ISSUE # 94: ScANT Enthusiasm

"I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership.  And when we get lazy as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government."  

                              -- Barack Obama

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT

June 4 marks the mayoral run-off election between Torre and Steve Skadron.  I can't remember a less inspiring race for political office in Aspen.  And how sad that it's down to just these two.

But, as tempting as it is to ignore the run-off and abstain, I will vote because it's the right thing to do.  In fact, I see voting as, among other things, an act that upholds my right to complain about the outcome.  When just 2289 fellow citizens bothered to participate in the May 7 election that brought us to this point, it's really hard not to wonder why those other 4124 registered voter-neighbors just blew it off.  The result of their apathy?  Torre vs Skadron for Mayor.

HERE is the list of those who voted on May 7.  It's public information.  These are your friends and neighbors who exercised their right.  They are the people who have determined the direction (for better or worse) of Aspen's governance. They participated. Those whose names are not on the list did not.  Is YOUR name on the list?  If not, you are allowing others to determine the fate of our town.  You know better.  
 

I will vote for Steve Skadron for mayor.  Of the two, I believe that Skadron is the "least worst."  Besides, a vote for Skadron rids us of Torre.  Yes, Skadron's council seat will be filled by appointment -- determined by Skadron (as mayor), Adam Frisch, and new councilmen Ann Mullins and Art Daily.  I am not worried anymore about the possibility of Mick being appointed.  There is no way Skadron will allow that tyrant to rain on his parade in a long-feared Putin-Medvedev scenario.  I actually don't think Mick will even apply for the vacancy. There is a palpable community-wide sigh of relief that Mick is soon to be history.  And Mick knows this.  Aspen is indeed SICK OF MICK.  At this stage, a new face will be a welcome sight.  Bring it on!

Furthermore, of the two, Skadron is the better listener.  He has at least read and contemplated several things I have sent to council over the years.  That's not saying a lot, I know. And no, I do not particularly see him as any sort of political ally per se, but I do think that he will engage.  He is often visibly confused by complex subjects, but he CAN be reasoned with. While quite surprising, the additional fact that Skadron has a master's degree in finance and is a small business owner gives him the leg up in my book.  Torre, on the other hand, is more stubborn, ideological and entrenched in his own already-formed opinions. The one-named professional tennis teacher and erstwhile local tv personality is a friendly soul, but we're talking about being mayor of Aspen.   There's A LOT more to the job than riding in parades, kissing babies and glad-handing.

So, please get out there and vote, again.  Flip a coin if you must.  But vote.  Then you have the right to complain!!  And I have a feeling that the new council is going to give us plenty to complain about!

Questions about the June 4 election?  Ballots, early voting, precincts, etc. Contact the city clerk's office: 970-429-2687.

IN OTHER NEWS

The campaign always forces The Red Ant to back-burner other news of the day. To catch you up, the following "lightning round" will briefly summarize recent goings-on with relevant topics:

Caribbean Rotations:   Retirees who live in APCHA units will soon be able to leave their units ostensibly for warmer climes for up to 6 months of every year, if they rent to qualified employees.  Previously, subsidized housing residents could only do such a thing if they applied for a 1-time leave of absence. (Working residents are required to occupy their subsidized housing units 9 months of the year.) The idea is to free up short term rental space.  BUT, the law of unintended consequences is kicking down the door.  Retirees and their renters have to work the deals out themselves; APCHA won't get in the middle, but will allegedly monitor the program and determine the rent amount. (Joke.) There are also no stipulations as to which 6 months; participants can simply leave in the spring and fall off-seasons when few renters are looking, and then what? Watch and see: the next generation of scamming the system has been blessed by the bureaucrats.  Instead of housing local workers (the intent of the housing program), we are now housing hundreds of retirees. And that number continues to grow. When we should be encouraging or incentivizing these retirees who no longer want to be here full time to sell their units to actual workers, we're making additional concessions to these folks and enabling them to keep their units and travel half the year on the rental proceeds! APCHA has never been able to oversee yet alone manage the inventory in its portfolio.  Abuse is rampant.  And the program's requalification affidavit method lacks any teeth to ensure compliance. But the local governments simply do not want an aggressive enforcement policy. They just want more and more and more subsidized housing built. This ridiculous new program makes mockery of the intent of the program, and serves only to perpetuate the need for additional housing units.

Hydro Slammed: The city and its beleaguered hydro plant (CCEC) took a beat-down recently from Old Snowmass resident and internationally esteemed energy expert Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute. The 33-page critique submitted to council unabashedly rips the project, its premise, the decision-making process and the city's sketchy and ever-changing project financials. Read it HERE. This was symphony music to The Red Ant's ears. After all, I have been beating this drum since June 2010! Among other scathing remarks, Lovins notably says:

• "The city's economic analysis of CCEC is flawed and unreliable."
• "CCEC has higher costs and risks than available, ample and suitable alternatives, even neglecting its sunk costs and counting its to-go costs."
• "CCEC's total cost may make it the costliest hydro plant ever built."
• CCEC got into trouble because of: "Inadequate consideration of available alternatives and strategic risk management caused bad decisions; input from council's technical advisors was either ill-informed or misinterpreted; and input from the public, which in this region includes world class independent experts, was improperly solicited and inadequately considered."

Of note, Skadron and new councilman Art Daily still support the hydro plant despite the vote and the proven idiocy of the project. And new councilwoman Ann Mullins thinks that last November's vote (against the plant) was so close that council should make the final determination. (Makes one wonder how she views the outcome of football games that end with a field goal as the clock runs out!) Since the November vote was merely "advisory" (thanks to Mick), all it would take is a vote of 3 at the council table to kick the project right back into gear. Meanwhile, the city is still in the process of pursuing its license from the feds. It's not over til it's over.

Marilyn's 2009 Ballots: In the 11th hour, the city of Aspen FINALLY released 2415 ballot images from the 2009 municipal election. HERE they are. Remember, these are the ballot images that the city would not share after promising the public that they too could run the vote count on their home computers to verify the controversial IRV ranked choice voting methodology employed for that election. When the city closed ranks following the election, Marilyn Marks sued to see these same images that had been shown on Grassroots tv throughout the vote counting procedures. (Trust, but verify.) The case was dismissed in district court but overturned unanimously on appeal. Interestingly, 129 ballot images were withheld from the recent ballot image release because the city determined that the voters' identities could be somehow determined on these ballots. Well, that alone is illegal. Identifying marks could possibly signal a vote-buying scheme, for example. Why were those ballots counted in the first place? And they were. Marilyn now has the ballot images she sought, but daunting questions remain. And don't forget, the court also awarded Marilyn legal fees for this inane goose chase. Early estimates put that number at over $300K. We're sure to see a big fight over that payment, but the bigger question remains to this day: What is the city hiding that was worth spending (wasting) over $300K of taxpayer dollars to conceal?

AVH Approved: Well, it's official. Aspen Valley Hospital's 3rd and 4th Phases will move forward once the institution has private money on hand to finance them. The most notable comment came when mayor Mick was wrangling for some sort of personal deal in order to vote in favor. Just what did he want? Mayor Mick had the audacity to ask the hospital board and representatives to REQUIRE that all doctors who office at the new AVH campus accept Medicaid patients like himself. Well, that's illegal, so it can't and won't happen. But I had to laugh -- with the approval a fait accompli, Mick still wanted a pound of flesh in the form of even more freebies. Typical. But finally, someone had good reason to tell him no. Let's all hope that AVH's fundraising campaign keeps up its early momentum so the project gets completed as soon as possible. (And properly landscaped to disguise its immense size.)

War on Free Market Rentals: Blatantly ignoring the compliance rules for those who live in publicly subsidized housing, the city of Aspen has a different approach for locals who offer their private homes for vacation rentals. As of 2012, homeowners who rent out their homes must get a business license from the city and pay sales and lodging taxes on the money they collect from renters. This amounts to approximately 11%. In the year since this new rule took effect, only 10 new business licenses have been issued and the city believes it is missing out on over $100K in lost revenue as a result. Now they've hired a compliance firm that will comb the internet for Aspen rental properties and cross-check these units with city tax records. Scofflaws beware. Can you say "double standard"??

Haters Celebrate: When the recent election results were announced, local haters (and newspaper columnists) Doug Allen and Su Lum rejoiced in their candidates' victories but celebrated even more the fact that The Red Ant's candidates were defeated. Allen tittered about the results, "There's no doubt of who controls Aspen." And he quoted Glinda the Good Witch who famously said, "You have no power here! Be gone, before somebody drops a house on you!" Allen, who is the Aspen Daily News' replacement for our old pal, political windbag and former councilman Jack Johnson, is quite full of himself. A loyal mouthpiece for mayor Mick, Allen's anger and venom will likely become more erratic than ever without direction once Mick is out of office. And the Times' Su Lum, long rumored to be Jack Johnson's mother, similarly mocked "The Red Ant contingent" for its losses. Let these simpletons have their fun. It's true. We lost. But they were frightened. And their lack of class enables them to behave this way. We're not the entrenched political class in Aspen; we have a lot to learn. But we're getting better all the time. And to quote another movie classic, "We'll be back."

THERE ONCE WAS A.....
The Red Ant's nemesis mayor Mick will be leaving office on Monday, June 10, when the new council is sworn in.  To celebrate this momentous occasion in Aspen's political history, please contribute to a special edition of The Red Ant.

This is an open call for limericks that "celebrate" Mick.  How better to honor a guy named Mick Ireland than with a collection of limericks submitted by his constituency!

The rules:

• The Red Ant is a family publication - keep it clean (however innuendo is welcome and encouraged)
• I will assume you want your limerick un-attributed, but will include your name upon specific request
• Email your submission(s) to: TheRedAntEM@comcast.net
• Submit as many limericks as you would like!
• Have fun!
• Deadline June 7

ISSUE # 93: ANT Alert: Election Recap

"Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out." 

                                  --  John Wooden

THE 2013 RESULTS
It wasn't pretty.  Not in the least.  Painful even.  But the people have spoken.
 

There were 2221 (Wednesday morning unofficial tally) votes in the mayoral contest:

 Steve Skadron          516                  23.2%
 Torre                       463                 20.8%
 Maurice Emmer         396                 17.8%
 Adam Frisch              369                 16.8%
 Derek Johnson          346                 15.5%
 LJ Erspamer              131                  5.8%

Since no one candidate broke the 50% threshold, we are faced with a mayoral run-off between Steve and Torre on June 4.  I will (of course) be weighing in with recommendations, but in the meantime, must noodle how on earth I will support one of these guys.  I suppose it will be a recommendation to vote for the "least worst" of the two.  Swell.  So you've got THAT to look forward to.

There will not be a run-off in the council race.  Art and Ann won decisively, each garnering more than the 45% of votes necessary for election.

 Art Daily                   1435
 Ann Mullins                1287
 Dwayne Romero         1094
 Jonny Carlson             108

 WEDNESDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK
 Here are my thoughts on how we got skunked in this election.  And boy did we! 

The mayoral race came off the rails before voting even began.  For the first time in recent memory, all 4 sitting councilmen threw their hats into the ring. On one hand, each thought HE could do a better job than mayor Mick (who was prevented from running due to term limits), and I won't argue that.  But each also completely forgot about political alliances, voting strategy and the quirky behaviors of Aspen voters when it comes to casting their ballots.  With the additions of strong competition from hydro plant opponent Maurice Emmer and planning and zoning chair LJ Erspamer, the votes were sure to be scattered far and wide.  And were they!!

Councilman Adam Frisch, who lost his mayoral bid but retains his seat on council to finish out his 4-year term, according to the Aspen Daily News "compared Aspen's electorate to a pie, with about half leaning toward more pro-business policies and half being in favor of growth restrictions.  When one half of the pie is split between two people and the other is split between three, 'the two people get to eat more.'" And THAT is EXACTLY how it played out.   

This year, we had the unprecedented presence of a group of civic and business leaders (who shall remain nameless) in the mix: the self-appointed "council of elders" as I called them.  Sadly, these community heavyweights were unable to convince any one of the more pro-business candidates to stand down for the sake of the community so as to obtain that elusive 3-2 majority we have all long sought at the council table.  They spoke to both Derek and Adam, whose egos did not allow them to run again for a council seat (Derek) or sit tight in his own seat (Adam).  The concept wasn't personal; it was about not splitting the vote.  But both councilmen were stubbornly committed to pressing on.  So, we got exactly what we deserved:  a mayoral contest between Steve and Torre.  

Had Derek or Adam stepped aside, we'd be headed to the play-offs.  Just look at the numbers above. And weep.

It was perhaps the most anemic campaign in Aspen's storied political history. Yes, the entire community was indeed SICK OF MICK, but the majority came out in favor of his political heir, Steve.  And the local fish wrappers both sickeningly endorsed Torre, the one-named tennis professional, for mayor.  Even their endorsements were pallid; it seemed as though there is a pathetic local sentiment that it is somehow "Torre's turn" after running for mayor and losing 3 times in the past.  Or maybe they just want to get his 2-year term out of the way -- the guy will clearly fun for mayor until he wins or dies.  (Can't make this stuff up.)

But do note: in a numerical analysis, consider that 979 voters supported the "pro-Mick" candidates (Steve and Torre) vs 1111 for the "anti-Micksters."  That's 47%  vs 53%.  The 131 votes that went to LJ are not included in these numbers because they cannot be well predicted in terms of where they'd go -- they'd likely be split among the other 5.  SO, as opposed to this election being a "pro-Mick" anti-growth mandate, it's just the opposite.  Food for thought.  But you'll likely only read that here.

In the council race, I am astounded.  Simply astounded.  I would have bet dollars to donuts on Dwayne taking that race.  But I suppose his pro-business stance and smarts hurt him with our entitled electorate.  That's all I can come up with.  Art and Ann, both lovely people I'm sure, will serve with consideration and seriousness.  But Ann is an avowed Mick-olyte and Art, for all of his "longtime local" reputation, isn't far off.  ("The elders" really dropped the ball here; they recruited a "good guy" but never asked where he stood on the critical issues.)

IN SUMMARY
It's not over yet, but 3 seats at the table are already looking pro-government, unfriendly to business and anti- any kind of development:  Art, Ann and either Skadron or Torre.  If Torre wins, Skadron keeps his seat on council for 2 more years.  In my math, that's 4 at the table.  UGH.  If Skadron wins, we are rid of Torre, but that empty seat will be filled via an appointment by Ann, Art, Steve and Adam.  Doesn't bode well for even a 2-3 vote.  And there's that lingering fear of Mick being appointed... Horrors!

More in a couple weeks when I sort out what to do next.  I am still in shock!

ISSUE # 92: ANT Alert: Vote!

"Look well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust." 

--  Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Norwalk, 1803

THE ELECTION IS THIS TUESDAY, MAY 7

There once was a mayor named Mick

He's leaving, but his policies could stick

Now get out and VOTE

(Thus this little note)

And for a change elect someone WE pick!

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Red Ant suggests that you cast your ballot for:

• MAYOR: Maurice Emmer
• COUNCIL: Dwayne Romero ("bullet vote" for Dwayne; use just 1 of your 2 votes)

For more information on this voting strategy and the candidates, please visit The Red Ant's Endorsement Issue by clicking HERE. 

Please forward this issue of The Red Ant to your friends, especially those who vote in Aspen. Early voting began in the clerk's office on Monday, April 22, and to-date, approximately 950 ballots have been received.  This is a bit higher turn-out than early voting in the past (average 825).  A typical Aspen municipal election garners about 2150 ballots.  In 2009 (Mick vs Marilyn) brought out 2544 voters, while in 2011 (Mick vs Ruth), just 1794 voted.  So, in short, there are a lot more ballots expected in the next 4 days.  Make sure yours is one of them!

There are ENORMOUS political ramifications to the outcome of this election. Both local papers endorsed Torre (yes, Torre) for mayor, and if that doesn't light a fire under your seat to run to the polls, nothing will.  Furthermore, (at least) 3 columnists have made no bones about making this election out to be a divisive "us vs them" contest.  The vicious drivel from these so-called journalists is appalling and hopefully NOT a reflection of the overall sentiment in town.  Check them out:

• Su Lum:  "The ones least likely to stem the tide (of what, she doesn't say) are Maurice Emmer and Dwayne Romero."  Read it HERE
• Lorenzo Semple:  "There are generally two political parties in Aspen these days, the home team and the away team.... That being said, go home team.  protect this house!"  Read it HERE
• Doug Allen:  "I usually write for the masses, but this column is for those Aspenites who comprise what I call the voting majority.... If you're someone who is even considering voting for Maurice Emmer, Derek Johnson, Adam Frisch or Dwayne Romero, this column isn't for you."  Read it HERE 

YOUR VOTE COUNTS IN ASPEN.  I cannot stress this enough.  This will be a close race and every ballot matters.  PLEASE VOTE ON TUESDAY AND ENCOURAGE YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME!

For voting details and questions, please contact the city clerk's office at 970-429-2687.

ISSUE #91: The Election PageANT Is On!

"The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal -- that you can gather votes like box tops -- is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process."     -- Adlai E. Stevenson

THE RED ANT ENDORSEMENTS

For those who simply want to know how to vote, please cast your ballot for:

• Mayor: Maurice Emmer
• Council: Dwayne Romero ("bullet vote" for Dwayne; use just 1 of your 2 votes)

Please forward this issue of The Red Ant to your friends, especially those who vote in Aspen. Early voting begins in the clerk's office on Monday, April 22, and absentee/mail-in ballots are likely already in your mailbox.

THE STRATEGY

Voting strategically is the best way to ensure that city hall begins responding to the people, not the internal bureaucracy (driven by Mick Ireland for years) with the willing support of the incumbent council members. With 6 mayoral candidates and 4 council candidates on this year's ballot, those who want real change and a new direction at the council table should only use two of three votes. Here's why:

For mayor: The mayor must be elected with 50% +1 of the votes cast. This is unlikely to happen in the first round. Therefore, the two top vote-getters will advance to a June 4 run-off.

To ensure a minimum of TWO grown-up voices at the council table, vote for Emmer. He and Adam Frisch (who is in the middle of a 4-year council term) will then hold 2 of the 5 votes before we even discuss the open council positions. Furthermore, if Frisch is to win the mayoral race, his council seat will be filled by APPOINTMENT by the new council FOR THE REMAINDER OF FRISCH'S TERM. This is a frightening "what if" scenario that can be avoided with a vote for Emmer. And we get to keep Frisch in the deal.

For council: There are two open council seats, however, "bullet voting" for Dwayne Romero (only voting for him) betters Dwayne's chances of being elected with 45% +1 of the votes in the first round. As a former councilman, Dwayne is by far the most rational voice for change and a responsible government. Don't hurt Dwayne's chances by voting for another competitor as well.

THE "NUMBERS" (HOW THE SAUSAGE GETS MADE)

This gets down in the weeds, but for those interested, here is an interesting way to look at the council race. With two seats open (those vacated by Torre and Derek Johnson), a candidate can avoid the run-off if his/her adjusted vote total exceeds 45%. This can easily be determined by doubling the actual number of votes received to determine the percentage of the total. For example, with 5 people running and 100 total votes, and a vote distribution of 30, 22, 20, 18 and 10, #1 wins a seat (60%) and there is a run-off between #2 (44%) and #3 (40%). Now, consider the same race with 30, 23, 20, 18 and 9. #1 (60%) and #2 (46%) win seats and there is no run-off. This occurs because #2 also crossed the 45% threshold.

So, in short, if you have a favorite, "must-elect" candidate (in this case, Dwayne) in a multi-person race, it is VERY IMPORTANT to vote for that person -- and that person only -- to ensure they avoid a run-off by getting the maximum number of votes in the first round.  The Red Ant calls this "bullet-voting."

MY THINKING

The Red Ant is relieved. No matter the outcome in either race, we will be in a FAR better place than where we've been. Mick will be gone. And regardless of the potential presence(s) of Mick's protégés and endorsees, city council will take on a new tenor; one of respect and integrity. Each of the candidates is a "good guy/gal" (a trait immensely important to the Aspen electorate, often at the expense of position on the issues) and each will contribute positively and civilly to the discourse, regardless of political stance. For our community, this is already a win.

But I want a bigger win. In the end, The Red Ant is specifically looking for a 3-2 majority of "grown-ups" who will make fiscally responsible, legal and transparent decisions for the community. A 3-2 majority. This allows for a variety of viewpoints and experience, but requires intelligence, intellectual curiosity and maturity. A 3-2 majority is a BIG WIN for The Red Ant and an even bigger win for Aspen.

The crux of my thinking stems in general from my personal experiences with the current council and specifically the dismal economic sustainability report conducted and presented by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association in April 2013. Read it HERE. In short, it specifies that little has been done to address challenges identified in 2002, concluding that Aspen's economy is "bleak," as indicated by notable job market stagnation and declining wages. And, looking at data over 20 years demonstrates a slow, steady erosion of economic vitality. It is time to begin the post-Mick era with thoughts and actions directed toward our future, our competitiveness and our economic survival. We have fallen behind, and it is the local government and its business-averse practices that have contributed greatly to this. NOW is the time for real change.

I have very specific reasons for endorsing / not endorsing the candidates. Here are my thoughts:

Maurice Emmer: I am endorsing Maurice for mayor for many reasons, but primarily because he gets it. He's a grown-up. This retired attorney and former CPA sees, grasps and has workable ideas to responsibly address the issues we face with a deteriorating subsidized housing portfolio that does not benefit from the city's continual building of more and more units ad infinitum. He recognizes that the city makes it VERY DIFFICULT and often impossible for new businesses, and this costs us jobs. He can and will untangle and simplify that web. He will get our government back in its lane, following our own charter and freeing the many citizen boards to do their work and directly affect policy. He sees our huge city budget and questions the excessive and wasteful spending (on geo-thermal drilling experiments, Burlingame 2 and frivolous lawsuits, etc. to name just a few) simply because we have the cash. Prioritization of spending is a big priority. He is intent on maintaining Aspen's vibrancy, and recognizes the need to update our resort amenities while upholding our unique architectural character. Maurice is not new to Aspen politics. He bravely led the effort to collect 953 voter signatures that put the Hydro Plant to a vote in 2012. He then led the campaign to defeat the city's "green at any cost" boondoggle. His success in shuttering the Hydro Plant was because he nimbly brought together local fiscal hawks and the environmental community. This relatively new political voice is already a proven leader. Maurice does what he says he will do and does it well, building coalitions along the way. If you want change at city hall, Maurice will bring that change. This is the leadership Aspen desperately needs. Vote for Maurice.  www.emmer4mayor2013.org

Adam Frisch: I endorsed and supported Adam for council when he was elected in 2011, going so far as to ask my readership to "bullet vote" for him to ensure his election. It worked. His first two years have frequently been frustrating to his supporters, but more due to Mick's iron fist and a lack of proper mentoring than anything else. Adam HAS leaned forward, in opposition to emergency ordinances that don't meet the definition, the legally problematic plastic bag tax and the proliferation of secret "executive sessions." Adam has a bright future in Aspen politics, especially with two more years on council, presumably serving with others who don't/won't get bullied by the likes of Mick, lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick, and corrupt and compromised city attorney Jim True/False. And I will support him. But Adam's strength in this particular race is in maintaining his council seat and collaborating with newly elected representatives who share his pro-business and common sense stance. With Maurice as mayor and Adam on council, we've got 2 of 5. www.adamforaspen.com

Steve Skadron: Mick's heir apparent and recipient of the outgoing mayor's endorsement, Steve's politics most closely mirror his mentor's: an ingrained aversion to development of any kind (aside from subsidized housing) because this "destroys" Aspen's character, a "green at any cost" environmental position to reach a 100% renewable energy portfolio, a more-is-more outlook on subsidized housing (in the name of "ensuring diversity") and the view that because the city's budget is "healthy and balanced," the way we spend $106 million annually is not a concern but reflective of the "community's values." Scary. Steve supports the build-out of Burlingame phase 2, ignoring the known facts that only 19 of the 57 people signed up for the to-be-built units are not already residents of subsidized housing elsewhere. In other words, he is ok building bigger and nicer units for folks who are already in the system vs looking at the true need for more public housing. Steve has shockingly gone on the record citing the benefits of the hydro plant ("well-conceived project, sensitive to the environment and a financially sustainable model") and has defended it all along despite its ridiculous cost over-runs and serious environmental issues. (He has indicated that he would be in favor of re-starting the project - this would be possible by a mere 3-2 vote of council - despite the will of the voters last November, but has dialed this conviction back a wee bit during the campaign.)

Steve has served two terms on council, rather uneventfully, but could always be counted on to vote with Mick. His notable departure from toeing Mick's line was his lone vote in opposition to the Aspen Art Museum. Often visibly confused at the council table, Steve's strengths are certainly not complex issues and financial reports. And most recently, he embarrassed himself by admitting his own confusion and accusing the Aspen Valley Hospital leadership and development team of "sneaking" things into the AVH expansion project because HE couldn't recall the original proposal or how big it would be. Like Adam Frisch, Steve is in the middle of a 4 year council term, so regardless of the outcome of the mayoral contest, Steve too will remain at the council table. And, similarly, a mayoral win by Steve creates the same "appointment" scenario to fill his vacated seat.   (There is widespread speculation that a quid pro quo exists between Steve and Mick: in exchange for Mick's endorsement and support, upon winning the mayor's race Steve will press for Mick to be appointed to fill his seat on council. This alone is reason NOT to vote for Steve.) Furthermore, while far more kind, patient and polite than Mick, Steve does not have the intellectual curiosity to lead council, direct staff and drive a complex and fiscally responsible agenda that benefits Aspen in 2013 and beyond.  www.skadronformayor.com

L.J.:  This dedicated local vounteer who calls himself a "community organizer," currently chairs the Planning & Zoning commission, but says he would support the hydro plant (despite the outcome at the polls) if the project were to be properly phased and if it is deemed to be financially feasible.  And, acknowledging that our housing program needs oversight, he believes the folks at APHCA are simply too busy to do it.  He does not think the city should mandate reserve accounts for the APCHA homeowners associations because the government should not get involved in "private ownership."  Strange, because L.J. debated the INVOLUNTARY designation of private post-WWII properties on the Historic Preservation Task Force for 19 months, but when this disastrous idea came to a vote in  2011, he couldn't/wouldn't take a side and instead voted "present."   In the "energy" usage realm, L.J. spoke at the ACES forum about his desire to have what he considers to be "monster homes" to have "master switches" that the government can presumably control to curb energy usage.  Again, class warfare has no role in the post-Mick era of Aspen government.  L.J.'s community service has been commendable, but his divisive stance on the critical issues of the day are not good for Aspen.  www.ljformayor.com

Torre: Madonna. Cher. Sting. Torre. Really? I don't think so. While this professional tennis teacher's campaign platform rails against "the undue influence of precipitous wealth" and how Aspen is a victim of its own success, he is quick to call for a raise in the mill levy (property taxes) of said "precipitous wealth"-holders when presented with unfunded community requests that could and should easily be addressed through a critical look at the city's $106 million budget. But Torre says it's just "too hard to chip away" at that budget; higher taxes are the answer.   Enough already.  Mick's class warfare must end now.  www.electtorre2013.com

Derek: I endorsed and supported Derek Johnson for council when he was elected in 2009. Big mistake. Big, big mistake. Not only has he been regularly unprepared and unimpressive (he's brought exactly ZERO legislation or even ideas for legislation forward) in the 4 years he has been at the council table, he sealed his fate with me immediately upon his election. Proud of his refusal to state an opinion on ANY issue while campaigning, he smugly told me, "See, I got elected without taking any sides." But it gets worse. Upon winning, he told Marilyn and me (at the time writing The Red Ant together), "Thanks for the help. Now don't ever contact me again." And to this day, he has never responded to a single email inquiry until the questionnaire for this issue. He is simply in over his head with all aspects of elected office. Coach Johnson needs to return to the sidelines. I will NEVER vote for Derek Johnson again and urge you not to either.   www.votederekjohnson.com

Dwayne: Bring Dwayne back! This West Point grad, long-time public servant, decorated combat vet, real estate developer with a Harvard MBA who, with his wife, is raising three daughters in Aspen, is exactly what Aspen needs back at the council table. Dwayne served on council from 2007-2011, when he then accepted an appointment by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper to serve as the head of the state's economic development commission. He is currently the president of Related Colorado, which owns a large portfolio of commercial and lodging properties in Snowmass Village. His leadership roles in the US military are numerous, surpassed only by those he holds and has held on Aspen philanthropic boards: Roaring Fork Leadership, Aspen Historical Society, Aspen Rotary Club, Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA), Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA). Dwayne, known for his approachability and willingness to listen, cites his "lessons learned" through a lifetime of service as the cornerstones of his vision and ability to bring effective and consistent leadership back to Aspen's City Council. I saw Dwayne as a bright light during his previous term on council, often voting as the sole 1-4, but in the process, making articulate arguments for the grown-ups who favored less intrusive government actions and actually standing up to Mick. This time, Dwayne vows to look critically at the changing needs of our workforce and how this impacts our housing portfolio. And, by bringing the state's "pits and peeves" program to Aspen, Dwayne is prepared to address and streamline the city's red tape and bureaucracy in order to enhance the process of "doing business" here. By his sheer presence at the council table, "trust" in city government will improve, especially though the development of clear policies and procedures, public feedback mechanisms and oversight of a professional staff. Dwayne Romero is synonymous with good governance. Vote for Dwayne.   www.romeroforaspen.com

Ann:   A well-respected landscape architect, Ann Mullins offers, according to her campaign materials, a "fresh start" and a "fair voice." She surely brings know-how and understanding of the evaluation of development proposals, and is known for her leadership as chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. But those of us who have followed the nitty-gritty of "the historic issues" in town know Ann best from her well-known stance IN FAVOR of INVOLUNTARY historical designation of post-WWII private properties. (Thankfully this hideous land-grab concept died a slow and painful death in 2011.) Notably, she too was recently endorsed by Mick Ireland for a council post, presumably because she sees the narrow 51%-49% loss by the hydro plant at the polls not enough of a consensus and favors a decision by council on the matter.  As we look to the future with a galvanized focus on change, I'm afraid that Ann represents a "same-old, same-old" ideology and "bring back the quiet years" constituency that do not accurately represent the evolving needs of our community. This well-intentioned candidate with Mick Ireland's values is not who we need on council in 2013.  www.annforaspen.com

Art: This well-known and well-respected local attorney was the first to throw his hat into the council race, and The Red Ant is a vocal advocate of new faces entering the political realm. With a strategy of minimal campaigning and guarded public responses, Art kept his viewpoints to himself and remained a political mystery for weeks. Then, he was endorsed by Mick Ireland, which, truthfully, raised my ire. Just what does Art, with his compelling personal story and general "good guy" reputation, offer that earns him Mick's endorsement? Then I received a mailer from his campaign that gave intentionally vague answers to several important public policy issues.

He writes of maintaining Aspen's "special character," and wisely advocates a "needs" study for the subsidized housing program. An ardent supporter of arts and cultural organizations, health and human services and environmental organizations, Art sees the need for Aspen to evolve and improve, but not at the cost of density and height, lest this "spoil" the Aspen we all moved here for. Sounds squishy but decent enough, huh? To me too, especially because I appreciate his reputation for thoughtfulness and alleged impeccable ethics. But back to the Mick question. What is the deal there? You gotta know there is one. It was not until I sent the candidates MY questionnaire that Art fessed up with unabashed support FOR the hydro plant. (See his questionnaire in its entirety below.) He cites "related science" and "economics" of the beleaguered project (what????) as positives and sees the re-invigoration of the hydro plant as a "green renewable energy" source for the city that will "reap long term benefits." Preposterous. But there's the quid pro quo for Mick's support! With Art, Steve Skadron and Ann Mullins (Mick's 3 endorsees) at the council table, they will vote to undo what so many locals worked tirelessly to end. Not good, not good at all. But the hydro plant is Mick's legacy. And notably, Art would not rule out a vote for Mick to fill an open council seat. And do take a look at Art's answers to the questionnaire. Has the guy been living in Aspen or Toledo for the past 40 years? The well-intentioned but uninformed candidate knows absolutely NOTHING about our housing program, housing law, the city budget, or the city charter. Just say NO. Vote for Dwayne, and no one else. 

Jonny:  The Red Ant loves to see new faces enter the political fray, and Jonny Carlson is the latest to do so.  Entering the race in the 11th hour, Carlson admits that he does "a lot of politicking around the bars," and at the time of his official paperwork filing was unsure of what a councilman does.  Unfortunately, he did not submit reponses to the questionnaire, but kindly left a message for The Red Ant stating his fondness for Aspen and his desire to "do the right thing for the people of Aspen."  HERE is the Aspen Daily News article on Carlson's candidacy.

THE RED ANT CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

The following is the questionnaire that I sent to all 10 candidates. Given a week to respond, 9 did. I attempted to ask a number of probing questions on the issues the new council will face, as well as elicit a couple of telling responses that the candidates are not likely to admit in the public forums or interviews by the local papers. With respect for brevity, I have included those responses from my endorsees Maurice and Dwayne and linked the responses from all of the other candidates, in their entirety. Please click through and read them all thoroughly.

Hello Candidates

First and foremost, thank you for running for elected office in Aspen!  As a great advocate for fair and honest elections, citizen leadership, transparent and accountable government, and fiscal responsibility, I believe your candidacy represents the opportunity for real change for the citizens of Aspen.

I have a few questions that I hope you will answer for the upcoming election issue of The Red Ant (deadline April 19).  While I cannot guarantee that your responses in their entirety will make it into the issue, I will make your entire questionnaire available to my readers upon request.  And yes, if history is any indication, people do request these.

On behalf of my 2,000 subscribers, many thanks for taking the time to respond.  And best of luck with your campaigns.

Elizabeth Milias

*********************** 

1.  The Castle Creek Energy Center (hydro plant) has been shuttered following a 49%-51% loss at the polls in November.  This was an advisory vs. binding vote.  Is there ANY circumstance in which you would vote as a member of council to continue/complete the hydro plant despite the election outcome?  Yes or no?  Please explain.

Maurice:No.  The citizens have spoken at the polls against continuing the project.  City Council should respect the public's decision and stop the project.  As mayor I would oppose any effort to continue the project.

Dwayne:  I would oppose a push to restart the project, given the current public opinion and the uniquely awkward tradeoffs that this initiative presented (healthy streams vs. renewable energy sources). Perhaps with time, greater education, and a more comprehensive examination of our options might we get to a point of consensus and some direction.

Until then, I would like for the city to further examine alternative means and methods to achieve our goal of 100% renewable energy sources. Example: the city has already secured a contract with the Ridgway Dam facility that once in place will bring our total sources of renewable energy to over 89%, up from the current 75%. 

2.  The APCHA housing inventory is comprised of 2800 rental and owned units.  There is great speculation (but no proof) of widespread non-compliance.  In order to better understand our current and future housing needs, would you support a comprehensive audit/"needs assessment" of the entire portfolio to determine who lives there, where they work and whether or not they comply?  Why or why not? 

Maurice:Yes.  I have heard anecdotal opinions that there is widespread non-compliance, and that there is not widespread non-compliance.  It is difficult to know the truth without routine and comprehensive audits.  The more challenging part is the needs assessment.  There are 2,800 existing units for a total city population of about 6,500.  That is existing capacity for about 60% of our TOTAL population, not just our working population.  One would think that is enough inventory for the foreseeable future, especially since the job market in Aspen has been stagnant for at least 12 years (see the ACRA report on the sustainability of the Aspen economy).  We should have a proper needs assessment conducted by professionals, and not influenced by a political agenda, before building any more inventory.  As mayor I will propose that such an audit and needs assessment be undertaken and seek to insure there are adequate resources for continuing, routine compliance audits.

Dwayne:  Gaining updated intelligence over the entire program, including current uses (and possible abuses) cannot be anything but helpful for all of us. It is my understanding that these types of assessments have occurred in the past, and to the extent they need to be updated and/or improved in the analysis required, then I am supportive. This type of updated information can help inform and positively shape future decisions that we face with an evolving housing program.  

3.  Recent reports of APCHA housing inventory in physical decline have been attributed to (among other things) the lack of "HOA reserves" and deferred conduct of maintenance over the years by the HOAs.  Would you support a government mandate of "reserve accounts" at every APCHA HOA?  If not, how do you envision the prevention of further decline of these vital community assets?

Maurice:Yes.  If affordable housing communities fall into sufficient disrepair their occupants will abandon them.  That will require the city to take them over and spend large sums either replacing them or rehabilitating them.  So this is a potential financial burden on the city.  The city should be proactive, requiring HOAs to have capital reserves.  The city also should provide minimum standards for upkeep and repair, and should inspect the communities periodically for compliance.  As mayor I will propose such measures.

Dwayne:  First, it is important to note that the notion of collecting capital reserves at the homeowner association level is not a new or extraordinary concept. Most associations in town (private and public) do practice good discipline and are mindful of the requirements to invest now in order to protect and preserve common assets (roofs, building exteriors, site work, utility systems, landscaping, etc.) for the future.

As to the government mandate for reserve accounts, given the fact that similar laws exist at the state level (as in the case for common assets owned in special/metropolitan districts) that require reserves to be funded, I could support a similar approach here. It would need to be equitably established - supported by competent and current life cycle reserve studies for the common assets in association ownership, and would need to be regularly assessed and regularly reported and maintained. No different than how most well-managed HOA's operate today.

 4.  The city of Aspen has a $106 million budget for 2013.  Just because we have it, should we spend it?  Where do you see waste/abuse?

Maurice: Where to begin?  Initiating and continuing the Castle Creek Hydro project without adequate study, resulting in more than a doubling of the original cost estimate.  Drilling for geothermal energy, a speculative and risky activity usually left to expert risk takers such as energy wildcatters.  Paying $18 million for the lumber yard to secure land for more affordable housing; in addition to paying way over market, as indicated in other answers we have enough inventory now and only need to manage it better.  Insisting on building more and more unneeded affordable housing units (e.g., over $31 million for BG2).  Producing a 633 page budget document when other mountain resort communities of comparable size seem to be able to get by with 150 pages or so.  And decorating the document like an oriental rug with lots of graphics that add nothing to the utility of the document.  Planning to pump grey water uphill from the AABC to the golf course, while doing so will require more energy than the ill-conceived Castle Creek Hydro plant ever could hope to produce.  Dragging on and on with frivolous litigation that costs the city continuing resources while not advancing any legitimate public purpose.  There are many, many examples.  This year the city will spend $16,000 per Aspen resident while other mountain resort communities seem to be able to do just fine spending not more than $11,000 per resident, some as little as $5,000 per resident.  As mayor I will draw attention to waste and inefficiency and call for a thorough budget review to prioritize spending away from wasteful endeavors.

Dwayne:  The quick answer is we should never spend that which is not in the public's interest, from both the short and long term views. Once we spend on operations and public services, and on capital reserves and capital projects, what's left over should not be spent out of the adage of "use it or lose it". Reminds me of my time in the Army back in the 80's. Fortunately those days are behind us.

However, it is never that simple. Just like running your own business or your own family household, we have to balance the needs of today with the desires of tomorrow. So in deciding budgets and choosing worthy projects to invest in, we must ensure that baseline public services are maintained for our residents and guests, while also recognizing that we have longer term objectives (community planning & preservation, affordable housing, health and human services, public transit, open space and trails, to name a few) that require longer term funding and investment. 

The takeaway for me is this - we have a large and complex city budget, including both our operating funds and accounts as well as an entire array of special use/purpose enterprise funds with their own funding sources and their own limited uses. Is there waste? Possibly, but the better question would be "are they ways to further achieve efficiencies and economies across all these funds and accounts"? Quite probably, in my view.     

5.  Steve Barwick is the city manager.  As such, he is responsible, per the city charter, for running the administration of the city, not developing/directing policy.  Why, in your opinion, is it that much city policy that council contemplates originates with city staff rather than by council direction to Barwick and his staff?

Maurice: I believe city policy often emanates from city staff for two reasons.  First, most of the current members of city council are passive and reactive, not proactive.  They react to proposals rather than setting the agenda and offering their own proposals.  This has left a policy vacuum that staff has rushed in to fill.  Second, I believe the current mayor has set himself up as a super-city manager.  He spends a lot of time influencing city staff (prohibited by the city charter, by the way), and inciting city staff to make proposals to council that reflect his policy preferences.  This is an insidious way of influencing policy without making every proposal look like it originated with the mayor, which many actually do.  The city manager might like this practice or hate it, but there is no way to know when an overbearing mayor pushes him aside.  Is the city manager to risk his job pushing back against the mayor's disregard of the city charter?  The city council should have been keeping the mayor in line.  Instead, they have looked the other way, if they even understood their duty to enforce the charter.  If I am mayor I will insist that policy emanate from city council, not staff, as required by the city charter.  And I will insist that all council members, including the mayor, abide by the city charter.

Dwayne:  I'm not sure I entirely agree with the premise of the question, but I can see the tendency that has evolved whereby council has fallen away from being good direction setters and policy makers. We still suffer from inconsistent leadership performances from council, including my own time on council.

Oftentimes council fails to inspire, to inform, and to steadfastly role model the community values and ideals that we have long since agreed to in our vision statements. We are an idyllic community with an abundance of natural beauty, populated by a well-informed and engaged citizenry, and blessed with an amazing array of cultural offerings the rest of the world is left to envy. Yet, we still stumble towards mediocrity when it comes to setting good vision and clear direction at the council table. We can achieve a greater level of public trust in city government by improving the collective performance of council as a leadership body. We can improve: 

•  
  • How council sets direction through the establishment of clear policies and priorities.
  • How council gives and gets feedback from the general public.
  • How council shapes and optimizes the performance of government (by unleashing the potential of a professional and well-equipped staff, by listening to and taking appropriate direction from a cadre of engaged, citizen-led commissions, and by defining and requiring more measurables in our budgets and plans).

6. Current mayor Mick Ireland is term-limited out as mayor and is not seeking a council seat.  Is there ANY circumstance in which you would vote to appoint Mick to a vacant city council seat should one arise?  Yes or no?  Please explain.

Maurice: No.  As indicated above, I believe that Mr. Ireland has disregarded the city charter during his terms as mayor and has interfered in the functioning of city administration.  I would not favor returning him to a position where he might feel he could continue such practices.

Dwayne:  No.  I appreciate his long dedication to public service, but it is time for him to pass the baton to others, as is occurring now.  All good. 

7. Citizen volunteer boards and commissions (P&Z, HPC, Housing Frontiers, etc.) prepare thoughtful and detailed reports for council on various issues.  But city staff - not those who prepared it -- presents this information to council.  In turn, council often ignores the boards'/commissions' recommendations and instead re-hashes the issues themselves.  Are citizen boards and commissions even relevant anymore?  Please comment.

Maurice: Citizen boards and commissions have been made largely irrelevant by the practice of filtering their recommendations through staff.  Staff can have an agenda at odds with the recommendations of citizen boards and commissions.  The city charter calls for citizen boards and commissions to advise city council, not to advise staff.  In fact, the ordinances creating the boards and commissions call for staff to support the work of the boards and commissions, not the other way around.  Citizen boards and commissions are an important channel for citizen input to policy making.  That is why the charter elevates them to the position of providing DIRECT advice to city council.  Under the current practice, members of citizen boards and commissions become frustrated and unwilling to serve because their hard work is ignored.  If I am mayor I will insist that citizen boards and commissions report their findings directly to council.  I also will take steps to make serving on such boards and commissions more attractive and to increase citizens' participation.

Dwayne: Very much so, and your question does suggest perhaps a way to improve the impact and traction of their reviews and recommendations (having representatives from the boards and commissions present directly to council on a regular basis). I would also like to see council perform better as a leadership body, including how to better engage and respect the recommendations from these citizen-led boards.

An important note - these boards and commissions have vital roles to perform; however their perspectives are generally along a singular policy issue (for example, historic preservation, or commerce and lodging, or planning and zoning). The council is bound and obligated to apply a larger view and context, looking to making good decisions that span across all policy issues, attempting to find the greatest amount of public good in the process. This may end up producing a decision that is different than the recommendations of our boards and commissions. That doesn't mean that these boards and commissions are ignored. Perhaps the takeaway is to ensure this process is more clearly communicated and illustrated for the general public, elevating trust and confidence in the system.

8. In 2013, the city will provide $380K to local Health and Human Services programs and non-profits (temporary care, childcare, child welfare, adult protection, low income energy assistance, food stamps, etc).  With an annual budget of $106 million, is $380K too much, not enough, or just right?  Please explain.

Maurice: The city of Aspen should be a leader in funding HHS services.  Pitkin County has taken the lead in funding HHS organizations.  Under state law it has the responsibility for providing HHS services of certain types, but not all the types of services that it funds through various grants.  Pitkin County spends about $3 million a year on HHS services.  Of that, $1.8 million is through grants from the Healthy Families Fund.  This year the city of Aspen contributed $380,000 to that $1.8 million grant total.  There is no magic number that is right for the city of Aspen to contribute.  The city should be mindful, however, that the non-profits providing the services rely on such funding and cannot plan without some assurance of continued funding levels.  In light of the city's historic commitment to the wellbeing of its citizens, and of people who work in Aspen but who might not be residents, the city should maintain a predictable commitment to funding HHS.  As mayor I will support an increase from the current level of HHS funding by the city.  The precise amount should be determined after studying overall HHS needs.  From the few examples of waste described in an earlier answer, however, it is obvious the problem is not availability of funds but better prioritizing.

Dwayne:  Putting aside the debate of where the funding should come from (either the county or the city), it is not difficult to recognize that the need outstrips current funding levels. I would like to see the city and the county (as well as other jurisdictions in the county) come together in an effort to develop and propose a more structural and sustainable platform of funding and support into our local Health and Human Services programs. The need is acute, real, and growing.   I would support making these programs a higher priority within our community plans and budgets. 

Read the responses in their entirety from these candidates by clicking their names below:

Adam Frisch

Steve Skadron

L.J. Erspamer

Torre

Derek Johnson

Ann Mullins

Art Daily

Jonny Carlson  (did not submit)

ISSUE # 90: Is the May Election RelevANT?

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election."

          -- Otto von Bismarck

ELECTION HOUSEKEEPING

Election season in Aspen is heating up, and as such, here are some vitals for your planning. If you live within the city limits, this is a municipal election so you can vote! PLEASE do! If you will be traveling, please make plans to vote early or by mail-in ballot. Here are the details:

• Candidate petition deadline is April 5^th, at which point the races are set
• The regular election is May 7^th, 7a - 7p, at the same polling places as November 2012
• Registration deadline is April 8^th for the May 7 election
• The run-off election is June 4^th, 7a -7p, at the same polling places as November 2012
• Registration deadline is May 6^th for the June 4 run-off election
• Register at the city clerk's office, the county clerk's office or at www.govotecolorado.com
• Mail-in ballots will be sent and in-office absentee voting will be available in the city clerk's office beginning April 23
• Absentee ballot applications for both the regular election and run-off election are available HERE
• Those who are registered as "permanent mail-in voters" will automatically be sent mail-in ballots
• Further questions? Call the city clerk at 970-429-2687

THE RACE(S)

If I am asked once a day, I am asked 50 times: who will be our next mayor? Of course I have some thoughts, but until the races are set (April 5 is the deadline), there's no use opining.  So far, nearly every day brings a new candidate to the race; we currently have all four sitting councilmen running for mayor, and just recently, retired CPA and attorney Maurice Emmer (who incidentally led the effort to shut down the hydro plant) joined the fray. Long-time planning and zoning commission member L.J. Erspamer has indicated he too is considering a run. Each and every candidate is a vast improvement over mayor Mick (who has yet to decide whether or not to run for a council post), with far better manners, more regular bathing schedules, and appropriate levels of respect for the office.

But this election is strictly about numbers. And grown-ups. Our town of 6000 people has an annual budget in the $100 million range. The time has come for proper leadership by qualified individuals who will make thoughtful, respectful and responsible decisions. What we ultimately need is to net out with a 3-2 majority of grown-ups at the table. It's that simple. I will of course send out my endorsement issue with detailed information and opinions in plenty of time for you early voters, but in the meantime, think of the races this way:

Councilmen Torre and Derek Johnson both have council terms that are up in May. They have both decided to run for mayor. The good news is that we are numerically certain to be rid of one of them, and possibly both. Councilmen Steve Skadron and Adam Frisch are both in the middle of their 4-year council terms. Regardless of what happens with their respective mayoral bids, we are certain to have them both back at the table. (Note: Aspen's mayor has no greater voting power than the other councilmen.) Therefore, the key to this election riddle is the council race for Torre's and Derek's open and available seats.

To date, just three folks have thrown their hats into the ring for the two open council seats: longtime local and attorney Art Daily, former city councilman and developer Dwayne Romero, and landscape architect and historic preservation commission chair Ann Mullins. Now, mayor Mick might just jump in with a bid for a council seat, but my bet is that he won't. He suffered a crushing defeat in November when his legacy, the hydro plant, was shut down by the voters. I'm thinking that Mick sees the competition as popular local leaders and strong contenders (which they are), so he won't risk another loss at the polls. It will be interesting to see who else jumps into that race, however.

Now, you ask, what if Skadron or Frisch become mayor? What happens to his existing council seat? It's simple, and a little scary. When that new council is sworn in, just 4 will take the oath. At that point, an early order of business will be the APPOINTMENT of a 5^th councilman by those 4. There is an application process for consideration for this post, but there is no special election, nor is it incumbent upon the seated council to appoint someone who recently ran and lost. If we have 3 grown-ups at the table, we're in great shape to appoint another like-minded person. At 2-2, it will be a dog-fight, with HUGE and far-reaching ramifications. But it will ultimately be determined by the 4 council members alone.

So, again, the focus this season is on the election of grown-ups; leaders who can abide by our city charter and make fiscally responsible decisions in a transparent and accountable fashion. It's time to end the shenanigans!

More on the election in just a couple weeks!

GET $50 FROM THE CITY

Now here's a way to make an easy and meaningful donation to the candidate of your choice: Get your Food Tax Refund!

The Food Tax Refund was put into place years ago to partially reimburse locals for the approximate amount of sales tax that they pay annually on grocery purchases due to a 1% city sales tax. Anyone who can prove they were a resident of the city of Aspen for the entire previous year and is a registered Aspen voter qualifies. Plus, if you are 65 or older as of 12/31/12, you will receive an additional $50 AND an additional $50 senior citizen allowance! Bonus!

Just print out THIS form and either take it to city hall (finance dept) by April 15, or mail it to: City Finance Department, Food Tax Refund, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611. Questions? Click HERE or call 970-920-5040. Remember, you MUST be a registered city of Aspen voter with an accurate address on file.

ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL EXPANSION: TOLD YA SO

I hate to say that. But back in 2010 when I actively and vociferously opposed the $50 million bond measure to finance Phase 2 of the Aspen Valley Hospital expansion, I was not a fan of the mass and scale, cost, phasing, or financials of the 215,000 s.f. endeavor, and questioned how much we really needed it. I wrote EXTENSIVELY here in The Red Ant about numerous issues related to this expansion. Take a minute and go back to Issue #44 specifically, my June 2010 AVH expansion expose (that includes an interview with AVH CEO David Ressler) for all of the questions you are likely re-contemplating today. It will tell you just how we got here, and that where we are today is EXACTLY where they said we'd be. No surprises.

My reasons for opposing the expansion in 2010, among others, included:

• Concern over priorities of the phasing (why ER in phase 3)
• 27,000 s.f. of medical office space
• Duplication of services / competition with other nearby medical facilities
• How much hospital do we need in order to be a great COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
• A "no turning back now" scenario to complete all 4 phases once started
• High-density, bright-lights in a rural setting

But the ballot measure passed at the polls (52%-48%), bonds were issued, and now Phase 2 is almost complete. On target, AVH is back before council, seeking land use approval for Phases 3 and 4 (83,000 more s.f.) to complete the medical facility. The good news is that we will finally get the new Emergency Room and other facilities that we need. And additionally, AVH and its board assures us that the funding for these latter phases will come from their philanthropic efforts and cash-on-hand, not the public till. But locals are freaking out.   Phase 2 is nothing short of a monstrosity. Neighbors, commuters, and visitors alike are shocked to see the monolith (comprised of 11 additional patient rooms, 12,000 s.f. of office space, a 220-car parking garage and on-site employee housing) that has evolved over the past two years. There is no question that there are enormous physical and visual impacts of this second phase of the development. So now, people are scared.

None of this is because AVH misrepresented what they were building; rather, it's buyer's remorse. We knew the neighborhood impact would be horrific. And it is. I feel just AWFUL for the neighbors in Meadowwood. It's as bad or worse than what they lobbied against. And it's only halfway done. But when the ballot measure passed and Aspen voters gave a thumbs-up to funding Phase 2, the fate was sealed. With the proposed "phasing" of the development, there indeed WAS a "no turning back now" scenario if we are to ultimately get what we need. All of this has been known for a long, long time. This doesn't make it right, but for locals and others to be in shock today at what is there, I say to those who voted yes on Phase 2, blame yourselves. For those of us who took the time to study the issue (and even write about it), we knew just how enormous and impactful it would be. So here we are, with essentially no choice but to give the go-ahead to get what we really needed in the first place - a new and modern ER, a new imaging department, expanded surgical operations, an elevated helicopter pad above the ER, plus a new ambulance entrance and garage.

The Red Ant acknowledges the efforts of local citizens and neighbors to speak out against the land use approvals for Phases 3 and 4. But this train left the station long ago. This is a prime example of Aspen voters ignoring the law of unintended consequences. Pro-hospital voters gave little heed to what 215,000 s.f. would ultimately look like when they voted yes in 2010. Just like they rarely give heed to property tax increases to "get" something for themselves. As I wrote back in 2010, "Aspen is a community that loves its entitlements. And a modern, state-of-the-art hospital certainly fits that bill."

We can only hope that council's inevitable land use approvals for Phases 3 and 4 will come with some strict stipulations for the AVH board that include managed mitigation requirements to lessen the impact of the bright lights, landscaping that helps disguise the building(s), and some legally binding financial commitments to protect the community from having to "bail out" the hospital should the financial picture become less than rosy.

WATER WEASELS

With time on their hands since the hydro plant was shuttered, the city of Aspen's utility department is up to no good on another water issue that has long been under the radar amidst the more pressing Castle Creek Energy Center/hydro plant mess. It's a "grey water" project that proposes to pump 1.5 million gallons of treated wastewater (grey water) a day UPHILL to irrigate the Aspen Golf Course and potentially to sell to SkiCo for snowmaking at Buttermilk. E. Coli issues aside, just think about this one.   Hmmm. Could the "grey water" project that the city admits to "eyeing" for years be connected to the ill-fated hydro plant? Just picture pumping huge amounts of water uphill for about 3 miles. This is an EXTREMELY costly proposition in terms of energy -- water is heavy! No private entity, such as a rancher, would ever consider such a folly because of the inherent expense.  

It has long been believed that this nonsensical "grey water" project is distinctly linked to the hydro plant: the city would have an essentially free source of energy to provide the heavy lifting. And note, the city has recently connected transmission lines to the wastewater facility at the AABC and the golf course to newly laid transmission lines to the Castle Creek Energy Center. Perhaps the "grey water" project was the entire rationale for the CCEC/hydro plant! Could the Aspen utilities department have realized that they would never have gotten millions in bond money had they truthfully said they wanted to pump grey water uphill, so instead they "green" marketed the CCEC/hydro plant and avoided the topic of the "grey water" project even though they quietly continued to work on it?

This sneaky business has been in the works for a very long time. When the Maroon Creek bridge was rebuilt, the city laid piping for the "grey water" project over the bridge and connected it to the municipal golf course. The city is just waiting for Burlingame 2 to be built so they can connect the Maroon Creek bridge piping to the wastewater facility.

The good news in the short term is that there is no easy and ready power source, but utilities director Dave Hornbacher claims that he has $1.06 million remaining in the budget to get this idiocy online by 2014. Buyer beware. These guys are BAD.

And re the hydro plant, it's been pretty quiet since the project was halted by the voters last November. But, there remains an active lawsuit against the city. Five landowners and water rights holders on Castle and Maroon Creeks claim that the city of Aspen abandoned its water rights to produce hydro power on lower Castle Creek when it decommissioned a hydropower plant on Castle Creek in 1958. The plaintiffs are not challenging other aspects of the city's water rights, just the right to use creek water for hydro. And now the trial has been set. A 15-day trial will begin on October 28 in Glenwood Springs water court.

CAN'T MAKE IT UP: THE HWY 82 UNDERPASS

How much should the public spend to build an underpass, under Highway 82, that will connect the new Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) bus stops on either side of the highway between the Airport Business Center and the airport? Back in November, the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC), made up of representatives from Aspen, Snowmass Village and Pitkin County, thought $3 million would be a-ok. But now, when the bids came in $2.4 million higher, what's the verdict? What do you think? It's public money! Build, baby, build! The now $5.4 million project, intended to protect pedestrians as they cross the highway, is admittedly "not a guaranteed solution" to dangerous jay-walking, according to Aspen city councilman and mayoral candidate Steve Skadron.  

On a random day last year, 250 people crossed at the intersection, including 79 (32%) who ran diagonally across the highway rather than using the current crosswalk. So, $5.4 million (and untold inconveniences for up- and downvalley highway traffic) to "protect" 79 boneheads who still may not use the designated crossing? Really!? And what do you want to bet that the project exceeds $5.4 million in the end? Can't make it up.  

WASTE WATCH: RFTA BUS STATIONS

Speaking of RFTA, it must be nice to have $46 million to squander on the bus-rapid-transit expansion up and down the valley. You've probably noticed the 13 fancy new bus stations along Hwy 82, designed to be "more inviting," replete with tall glass windows and faux chimneys that house electronic and technology components.   

The idea is to entice more people to ride the bus, and, since the old bus stops had a "prison look" according to RFTA project manager Mike Hermes, perhaps THAT is why ridership is not at its potential.  He went on to reassure RFTAboard members that the new bus stations "weren't expensive to build."  The standard variety cost JUST $230,000 - $275,000 each, and the two "double stations" in Glenwood and at the Brush Creek intercept lot ranged from $475,000 - $525,000.  No, not expensive at all.  

A recent letter to the editor from Bill Bernstein of Emma summed it up perfectly. "Roaring Fork Transit Authority board member and Aspen City Councilman Steve Skadron is proud that the new RFTA bus stations are so reasonably priced at a starting price range of $230,000 to $275,000. Skadron represents most that is wrong with this valley. Elected officials love to spend other people's tax dollars.   It is an outrage that simple bus stations cost as much as a move-in-ready house. It is an outrage that elected officials are not embarrassed by their wasteful extravagance." 

Keep in mind, it's election season. Send your message at the ballot box!

ISSUE # 89: Power -- An InebriANT

"The State is a gang of thieves, writ large."

          -- Murray Rothbard

MITIGATION MAYHEM

Council chambers were full on January 28 with citizens in widespread opposition to the City's poorly thought-out plan to arbitrarily raise subsidized housing mitigation fees on any and all development. Dubbed Aspen's "mitigation industrial complex," the issue was met by numerous local residents and builders who spoke out, arguing that the expansion of single-family homes does not generate new employees and therefore housing mitigation is not an appropriate charge. Furthermore, citizens spoke out against increased development fees that would hinder the local construction industry, negatively impacting employment for many tradesmen who live in subsidized housing already in existence.

The outpouring of opposition raised the bigger question of housing mitigation in general. The following week, I sent council my Mitigation Manifesto:

"I watched every minute of the recent public hearing on the ADU/mitigation ordinances and have several thoughts and concerns that I wish to share with you now that these issues have been continued to some unspecified date in the future.

I listened attentively to the various comments by fellow citizens and do not wish to belabor those here.  Rather, I found myself shocked by the relative lack of understanding each of you demonstrated (via your body language and the elementary questions you asked the speakers) about the ordinances that very easily could have been voted on and adopted that evening had it not been for a mad scramble by local citizens, myself included, to stop these two very punitive ideas with myriad unintended consequences. 

It is definitely a good thing that the ordinances were tabled for the near term, but it was equally shocking to hear, just before your dinner break, that your potential solution is merely to find a mitigation fee that is "fair."  I'm afraid that after 2 hours of public comment, you entirely missed the point.

When discussing mitigation, I suggest you back up.  Go back to the very beginning.  What is the mitigation for?  For some time in our history, it has been one of several means of raising money for subsidized housing construction and development.  No one is arguing that this community needs subsidized housing for its workforce, and in the 30 years of our housing program, we have built an inventory of 2800 units that have enabled many working folks to live in our community and remain here through economic booms and busts.  The 2010 AACP (like its 2000 predecessor) specifically addresses subsidized housing, stating the goal of "establishing and maintaining a 'critical mass' of working residents."  But herein lies the problem:

This "critical mass" number was seemingly intentionally left vague, and THIS (and not the fee) is at the very crux of the "mitigation" issue.

There is a willingness of all parties (and has been for years) to mitigate for subsidized housing.  But to what end?  (As Jack Wilke put it, "How far are you willing to go?")  We need to figure out what that "critical mass" of employees is that we will house at public expense.  And it should not be a moving target.  Depending on where that figure nets out, we may already be there.  Or we may be close.  Or we may have a long, long way to go.  But until we designate a definitive number (or percentage) for this "critical mass," we have no numerical basis for raising, lowering or eliminating mitigation fees.  Without a hard number, we have no idea.  And to keep building without a specific need is irresponsible at best.  I won't even speculate on the legalities.

I suggest getting the cart back behind the horse.  This "mitigation" question and its inextricable link to a very specific number that clearly identifies and defines our "critical mass" target must begin with a "needs justification" analysis; in other words, a complete and formal independent audit of our current housing stock. 

Several key questions should include (but not be limited to):

• What exactly is our housing inventory (how many, how big, what category, where, etc)?
• Who owns/rents/lives in each unit (and yes, we all know that ownership is not synonymous with residency)?
• Where do they work and for how many hours/year?
• Are they compliant?

And this information should be public information.  This is, after all, public housing.

It is my opinion that we will find significant non-compliance through illegal ownership and rentals, as well as less than full-time (1500 hours/year) employment.  In that case, we may already have enough inventory (or come very close) to reaching our "critical mass" goal.  To build more and more subsidized housing because APCHA or the city "wants" more or there is money in the fund is no justification for the enormous expenditure(s) of doing so.  And until we have 100% compliance in our existing inventory, APCHA will continue to be regarded as a sham by the community.  Anything less than 100% compliance demonstrates that APCHA is ineffective in its management of this tremendous community asset.  Enforcing compliance is tough.  But it's not personal.  Subsidized housing is a privilege, not a right.  And those not in compliance do not deserve the community's largesse through a housing subsidy. The rules are very simple, and for those who comply, the benefits are great.

Through an independent audit, the community will know - empirically - where our pressing needs for more subsidized housing lie.  Without one, the numbers are just anyone's guess.  And this community deserves far better than someone's best guess!

We currently collect RETT revenue, mitigation fees and sales tax revenue toward subsidized housing.  And we all just recently learned that there is yet another source - the commercial space mitigation fee - as illustrated by the example of the Nugget Gallery.  Before hauling off with some arbitrary new ordinance to pick winners and losers by trying to define a "locally serving business," look at the root issue.  It's subsidized housing mitigation again!  The lack of definition of a specific goal clearly presents a problem that is not going to go away.  This is not something that can be solved by creating one-off rules each time a related issue comes up.  It's time to address the mitigation issue head-on and solve it.

With empirical data of what inventory we have and a specific "critical mass" number of what we are targeting (the "need" to meet our goal), we will be able to easily ascertain whether the money we have on hand (or in the pipeline) will meet/cover the costs of meeting this goal.  It's not rocket science.  If we need more than what the RETT and the sales tax provide, then that "gap" could be addressed by "mitigation" fees.  THAT is where the "mitigation" discussion should BEGIN.  Then, we can determine how much money we NEED from a mitigation source instead of some randomly chosen number.

To charge - or increase charges on - construction and development simply to "mitigate" for subsidized housing ad infinitum is arbitrary and punitive.  (And, as Howie Mallory said, fraught with "unintended consequences.")  Not to mention, likely illegal. 

I strongly urge you to go back to the root of the issue and take the necessary steps that empirically justify your subsidized housing plans.  The community will take you far more seriously with this verifiable information.  And I look forward to this becoming an important campaign issue.

I am always willing to discuss this issue and any others."

To date, I have had zero responses from the council members. (Are you surprised?)

And the following week, Ordinance 4 of 2013 moved forward with its new "Employee Generation Rate Schedule" to determine "employee generation" by projects within the city limits. This ordinance proposes subsidized housing mitigation fees for a specified number of "employees generated per 1000 sf of leasable space." It's ludicrous. In these economic times, and especially when it's well known that our subsidized housing inventory is filled with un- and under-employed workers, should we really be penalizing those who actually bring jobs to town? In the commercial core, for example, for every 1000 sf of leasable space, the city says 4.7 employees are generated. No...... I don't think so! Those employees are already here..... And they're looking for work!!

As I wrote to the councilmen, this issue is NOT going to go away.

THE RED ANT IN THE NEWS

I recently spoke out at a city council meeting. It had been a long time. I had been learning a lot about the massive problems at Burlingame Phase 1 and writing about these here. Then I got my hands on the lawsuit filed by the homeowners at Burlingame against the City, APCHA, the builder of the project (Shaw Construction) and one of its vendors. This lawsuit was filed in September 2012. My point in addressing council was to raise their awareness of the lawsuit (it had never been publicly acknowledged nor addressed) and additionally inform them that my prediction in the last issue of The Red Ant (that owners of units in the project may soon be unable to sell their units because banks will refuse to carry a mortgage for potential buyers) had come true. Yes, last week a Burlingame owner's deal fell through when his buyer (approved by APCHA and for financing) was turned down by the bank because the purchase was for a Burlingame unit.

It has happened. The 84 individuals and families who live in Burlingame Phase 1 are now stuck. They cannot sell. According to local bank sources, there will not be lending for the purchase of Burlingame units for the "foreseeable future."  And it's not only due to the lawsuit. It's also because of the shoddy construction and deteriorating condition of the 5-year-old property. No bank wants to own the note on something that's falling apart! There was no differentiation between Burlingame 1 and the under-construction Phase 2 in my correspondence, but given that the city is the owner-developer of Phase 2 as well, my suspicions are that lending on the new places may be in equal jeopardy.

The Aspen Times covered the story, and specifically included the brush-off of the lawsuit was given by city attorney Jim True. Both True and mayor Mick downplayed the city's involvement in the suit and proclaimed that The Red Ant is making this into a political issue. You bet I am! Read the Times article HERE. The Times went on to follow up on the issue with an editorial on February 15 (read it HERE), stating of my comments to council, "She raised a few valid points." It continued, "With the city holding myriad meetings over the last two years on building costs and development plans for the upcoming Burlingame Phase 2 construction, why hasn't the issue of cracked siding at Burlingame 1 popped up? One would think that someone would raise the matter simply as a precaution against a similar problem arising at Burlingame 2." Ya think?! The Times went on to call for more transparency from city hall, especially with regard to the various legal matters faced by the city. Don't hold your breath! But it sure would be nice!

This is another issue that is NOT going to go away!

A PATTERN OF NEGLECT

My "outing" of the Burlingame mess and lawsuit against the city set my inbox on fire! I have heard from numerous subsidized housing residents and various HOA officers with reports of the city and APCHA turning their backs on these folks when it comes to infrastructure problems. The city's common answer to all problems? "It's not our problem, it's yours." There exists a sick pattern of building and selling sub-par structures to qualified employees, and once the city and APCHA are out of the loop, they prefer not to be bothered again. Our community is better than this! It is with public funds from the RETT (Real Estate Transfer Tax) that these subsidized housing projects were built in the first place, and no employee should face enormous special assessments (that they likely cannot afford) to fix construction problems that occurred due to the knowing neglect and poor construction management of the city of Aspen!

Notably, a 19-unit townhome property (circa 2004) recently underwent a "reserve study" by Aspen Reserve Specialists, at the behest of and paid for by APCHA. The idea is for each subsidized housing project to undergo a review that will provide rationale and budgeting for establishing and maintaining a reserve account for preventative and ongoing maintenance. (To date, APCHA has never required its "owned" subsidized housing projects to have reserves nor perform preventative maintenance, and therefore the entire portfolio is in terrible disrepair.) The owners were astounded to learn that, among other recommended immediate-term repairs and maintenance, the estimate to fix the "major problems" with their fiber cement siding, including horizontal cracking and water infiltration, ran between $147K - $163K. This translated to $8+K for each homeowner there. (Recall, they are just now starting their HOA reserve account so there is nothing in the cash jar.) From my vantage point, it is unclear whether or not this issue is one of faulty construction and materials or owner neglect, but the place had terrible siding issues.  If the former, the builder of this project is already out of business so residents have no recourse. (The HOA recently collected $14K from its residents for a "patch" to the siding issue, but whether or not this solves the problem is yet to be seen.)  You can bet they are closely watching Burlingame's lawsuit against the city, however!

But whose responsibility is it?  Owner neglect definitely raises big questions, but when APCHA has never required nor supervised the collection of reserve accounts, perhaps they bear some of the blame.  And riddle me this, if the city is contracting with and supervising such inept developers who build shoddy structures with poor materials, why on earth does it cost them $800-$900 per square foot to build these projects?!?!  Something MUST change, and soon!

LATE BREAKING NEWS: APCHA TRYING TO WEASEL OUT

At press time, APCHA doesn't think it has ANY responsibility for the problems at Burlingame and wishes to be dismissed from the lawsuit!  APCHA believes that since it didn't "build" the project, it deserves no blame.  But wait -- APCHA is the party that SOLD the defective units to local employees!  There is indeed responsibility!  And in case you didn't know, APCHA is ALWAYS material to each and every purchase and sale of subsidized housing.  The seller sells to APCHA who quickly sells the unit to the buyer.  Chain-of-title on each transaction demonstrates this -- and it's a HUGE liability for both APCHA as well as the entire community! 

APCHA absolutely deserves to be named in this lawsuit.  We've all learned that the only way to make these folks do the right thing is unfortunately to sue them!

BAD IDEAS BEFORE COUNCIL

• AGAINST FREE SPEECH: Mick didn't like the outcome of the vote against the hydro plant last November. But he especially did not like the efforts of a non-profit "social welfare organization" called Aspen Citizens Committee that sent mailers during election season to "educate Aspen area taxpayers about the costs associated with the facility itself." (It was not a registered issue committee and as such did not advocate for a "yes" or "no" vote.) And Mick REALLY didn't like that as a non-profit, the organization is not required to disclose its donors. And that's what Mick is all about: identifying his detractors and exacting punishment upon them. As a result, Mick has city attorney Jim True attempting to draft some local legislation that somehow squelches the influence of perfectly legal, non-profit/anonymous money on local campaigns. I see it as Mick and True vs the 1^st Amendment. Good luck, guys. You might want to re-read the Citizens United ruling too.
• BIKES DON'T STOP: Surely at the behest of mayor Mick, city staff has been directed to develop a "stop and yield approach" for local cyclists, rather than requiring them to stop at stop signs as required by current state and local laws. Under the dubious guise of fulfilling a council goal of enhancing bicycle and pedestrian safety, this ridiculous and patently unsafe idea is actually under consideration by council! The city asset director, who has apparently fallen off his bike onto his head too many times, told the Aspen Times, "If you have to come to a stop at every stop, it can actually cause injuries." Good grief!
• CITY TO BUY A LODGE? The 26-room Mountain House Lodge bed & breakfast on East Hopkins is in foreclosure. One of a remaining few small lodges in town, the Mountain House will be auctioned off on the steps of the county courthouse next month. But wait! Mick wants the city of Aspen to buy, yes BUY, the lodge and ostensibly "flip" the property to someone (it's city money so presumably Mick's "flip" would be at a loss) who would agree to keep it a lodge. His real concern, "I'm concerned about a viable business turning into a residential property."   Read an outstanding letter on this idiocy from Maurice Emmer HERE. 

IDIOCY AVERTED

Thanks to local restaurateur Gil Vanderaa of Brunelleschi's who spoke out in opposition to the insipid idea of removing parking spots along Aspen's "restaurant row" on Hopkins Avenue in order to place "parklets" in their place. These "parklets" were to effectively be subsidized outdoor dining spaces that the city proposed giving to select restaurants along the busy corridor. Once again, the city wanted to pick winners and losers, but it took a level-headed entrepreneur to point out to council that a better way to conduct such an experiment, if need be, would be to have restaurants bid for the spaces. Never mind the financials - facts the city likes to ignore when proposing and conducting its silly little experiments - the parklets would run $20K - $25K in addition to $8K in lost parking revenue. Thankfully, Vanderaa's reasoning swayed council and they shot down the idea, but not before mayor Mick put in his two cents. "Why not try it since we seem to have people willing to try it, and maybe it will spread and other people will want to have it and see more value in that than the parking," he said.  Right.

SOLUTIONS IN SEARCH OF PROBLEMS

We all try to be responsible. And moral suasion plays a big role. But the city prefers the stick to any kind of carrot. City staff is currently spun up about local retailers who leave their front doors open to attract customers. Mayor Mick and mayoral candidate Steve Skadron (currently on council) are both advocates of some kind of government regulation to curb what they see as a blatant waste of energy. The Red Ant prefers councilman Adam Frisch's approach; "We should be as energy efficient as possible without being harmful to the business community." Ya think!?

But city staff continues its unabashed folly: conjuring solutions in search of problems. On one hand their "solution" to forcing businesses to close their doors is to provide them with "signs" that somehow "show they are open." But on the other hand, the city has just initiated a $65 annual "sign fee" for businesses that place "sandwich board" signs outside.

Go figure.

DID YOU KNOW?

City of Miami Beach officials must read The Red Ant.   Our lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick did not make the final cut in his bid for the Florida city manager's job. Instead, we get to keep him and his $170,352 annual salary, not including benefits. Oh joy.

THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

Didn't we just raise the sales tax in Aspen to generate "much-needed" money for our schools? Yes, sales tax in Aspen is now up to 9.3% and is expected to bring in $1.75M annually. And don't forget, in 2010, property taxes were raised in order to generate $1.35M annually - again, for the schools. Never mind the school fundraisers (the Aspen Education Foundation) did not want to do the heavy lifting to gather signatures and put a measure on the ballot that could have re-allocated existing revenues (from the RETT, for example) - of which we have plenty -- their way. They just took the easy way out and raised taxes both times.

But look now. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's the Aspen Education Foundation (AEF) partnering with a local non-profit called Aspen Aerospace Alliance to purchase a $100,000 flight simulator last week. Yes, you read that right. The simulator will be housed in the Aspen Middle School and will "incorporate aviation into multiple fields of study." Good grief. The 3-phase boondoggle has just one phase left to go. It started with phase 1 ($25K) for "ground-school instruction," followed by $115K in phase 2 that includes the $100K simulator. Look for phase 3 ($350K) next, which would require the purchase of an actual aircraft! Can't make it up.

ISSUE #88: Sick fANTasies

"It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

-- Murray Rothbard

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING JIHAD

In the dark of night, your city council and the professional city hall bureaucrats have set in motion a land grab not unlike Ordinance 30 of 2008 when they tried (unsuccessfully) to force historical designation upon private property owners. This time, however, it's worse. Far worse. With two sneaky maneuvers to further expand the subsidized housing inventory and diminish (destroy?) all development in the city and county, APCHA (the housing authority) and our city leaders have put forth some draconian new subsidized housing mitigation requirements that reach far beyond anything even contemplated in the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). (The AACP stipulates that our community must maintain a "critical mass" of working residents in local subsidized housing.  What it doesn't do is define that number.) Once again, the city forces the rest of us to adhere to the stipulations of the AACP while doing what they please above and beyond what it states. The new ordinances are onerous, unfair and probably illegal. They are certainly unethical and immoral. But that's never stopped these guys before.

Recall that the city requires the redevelopment ("scrape and replace") of single-family and duplex properties as well as any new development to provide subsidized housing mitigation. Mitigation options include providing an off-site unit, providing an Affordable Housing (AH) certificate, or building an "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU) on the property, separate from the main house, that may only be rented to a local worker.

The first ordinance (#34 of 2012) changes the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) mitigation option from building one unit on site (and potentially leaving it unrented) to a REQUIREMENT that owners BUILD AND SELL the on-site ADU to qualified employees for approximately $150,000. This is worse than eminent domain; it borders on a "taking" because it requires the owner to sell a portion of his private property for governmental purposes in order to personally build on it.

The second ordinance, prepared by APCHA, proposes raising the current cash-in-lieu payment for subsidized housing mitigation to $708/sf, a nearly 10-fold increase. (For example, mitigation for a 900 sf expansion would cost the owner/developer over $630K! This amount is likely far more than the construction cost of adding the 900 sf!) This PREPOSTEROUS amount is based on a new-fangled "market affordability gap" methodology that measures the difference between what a free market unit costs in Aspen and what a Category 3 APCHA qualified resident can afford! Each year, the amount per sf would be adjusted by any (presumably upward) change in the cost of free market housing.

City staff has recently acknowledged that this is quite excessive and proposes initially using a 30% multiplier on the cash-in-lieu figure (or $212/sf) which is almost THREE TIMES HIGHER than what it is today ($76/sf). But regardless of the starting point, it's just a matter of time before the cost rises to $708/sf! This, of course, shows a complete lack of understanding of economic principles; how does charging the owner of a home a fee equal to the "affordability gap" close this "affordability gap"? It doesn't! It DOUBLES the affordability gap! This purely punitive action that artificially increases real estate costs is designed to line the city's coffers and ensure that the majority of locals will NEVER have the opportunity to own housing in the free market.

(Note:  This ordinance has NOTHING to do with housing a "critical mass" of workers per the AACP. Rather, it has EVERYTHING to do with penalizing everyone in the free market.  This ridiculous system has NEVER been discussed in our community!  If council and APCHA's goals are to prevent any new free market residential in the core -- they've already done that.  If their goals are to prevent it in the entire city and likely the county, well, here we go.  Next we'll see citizens' PROPERTY TAXES raised to a level that bridges the "affordability gap" between the value of their home and what the city deems affordable for a local employee.  It's not mitigation -- it's class warfare!)

Remember, "mitigation" kicks in whenever you build something new or expand your floor area ratio (FAR). So, who does this affect? A lot of people. Do you own property that has expansion potential? This definitely affects you if you ever plan to expand. This also affects the buyer to whom you will sell someday, negatively affecting your sale if said buyer is interested in expanding. And if you own vacant land in the city or county, bummer. This will clobber you. (Yes, while the city is voting on this in 2 weeks, the county is not far behind - APCHA is a city/county organization.)

The Bolsheviks on council just approved these ordinances on first reading (second reading and final vote is in two weeks -- on January 28). This will be your ONLY opportunity to speak out in opposition!

These guys are bad, really bad. If you have floor area ratio (FAR) for expansion or a vacant lot, I strongly urge you to share this information with everyone you know and get yourself to the city council meeting on January 28. Please speak out against this punitive idea before it's too late.

NEWS: BURLINGAME BREAKING BAD

The Red Ant has learned that Phase I of the Burlingame subsidized housing project, just 5 years old, is already falling into terrible disrepair. According to my sources, it's so bad out there that the homeowner's association (HOA) has recently filed suit against the city, APCHA, Shaw Construction and Certainteed, the siding manufacturer, through a Denver-based construction defect law firm. (Shaw has subsequently filed a third-party complaint against five additional subcontractors.) Once all of the parties are in the case, the matter will be set for trial and discovery will begin. It's gonna get ugly, folks. It seems that there are THOUSANDS of cracks in the subsidized housing project's siding, on every building. All parties (city staff of all levels included) have viewed the problems, and the bids for removing all the siding, fascia and soffits, and replacing it, range from $3 million to $7 million. (Guess that fancy "green" construction wasn't so good after all....)

Notably, city hall has not shared this lawsuit with council or the public. I asked a councilman about the suit and all he had been told was that Shaw was suing its subs over the matter. Good old city attorney Jim True/False is being none too forthcoming with the truth.... once again!

The problems are so bad that those who are looking to sell are likely trapped. They can't. Mortgage companies for potential qualified buyers are threatening to refuse financing the purchase of existing units at Burlingame due to the shoddy construction and issues with the siding. To date, the city has left the HOA high and dry; it sold the units to local workers and then left them. Now the workers can't sell.

Why are you reading this in The Red Ant and not in the papers? Who knows. But I suspect that the city's desperate desire to finagle $17 million out of council to begin to build and sell units in Phase 2 of Burlingame has something to do with it!

I will elaborate on this issue and the lawsuit in a future issue (and yes, I have photos), but in the meantime, do let your employees and others know about this problem. The city is trying to keep it under wraps. Buyer beware. Pass it on.

CHANGING THE RULES TO BOOST SALES OF UNITS AT B'GAME 2

Despite the lack of demand for additional subsidized housing (and the problems above), the city plows forward with the construction of Burlingame Phase 2. On tap for 2013 are 48 new subsidized housing units and 6 "resident occupied" (RO) 1600 s.f. 3-bedroom homes. The RO category of housing is traditionally restricted to qualified APCHA applicants who are required to work in Aspen/Pitkin County for 1500 hours a year and do not own other property in the valley. Most deed restrictions on RO properties cap the assets of the owners at $900K. In earlier discussions to prop up the market for RO re-sales, council lifted the requirement that RO owners live in the County for 4 years before buying*. Even so, in this market, RO units languish on the market for months and months, sometimes years. (*This 4-year residency requirement is actually a "preference" foisted on applicants by APCHA as a "guideline" that most likely violates the Federal Fair Housing Law as it applies a tenure requirement to government subsidized housing applications. But I digress....)

The RO units at Burlingame are expected to cost $1 million each. Yes, you are reading that right. $1 million for a deed restricted piece of the dream! (Who in their right mind and in this economy, with $1 million to spend, would purchase deed-restricted housing of any kind? But that's another story.) Unique to the RO category is that these units are not subsidized; they are sold at cost. But let's be honest here; as part of a subsidized housing project, the RO units benefit greatly from the heavily subsidized project infrastructure!

A whopping 3 or 4 people have "expressed interest" in RO units at Burlingame 2 to-date, so council is again relaxing the requirements for purchase. The idea is for the RO units in APCHA inventory to go to families. But to "move" units, it looks like we'll see some new rules in coming weeks. But don't worry, the city says they won't build all 6 RO unit until at least 2 are sold! How's THAT for rationale?!

Additionally, buyers in Phase I were prevented from owning dogs because the property was adjacent to a working ranch and conservation easement zone. Now, to enhance the attractiveness of Phase 2, the city wants to allow dogs for this group. How quickly they forget. (Or break their own rules!) They'll stop at nothing to push these units, never mind we need more subsidized housing like a hole in the head. How about jobs for those ALREADY in subsidized housing who aren't working??

RE-ARRANGING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC

It should come as no surprise that my email box was full and my phone rang off the hook last week upon the Daily News story that Mayor Mick, term-limited out as mayor this May, is considering a run for city council because he fears a different majority could emerge on council in his absence. Imagine that!? Needless to say, citizens are outraged, as they well should be! (This, on the heels of late December's news that all 4 "echoes" on council are thinking of running for mayor!)

His platform? To revive the hydro plant, despite its loss at the polls in November. His rationale? If we don't complete the project, we will "waste a lot of money." Huh? Isn't that what Mick does best? (He also wants to ensure that the USA Pro Challenge bike race continues to come through Aspen, never mind the questionable economic impacts and massive community and government subsidies.) Can you just imagine Aspen's Putin, side-stepping his former role, only to "rule" through a puppet Medvedev (Torre? Skadron? Yikes.) in the mayoral position!?

There are questionable legalities involved; Mick is operating on the opinion of recently-departed, crooked and compromised former city attorney John Worcester who said in 1998 that a council run in this case would be a-ok. Equally compromised city attorney Jim True echoes this opinion in a convoluted interpretation of the state constitution and Aspen's laws. But this is just True's OPINION. It is his job to defend the actions of council, not to counsel them on right and wrong. If Mick wants to run again, True gives him an opinion that it's legal - in effect, daring the citizens to sue the city if they disagree. (An honest legal opinion would conclude that the matter is somewhat unclear and that legally, a 6-year mayor might be term-limited from running for a 4-year council seat.)

The key legal question is whether the role of mayor is considered a role on council, and if so, this would mean that he would be out after a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year terms - and that would be this May. (Council positions are limited to 2 consecutive 4-year terms.) Lo and behold, a quick look at the Aspen City Charter language shows that the mayor is indeed "a member of council." The charter addresses the term of the official, not the term of the office. Additionally, the purpose language of the charter indicates that the term limit is to "broaden," not restrict, "the opportunities for public service." In other words, recycling the same people does not broaden opportunities for public service unless one takes the language to mean "broaden opportunities for public service by the same people." (One COULD argue that as a member of council, the mayor should not be allowed to serve more than 8 consecutive years, on par with councilmen, but since he has already served 6, an additional 4-year council term would exceed this limit.) Mick, you're out. (And True, you're false.)

Furthermore, just imagine the worst case scenario: Mick runs for council and is elected, and then someone challenges the validity of that election. Then the challenge is upheld. What then? Would the votes of council in which Mick's vote was decisive be valid? Would many council decisions be subject to legal action because they occurred illegally? In other words, should the city subject itself to this risk just so one person can indulge his personal agenda? Mick, get a life.

Even the Aspen Times weighed in with an editorial notably titled, "Local government needs new blood." Following a lukewarm (at best) review of the current group, the Times "put out a call for qualified Aspenites to consider throwing their hats into the various rings." They continued, "Fresh faces might disrupt the system of continuity and like-thinking in city hall, but they also can bring about innovative solutions to time-worn problems." Bravo to the Times. Their suggestion that "people with little or no experience in local government, but with the necessary brains and a feel for what's best for the community, consider a stint in local government" is a welcome message. The Red Ant just wants to know when "necessary brains" became a requirement! Don't get me wrong, I like it, especially given what we've got!

My favorite reaction to this news was a letter to the editor from civic leader Ward Hauenstein. Read it in its entirety HERE. In short, "The culture has to change. The era of suppression of expression of divergent views through tactics of belittlement and scorn must end. The era of imagining what the law is and demanding that everyone follow those fictitious laws must end. Laws are made to apply to all. A desperate and pathetic attempt to circumvent term-limit laws should be seen for what it is. If Mick's version of what Aspen should be is shared by so many, there will be others to come forward and legally run for office on a platform upholding those views. There comes a time when people in power need to step aside and let the process proceed. Now is that time for Mick."

Hauenstein went on to present the concept of a charter amendment that would cap consecutive years of service (either as mayor or council) at council on Monday night. Frisch was open to it, noting that "small-town character is about turnover of fresh faces and new ideas," but Torre and Mick vehemently opposed the idea. (Imagine that!) According to the Daily News, Torre, who will likely run for mayor in May when his term on council is up, found the idea "interesting, but wondered why anyone would be in support of preventing the public from having the option to vote for candidates they think represent them well." Swell, another career politician wanna be! And Mick went nuts. Citing state term limit laws that were passed in the 1990s "by a pre-Tea Party movement," Mick complained that "weak office holders" would weaken government. (Presumably, new faces in government are inherently "weak" in the mayor's mind.) "I'm just not buying in to the idea that inexperience is somehow an asset," he added.   Jeez - just look where Mick's "experience" has gotten us!!

And yes, I still do have a number of "Sick of Mick" bumper stickers and a few yard signs. Please let me know if you want one! (It looks like we may need them again!)

EAT IN THE STREET?

Mick's war on cars looks to be fought on yet another front: Hopkins Avenue!   Seems the city has proposed "parklets," tiny and temporary "parks" that can be created by reclaiming downtown parking spaces. They say this will enhance the pedestrian experience. Really? It will certainly frustrate the driving experience! (I suppose that's the idea.) And imagine such a mess on Aspen's restaurant row! Mick, in his effusive glee over the stupid idea, equated the "parklets" to the original experiment that led to the Hyman Ave and Cooper St malls. Kiss more downtown parking goodbye....

HYDRO HIPROCRISY

A recent guest opinion by Glenn Beaton in the Aspen Times stated, "Here in Aspen, we voted whether to spend more (and more) to squeeze electricity out of a streamlet so small that you can wade across without getting your shins wet (or, some days, even the tops of your feet). We voted 'no.' Our vote not to spend more, however, has not stopped city council from planning to do just that. We know the council DID notice our vote because it scolded us for voting wrongly.   If we keep voting this way, then I suppose the council won't let us vote at all." And that about sums up what's going on with the hydro plant.

The city has acknowledged that voters rejected the hydro plant at the polls, but since Mick made sure that the vote was merely "advisory," they CAN (and likely will) ignore this result. As a meaningless nod to the opposition to the hydro plant, the city has asked for "completely baked" ideas that will: generate 5.5 million kw hours/year of average production, have a $3.1 million price tag (the city's estimate of what it will cost to complete the hydro plant), provide a local and direct tie to the distribution grid with no electric transmission services required, offer a 75-year lifespan, and utilize city infrastructure. In other words, according to hydro plant opponent Ken Neubecker, "The invitation is fraught with caveats, limitations and strings attached. The 'criteria' pretty well leads to only one possible conclusion: the Castle Creek Hydro Plant." The timeframe for this assignment? Less than 2 weeks. The conclusion is foregone. Obviously. Watch and see. Council has scheduled a work session on January 22 to discuss and potentially vote on all of this.

And did you know that the city is aggressively pursuing the construction of two dams - one each on Castle and Maroon creeks? Apparently the city's 20-year-old water management plan doesn't comprehensively incorporate the city's current views on the emerging threat of climate change so they will be updating it with a focus on the potential need to build large dams on the local creeks. According to an investigative piece by Aspen Journalism, the 1990-era plan cites conditional decrees for the reservoirs (circa 1971), but nothing was ever approved by council and the plan remains in draft form to this day. The 1990 plan notably suggested a $24 million expenditure on a 155-foot high Castle Creek dam in 2000 and another $15 million expenditure on a 170-foot high Maroon Creek dam in 2005. Thankfully those dates came and went, but council obviously did pursue the plan's suggestion to seek out and determine a location for a hydro plant.

The good news is that the Maroon Creek dam would be located on White River National Forest Service land, and this currently conflicts with forest service regulations regarding wetlands and scenic values. The Castle Creek dam would primarily be on private land, and besides, tests drills on that site in the 1970s found poor soil conditions for a reservoir there. But forewarned is forearmed. The water police are coming!

THE RED ANT IN THE NEWS

When Mick and the 4 echoes listed their greatest accomplishments for 2012 (read it HERE), I couldn't resist. HERE is a letter I wrote to the editor in response.

And, in early December, I sat down with Jerry Bovino on "The Jerry Bovino Show" on GRTV. (Get your popcorn and watch it HERE.) We spent an hour discussing local and national politics. I am pleased to have learned just how many people watch GrassRoots TV! Let's do it again, Jerry!

WASTE WATCH

Imagine, after an infusion of $46.4 million to "revolutionize" the bus-riding experience in the valley (you've seen the new bus stations, replete with faux fireplaces), RFTA ridership is DOWN 4.12% through November.

DID YOU KNOW?

City staff is operating on "assumptions" that as a community, we will need 657 new subsidized housing units for our workforce in the next decade but we only have land to make 377 units a reality. Apparently this is a city hall "consensus." No data, of course. And specifically no information on where all those jobs are going to come from!

THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

Many of you often ask about the status of Marilyn's legal case against the city and the court-mandated reimbursement of her legal expenses, stemming from her 2009 open records lawsuit. As you recall, last June, the state Supreme Court declined to take on the city's appeal so the Court of Appeals' 2011 ruling in Marilyn's favor was upheld. This meant that voted ballots are indeed public records (a new state law), and the city must show the 2009 ballots and reimburse Marilyn. But not so fast. Judge Boyd, whose 2009 summary judgment was overturned by the Court of Appeals, has yet to even act on the Appellate Court's orders. And, recently, Judge Gail Nichols ruled in another ballot-related matter that a recently adopted city ordinance prohibiting ballot review trumps the new state law! Yes, the judge has ruled that municipal governments can take away our state constitutional rights by simply passing an ordinance at the council table. So the saga continues. Only in Aspen. Can't make it up.

ISSUE #87: Here Comes sANTa

"Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it."

-- Richard Lamm

'Twas the start of the season and where was the snow?

Blame it on Council -- such hot air they blow!

But the snow has arrived and not a minute too soon

(For a while there it looked much like it was June!)

Have you been on the mountain? I'll tell you what

The snow is terrific, just don't fall on your butt!

SkiCo, they're at it with all the man-made stuff

Another dump this weekend and we'll have enough (to open for the holidays, that is).

We're turning a corner, '13 is here

An election in May, change is coming, it's near!

Calling good candidates, please make a run

The nightmare is over; dictatorship done.

Just 5 more months 'til we're rid of Mick

But where he'll go next just might make you sick.

I hate to predict where he's likely to work

(Just think about it - who'd hire that jerk?)

City Manager Barwick - he owes Mick a favor

Recall the contract Barwick continues to savor?

You know there's a payback, Mick still wants to fight

Against Marilyn's lawsuit and for the city's hydro plant right.

Watch Barwick hire him and give him a role

He'll get salary, benefits and stay on the dole.

The thought of him staying makes me want to scream

Hopefully this idea is just a bad dream! (A really really bad one!)

We've had quite a year: some bad and some good

Class warfare, big spending, oh if I could --

I'd send them to school, teach them a thing

About balance sheets, spending, and Mick is not king!

The year in review, a chore to recount

But not when buffoonery continues to mount!

I keep a long list as the year ambles on

To sit down and read it is hardly a yawn....

No lodge at 1A, the boys simply blew it

They asked for too much and builders said screw it.

Housing on-site, the boys don't give a hoot

Profitability? Huh? They're not that astute!

No new condos downtown; not free market, no way

They don't like "cold beds" - or that's what they say.

And third floor additions? Those are likely gone too

(But in all likelihood owners will sue.)

We did well at the polls and won some big issues

No concessions from Mick -- he cries in his tissues.

The "machine" took a hit when the hydro plant lost

But the city may continue, ignoring the cost.

In the meantime the city has a custom turbine to sell

They bought it for the hydro plant when no one could tell

That the project was doomed and would never be built

Some city may buy it, maybe somewhere - like Silt.

Library expansion? It went down in flames.

Despite the loud support from popular names.

But schools get to raise taxes on items we buy

For a change this tax hits the regular guy!

Do you care much about the skateboarding park?

Council's spending more money on this cement lark.

When we built it 12 years ago, it wasn't cheap

Doesn't matter to city hall - those pockets are deep!

A bike-sharing program sounds good to begin

But look at the numbers - the costs are sin!

200K plus from private donations

And 200K more from the feds - yes, our nation!

They need 200K more, are they for real?

At 650K it'd be quite a good deal

To buy bikes at Walmart and leave them around

(At that price 4300 free bikes could be found!)

The Open Space Fund has $4 million to spend

Big additions and projects - where does it end?

The group wants to finish paving the Rio Grande Trail

With a $2mil bridge -- please let the plan fail!

The airport expansion, big news - it's approved

A new terminal, big parking; mountains'll be moved.

But nothing starts soon, it's just a place-holder

For projects later on, when we're all a bit older.

And subsidized housing, it's out of control

Fewer jobs but more building - just what is the goal?

APCHA requested audits to see just who could stay

Only one resident responded; what does that say?

We don't know who lives there or if they comply

Am I the only one who wonders just why?

The promised "housing summit" ended with a sigh

More meetings are needed. Really? (Nice try.)

And now they propose "Caribbean Rotations"

(That's what they call it when retirees take vacations!)

They can rent out their places to those who will work

And leave 6 months of each year - that's quite a perk!

But imagine APCHA with so much more to do -

The scofflaws and rule-breakers, they run the zoo.

It's sad when you see what the program's become

Due to actions of leaders; not smart, more like dumb.

Burlingame raises its big ugly head

More units on tap for the project we dread.

Millions more in construction - you know how THAT goes

The costs, don't believe them, think: Pinocchio's nose!

Sales projections aren't great, the numbers are low

Seems those with more money have elsewhere to go!

So the subsidies go up, you and I kick in more

At least this mess isn't downtown in the core!

More money for the Wheeler despite its account

(From transfer tax money: 30 mil at last count)

Hitting up the city for 3 million more

A new balcony's needed - up on the 3^rd floor!

Despite all the nonsense, we all carry on

It's Aspen, my friends (we don't like being gone).

We deal with the BS, we grin and we bear it

This place is a winner! Heck yeah, it's got merit!

Many great things cheer us up through the year

Just a few new ones - I'm delighted to list here:

Popcorn's back at the Wagon, the Creperie (and cold beer)

Try the new Thai place! It's delicious, and near!

And this week brings the best news of all

The Jerome, she reopens, from a remodel (not small).

Our crown jewel is back, in all of her glory

The staff there can't wait to tell you her story!

Please stay in touch, let me know what you think

Say hello on the street, or give me a wink.

The Red Ant's on the case, the fun never ends

Holiday blessings to you, your family and friends.