ISSUE #265: APCHA Renters: Second Class Citizens (12/20/23)

"Total ghettoization, because they were in charge of public housing, the local council, they deliberately located people in a ghetto situation in order to ensure that they maintained control."

-- John Hume

Apologies for the delay in getting this one out to you. This week's column illustrates yet another unintended consequence of enabling our housing program to grow unwieldy without proper oversight. It turns out that the program greatly prioritizes owners while relegating renters to a far lesser class of citizen.

Read it HERE.

* * * * * 

Living in an APCHA rental can be a blessing or a curse. Some renters have figured it out: amid the outlandish cost of maintaining a property in Aspen, the freedom of simply paying rent without the financial responsibilities of home ownership has served them well. Others have fallen prey to a system that relegates them to a lesser class of citizen.

Picture two identical families, each with two parents and two formerly school-aged children. Both long-time local families live in APCHA housing in similar 3-bedroom units. The only difference is that one family won the lottery and owns their unit while the other still pays rent according to an income category that is assigned to that unit. 

Since winning the housing lottery, the owner-family is set for life. The parents still work locally while the kids, each with their own bedrooms, attended Aspen’s top-notch schools. It only mattered on the day of purchase where Mom and Dad worked and what their combined income was. Once in ownership housing, income and assets are unlimited and employment is verified as a mere checkbox on a biennial affidavit.

For owners, household repairs are a dreaded cost burden at free market prices, but there is 3%  annual appreciation (or CPI, whichever is less), and after just 10 years of work history and four years of ownership, the couple is eligible to retire in their unit. Each child has gone away to college but can forever come home to their childhood bedroom. And down the line, the parents can pass the family unit along. It’s practically a Hallmark movie.

The renter-family outwardly appears the same. With similar employment to the owners, they pay rent based on income according to their unit category, and when something goes awry with the disposal or the dishwasher, a call to the landlord usually results in a fix. But at least every other year, as renters, they are stringently re-evaluated. Have their salaries increased beyond their unit’s income category? Has a performance bonus made them ineligible? What is the size and makeup of the household?

Housing insecurity for local workers who have lived in rental housing for years is very real. Success is punished. Earn too much and you’re out. Another way to lose your rental housing is when your children go off to college. After age 19, the oldest kid’s empty bedroom became a no-no. Time to down-size. The couple kept a 2-bedroom after the second kid left since they are both working adults, but had this been a single-parent household it would have been time to downsize again.

This snapshot illustrates how APCHA owners have become a protected and entitled class while renters are held to far different standards. Owners are the first to assert their “property rights” when existing policies are questioned or challenged. They don’t want the increased scrutiny. There are even incentives offered to owners who might consider downsizing to smaller units.

Meanwhile, renters’ employment and incomes are closely scrutinized. When household make-up and/or income changes, so does everything else. And mandatory downsizing in no way implies simply stepping into a smaller unit. It’s often a matter of moving out and starting over.

The question is do we or don’t we care about under-utilization of our publicly subsidized housing inventory? In other words, are empty bedrooms ok or not? The answer is unclear as APCHA policies promote having it both ways.

On one hand, we care deeply about empty bedrooms. They’re essentially forbidden in rentals, and extensive effort is undertaken to right-size, even if it means kicking long-time locals out. Yet in ownership housing, no one asks because no one cares. Countless cases of numerous empty bedrooms abound because it’s entirely legal. The most famous example is APCHA’s assistant director who lives alone in her 3-bedroom ownership unit.

In short, we give lip service to maximizing utilization. We enforce it upon renters because we can. But it’s not fairly applied across the portfolio. And that’s just not right.

The concept of maximum utilization is an important consideration in the current environment where housing supply will never meet demand. But as a practical matter, the fixes won’t be easy, popular nor pretty. The precedent for ownership has been set and today there is zero political will to make any changes. But at a minimum, we must rectify the horrible inconsistency of having two separate and unequal classes of subsidized housing beneficiaries. This was never the intent of the housing program.

Critical to a productive workforce is housing security, and not just for owners. We must find the middle ground. There are many benefits to renting in Aspen. Our workforce should not be punished for doing so. 

It’s time to establish one central waitlist for rental housing, with APCHA coordinating the approval process, qualification, employment verification and determination of appropriate unit size. Eliminate the income categories. Charge rent according to unit size and income. When empty bedrooms open up, people are rational, they’ll choose to pay less rent when presented with a smaller, less expensive units to easily move into.

APCHA rentals comprise 42% of our inventory. Those 1368 households deserve the same housing security and opportunities for advancement as everyone else. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #264: The Burlingame Curse (12/4/23)

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

-- George Orwell (perhaps)

The city of Aspen really doesn't want you to read this column. But I do. HERE it is.

Things at Burlingame Phase 3 are nothing short of an unmitigated disaster. But you won't read about it anywhere but here. "There's nothing to see here" is the city's mantra - an attempt to keep the nightmare contained to the 79 households that will eventually be living there.

But the domino effect is real: those hoping/planning to move into BG3 are on hold, therefore the people who hope/plan to move into the units being vacated are jammed up. And those hoping/planning to move into their units are too. And it's December. And that's just scratching the surface...

THIS is what happens when the city develops subsidized housing. There is zero oversight and even less accountability. It isn't a one-off. Burlingame shows that it's the status quo.

But just think, last week council approved spending $14 million to begin work on The Lumberyard. What could possibly go wrong?

INSTAGRAM

The Red Ant is now on Instagram. Follow @TheRedAntAspen today and keep up with all the shenanigans!

* * * * *

As the lottery winners of new subsidized housing units at Burlingame Phase 3 prepare to close on their future homes, the evil construction defect specter that haunts the former Bar X Ranch has raised its ugly head once again.

In form letters from the city communications department, lottery winners and the APCHA board were recently informed that impending closings at the third phase of the beleaguered Burlingame housing development have been delayed due to the project’s failure to pass a state inspection in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Notably, APCHA staff already conducted sales lotteries and the city is under contract with the winners, but the 79 units won’t all be inhabited for the foreseeable future.

Amid haunting echoes of prior Burlingame nightmares, BG3 had intentionally been designed to avoid the prior construction defect disasters and lawsuits experienced at both earlier phases of the project. 

The city, the builder and the siding manufacturer of Burlingame 1 were named in and settled a lawsuit in 2015 that held the manufacturer responsible for poor quality siding and the developer for installing it. 

In ongoing litigation, Burlingame 2 is suing the city for catastrophic construction defects that have bedeviled residents since their 2014 move-ins. Envision failing roofs and malfunctioning solar systems, damaged patios, handrails, siding, sidewalks, exterior stairways, water heater plumbing, fan coils, coaxial cable, fire alarm pulls, pressure valves and water quality issues. The BG2 HOA has retained counsel on contingency to fight the city and its claim of governmental immunity despite serving as developer, funding and managing the project, and maintaining control of the HOA board throughout the warranty period. 

The tortured saga at Burlingame continues as future BG3 households twist in the wind. Some relinquished their rental units in anticipation of November move-ins. Others have had their existing APCHA units “lotteried” to new buyers. The massive domino effect is already affecting hundreds of local families, just as ski season begins. Most are caught in no-man’s land, many without secure housing, while mortgage rates increase, credit ratings get dinged and the city repeatedly tells them, “It’s not our fault.”  

BG3 was approved for development in 2011 and construction began in 2019.  Plagued ever since by delays attributed to labor shortages, supply chain problems, construction complications and delivery challenges, BG3 is the scariest nightmare of them all.

The plan for BG3 was to simplify the construction process. Comprised of 230 pre-fabricated modular boxes built in Boise, Idaho, and shipped to Aspen to be “stitched” together atop poured foundations, BG3 arrived nearly complete with flooring, cabinets, appliances, drywall and paint, windows, carpet, water heaters, bathtubs, showers, shelving and the kitchen sink already built-in, to which the builder added the roof, siding and walkways. Despite lengthy delays when “the boxes” sat for years, by September 2021 the builder was bragging, “The only thing that’s missing is the towel to hang on the towel bar.”

The optimism didn’t last. By spring of 2022, significant problems emerged, starting with moisture around the windows indicating faulty sealing. After much finger-pointing, 280 windows were replaced; a complex fix involving the removal of exterior siding and significantly impacting interior drywall. Fall 2022 move-in dates were pushed back. 

But by October 2023, the public was informed by the city that “only punch work is left.” But this was far from the truth. The city was only just beginning its cruel and deceptive plan to prey upon local working families and individuals, desperate for subsidized housing, by selling them the grievously defective properties.

In the buyer’s contracts, there is no seller’s disclosure of “adverse material facts” pertaining to “construction defect actions,” specifically despite the leaky window issues and other vague “complications” referenced throughout the project timeline. And notably, the city/seller is conveying the property in “as-is” condition, “with all faults” and “no warranty.” In fact, by agreeing to the contract, the “buyer waives any and all claims against seller … for any defects or any damage to the property that may exist at closing or shall be subsequently discovered by buyer.” 

Rightfully spooked by these stipulations, and all too familiar with the city’s unconscionable behavior at BG2, many contracted buyers obtained independent inspections. One report revealed a serious issue where the circuit breaker flipped when the stove was in use, uncovering a massive electrical system failure across the entire project. BG3 is now undergoing an extensive electrical overhaul. There are numerous reports of refrigerators that don’t hold temperatures, malfunctioning appliances long past their warranties, faulty dishwasher and disposal drain lines, and even black mold. 

BG3 is currently uninhabitable. 

Once again, the city proves it’s a lousy developer that doesn’t hold itself to the same standards it holds others. Responsibility for BG3 lies with the city manager. She is the developer, the financier, the construction manager and is the listed seller of BG3. She also manages APCHA, which serves as the city’s broker for each sale. Her appalling lack of respect for BG3 buyers is shameful and contrary to Aspen’s community values. It’s time for city council to finally hold Sara Ott accountable.

After all, she’s preparing to build The Lumberyard next. 

At press time, nearly 20% of BG3 lottery winners have walked away, leaving their defective units to the next guy in line.  Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #263: Willful Ignorance and Housing's Known Unknowns (11/20/23)

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

-- Donald Rumsfeld

Yesterday's column (read it HERE) illustrates several facts about Aspen's APCHA housing program that you might not know. It's a tangled mess, by design, to obfuscate information and to deny responsibility. In short, there is zero accountability at any level.

The actual responsibility for EVERYTHING housing-related lies solely with city manager Sara Ott. The APCHA staff reports to her, not the APCHA Board. City council is technically Sara Ott's boss, so they can direct housing policy and priorities, but they don't - even with two of them on the hapless APCHA Board. 

Sadly, the APCHA Board has been revealed to be useless. With no budget and no staff oversight, there is nothing they can do even if they wanted to. Yet these community volunteers and elected officials spend countless hours listening to APCHA staff tell them what's going on.

The "feedback loop" that is designed for councilmen Ward Hauenstein and John Doyle (yes, the A-team can't get out of their own way) to liaise between city council and the APCHA board simply does not exist. Hauenstein and Doyle merely occupy chairs at the APCHA board table and consistently fail to communicate its critical issues to city council - and vice versa. They're useless. And therefore, the circular irresponsibility for Aspen's critical housing issues continues.

The city of Aspen is SOLELY responsible for our housing program and all its problems, whether they admit it or not. Now you know.

* * * * * 

Following Aspen’s subsidized housing issues for over 15 years has taught me a lot, but what’s unbelievably frustrating is how much I still don’t know. That’s because no one does. And no one who should know wants to know. In a previous life, I’d call these the known unknowns. Today, it’s simply willful ignorance.

We don’t know how many worker housing units exist. We know the APCHA portfolio has nearly 3200 ownership and rental units, but this does not include units owned by the schools, the hospital, the city, SkiCo and countless other businesses that have built or acquired proprietary staff housing. This is important because there are over 14,000 jobs in the county, so knowing how many employees we currently have the capacity to house is a critical datapoint toward determining our future needs.

We don’t know where the occupants of our publicly subsidized housing work or the jobs they perform.  Are we housing a lot of architects and realtors, restaurant workers, government employees and store clerks or ski instructors and retirees?  We don’t know because we don’t ask. This is important because we need to know which jobs are under-represented so we can prioritize housing the very workers our economy needs in order to function, not benefit over-represented sectors. 

We don’t know what APCHA does. Even the APCHA board is unsure. Notably APCHA, the organization, is fraught with troubling contradictions. Legally, it’s an intergovernmental agency, independent of the city and county, but it functions as a department of the city, where the executive director and staff are city employees who report to the city manager, not the board. Its purposely vague mission is to “support affordable workforce housing for a sustainable community and prosperous economy.” APCHA staff manages just 358 rental units at Truscott and three other properties, but handles the entire program’s qualification and compliance matters as well as lotteries and ownership transactions. The remainder of the portfolio, especially the ownership units, exists mostly unsupervised. The APCHA board has no budget and no staff oversight so it’s effectively ceremonial, occasionally giving feedback and rubber-stamping staff’s activity. This is important because those who are closest to the issues have little ability to affect them. 

The electeds on both city council and the BOCC demonstrate willful ignorance, specifically the four members who concurrently serve on the APCHA board. They are keenly aware that the program is catastrophically broken and unsustainable, yet they do nothing. The program has become so complicated and unwieldy with labyrinthine regulations, entangled exceptions and literally hundreds of different deed restrictions. There is preference and privilege granted to those who own, while renters are second class citizens who live in an perpetual state of housing insecurity for fear their incomes might rise. 

Our electeds’ sole focus is on the narrative that we need more housing, but they have no desire to quantify and qualify what is specifically lacking, and even less will to take bold steps to overhaul the program in order to ensure it remains viable for the next generation.

City council loves the big stuff like designing and approving half billion dollar housing projects and determining the income mix for those who will eventually live there, but they deliberately ignore learning which jobs are unfilled in our community to inform their decisions. That’s why we’re randomly building units, regardless of whether these will meet any actual need.  John Doyle and Ward Hauenstein, council’s two members of the APCHA board, continually fail to notify city council of the program’s horrific shortcomings and the dire need for comprehensive reform. The unfortunate reality is, only council can create housing policy and direct its employee, city manager Sara Ott, to implement it via APCHA.

Why the resistance? We don’t prioritize essential workers because we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. For decades, Mick and Rachel told us that where people work should not matter, and housing should not be tied to an employer (but outside of APCHA it is). This is ludicrous. We don’t track where people work and what jobs they hold because of “privacy concerns,” never mind this is publicly subsidized housing, so it is very much the public’s business, especially given the looming specter of massive taxation to further expand the program.

But we do know a few things. We know that APCHA operates like a self-licking ice cream cone: circular, self-congratulatory fluff with no chance of long-term survival. We know our electeds give lip service to “fixing” APCHA but they refuse to demand program metrics to establish a factual baseline. (Preferring a political narrative, they simply don’t want to know the realities.) We know the APCHA board has been stripped of all meaningful responsibility. We know the APCHA staff works for the city manager whose agenda is to play developer while keeping APCHA’s inner-workings secretive. (She quashed any hope for program transparency after spending well over $1 million before locking down the HomeTrek database that stood to publicly reveal inconvenient facts.) 

We know that APCHA fails at its mission.

Willful ignorance will not make our housing issues go away. The known unknowns are where the straightforward solutions lie. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #262: Philistines on City Council (11/6/23)

"Am Yisrael Chai."

This past week has been about as ugly as it gets in Aspen. The city council meeting on October 30 blew up with unabashed anti-semitism and ignorance over a motion to fly the flag of Israel from The Armory just as we have flown the Ukrainian flag since March 2022. It was APPALLING.

The Aspen Daily News succinctly covered the still-unfolding story HEREand HERE. Meanwhile, The Aspen Times ignored it altogether and censored my use of the words "anti-semite" because they saw this as hate speech. How ironic.

HERE is my column on the matter from yesterday's Aspen Times.

In the meantime, the mayor and two city councilmen have issued pathetic and weak apologies, less regretting what they said and more because they fear for their political futures. As they should. Each of them managed to make matters worse with the statements they subsequently made. Here are Torre's, Ward's and John's "apologies." (Spare me.)

This episode is illustrative of what happens when we elect virtue-signaling fools to office in Aspen. They are incompetent at their jobs and even worse leaders. Is it any wonder they make the decisions they do?

Shame on Mayor Torre, and councilmen John Doyle and Ward Hauenstein. They are a disgrace. The best thing they can do today is to resign from office.

And speaking of virtue-signaling fools who we've elected to office, where is former Aspen city councilman Adam Frisch in all this? His silence is deafening. As someone of the Jewish faith who just so happens to now be running to serve our district in the US Congress, since when is saying nothing ok?

Ninety years ago a lot of people stayed silent. "Never again" is our collective responsibility.

Stay tuned. This one isn't over.

Oh, and here's the VIDEO of Doyle in action that set the wheels in motion. And in case you were wondering, as covered in the second Daily News article above, Bill Guth discussed his motion with city manager Sara Ott prior to the meeting and she informed Torre of it. For Torre to say he was "blindsided" is simply BS.

* * * * *

There has never been a shortage of idiotic discussion among the ill-informed on Aspen’s city council, but the meeting on Monday, October 30, took the display of ignorance and stupidity to an entirely new level.

In response to a motion brought by councilman Bill Guth to hang the flag of Israel above the Armory in solidarity with Israel and the Israeli people following the terror attacks of October 7, just as a Ukranian flag was hung there in March 2022 as a symbol of support, the citizens of Aspen were presented with pure and unadulterated antisemitism.

Mayor Torre, and councilmen Ward Hauenstein and John Doyle voted to oppose. Then Doyle (to call him ignorant or uninformed is to give him too much credit) responded with his objection to the moral equivalence, stating “There is a difference. The Ukranians were not being held in a concentration camp.” Yes, he said that.

A simple review of an earlier council meeting on March 8, 2022, revealed the striking contrast and glaring hypocrisy of sitting councilmen Doyle and Hauenstein as well as Mayor Torre, who, together with former councilpersons Skippy Mesirow and Rachel Richards, proudly, emphatically and unanimously celebrated a formal proclamation in support of Ukraine:

“The city of Aspen stands in unwavering solidarity with the people of the sovereign nation of Ukraine, as they defend themselves against Russia’s unprovoked invasion and war against their democracy and sovereign right to exist as an independent nation.  And whereas the city of Aspen stands with other countries, private corporations, religious leaders, states and cities from around the world in condemning this horrific act of aggression by Russia, and demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities. And, whereas, in these moments of crisis, the leadership demonstrated by president Zelensky, members of the Ukranian armed forces and the citizens of Ukraine are a beacon of resolve and commitment to democratic principles and values. And whereas the public servants at the local level in Ukraine should be recognized as they continue to practice servant leadership under the most dangerous of conditions to provide essential municipal services. Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the mayor and city council of the city of Aspen that one, we are condemning the act of Russian aggression, we support the people and the government of the sovereign nation of Ukraine and we urge the Aspen community to contribute resources to aid the people of Ukraine.”

It is unfathomable that in 19 short months, the same sentiment would not be extended to the state of Israel and its people, especially and notably at the express request of fellow councilman Guth and seconded by councilman Sam Rose, who is also Jewish and had lived in Israel for a year before moving to Aspen. It was personal.

But we are clearly now in uncharted waters here in Aspen, home to a large and active Jewish community.

Following Doyle’s unconscionable statement, when they realized what had been revealed, council quickly passed a motion to remove the Ukranian flag from the Armory, ostensibly so as not to appear as the hypocrites they truly are and likely in hopes that the messy and emotional debate would go away so they could return to ambivalence and both-siderism.

But Hauenstein dug in. He voted for the Ukranian flag to stay, sanctimoniously stating, “I sympathize with Bill and Sam and the Israeli people and all the people who have been subjected to terrorist acts, but it’s complicated and I don’t want to discuss it at this point in this venue.” For a man so actively involved in the Aspen Chapel, perhaps the faith leaders there can counsel him on the definition of heresy. 

Mayor Torre also doubled down. “I have said that my support for Israel and the Israeli people is there.” Where, exactly, Torre? Where is that support? His nervous blathering about sending a statement to Aspen’s representatives in Washington or to erecting a “display” somewhere in town was insulting.

As for John Doyle, this unapologetic antisemite must resign at once.  Torre and Ward should resign as well. They are unfit to lead. But they won’t. Their arrogance and self-righteousness won’t allow it.  So they should be censured at the very least, and there is local precedence for doing far less. Censure, a formal and public group condemnation of an individual whose actions run counter to the group’s acceptable standards for individual behavior is entirely appropriate here. Think of it as public shaming, as if their public statements weren’t shameful enough. The problem is, in this case, “the group’s acceptable standards” are nothing close to being in any way acceptable.

In the absence of educated, experienced or informed elected leaders, we find ourselves at the mercy of inept, virtue-signaling fools. The recent election of two new representatives, Guth and Rose, who have disrupted the status quo with their thoughtful questioning and willingness to express minority opinions, has demonstrated the need to continue raising the bar for future candidates.

Doyle can run for re-election in 2025. Thankfully Torre and Hauenstein are term-limited out. I’m not sure I can wait that long. 

I stand with Israel. And I’ll support any recall efforts. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #261: A Two-Stall Food Hall in City Hall? (10/23/23)

"The society that lives on subsidies and freebies is always responsible for a corrupt governance."

-- Dr Ashok Anand

Plans to repurpose The Armory are underway, but in its typical fashion, the city seems ready to muck things up there too. I attended an open house earlier in the month and was horrified by the process, the input and the likely outcome.

Simply put, there are great ideas for activating this historic space but trying to do all of them at once is a recipe for disaster.

I share my thoughts for the future of The Armory HERE, from yesterday's Aspen Times.

NOVEMBER BALLOT

Your November ballot should have already arrived. Questions? Visit www.PitkinVotes.com

The critical local decision is the vote for School Board. If we've learned anything in recent years, school board elections matter.

Beyond that, there are two state tax measures that need to be defeated.

These are not endorsements per se, but here is how I am voting.

Aspen School District (vote for 2)

·      Sarah Daniels

·      Katy Frisch

Our school district is trending in the right direction under superintendent David Baugh. It is imperative that we elect common sense people to the school board who support Baugh and maintain the focus on academics, core subjects, test scores and meritocracy over indoctrination.  The teacher’s union has a candidate in this race – it is imperative that we defeat this candidate and elect those with proven track records who will work with the existing board to deliver results for our children.

Proposition HH  NO

Positioned as property tax relief, at first blush, HH may seem like a good idea, but the devil is in the details. It sounds like it will save you money, but it won’t. Prop HH will reduce or eliminate future TABOR refunds, which is essentially a tax hike. And renters will also be negatively affected. The measure also enables the legislature to extend the new revenue cap forever without asking voters. Besides, property tax issues are better addressed by local communities. HH is a Trojan horse that will further complicate our already confusing property tax system, lift spending caps and allow the State Government to INCREASE SPENDING by 25%. Vote NO.

Proposition II  NO

This measure seeks to allow the State to retain excess tax revenue collected on the sale of cigarettes, tobacco and nicotine products, beyond the taxpayer approved levels as determined by the vote to collect these taxes in 2020.  In its first year, the tax revenue was $208 million, $21.5 million more than the estimate. If Prop II passes, the State will keep the $21.5 million plus $2.15 million in interest ($23.65 million) and spend it. The program is fully funded. Refund the excess revenues.  Vote NO.

* * * * *

The community was recently invited back to The Armory, Aspen’s 1892-era civic center that later served as city hall until vacated for the unwelcoming, new-ish Taj Mahal City Hall in 2021. This time, it was another off-season city outreach session to gauge interest in re-purposing the centrally located 19,000 sf structure for “community use,” and more importantly to identify which uses are preferred. (There was no mention of costs or financing for the project.)

If this sounds a lot like how we ended up with the design of The Lumberyard that includes balconies, mud rooms, underground parking and elevators for the soon-to-be-built rental housing project out by the airport, you’d be spot on. The same contracted consultants were there with three options and stickers you could “vote” with, along with sticky notes upon which you could make your specific wants known. Here we go again.

Driven by a 2022 directive from city council, this outreach session is intended to inform council’s forthcoming decision on remodel and reuse plans for The Armory that address a laundry list of pre-determined “guiding principles.” Imagine, if you will, a financially self-sustaining, welcoming, lively and diverse entity that honors our history and small town character, provides unique, meaningful and affordable offerings while incorporating sustainable systems to highlight our green-ness. 

This could be really exciting, that is, until you attempt to be all things to all people.

The three options presented were each a schizophrenic hodge-podge and combination of disparate offerings, including a community lounge, welcome center, flex space, retail vendors, co-working space, a coffee shop, ACRA offices and a “food hall,” notably with just two vendors.  Free snacks and sodas brought out the off-season regulars who weighed in with their personal wish lists: non-profit offices, pool tables, a dance hall, an indoor farmer’s market and artist spaces. Sounds like the state fair.

Most shocking, however, was the palpable focus on addressing solely “local” desires. Many there felt The Armory needs to address the rising cost of living in Aspen through free access and “cheap” food, entertainment and goods for those who are cost-burdened by their choices to live here. One sticker said it all, “Can we limit entry to locals?” There was even a board where one could define the “L-word,” perhaps to clarify who it is we need to keep out. 

In short, despite the high likelihood of having a welcome center of some sort in the building because of its location and the fact that we are a tourist destination after all, most attendees were clear in wanting The Armory for themselves. It was exclusionary to say the least, with little likelihood of being in any way financially sustainable. I came away envisioning a big, subsidized daycare center for those with a local ID card.

A shred of optimism came from the subtle chatter about turning The Armory into a food hall. Not what was lamely thrown into the mix by the consultants who presented the concept as merely “two food vendors” in the basement, rather, something grand, a destination befitting the space. Popular throughout Europe and experiencing a renaissance in the US, the idea of showcasing multiple vendors in an accessible, communal dining environment makes a lot of sense for The Armory, warranting further research and study, just not by the city.

There are professional firms that specialize in designing food halls all over the world. They retrofit historic buildings and activate them in cities and resort towns. Food halls are known to revitalize downtowns and serve residents and visitors alike. And if you’ve been to a food hall, you know they’re great fun with high energy, and offer something for everyone. The open, counter-service stalls provide low barriers to entry and shared overhead, so no need for subsidies, especially government ones.

Food halls feature food producers, artisan bakers and budding chefs who come together and cater to culinary fans who don’t want the restrictions of table service at one restaurant.  Take Denver Central Market. This popular food hall in a refurbished 14,000 sf building in RiNo, Denver’s artsy-industrial neighborhood, is a community anchor that offers a mix of culinary start-ups and established favorites. 

What’s not found in a food hall, notably, are offices and work spaces, meeting rooms or “lounges” for those with nowhere else to go. 

The future of The Armory, left in the city’s hands, is certain to become yet another missed opportunity like everything else they touch. We’ve seen what they’ve done with the Taj Mahal City Hall and “community activation” of Galena Plaza.  And now that the micro-managed design of The Lumberyard is moving forward, it will be more than tempting for city council to shift their newfound architecture and design prowess toward paint colors, doorknobs and flooring materials for The Armory. 

Instead, it’s time to pick a lane, issue an RFP and bring in the best minds to deliver something that checks all the boxes and one the entire community can be proud of for locals and non-locals alike: a food hall at The Armory, with more than two stalls.

The Armory was constructed in three months in 1892 at a cost of $15,000. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #260: Hubris in Aspen (10/10/23)

"Hubris is one of the great renewable resources."

-- PJ O'Rourke

Hubris. Is there a better word for what's wrong with elected leadership in Aspen? When we elect representatives the same way we'd elect the Prom King (ie popularity contest), we only have ourselves to blame for the arrogance and pretension that drives the policies, decisions and management of the city of Aspen.

Other places that face similar challenges are doing things differently. But we're Aspen - what could we possibly learn from them?

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

* * * * *

Hubris, according to Wikipedia, describes a personality quality of excessive pride or dangerous overconfidence, often synonymous with arrogance and associated with pretension. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence, accomplishments or capabilities. Hubris is referred to as “pride that blinds” because it often causes one to act in foolish ways that belie common sense.

Sound familiar?

As a practical matter, Aspen’s city council’s hubris advances the largest municipal public works project in Aspen’s history despite its fundamentally flawed premise, a ridiculous design based on consumer wishes, baseless budget estimates and no funding source. The 277-unit Lumberyard is already laughable in development circles and garners eye-rolls from representatives and residents of other ski towns. Last week Mayor Torre even told a local developer they’re looking at raising rental rates there to somehow sweeten the deal for development bidders, an acknowledgment that the project as currently planned is far from viable.

But designing first and budgeting later is not just inexperience, it’s foolish. The numbers are so bad that even with a private development partner, the city will still be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars it admits it doesn’t have. Our unqualified electeds who skipped development 101 are so arrogant they believe they know more than everyone else, when in reality they continually embarrass themselves and our community.

Meanwhile, in Winter Park, a ski town of 1,100 in Grand County, Colorado, the new Conifer Commons is readying for tenants. This in-town property offers rental studios, single- and multi-bedroom units designed for 330 seasonal and year-round workers. Collaboratively built by the town, the corporate owner of the resort, a non-profit agency and a developer in just 18 months, this new housing cost just $60 million. It comes to market on the heels of the Fireside Creek Apartments, 50 one- and two-bedroom units, built and managed by a developer to which the town contributed $2.2 million in land, fee waivers and rent-buy downs. Several other similar projects are in the works to directly address housing throughout ski country.

Furthermore, Winter Park is boldly addressing its workforce housing needs beyond just new construction. Their “Short Term Fix” program launched in 2021 to bridge the gap while housing construction transpired. The town has been offering cash incentives to property owners who convert their short-term rental property or underutilized second home into long-term workforce housing. Qualified local businesses enter into 6- or 12-month leases on behalf of their employees, and the property owner receives a financial incentive in addition to receiving contracted rents. Studios and 1-bedrooms offer $5000 or $10,000 cash incentives, depending on lease term, and 2- and 3-bedroom units kick $10,000 or $20,000. During the 2022-23 season, with a budget of $425,000, 47 bedrooms were added to the housing inventory.  

This season, thanks to Conifer Commons, Fireside Creek and others coming online, $200,000 is available to renewing participants as the short term program winds down. 

Winter Park also has a deed restricted ownership program for local workers. Notably, “inventory administration” plays a critical role to ensure proper stewardship through a required annual verification and audit process. Acknowledging the importance of community-building by providing long-term housing options, they’re not messing around. Essential workers are prioritized.

Like Winter Park, most ski towns in the mountain west are facing housing issues, but with several critical distinctions from ours: they don’t have an existing inventory of over 3200 units, they build housing to specifically meet the needs of the local economy as determined by data-driven research, they seek creative partnerships for value-driven outcomes and they build what they can afford. 

Why wouldn’t we look at best practices employed in Winter Park and elsewhere? Hubris. “They’re not Aspen.” You can hear the scoffs. No, they’re most certainly not. They’re responsibly doing what it takes to solve the real housing challenges faced by their communities. But our mentality, that arrogance, that pretension, is precisely why Aspen has become the shining example of what not to do, instead of the gold standard befitting a housing program of our history, caliber, size and potential.

Goaded by this columnist and hundreds of you who wrote to council about the absurd lack of transparency regarding The Lumberyard financials, the city recently released what it’s calling a “pro forma.” This rough, staff-generated cost estimate and escalation model which generated headlines is based on a 2022-era schematic design, with promises to develop a better estimate when the design advances, again without financing details other than hopes for 15% of the project cost to be brought by a developer from federal, state and “other outside funding sources.” 

This still leaves our community on the hook for the several hundred million dollar difference, a far cry from what other mountain communities are doing for pennies on the dollar in a fraction of the time. 

We’re on the verge of beginning construction on 277 housing units that will cost north of $1.5 million apiece that we don’t have the money to pay for. “But we’re Aspen.”

Hubris will be Aspen’s undoing. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #259: The Lumberyard: Where Fiscal Responsibility Goes to Die (9/25/23)

"If the only way for you to get people to do your bidding is through force or intimidation, you are neither a leader nor a boss; you are an a**hole."

 -- Charbel Tadros

When you ask people who want to live at The Lumberyard what they desire for themselves, and when you refuse to collect data on what the community and the economy actually needs, you get a project solely based on "wants."

The "wanters" could not care less what it takes to make the project happen, even if this means raising taxes and building it over the course of decades.

This ill-conceived development is flawed at every level and will only serve to make our labor issues worse because it is designed to house people who will add to our service industry demands, not work the jobs we so desperately need filled.

Add The Lumberyard to the "I told ya so" file. And read my column in today's Aspen Times HERE. (Yes, another snafu at the office has me on Monday this week.)

* * * * * 

In a 4-1 vote last Tuesday, city council surprised no one by demonstrating their profound lack of financial acumen and responsibility, disregard for common sense and disdain for over 150 members of this community who urged restraint. Today, their bloodthirst for more housing at any cost moves one step closer to fruition with the memorialization of development entitlements for The Lumberyard. Driven by feedback from those who want to live affordably in Aspen who are not necessarily the workers our economy seeks (“We want mudrooms!” “We want underground parking!” “We want balconies!” “We want elevators!”), council presses forward, budgets and funding sources, traffic impacts and growth be damned.  

The multi-session process was agonizing. In the end, in an attempt to shame fellow councilman Bill Guth who voted to oppose, Mayor Torre condescendingly summed it up with his erudite wisdom, “I don’t think you can continue to say you are supportive of affordable housing and then not support it when it comes to a project like this.” Right, Torre.  To paraphrase former president Barack Obama, the 1980s called and they want their housing policy back.

Are you currently in subsidized housing? Guess what, you’re entirely on your own now. You’ve been hoping the city would come to your rescue with a plan to help you repair and maintain your deteriorating units. (That’s you, Centennial.)  Now, all housing revenues for the foreseeable future are going to The Lumberyard. We’re talking decades. You re-elected Torre, but he was never going to fix anything. Not when he could build shiny new housing for 600 more people who’ll live here full time and compete with you for the same 12 bar stools at Mi Chola.

Then there’s the city’s affordable housing manager, who, without presenting numbers, assures us that the city has the funding sources to pay for The Lumberyard. Apparently the declining RETT, city sales tax and new STR tax are somehow magically going to generate $500 million. And what a relief to hear from city manager Sara Ott that project budgets and plans actually do exist, but they’re classified so she’s keeping them secret.

Are you a commuter or a visitor? City council has never cared about traffic outside the roundabout or the entrance to Aspen. If you didn’t believe it before, the unfortunate addition of yet another stoplight on Highway 82 ought to make it clear that gridlock is just the price you’re going to have to pay. In council’s minds, if you don’t like it, you can take the bus.

Is your local business an ACRA member? Did you know that ACRA is a vocal supporter of The Lumberyard? The chamber made its unwavering support for The Lumberyard known despite no assurances that your workforce housing needs will even be addressed there. Given that ACRA relies on the city’s tourism promotion tax as a major source of its funding, it should come as no surprise that your membership dues are promoting the unchecked potential for increased taxes on you, your business and your customers. In addition to being able to offer your employees a discounted ski pass, you’re getting political activism as an added bonus.

Are you a community member who weighed in asking council to make its budget and financing plans so clear even a five year old could understand them? Council couldn’t care less. Bill Guth was the only one to even acknowledge it.  Are you a developer who stressed retaining maximum flexibility in design and size in order to attract private partners? Council didn’t want to hear obvious development truths: the larger you build the units, the harder it is to pay for them and the more difficult it will be for a private sector partner to make the deal work. 

Best were comments from former electeds. Rachel Richards decried any attempt to prioritize housing workers actually needed by local businesses, referring to them as “disposable transients” since they might only be seasonal instead of forever community members seeking a lifetime on the Aspen dole. Skippy Mesirow implored council to hurry up, regardless of cost or financing, because “the community is dying.” Even Mick emerged to warn against tying workforce housing to working a specific job, however important, ignoring the schools, the hospital and the city itself whose proprietary housing does exactly that. 

Thanks to the astute parliamentary maneuvering of councilman Bill Guth, far greater flexibility was inserted into the areas of unit size and income category mix so there remains the whisper of a chance some developer might look at partnering in a deal. It will still be difficult, but Guth masterfully created a little wiggle room where there had been none.

Ward Hauenstein’s, John Doyle’s and Torre’s eyes predictably glazed over each time the words “pro forma” were invoked. The outrageous idea of proposing a project that delivers a stipulated amount of housing for the community with no risk and at the same time an appropriate return on investment to a developer was simply more than they could fathom.

Councilman Sam Rose naively celebrated the outcome, stating “This is just the beginning.” Good grief. What could possibly go wrong?

This was the most irresponsible council decision I’ve witnessed in 15 years of covering their antics. The “I told ya so” file grows larger by the day.  Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net

ISSUE #258: Oops, We're About to Do It Again (9/10/23)

"You never make the same mistake twice.The second time you make it, it is no longer a mistake. 

It is a choice."

-- Lauren Conrad

No surprise, but today's installment is about The Lumberyard, again. This Tuesday's city council meeting could potentially bless the development entitlements for this ill-conceived project, "horizontal construction" will begin, and we're off to the races.

Central to the issue is that NO PROJECT BUDGET NOR FINANCING PLANS HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY PRESENTED NOR EVALUATED. My guess is they do not exist.

It's far too soon to approve ANYTHING without this information!

Today's column in The Aspen Times reminds us of the Burlingame fiasco of 2006-2008 that we are uniquely set to repeat at The Lumberyard. Read it HERE.

Councilman Bill Guth cannot do it alone. He has continually asked for financial information, models, sourcing plans and other responsible disclosures. City staff continues to obfuscate and his fellow councilmen appear not to care.

Earlier this year, I asked you to write to city council to express your opinions on The Lumberyard financials (specifically the lack thereof). Nearly 100 comments were received and this effort slowed the process with promises of a dedicated council work session on the topic. That never happened. (It couldn't - there is nothing to share.)

I am asking (imploring?) you to do it again, especially if you agree with me. Please click HERE and voice your displeasure about the lack of transparency, the irresponsible governance, the ignorance and the arrogance of approving development entitlements (or anything!) without a full and public disclosure of the project's budget and financials. Write "September 12" on the subject line and CC or BCC me, if you'd like!

A special note to my friends in the development business: 

Please write to council HERE and explain how a real Public-Private Partnership works, and how this should absolutely be explored before moving ahead with the existing plans. It's clear that no one at the city understands how a PPP could benefit the community AND significantly reduce the risk.

* * * * *

It’s Groundhog Day! As city staff works to cajole three councilmembers to approve development entitlements to The Lumberyard subsidized housing project on Tuesday evening despite no stated means of paying for it, we’re about to re-enact an outrageous scandal that played out over 15 years ago at Burlingame.

First, a little history. In 2006, a reporter asked the city’s then-finance director to make public the financials for the then-planned Burlingame housing project. Said finance director, theretofore kept in the dark about said financials, pressed the then-asset manager to produce the numbers, which he reluctantly did - on the back of a McDonald’s napkin.

Those numbers, later featured in a city brochure for a crucial ballot measure, were found to grossly understate both the Burlingame project cost as well as its public subsidy, ultimately revealing that no comprehensive project budget had ever existed. (The stated $14.7 million subsidy turned out to be well in excess of $85 million.) Needless to say, public trust was decimated and has yet to recover.

As a result of this scandal, the city empaneled a Citizens Budget Task Force (CBTF), which, over the course of 10 months in 2008, was granted unprecedented access to the city’s financial data and information. The CBTF made numerous recommendations, many specifically for improving the city’s housing development process. The resulting resolution passed unanimously, but most recommendations were never implemented.

Today the city is back, pushing to memorialize development plans, this time for The Lumberyard. What we do know is that 277 units comprised of 467 bedrooms and parking for 435 cars are planned for the 11-acre site, for which the city spent $30 million on the land and another $5 million on design.  The project, at Aspen’s entrance across from the airport, looks more like a prison than a housing development, but I digress.

What we don’t know are any financial details, just that cost estimates range from $500 million to $750 million; that’s $1.8 million to $2.7 million per unit. The public has not been presented with any information on how the city intends to finance and pay for this, the largest municipal project in Aspen’s history. 

Numerous requests for vaguely-referenced “financial models” have been denied. Councilman Bill Guth routinely presses staff for this crucial information but the others on council do not. City manager Sara Ott is apparently so confident she has the “yes” votes to proceed there is again no comprehensive project budget to share publicly.

Reflecting on the CBTF, which reported on “the city’s lack of financial, budgetary and project management policies and procedures to properly manage large, multi-year capital projects,” today we find ourselves ignoring perhaps the committee’s most applicable recommendation: 

"Only seek to borrow funds for major capital projects through bond issues or other debt instruments once a detailed project plan is in place and has been communicated to the public. Such a detailed plan should include estimates of all cost components with documented underlying assumptions for all variables influencing cost.” In other words, be transparent about all the financing details!

The city intends to use public funds to hire a developer to build out its $5 million design. That’s not a public-private partnership (PPP). A real PPP brings a public entity like the city together with a private sector developer who has broad access to capital and is well-versed in  construction, leasing, market realities, and has a track record of performance and long term asset management; everything the city lacks.  Simply put, a PPP for The Lumberyard could deliver the same number of units more cost effectively and more expeditiously, while off-loading the community’s financial risk onto the development partner. Why aren’t we even considering a PPP?

If we entitle The Lumberyard now, horizonal construction (roads, infrastructure) will commence. Such construction will preclude a PPP, since a development partner would specifically design and fund a project according to a financial proforma that delivers both the units and a return on its investment, likely not what our wannabe-architects on city council have designed at $1.8+ million per unit.

It is utterly laughable that city staff posits that entitlements are necessary today. They’re not. The city is both applicant and approver; judge and jury. This is nothing but a trap. These entitlements will effectively eliminate PPP opportunities and “force” the city to self-finance, placing all financial risk and responsibility on our community, and keep it on the hook for the operations and maintenance of The Lumberyard into perpetuity. Isn’t APCHA’s track record alone enough to illustrate what an horribly irresponsible decision this is?

Notably, councilman Ward Hauenstein was on the housing committee of the CBTF. He wrote these very recommendations, yet apparently he and others on city staff have conveniently forgotten them. The work of 24 dedicated citizens to improve the housing development process after an embarrassing scandal should not be ignored. History has a knack for repeating itself.

We are facing exactly the same issues and the same obfuscation we did in 2006-2008. The approved CBTF recommendations should have been proactively implemented 15 years ago. Instead, it’s Groundhog Day, just with another zero at the end of every number.

Write to publiccomment@ aspen.gov TODAY and implore city council to be transparent about The Lumberyard financials before approving anything. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net