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!