination of "the ability to convert lodging to other uses." The AACP calls for the "formulation of a strategy that favors economy/moderate-priced lodges." What ever happened to the free market??
In the commercial sector, the AACP's solution to the perceived loss of businesses providing basic necessities is to "pursue more aggressive measures," that "facilitate and assist" businesses that "increase retail diversity" and "establish measures to keep them viable." Can you say "subsidy"? The AACP also suggests changing the code to "allow restaurants and bars on the pedestrian malls by right, while requiring retail to gain conditional use approval." Another Great Leap Forward is to "require that a portion of development be restricted to a limited list of commercial uses, which would be charged lower rent." Of course this is all an effort to "manage imbalances" through the establishment of "quotas." The Red Ant is likely being too democratic, too capitalistic and too free-market oriented, but this is INSANE! (See Issue # 4: Welcome, Chairman Mao's Diner - it CAN happen here because it already has!)
With regard to development in general - the AACP wants to "discourage" projects that "provide minimal public benefit." This would not apply to subsidized housing of course, but I suppose Dr. Zhivago's house could get a special exemption....
And did I mention, in an effort to "encourage permanent residents to remain in existing free market homes," the AACP suggests reduced property taxes, city/county fee abatements and prioritized processing of land use applications and zoning permits. Presumably this is an incentive to prevent the sale of free market property to the evil part-time second homeowners, but just how will they decide who qualifies? (And you doubted that the city knows and keeps track of how you voted.....)
Are you scared yet???
COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING
Ahh, my favorite topic. But wait, you ask, just what is Community Workforce Housing (CWH)? Good question. It's the local government's new name for employee housing or deed-restricted housing or affordable housing or whatever you choose to call it. I call it "subsidized housing" because that's the only truthful definition - it's not employee housing because many retirees (and other scofflaws who do not work) live there, and it sure as heck ain't affordable! With this new CWH monicker, the AACP promises that our subsidized housing will "support a healthy year-round community and a healthy workforce." What subsidized housing has to do with "health" is beyond me, but if the nasty mold problem at the Centennial subsidized housing project is taken into account, the housing program needs an immediate visit from Erin Brockovich and the EPA.
While the AACP notably points out that "living in Community Workforce Housing is not a right or a guarantee, but a privilege," The Red Ant is dismayed (yet not surprised) to read on and learn that such "housing should emphasize quality construction and design even if that emphasis increases costs and lessens production." Good grief. Did we learn NOTHING from the financial debacle at Burlingame?? And what ever happened to being grateful for a community-subsidized roof over one's head?? Subsidized housing is hardly the place for granite countertops and bamboo flooring.
My two favorite points on subsidized housing in the AACP draft:
- Amend the housing guidelines to require people to sell their free-market home before they are able to move into Community Workforce Housing. (Ya think?? How and why do people who own free market housing even get considered for CWH?? And if this is an issue, the housing program is clearly a joke.)
- Explore APCHA's taxing authority as an option to fund Community Workforce Housing. (Never mind that the city collects 1% on every real estate purchase as part of the Real Estate Transfer Tax - RETT - for the subsidized housing fund, the housing authority also has its own state-specific powers to raise revenue through sales taxes, use taxes, an ad valorem property tax and/or development impact fees.)
OTHER AACP TOPICS: (remember, these could become REGULATIONS)
- Reinvigorating the Aspen Idea
- Is it really the city's/county's job to "educate the community about the Aspen Idea," or "encourage recreational and cultural programs that support personal growth, enhance family relationships and encourage civic involvement"??? Puh-lease!
- Caring for the Lifelong Aspenite
- "Conduct a Community Health Assessment for the Aspen Area every 5 years."
- "Establish a comprehensive network of in-home services to support seniors and people with disabilities."
- "Ensure everyone has local access to quality food; promote organic and sustainable local and regional food production; coordinate efforts to educate the community about local food production, including programs that teach gardening."
- "Promote conflict resolution skills amongst neighbors and homeowners' associations."
- "Explore the creation of year-round homeless shelters and half-way houses."
- "Ensure that residents have access to primary care including prevention, palliative care, long-term care and health-management services, regardless of payer source."
- "Ensure that all residents have access to a comprehensive dental program."
- Traffic and Transportation
- "Incorporate public art at BRT stations."
- "Extend and improve trails that can be used for commuting purposes."
- "Gather relevant data needed to define the impacts of (city) resident vehicle travel; identify and implement strategies to reduce resident vehicle travel."
- "Explore the benefits of separating on-site parking spaces from their respective residential and commercial units; these could be rented or purchased separately."
- Gateway to Aspen - West of Castle Creek Corridor
- "Explore the creation of a transportation district in the West of Castle Creek Area to ensure that development pays for transportation improvements in the corridor."
- "Amend city and county zoning in the area to discourage additional development of new free-market single family and duplex homes."
- Environmental Sustainability
- "Explore amending the land use codes to require all development to go through an environmental review that ensures it will meet established sliding scale thresholds for air pollution."
- "Incorporate programs to promote and implement 'zero waste' for events, businesses and residents."
Here's the AACP draft. Don't print it unless you have a strong stomach and enough paper and ink for 92 pages of hell. If you can only stand to look through a little of it, at least check out the Introduction and the section on Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability. Read it and weep.
SO, JUST WHO WROTE THIS DRIVEL? AND WHAT'S THEIR BEEF?
The 14 members of the city and county P&Z boards are responsible for the AACP draft. Appointed by city council and the BOCC, these citizen volunteers serve staggered 4-year terms.
When you see them, please ask these folks, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? Tell them, DO NOT SEND THIS DRAFT TO COUNCIL AND THE BOCC FOR APPROVAL! IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY'S VALUES! AND IT DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE A REGULATORY DOCUMENT!
- City P&Z: Stan Gibbs, chair; LJ Erspamer, vice chair; Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Mike Wampler, Jim DeFrancia and Cliff Weiss
- County P&Z: Joe Krabacher, chair; Marcella Larsen, vice chair, Ben Genschaft, John Howard, Jack Johnson, Mirte Mallory and Jay Murphy
As with any volunteer board, some members do more than others. This is especially true of the AACP draft. Notably, a big contributor to the AACP draft is our friend Jack Johnson. Recently defeated in his quest for a board of county commissioner's seat, Johnson has indeed worked tirelessly in this P&Z role as well as in his former city council role to minimize free market property values and destroy private property rights. Given his recent defeat, keep your eye on Johnson. He's mad. And hell hath no fury like an unemployed, homeless wanna-be politician twice scorned by the electorate.
MARCELLA'S STORY
Additionally, it is widely acknowledged that Marcella Larsen has had a heavy hand in the creation of the AACP draft. It is interesting to note that Marcella was the assistant county attorney when many of the existing land use regulations were originally drawn up.
But even hotter is the story behind Marcella's personal disdain for and desire to clamp down on all development in the Aspen Area. You see, her grandfather was a fellow named Charles Urschel, who at one point owned a major parcel of land in the Maroon Creek valley.
In the mid-1990's, the family wanted to re-zone and subdivide some of their land and sell off 5 lots for development. Somehow the Larsens/Urschel heirs acquired a unique "1041 hazard review" and "subdivision exemption" approval, enabling "Urschel Tract D" to be developed. The approval evasively states on page 2, sub-paragraph 11, that "The Board (of county commissioners) finds that conditions have changed in a manner which justifies the development proposed." No specific "changes" are described, but apparently something "changed" and the deal got done! (Mayor Mick - then a county commissioner - personally signed this special land use approval -- see it here.) The county rezoned the Urschel land specifically for this deal. You can darned well bet THAT doesn't typically happen. Likewise, there were notably minimal exactions for on-site, off-site or cash-in-lieu payments for employee housing, park contributions or trail easements.
The real kicker is subparagraph 1(r) on page 4. At the time, the county was giving vested rights for only 3 years, and after that the applicant had to come back into the system and be bound by any new land use rules. But Marcella's family got vested rights that are perpetual - they never expire! This was a well-known sweetheart deal: the Larsens got permission to develop (and/or sell) five approximate 3.8-acre, 9600 s.f. approved, free market homesites, each with separate caretaker units, in an area that abuts the Maroon Creek Club, with primo mountain views, and vested rights forever.
In full disclosure, the Larsens did agree that the property owners would pay the housing authority $138,000 when the first two houses were built. And the county cites that the "unique" nature of this "deal" is based upon the Larsen's agreement to subject over 100 acres to a covenant or deed restriction prohibiting future development. That is, unless the Little Annie/Richmond Hill "rural and remote" area is modified for development in the future, at which time the deed restriction will revert and they too will be able to develop.
But here's the best part. No sooner do the Skyview Subdivision's covenants (see them here) finally get approved in February 2001 (by Mick again) does the BOCC downsize the county FAR to 5750 square feet. Who drafted these new restrictive rules? Hmmm, could it have been Marcella, who was then the assistant attorney for Pitkin County?!
The Urschel heirs did indeed sell the 5 lots to developers for many millions in 2000-2001 (see sales records in the county assessor's office for parcels 18411-18415). These lots/homes can be seen today at 1500, 1520, 1540, 1560 and 1580 Tiehack Road. And, Marcella currently lives in a 4800 s.f., 4 bedroom/4.5 bath house on 10.5 acres of the original Urschel homestead on Maroon Creek Road. According to the county assessor, her home is currently valued at $5.7 million, with $9500 in 2010 property taxes, down from $14,300 in 2009.
On the condition of anonymity, one P&Z member tells The Red Ant that each and every time he received a new version of the AACP draft, the changes were more and more severe, restrictive, and farther and farther from the starting point that was allegedly based on actual community feedback data. This is attributed to Marcella's liberal interpretation of "community feedback" and her iron-fisted control of the project. (Perhaps it's a thank you / IOU to Mick?)
Marcella's family made millions. Then, like the princess in a castle, she pulled the draw-bridge shut. She's now doing all she can to prevent anyone from doing anything remotely similar! Ironically, Marcella is widely believed to blog on The Aspen Times website using the screen name "Stop The Greed Now." Classic. You just can't make this stuff up!
EVEN P&Z FOLKS ARE HORRIFIED
A member of the city P&Z board recently blogged, "The AACP has some very unfortunate language in it; concepts that would completely stifle change in our community. To a great extent the document has been taken over by people opposed to any development in the community except for affordable housing. For example, do you believe that a non-profit institution (such as the Aspen Country Day School) can only be located within the urban growth boundary? It's a policy statement in the proposed document. Or 'as one matures, growth must slow and finally stop.' That's in there as well."
There is clearly much internal strife with regard to the AACP draft. But we cannot rely on these internal disagreements to yield democratic solutions. As earlier mentioned, the intent of the off-season draft approval meetings was to rush the formal approvals. The original intent was to skip the public feedback process and get the draft in front of council and the BOCC before anyone noticed the contents didn't match the research data! Many thanks to the citizens who cried foul and forced the recent draft feedback meetings!
MICK WEIGHS IN
As reported in The Aspen Times, the mayor said the P&Zs must weigh a number of public criticisms of the AACP draft, but he is of course already discounting the input of the people who attended the small meetings as "not representative of the entire community."
In an effort to gain clarity on several controversial issues that arose during the October "small meetings," larger clicker sessions part 2 were held on November 15, 16, and 17 at the Wheeler. With approximately 160 people participating in the 4 sessions, the feedback on 20 specific questions was revealing.
It seems that the community is not as anti-growth, anti-development, or in favor of preserving 1970's structures as Marcella, Jack, Mick, some on P&Z and government staff would have us believe! For example, when asked what type of development do we want paced, mitigated or limited (pick only one), the overwhelming choice was "Affordable Housing." In session 3, Mick was so upset by this answer that he stormed out! (It will be interesting what THEY do with THIS feedback!) One attendee noted, "The session sent a resounding 'Get lost' message that I'm sure they won't hear." The results of the recent "large meeting" clicker sessions are very much the same as the clicker sessions of 2009. It is obvious that our "leaders" have ignored the community's input and have written the AACP draft to reflect what they want.
Quick to once again minimize the validity of the most recent feedback, city special project manager Ben Gagnon told The Aspen Times, "The AACP (large meeting) clicker sessions did not yield scientific polling data because the people who decided to attend were a self-selected group." Puh-lease.
And a not-so-surprising tidbit: Despite the explicit instructions to participate in just one clicker session, mayor Mick was confirmed in attendance WITH a clicker voting device at three of the four sessions. (Vote early and vote often -- at least he's consistent.)
Clearly THEY don't like the feedback they've received so far because the city quickly posted an online survey that will be used to augment the results they've collected so far. Please take the quick survey and have your opinion counted!
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
As written, the AACP draft is simply NOT what the community wants. At the very least, regardless of its contents, we must also keep it from becoming a regulatory document. It's an arrogant over-reach of power by the local government. In a time when all of America is saying NO to increasing levels of government intrusion into our lives, this is no time to allow the AACP to have any kind of regulatory control.
Even city councilman Dwayne Romero gave a "dark" overview of the AACP draft to his homeowner's association recently, and predicted that the 2010 AACP with all of its new restrictions will likely become a 2011 campaign issue. Let's hope so! This thing is far from ready for prime time, and its role (if any) in our community is of paramount importance. Touchy-feely and aspirational, fine. Regulatory, NO WAY!
It is imperative that you check out the AACP draft and contact our elected representatives immediately. Let them know that you have reviewed the AACP draft and IT IS NOT OK WITH YOU! TELL THEM THAT THE AACP DRAFT DOES NOT REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY'S VALUES AND IT SHOULD NEVER BECOME A REGULATORY DOCUMENT. TELL THEM HOW THE AACP WILL AFFECT YOU.
Here are the links to email city council and the county commissioners. I suggest you draft a letter and cut/paste it into the following emails. (Apologies for not having the technical ability to make it easier!)
- Write the Board of County Commissioners:
A friend of The Red Ant offered:
"The thing that disturbs me the most about this process is that the planners are like generals fighting the last war, not the next one. The 2005-2006 construction boom colors almost everything in this new plan. But that boom was caused by unique conditions in the capital markets that we are unlikely to see again in our lifetime.
As you know, real estate development is an activity that inherently needs credit in order to take place. The credit markets during 2005-2006 were extremely loose and credit was readily available. Those days are gone. Real estate lending is kaput for the foreseeable future.
To put the matter another way, the plan is supposed to guide us for the next 10 years. What are the odds that in the next 10 years the credit markets will return to 2005-2006 conditions? Remote! Yet this plan is drafted as if those kinds of credit markets are the norm. So, the whole premise upon which this plan is based is severely flawed."
There will be public hearings, presumably early next year, when council and the BOCC are in receipt of the final draft. But what goes into that draft must be addressed today.
Your silence signals your approval. Speak now, or forever hold your peace, comrades.
ON A MORE POSITIVE NOTE
Despite what may be in store with the updated AACP, local realtors report significant improvements, notably in commercial leasing in Aspen. Karen Setterfield submits news of a wave of new retail stores and innovative restaurants: Courage B (at the corner of Mill and Hopkins) and Jet Set (corner of Hyman and Galena), two new jewelry stores - The Golden Bough (next to Mezzaluna) and Arianne Zurcher (in the Judith Ripka space), CP Burgers at the ice rink in front of the Hyatt, Bruce Berger's restaurant on Cooper Street upstairs amidst the art galleries, and Oy Vey Cafe next to the Ute on Hopkins. The Red Ant additionally looks forward to Casa Tua in the former Guido's building. Seems we've come full circle; this restaurant will create the feel of a chalet in the Italian Alps, featuring Italian fare with French and Swiss influences.
|
|
November 23