ISSUE # 61 .... I'm Not ReluctANT to Endorse!

"Government is not the solution to our problem.  Government is the problem."                 -- Ronald Reagan (watch video) "We've gotten shockingly used to incompetent government."        -- Carly Fiorina THE 2011 ELECTION: RED ANT ENDORSEMENTS I always support the fiscal conservatives, especially when they are proven and respectful leaders.  Grown-ups.  In choosing candidates to endorse, it is paramount that they "get it."  And this year, The Red Ant has 4 key and stated issues that are of great community significance: the AACP, hydro plant, the lack of subsidized housing capital reserves, and a plastic bag ban/tax that is effectively a government effort to impose an illegal tax in violation of TABOR (taxpayers' bill of rights).  It's been painful to watch novices on city council vote on critical issues that they very clearly do not comprehend.  This isn't a "he's a nice guy" race - we're not electing the homecoming king/queen or captain of the lacrosse team here.  We're talking about an $85M budget and the responsibility for decisions that directly impact the livelihoods of our friends and neighbors, not to mention the future of Aspen!  On the other hand, never in recent memory has there been such a weak slate of candidates running for office.  I would be lying if I were to say that endorsing candidates in this election was easy or obvious.  Sure, there are very nice people running, some have great hair, some are "great guys."  Others are complete jerks.   When you see the candidate responses to The Red Ant questionnaire (below), I think you'll agree with me!  The Red Ant is proud to endorse:  Ruth Kruger for Mayor:  This political newcomer is a breath of fresh air.  She currently holds Dwayne Romero's seat on council -- a temporary assignment she was appointed to earlier this spring. As a commercial real estate broker and former P&Z member, Ruth knows the ins and outs of a spreadsheet and has experienced first-hand the "goings-on" in city hall.  She has also experienced how bad public policy directly affects our local economy.  Ruth herself said it best, "The city is off the rails and in need of focus on responsible budgetary issues to get back on track." She's an advocate of government transparency, process improvement and that civility and inclusion so notably absent in the Mick Ireland councils these past 4 years. Vote for Ruth for Mayor! For council, I must candidly admit, this was more of a challenge.  I do not agree across the board with ANY of the council candidates.  However, I found through my questionnaire, conversations with many of them, and the track records of the others that, given our choices, the future of Aspen is in the best hands with: Adam Frisch for Council:  A business guy with a strong financial background who is raising a family in Aspen is just what local government needs today.  He's a straight shooter, not afraid to take a stance, but equally accessible to hearing new ideas and viewpoints.  Adam specifically stated, "The city has failed to do its job; it is actually impeding the encouragement of new business and the growth of existing ones." Identifying and getting rid of the obstacles is where he can make a real difference.  And that's not to mention Adam's proven commitment to the community through leadership roles on civic boards and local non-profits too numerous to list.  The Red Ant's greatest political regret to-date was not endorsing Adam for council in 2009.  It was a terrible mistake.  Vote Adam for Council!**  **IMPORTANT:  Now that we are rid of Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), we are likely to have a run-off on June 7.  It is vital that we do what's necessary to get Adam on council NOW, in the first round.  Therefore, I strongly urge you to simply "bullet-vote" for Adam.  This means just vote for Adam despite the opportunity to vote for two candidates.  We'll get him seated in the first round and have time to decide between  whichever two candidates advance to the run-off in June.  (Yes, I will endorse for that race if/when the time comes.)  Question #1: YES  (This small land-swap appears to be a harmless housekeeping matter, although I hope the city gets out of the real estate game ASAP.  Read more here.)  ASPEN IS "SICK OF MICK" -- 96.5 MILLION REASONS WHY People want to know why I'm so SICK OF MICK.  Let me explain and you will be too.  There are 96.5 million reasons.  Taxpayers, environmentalists, non-profits, local businesses, historic preservationists, subsidized housing residents and special event planners should be violently sick, given the public resources Mick has wantonly squandered amidst the worst economic downturn in years.  (Just imagine how the wise and thoughtful deployment of $96.5 million could have impacted our community!)  Mick has been an irresponsible leader, wastefully spending millions and escaping all accountability, and has led staff and council to be perennially on the wrong side of ALL the important issues.  The following is a list of Mick's flops, foibles and self-serving behaviors (and by no means is the list complete) that caused the community to squander at least $96.5M during the leadership of mayor Mick: ·BMC PURCHASE: The city spent $18.25M on the lumberyard in 2007 as part of its ill-fated "land-banking" scheme to acquire property for future subsidized housing development.  The purchase was completed without an appraisal, and today the assessor's office values the property at $3.2M.  (Community is out $15M.)   OTHER LAND SPECULATION: The city shelled out another $16.6M in 2007 on 4 other properties, depleting the housing fund. To date, not one has been developed for subsidized housing, and the rental revenue for the squalid dwellings is negligible at best.  Yes, intrinsically the land still has value, but certainly not $16.6M worth today!  For now, the money is tied up and will be for the foreseeable future unless the city dumps the properties at substantial losses.  (Community/the housing program is currently out $16M.) HYDRO PLANT:  The $5.5M bond (repayment capped at $10.78M) approved by voters in 2007 has already been issued. This beleaguered attempt at local "renewable energy," despite having no permits, has been revealed to have already cost $4.4M for questionable drainage pipe and transition line installation, and equipment purchases. Mick famously defended the continuance of plant construction without permits because "we've already bought the ($1.5M) turbine."  Back-pedaling recently during the campaign over a need to consider the impacts on stream health, Mr. Environment himself has proposed a low-level environmental study that the hydro plant project does not even qualify for!  Misuse of the bond funds could also be considered securities fraud and open up a HUGE can of worms (and legal expenditures) for the city.  Debt service on the bonds was sold to voters as coming from the electric utility fees from the power generated, but the hydro plant will likely only be in operation a couple months a year, at most.  Ad valorem property taxes (without limitation to rate or amount) were approved to be levied to cover the debt, however we will more likely see dramatic increases in utility rates, especially for Aspen businesses who are the largest power customers.  Citizen outcry has grown LOUD, and many are calling for a pause in construction for a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) by the feds.  Others are telling the city to cut its losses and walk away.  None of this will come cheap or quick.  (Community is on the hook for $10+M for the bond debt service, regardless.) BURLINGAME PHASE 1:  Mayor Mick has been a longtime proponent of subsidized housing at Burlingame, at one point promising a $62,500 taxpayer subsidy per unit.  In the end, Burlingame 1 cost $45M more than what he promised ($33M attributed to undocumented "construction inflation" on a fixed-price contract and an additional $11.7M in change orders).  The subsidy was over $32M for 91 units -- $359K per unit.  (Community/housing fund is out $45M.) BURLINGAME PHASE 2:  To date, the city has spent $3M in planning costs for the proposed 167-unit subsidized housing expansion that will require a $50+M general obligation bond for the estimated $100+M project.  This includes a campaign to pre-sell the proposed units, featuring a brochure stating the #1 reason to sign up: "NO LOTTERY - NO DEPOSIT - NO COMMITMENT."  (The "zero accountability" marketing strategy?  Like we need more of THAT!?)  Burlingame 2 planning costs are likely to increase until the bond measure is STEAM-ROLLED by voters whenever it hits the ballot.  (Community is out $3M, and counting. THE GIVEN INSTITUTE In late 2010, the University of Colorado Medical School had a $20M immediate cash sale offer for The Given Institute, a facility no longer feasible to CU (operational deficits were over $200K/year).  Mick led council in threatening an emergency ordinance to prevent the sale, and then asked CU to delay in order to negotiate with the city as a potential buyer.  CU acted in good faith, and after over 6 months of Mick-driven delays, ultimately sold the west end property for $13.8M to a private buyer.  What did Mick accomplish for Coloradans?  A loss of over $6M in funding for medical research and healthcare in the name of protecting Aspen's 1970's architecture.  Aspen leads again!? (Over $6M vanished into thin air.) THE AACP  Conservatively costing over $1M to-date in out-of-pocket and staff time (and it's far from finished), plus thousands of hours of volunteer time, the community plan draft is based on a 2006 economy.  Public input, while collected, has been rejected and ignored to reflect Mick's "no growth" philosophies.  These philosophies stand to make any kind of construction (expansion or new development) financially impossible due to 100% subsidized housing mitigation and mandated increases in development fees, according to community business leaders.  Conservative estimates put the costs-to-complete the AACP at an additional $250K, bringing the total cost to at least $1.25M.  If the document is deemed to be "visionary/aspirational," it easily will have cost $1M more than it should have.  If it's deemed to be regulatory, the costs from lawsuits will be astronomical.  (Community is out at least $1M.) INVOLUNTARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Ordinance 30 of 2007, Mick's legacy from his first month in office, was passed as an "emergency" to control the maintenance and improvement of private homes over 30 years old.  Three years of turmoil, unnecessary demolitions and over $250K in task force funding (not to mention literally thousands of hours of volunteer time) had to be thrown at the problem he created late one night before it was finally resolved earlier this year when "historic preservation" in Aspen was officially determined to be VOLUNTARY.  A needless waste of time and money.   (Community is out $250K.) "MICK'S VACANT LOT"  After threatening to defend the AACP "to the last dollar," mayor Mick settled a lawsuit that granted special exemptions to the Aspen Art Museum for a proposed museum facility on the Wienerstube  property.  This settlement was reached prior to being heard by the appeals court that was (obviously) likely to strike down the AACP's purported power as a regulatory document.   As a result, the savvy Wienerstube property owners negotiated a win/win for themselves, and now own a valuable vacant lot without having to negotiate to tear down the 1970's era Wienerstube building.  Should the Museum actually buy the land and build their museum, Mick's settlement grants them a free pass from spending years in the P&Z and council negotiations process.  In the meantime, Aspen can thank Mick for the quick demolition of several local businesses that can no longer serve the public or generate jobs and tax revenue.  And should the museum never purchase the site, it's unclear but purported that the settlement benefits flow to any new development there.  Yep, unfettered, unregulated development in the form of something other than a new Art Museum, which at least has a public benefit.  The worst possible outcome!  (Community is out TBD!  It's impossible to quantify!) MAIN STREET MEDIAN  Under Mick's leadership, the city proposed a median be built down the middle of Main St.  Never mind its own snowplows could not operate within the new design configuration, local fire engines could not make left turns off Main Street when responding to fires!  (Community is out over $100K for this insipid idea.) QUIZNO'S BIKE RACE Mayor Mick the avid road-biker cajoled his fellow councilmen into providing $140K in city funds to bring a stage of the Quizno's Pro Challenge bike race to Aspen this summer.  (A commitment to this untried event also comes from the lodging community which kicked in $200K in comp rooms over the slow weekend after the Music Festival ends.)  The mayor admits that he can't promise the event will pay will off in its first year, but his love of biking and the fact that he's seen bike races in Europe were enough to empower him to use your money to bring this event here.  Number of participants in the race:  128.  Should the city be spending $140K in tax dollars for this?  I think not.  (The community is out $140K.) And these last two items are just a couple of "self-serving" reasons why I'm especially SICK OF MICK: SPECIAL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING  Mick lives in a subsidized housing project (Common Grounds) that exists outside of the "normal" APCHA portfolio.  When vacancies at his project occur, only those who belong to the small association (anyone can join for $50) are entered into the lottery for housing there, unlike the APCHA lotteries that include all qualified comers.  Few know about this "association" so the lottery pool is tiny.  The idea is called "co-housing" where neighbors share the maintenance work to keep costs down; in reality it's chaos.  The maintenance is a disaster and hardly shared.  Mayor Mick "rents" an office on-site yet neglects to pay said rent.  And his pal Rachel Richards (on the BOCC) is a member of the "association," hoping to be picked next for an open unit in the project.  Of, by, and for the people?  Not Mick!  His housing is in a special CLUB!  And its HOA capital reserves scenario is worse than most all others!  NO VOTER I.D.:  As part of thorough election reforms to reduce voter fraud and improve voter confidence in our municipal elections, the election commission recommended that voters be required to show ID before voting.  The state requires it and so does Pitkin County.  Mick argued vociferously against changing the city's law to require the same, citing a vast right-wing conspiracy to disenfranchise "the old" and "the young" voters with this "cumbersome" requirement.  It would be funny if it wasn't so telling.     So, there you have it - more than 96.5 million reasons.  And you can be sure there are plenty more, but ENOUGH ALREADY! ASPEN CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES I recently sent the candidates a questionnaire, not unlike those sent by the daily papers, but specifically focused on what I see as THE critical issues.  Here are the questions and responses from those who chose to participate. I strongly believe that candidates who are afraid to take a stand on the issues in black & white in The Red Ant signal to me that they will be equally "reluctant" leaders and are therefore undeserving of your vote.  (Ya think?)  I do however feel that the complete responses of all candidates who took the time to respond should absolutely be shared.  (This is a VERY long issue and I apologize, but I encourage you read the candidates' responses.) 1)  Should the AACP be guiding (regulatory) or aspirational (visionary), and why?  Would you vote to approve the AACP as written, yes or no, and why?  (And for Mick and Steve, what is the budget for the AACP and who approved it?) Cliff Weiss: The AACP is both.  The Planning and Zoning commission adjucates applications that are asking to vary from or exceed code.  The land use code cannot foresee every loophole or tactic being used to exceed code and amending the code takes time.  Therefore it is the job of the AACP to be a regulatory tool that ensures a project provides some public benefit, mitigates for its impacts and is appropriate with its neighborhood.  Developers and the community need certainty.  Requiring consistency with the AACP gives everyone the certainty that there are limits to what will be acceptable.  There are also many policies and action items that are recommendations and therefore advisory to county commissioners, council and the departments affected. Marcia Goshorn: The AACP is a visionary document like a master plan that gives a road map.  To consider a document that is only revised every 10 years regulatory could be dangerous.  We can create land use codes that honor the AACP, but need the ability with changing conditions to change our course to better meet our needs and eliminate failed programs.   I would not vote to approve it as it now stands, there are too many sections that still include failed programs that started with good intentions but did not work. Andrew Kole: I think the AACP should be "visionary", and truly a reflection of community values, and NOT used as a political tool or football.  The current AACP is like a buffet without a central theme. At times it is confusing at best. The City says "the AACP shall be used as both a guiding and regulatory document", while the County "recognizes the AACP as an advisory document."  Additionally, with 521 listed Action Items (a rather large number), the AACP tries to do too much without the proper resources to succeed, as City staff can only do so much. To cut to the chase, the key item that needs to be debated is the language taking affordable housing mitigation from 60% to 100%, and the undefined phrase, "critical mass."  Finally, when it takes almost three years to write a document, the result creates assumptions that are not only out of tune with the current economy, but potentially fatal to it. Factor in arbitrary language such as "critical mass" only adds to the confusion and fear associated with the Growth Section of the document.  The AACP is supposed to reflect the Aspen Idea which, when you get down to it, is living in harmony. While this version attempts to achieve that goal, it still needs some retooling.  And no, since the final document is still a moving target, I'd have to vote no in its current form. The time it has taken to write the current AACP, specifically the man-hours, both staff and volunteer, give me cause to step back so we can re-discuss what we, the citizens really want the AACP to be.  Steve:  The AACP should be a guiding document. It should lead us to amend the land use code in a way that satisfy the community vision. No, I would not vote to approve it as it is written. I think it needs to be easier and simplified. And, some issues like 100% AH mitigation I'm not convinced are practical.  Adam: The community has made it clear that the AACP is a very important document, and I agree.  Aspen needs and deserves a guiding document that brings focus to our most important hopes and aspirations.  The document should be advisory, with the possible exception of the land use issues, but only, and this is a very important distinction, only if this section is consistent with the land use code.  As to the current process, I would like to see us take a 'pause' while the Community Development Department has the economic assumptions redone to reflect our current conditions.  The 2007 assumptions were not made during a normal 'boom' cycle, but during a period of economic activity, especially real estate speculation, that none of us will see again in our lifetime (nor do I care to see return).  It is vital for our community to understand the expected repercussions from the AACP prior to voting on it.  Having the original numbers reviewed would be much quicker and less expensive than the first time around. Ruth: The AACP is a guiding document meant to define our mission and vision while defining valley principals.  We have zoning regulations that determine the regulatory statutes.  Perhaps we should redefine them in a simpler way so that everyone knows the rules of the game.  Why not clearly define what a project can be and what an applicant can and cannot do?  This game of setting the rules, like drawing a line in the sand then moving it has created a great loss of income and failed projects that could have meant jobs for our local work force rather than big holes in the ground and wasted opportunity.  Pitkin County has lost 2400 jobs in the last 2 years.  These are our friends and neighbors who have lost their homes and their quality of life.  What is the end game here and why do we continue to play?  Let's be fair and design a program that is definable.  Arbitrary interpretation is no longer acceptable and has resulted in too many lawsuits. 2)  Do you favor a fee (how much), an outright ban or the status quo (that could include incentives) with regard to plastic bags, and why? Cliff:  The goal was to reduce waste.  I don't think taxes are the solution.  Waste carting companies already pick up other recyclables, why not plastic and corrugated as well?  If the city is truly looking to cut waste, then they should work with the state to support a bill against wrongful packaging.  Packaging contributes far more to landfills than plastic bags. Marcia: I have always favored a carrot rather than a stick. City Market already gives you a discount if you bring your own bag, but a lot of people do not know it. The city could also work with the Lodging community and ACRA to find some incentives to encourage them to place reusable bags in the condos or sell inexpensive ones at point of sale. We could also have incentives to the stores to use bio degradable bags like the free dog bags. There are alternatives that can still put us on the cutting edge and accomplish the same goals. Andrew:  No fee!  No ban!  I favor presenting the idea on its merit and feel the public will get on board. I am also in favor of promoting the non-use of individual plastic water bottles through the same process. Steve:  This program needs to be assessed further. I don't feel committed to either option at this time but I am committed to reducing waste. Adam:  Our community should always be striving to be as environmentally responsible as possible.  However, a tax or fee is unlikely to decrease anyone's plastic bag usage -which should be our goal.  One proposal that I would like to see discussed is creating a public-private partnership to help the lodges, condominiums, property management companies, and hotels provide reusable bags for their guests.  While I think we need to be careful on banning widely used products, the reason I remain open to discussing this issue is the banning of the bags by the following countries, none of which are exactly known for the environmental stewardship: Bangladesh, China, Eritrea, Nepal, Somaliland, Taiwan, Tanzania, and Thailand.  If these countries can ban the bags, we should at least discuss the pros and cons.  Regardless of any action per above, my preference is to work with our partners in our community to offer a consistent approach to this problem on a valley wide basis. Ruth:  I believe that it is not within the powers of the City Council to impose a fee on a transaction between parties without a vote of the public (otherwise known as a tax).  I think it is a great discussion that could help change people's behaviors for the better and is worth having.  I think speaking to state officials or looking at a statewide program for returnable bottles is a more effective and more far reaching program to pursue. 3)  Who should pay for common area repairs to subsidized housing projects when the HOA reserve accounts do not have the money?  Explain. Cliff: I think the city will have to share the cost with the homeowners on a project-by-project basis.  While the homeowners a culpable for their lack of planning, so is the city.  I campaigned on this issue in 2003.  Did the city have regular meetings with HOAs?  In hindsight, the city should have provided new HOAs with guidelines and capital reserves requirements and received annual reports a decade ago and now must be a part of the solution for failing to do anything. Marcia: The information that has been leaked about the capital reserve studies is very misleading. The studies are preliminary and are only meant to be a budgeting tool for the Associations.  The affordable housing associations are no different than the free market projects when it comes to repairs and capital reserve funds. Few HOA's fund their capital reserve at a 100% level. I urge you to check your own associations to see where they stand. Major repairs are generally funded through special assessments or bank loans which is the same for free market and affordable housing and has been done that way as long as condominium projects have been in existence. In an issue as serious as Centennial helping the Association create their own special improvement district could be done at no cost to the taxpayers other than the residents of Centennial, but still would need the support of the City Council to make it happen. It would be paid back with their own taxes much like a sewer district. It would save them money and allow them to spread out the payments at a much lower interest rate. We can accomplish anything working together. Andrew:  This is a very tough question that is going to generate a lot of debate.  It is my belief, after serving on the Housing Frontiers Group for the last two years, the existing and future financial problems should be the responsibility of the HOAs and APCHA (City and County). Without going into excessive detail, there is no question in my opinion, all three entities have failed in one way or the other and the costs associated with the solution should be shared. Steve: Home owners. However, I think the city could have done more to prevent and support HOA boards from operating with woefully insufficient capital reserves. Adam: I have been spending the last 18 months working on this exact issue as a member of the Housing Frontiers Group (HFG).  I do think there is a role of the community/government to help the individual HOAs get back on track as far as their reserves are concerned.  Examples will be running education seminars for the individual homeowners and most importantly, help the HOA boards get up to speed on their rights and responsibilities.  I have spoken with a lot of AH residents and HOA board members and no doubt the vast majority of them are trying hard to do the right thing---manage their HOAs to the best of their abilities.  In their defense, I think APCHA has done a poor job in providing the tools to their residents.  This education piece is something HFG is working on.  Money invested in helping the HOAs to 'learn how to fish' as opposed to a 'bail out' is money well invested as far as I am concerned.  From talking to all HOA and individual residents, this is their hope as well.  As to the actual capital reserve shortfalls, I look at the issue like our nation's Social Security problem; while the roof is not falling down anytime soon, we do need to make some changes to get the program on a sustainable path.  When the data does come out, I think it will be very manageable as we need to remember the shortfall is over a 30 year period, not due in the next month. Ruth:  I believe we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend we have no place in the discussion.  It is a long standing problem that has not and is unlikely to be fixed without guidance and funding from the City.  I would like to explore a low interest loan program for the adequate repair and replacement for health and safety issues.  These can be paid back over time and/or upon the sale if the units.  4)  Should the city continue to spend money on plans for Burlingame Phase 2, yes or no, and why? Cliff: No.  When plans for Burlingame were first introduced, I was against the development.  I was concerned the project would set a precedent for sprawl throughout the upper valley.  Worse, there were no mass transit plans that made any sense.  The development would exacerbate traffic on Hwy 82.  Now that there are 89 or so units, I would still like to know how the development would be serviced by mass transit before I could support expansion. Marcia: I believe that we need to complete the plans currently underway so that when the time is right to start construction we are ready to do it with no additional costs or delays. We have come so far with the plans already it would be a complete waste of money to stop them mid-completion and a complete waste of taxpayer's money that has already been spent and increase the final cost.  Andrew: No.  Before we spend another dime we need to find out what our workforce housing needs really are (category, size), and if we even need more.  We also have to look at the costs associated with repairing what is already built.  It is very easy to say we need more workforce/affordable housing during an election, but the facts as they stand now do not justify building for the sake of building.  I believe in workforce/affordable housing. But, I am not a fan of certain pieces of Aspen's current program or process when it comes to determining what Aspen's needs are today, and in the future.  I promise you there are a lot of ways to go, and the public is not hearing all of them. Instead we are spending money like the proverbial "drunken sailor." Steve: Yes, but pay close attention to the pre-sales process. If there's not enough demand, we shouldn't build it. Adam: While the process of Burlingame-phase 1 left a lot to be desired, I think the end result of a family oriented affordable housing project close to town is a huge community asset.  I have a lot of friends who are thrilled to be there.  City Hall has learned a lot from the BG-1 process and I know they are working on some industry best practices that were not in place prior.  Assuming BG-2 follows the "qualified" demand issue I discuss below, I think it is fine to go through the pre-sale process to see if there is enough 'qualified' demand for any stages to be built.  It is imperative that we study the demand issue; something this community has never had to do. Ruth: In the current economy this is a frivolous use of taxpayer money and staff time on additional units at Burlingame.  We do not need to be building new units to compete with the units we have now that are not selling.  We need to focus on what we have and financing options for the current stock. 5)  Should we continue to build more subsidized housing, yes or no, and why? Cliff: Yes.  But not by the city.  I support public/private projects and Peter Fornell's concept of smaller easily assimilated projects.  If lottery applications are high for a particular category unit, it indicates we need more units to meet demand. Marcia: There are several public private partnerships currently underway and they need to be completed. To stop them now would be irresponsible. To only look at the here and now instead of the future does no one any favors. We need to look at what will be in the pipeline from development projects and current construction as a whole. The need for housing for teachers, policemen, and the everyday people that make up the foundation of this community is as important as it ever was. I do not know about you, but if my house starts to burn down I want my volunteer fireman to be living closer that Basalt. Andrew: Yes, No, Maybe? Could I be more non-committal?  First, we need to take care of what we have. Next we need to determine what we really need. I know the lines for the lower categories are long. I also know that our population is getting older and we have no plan to assist retirees.  Finally, I know we talk a good game, but we now need to get our hands dirty and do the right thing, the smart thing for all citizens. Steve: We should build to satisfy community goals, not build AH simply for the sake of building.  Adam:  While we still have a long-term affordable housing shortage, we need to take a few breaths and make sure we realize that the world has changed and Aspen's AH program is not immune.  On the supply side, the City will need to borrow for any new project.  This requires a vote of the community, not just the City Council.  While not necessarily a bad outcome, it does make a higher hurdle to clear for adding housing units.  Also on the supply side is the issue of where to place any additional units.  Our community has high and admirable goals for density and protecting open space.  We do not have an unlimited amount of land, even for affordable housing.  On the demand side, the concerns are even deeper.  While the economy has had a dampening effect on affordable housing, current lending standards have really placed a stifling effect on demand.  The question now is not who would like/needs affordable housing, but who is finically qualified to obtain it given the current lending practices.  With needs of 10-20% down, this is really the challenge for perspective new AH homeowners.  While the details are always important, the first step to building more units is do we have a critical mass of people who can qualify?  The second level of the demand question is not so much on the new projects possibly going up, but with a lot of that demand coming from existing AH units, we need to make sure we can fill the older inventory as well. Ruth: With the loss of 2400 jobs from 2008 and 2009, the law of supply and demand begs the question why?  We have land-banked enough properties for the next century if we are determined to hold our growth rate to a minimum.  I say we take a pause and look at the facts of what we need and what we want.  With the current requirements of the City and the AACP, the City will certainly be the largest developer and perhaps the only developer left in town. 6)  Should the city continue to pursue a federal exemption from conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on Castle and Maroon Creeks in order to move forward with the Hydro Plant, yes or no, and why? Cliff: Yes, but this issue should never have become so contentious. The conduit exemption is not really relevant to a solution.  There was nearly a solution for a higher minimum level CFS (cubic feet per second) flow.  The solution would have preserved the health of the creeks at the expense of a small amount of power generation for two months.  When P&Z discussed the solution, we were told it couldn't be done.  I'm frequently told it can't be done.  But the more I pursue it, the more I prove it can be done. Marcia: This issue has two people that I greatly respect, Mark Udall and Connie Harvey, who usually stand shoulder to shoulder on environmental issues on opposite sides. The City would require an environmental assessment for any developer and I believe that the city needs to hold itself to the same standards not a lower one. We need the best information available to create an informed decision for a healthy sustainable environment. Andrew: No. The city needs to STOP and take a really good look at the history of the project, the bond, and listen to the citizens that have become more informed than the officials making decisions.  The Hydro Plant was an idea not properly researched (due diligence anyone), that became an obsession that might actually do significant damage to our streams.  To date we have spent $2.3M on a pipe to nowhere, $1.5M on a turbine, and $600T for a transmission line.  In total, we have spent over $4.4M of the $5.5M bond authorized by the citizens. And, I understand, spent the $2.3M under the guise of an emergency drainage line (another emergency?) not needed, but to generate an exemption needed for the Hydro Plant.  As I see it, spending bond money on something other than what is intended in the bond sale, is problematic at best, and could have more far reaching consequences. Steve:  No. We need to be responsible in our pursuit of hydro-power, and I don't believe pursuit of the exemption is satisfactorily responsible. Adam: No.  Aspen should instead apply for a "Minor License Application," which is a more stringent application process.  While a formal environmental assessment will be required, it is the right thing to do for our community.  I have a hard time understanding why, as an environmentally committed community, we would avoid conducting an environmental assessment.  The City of Aspen places stringent environmental requirements on all building projects, and it should do the same on its own projects.  Hypocrisy does not bode well with me, nor do I think for the community. Ruth:  It appears that the hydro plant has been moving forward in a bit of a rush to achieve a worthy goal.  It is my understanding, after several conversations with those more knowledgeable in this complicated system, that the rule of the project is that the ends justify the means.  It is odd that a project that aspires to an environmentally sustainable goal would not be more sensitive regarding the environment.  It is my understanding that the study performed was only over a 2 month period in the summertime with the rest of the information extrapolated from a very old study.  This project needs a pause to perform the proper due diligence and to play by the rules required by the state and the proper authorities. 7)  How would YOU have handled negotiations between the city and Jonathan Lewis, purchaser-to-be of The Given property?  (NOTE:  At press time, The Given Institute has met its maker and was torn down on Monday and Tuesday, April 18 & 19.) Cliff: Negotiations usually result in compromises where no one gets everything they want.  I didn't see what was on the table so I can't tell you where the settlement could have been.  But I understand the process and believe there might have been a different outcome. Marcia: I have always believed that you should go into any negotiation with no preconceived notions and listen to all of the proposals. I am hoping that something can still be worked out. The reported proposal by Mr. Lewis could be in someways the best of all worlds. To build one house for his family member without cutting down any of the beautiful trees and renovating the existing building with the modernization it has needed for a long time could preserve a beautiful property. We are not coming from a position of strength, so we need to be humble and listen with an open mind and heart. Andrew: Better than they were handled. I say this because I have been negotiating for most of my life in one form or another.  As a city we have not been the best of negotiators.  Two recent examples being the BMC land purchase and the Art Museum.  Why we do not bring in professionals specific to the item being negotiated has never made sense to me. Steve:  More or less the same way it was handled.  Adam: Honestly I do not know.  I do know that it is sad we very well might lose an important part of Aspen's history.  But I hope and expect the next owners to treat the site and trees with the care it deserves as that special piece of property begins a new stage.  It is hard to comment when there are a lot of closed door sessions as the public does not know all the facts.   I hope the situation was unique enough that the process can turn out differently next time a very important building faces the same fate. Ruth: I would have loved to enter a negotiation to pay the stated subsidy of $200,000 and partner with CU as a leaseholder to make The Given a revenue generator and a venue for programs developed to bring more tourism to town.  We could have used the facility as an environmentally-oriented educational facility making this a win/win for all. 8)  Please comment on the situation at the southwest corner of Spring St and Hyman Ave (the now-vacant lot that was previously the Wienerstube) now that it's become public that the Aspen Art Museum has not yet purchased the property and they do not have the funding on-hand to build the museum. Cliff: I'm frustrated that P&Z didn't get to comment on this project before it was decided.  I think it's too big for a transition zone to a residential neighborhood.  I would have been in favor of one less story and some setback on at least one side.  Personally, I didn't like the design.  Bill Wiener had it right - it would have been a pigeon roost.  But I do not have a problem with that location for an art museum.  I also think Infill code that allows tall buildings in the core should be rolled back as well.  Infill was another idea with good intentions that has done more harm than good. Marcia: The news reports did not say that they did not have the money to build, but they wanted the endowment to support it in place before construction begins which is actually a financially prudent thing to do. The original agreement was to avoid a lawsuit, but I do not believe that threats of lawsuits should never be a deciding factor, sometimes you need to call their bluff and be willing to walk away. Andrew: Simply put, I was surprised, disappointed, dumbfounded! Why a demolition permit was approved before the city was dead certain the Museum had their financial house in order is beyond me.  Does anybody remember the Stage 3 deal that resulted in an open construction site for years?  As a matter of fact, how many empty construction sites do we need until somebody says enough!  The AAM might build the museum - but why tear the Wienerstube down until construction was imminent? I'm sure the owners of Bad Billy's or some other establishment could have used the place until the AAM was ready to start construction. Steve: I believe they will complete their transaction. Until then, I think the Museum should support an effort to utilize the space as a public garden. Adam:  I think the vacant lot is indicative a very disappointing and frustrating process for the community.  I was not in the "inside" when most of this process happened, but I think it is a shame for the sake of the community that the Museum received such a fast track approval process.  Even very worthy community projects like the Hospital need to go through the 'normal' land use code.  While it is frustrating for many, and there is no doubt room for improvement, the normal process has done this community well.  The expressway lane for the AAM has rightly frustrated a lot of people and emphasized that the playing field is not always equal for all applicants.  While the Council was forced at the end to choose between two 'bad choices,' they easily could of avoiding getting to that stage if they would have handled the original Wienerstube redevelopment better. Ruth: It appears that the proper due diligence and requirements imposed on the public such as performance bonds were not in place.  The inadequate public process that could have resulted in perhaps a better project resulted in a lost opportunity for the Community to have a truly special project.  Although it was designed by a famous architect, I am not sure the high altitude elements and the heat effect on the glass block ceiling and the wooden lattice exterior were considered.  How can it not be an HVAC nightmare?  And what is to happen to the lattice framework after a few extreme hot summer and cold winter months?   VOTE ON MAY 3 - AND BRING PHOTO I.D. Early/Absentee voting has begun in the clerk's office in City Hall.  You may come in to vote between 9a - 5p M-F through Friday, April 29.  Absentee ballots must be in the clerk's hands by 7p on May 3.  Postmarks don't count. The polls are open 7a - 7p on May 3. Precincts 1-3 vote at Rio Grande Plaza.  Precincts 4-5 and 7 vote at Schultz Health & Human Services (by the hospital).  To find your precinct, go to www.GoVoteColorado.com In order to have a winner on May 3, a mayoral candidate must have 50% of the total votes cast + 1 vote.  If none achieve this threshold, the two top vote-getters enter into a run-off.  Council candidates can avoid a run-off if they individually pull in 45% of the total votes cast + 1 vote.  (Yes, it's possible for one council candidate to win a seat in the first round, in which case the candidates with the two next highest vote counts will advance to the June 7 run-off.)  THE REVOLUTION In an effort to encourage challengers to mayor Mick, The Red Ant and co-conspirators launched the 2011 "SICK OF MICK" campaign on March 21.  (Visit www.SickOfMick.com ) At the time, mayor Mick was running unopposed!  Thankfully, there are now 3 candidates for mayor.  We've got ourselves a REAL RACE!   I'm ecstatic!  This is already a HUGE victory -- to be sure -- but now we need to prevent Mick's re-election!  Thanks to all who have supported the SICK OF MICK campaign.    Fundraising for this effort has been incredibly successful.  Look for several SICK OF MICK ads in the papers in the days leading up to the election.  Thank you for enabling this effort with your generosity!  For now, fundraising must cease (per election laws) but remember, we'll know on May 3rd if we have a run-off on June 7!   If necessary, and let's hope not, I'll be back in touch to replenish the coffers!   If you want yard signs or bumper stickers, please contact The Red Ant at TheRedAntEM@comcast.net and we will make arrangements to get these to you!  CORRECTION Regarding the Aspen Art Museum, Issue #59 reported that they "really don't have the money needed to build the in-town museum on the site they purchased under controversial conditions late last year."  In fact, the Aspen Art Museum has yet to purchase the property at the southwest corner of Spring St and Hyman Ave where the Wienerstube once stood.  The Red Ant regrets the error, and will think of Mick each time I walk past the needlessly vacant lot.