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.