ISSUE #78: Get Me An ANTacid!

"Government is not reason, nor eloquence.  It is force.  And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."         -- George Washington

"The sheep are happier of themselves than under the care of wolves."      -- Thomas Jefferson

BIG BROTHER AND YOUR VACATION RENTALS  

Ever rent your Aspen home? Ever think about it? Well, think again. In the latest chapter of government over-reach and the war on private property, council just passed Ordinance 34 ostensibly because said ordinance "furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare." What?? The city will now regulate "vacation rentals," defined as "the short term occupancy of a residential dwelling unit by the general public for a fee." This "regulation" mandates that anyone who wishes to rent out his/her private property must now obtain an annual business license ($150) and apply for a vacation rental permit. A local owner representative (read: paid property manager) must be "on call" during the duration of each and every rental. Vacation rentals are also required to collect and remit all applicable sales and lodging taxes. And yes, the community development department will be conducting periodic audits to ensure compliance.

How did this come about? Allegedly, the requirement to pay these taxes has been on the books since the early 90's, although no one seems to have been made aware of it. And it seems that there are several "rogue" properties in town where renters disobey trash procedures, parking rules and are neighborhood nuisances. (There have been five, yes five, complaints over the past four years.) Staff originally proposed limiting the number of times a property could be rented, depending on its location. Councilman Adam Frisch hit the nail on the head, calling this "a solution in search of a problem," although he did in the end vote in favor of the ordinance. Go figure.

Instead of addressing how to deal with problem rentals, the answer was to regulate and monitor ALL rentals of ALL private properties. Staff and other city resources are not capable nor desirous of dealing with neighbor complaints about the behaviors of renters; early discussions speculate that the city will not "enforce private covenants" by dealing with scofflaws.  It's all about squeezing the local private property owner - simply because they can. Imagine the new city bureaucracy that will be needed to track down and monitor the hundreds of private vacation rentals each year! It will surely cost far more to administer than the $100,000 it is expected to bring in. 

The following is an articulate letter written to the paper by local resident Maurice Emmer on the subject. I whole-heartedly agree with his list of the unforeseen yet inevitable consequences of the ordinance:

Dear Editor:
According to the papers, Aspen City Council is considering new restrictions on short-term rentals within residential areas of Aspen. I think the promoters of any government regulation should have to satisfy a very high standard of compelling need for the regulation to advance an urgent public policy. Otherwise, we reach a place (we probably have surpassed that place) where people feel government is there to suppress rather than to protect them. I am unaware of any compelling need or public policy urgency in this case. Because I understand the basic, unavoidable laws of economics (i.e., human behavior); however, I can predict some of the inevitable consequences of such restrictions, including:

1. Real estate values in the residential areas of Aspen will be reduced marginally (the fewer potential uses for property, the lower the value), and values will increase marginally outside the city limits, especially in areas closest to town.

2. Restricting the supply of short-term rentals in Aspen will increase the prices of such rentals, driving some business outside the city limits and even to other resort destinations.

3. More homeowners in the residential areas of Aspen suddenly will find they have more "guests" from out of town rather than formal renters. (Additional legal restrictions invite additional scofflaws.)

4. The city will have to choose between (a) spending additional resources on rental police to enforce the restrictions, intruding further into people's personal business, or (b) ignoring rampant disregard for the law.

5. Future potential purchasers of property will have another negative factor to consider when weighing a purchase in Aspen vs. elsewhere.

If City Council believes the above inevitable consequences of rental restrictions are in the best interests of Aspen, they definitely should support the tightest restrictions they can possibly think of.

This, folks, is what happens when we elect a government comprised of 4/5 subsidized housing dwellers. (Only councilman Adam Frisch owns a free market home.) The four, desirous of leveling the playing field at every turn, cannot rent out their deed-restricted subsidized housing for extra cash, so they want to make it cumbersome for you to do it. It's only FAIR, right? Good grief.

DOWNTOWN DOWN-ZONED

Hate to say "I told ya so," but as predicted, council passed a two-story height limit for downtown construction in a special meeting on Monday night. The mayor ignored staff's suggestions and presented a package of amendments that HE preferred, stating that staff's recommendations did not go far enough. Also banned are single-family homes and duplexes, but condos will be considered if enough subsidized housing is provided to soften the deal. The mayor hates the free market, and deems re-development projects that include high-end residential on the third floor "penthouses on stilts" because these buildings "drive up real estate prices and out-compete more modest and desired restaurant and retail businesses."

When a senior SkiCo official commented that Mick's amendments were being expedited without thoughtful review, Mick came unhinged and snapped, "I'm not here to be cross-examined." And his lackeys Torre and Skadron went right along with him, both of them DYING for his endorsement in their 2013 mayoral bids.

The dummies just don't understand the economic realities: it's unrealistic to expect new mid-priced (tourist) retail, restaurants or lodging to be built in the downtown core because land values are simply too valuable for anything other than high-end rooms and businesses.

Ahh, but how funny. The law of unintended consequences is sharpening its teeth. Seems the rush is on for building permits before the new law takes effect early next month. We're about to see a crazy building boom (albeit short-term) as a result of these new restrictions. Development will abound, likely to include: a new building at the Bidwell Building site (Galena and Cooper), a penthouse atop Boogie's, a new building with penthouses to replace the Zocalito building on the Hyman Ave mall, a new building where the Gap currently stands, a 3-story residence behind Susie's on Hopkins Ave, and a third-floor penthouse atop the Aspen Athletic Club building as part of a voluntary historic designation deal. When these and the others that beat the clock are eventually completed, the boom days may be over for some time. This new land use code will make any new development in downtown Aspen economically prohibitive.

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING: ENFORCEMENT AT LAST?

Could it be the new presence of respected locals Bobbie Burkley and Rick Head on the housing board that brings a hint of sanity to the beleaguered organization? I certainly hope so! In recent weeks, two notable eviction issues have come before the board. A renter at Truscotte Place was bounced for non-compliance - she is unemployed and the housing rules mandate that residents work 29 hours a week (1500 hours/year). The second concerned a resident who owns her deed-restricted subsidized housing unit, and she has not worked in 4 years - the first two due to health issues and the subsequent two based on the difficulty of finding a job in this economy. This resident has been given until July to find qualifying employment or she will be forced to sell her unit.

Cries for "compassion" abound. A Sheriff's deputy went on record saying he is "ashamed to be associated with the county" now that APCHA is enforcing its own rules. Letters to the editor call for reprieves all around, given the economy. But the cable company doesn't wait, so surely that bill is being paid. Same with VISA. And the cell phone. Why should subsidized housing in Aspen be THE entity at the end of the list that is expected to bend/break its own rules?  

Notably in both cases, the residents both cried "witch hunt," citing "so many others" in the program who also violate the rules. The fact is, APCHA is rife with corruption and non-compliance. And we've got to start somewhere. Kudos to the APCHA board. The rules are the rules - thank you for enforcing them! There's plenty more work to do.... Keep it up!

But the best has been the recent outcry from the Aspen Homeless Shelter. They believe APCHA is "contributing to homelessness in the Aspen area." What??? Yep, the director there compared the "housing system to a college campus where one can't keep housing without staying in school." It's actually a very good analogy. But then he went on to characterize our subsidized housing program as "21^st century feudalism" where housing residents are treated "like chattel," ruminating whether Aspen is "a community for rich people and people willing to work 29 hours a week to serve them? Or is this a place that people can come to live." (Puh-lease!) Well, the answer is simple: BOTH. If you work, you can keep your housing and live here. Besides, Aspen is a service economy so many jobs are service industry jobs.  The government therefore provides subsidies to keep the housing costs well below what the market will bear.

Government-subsidized housing in Aspen is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

An easy solution: The Red Ant has recently acquired a spreadsheet that outlines the subsidized housing inventory at each of the projects in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) portfolio. I've been asking for this info for years. Interesting: there are 1429 "owned" units. The spreadsheet is vague at best, but it's a start. For example, Lone Pine condos, built in 1980, has 28 units.   Next, it would make sense to list those 28 units, with the owner of each and where he/she works. It is, after all, public information, just like voter registration. How easy would that be? Very. A simple new column or two on the existing spreadsheet, updated by APCHA each time a unit changes hands or a resident changes jobs, and posted on the county website. Think of the self-policing that would occur. It would be right there, for all to see. Nothing to hide? Nothing to worry about.

RIDDLE ME THIS: SUBSIDIZED HOUSING "MITIGATION?" REALLY?

Just a thought, but as our local governors continue to restrict free market development, they consistently DEMAND subsidized housing "mitigation" for each and every project. This, in the face of the lowest demand for subsidized housing in years and a system filled with non-complying residents. Call me crazy, but in an environment where there are far more subsidized housing dwellers than there are local jobs, why are we punishing property owners and developers, and why on earth are we building more and more government-subsidized housing? One would logically think that anyone who brings jobs to town (through construction, development of retail/restaurants/etc.) should be REWARDED for such behavior. But no. Not in Aspen. Somehow we still demand housing mitigation for more and more people who cannot find work here and cannot afford to eat/shop/live in what the Wall Street Journal deemed "The Most Expensive Town in America." (3/4/11)

MY RIDDICU-LIST: THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

It was classic. In a March 12 council discussion of how to fund the purchase of some new mowing equipment for the golf course, it was noted that the golf course would be better off borrowing the needed funds from the city because the city would charge a lower interest rate than the open market. The buffoons on council began giggling at the thought that they could "make money" by charging interest, clearly not understanding that they are the ones who also PAY that interest. Yep, this is what happens when we elect perfect idiots to serve on city council. They actually think they can MAKE MONEY by charging themselves interest.

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

In defense of the city's recent commitment to move ahead with spending $9.2M (plus a $1.2M contingency that will surely also be spent) on the "infrastructure" for Burlingame 2 despite questionable need or demand, mayor Mick evoked Caesar in his hifalutin statement justifying the build-out of the huge government-subsidized housing project: "Good governments react to circumstances as they confront them. The really great ones, the great cities, anticipate those things and are prepared for the future." Puh-lease. In reality, Mick is more like Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.

CORRECTION: AACP COST $1.37M, NOT $500K

The Red Ant is loathe to disseminate false information. As such, I must correct a recent report that the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) cost $500K. This is not true. The half-million dollar figure merely represented the costs of "existing conditions" reports ($228K), the initial public process ($225K), advertising and special tv taping ($22K), planning & zoning review meals ($4K), and a secondary public process ($23K). Omitted from the initial report were the estimated 15,000 hours of staff time spent on the AACP. According to a planning & zoning report received by The Red Ant, at a basic averaged amount of $58 per hour (includes salary and benefits for the various staff who worked on elements of the plan), that's $870K in staff resources.

Therefore, the $502K spent on studies and consultants plus the $870K in staff time brings the grand total cost of the AACP to at least $1.37M of YOUR MONEY.

MICK: A TAX SCOFFLAW!

Our mayor, a self-proclaimed and erstwhile "tax attorney" is afoul of the law. The Red Ant submitted the following letter to the editor of both papers, but neither would print it. They both need to protect their boy Mick.

To the Editor

The Aspen mayor's compensation is set by ordinance at $2325 per month, or $27,900 per year.

Mick's summer 2011 boondoggle to Europe, for which he requested and received $2418 in expense reimbursement, was not shorter than one week in length, nor was more than 75 percent of his time dedicated to official business purposes of the city of Aspen. It is unlikely that Mick could document to the satisfaction of the IRS that a personal vacation was not a primary consideration in the decision to travel. According to Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code, the $2418 then constitutes taxable income to the mayor. It does not qualify as nontaxable reimbursement for business-related travel.

Since the mayor's controversial expense reimbursement request was granted by the city, it increased the mayor's 2011 taxable income from the legally authorized amount of $27,900 to $30,318. This fact arguably places the mayor and city council, and city manager Steve Barwick (who signed the check), in violation of the law for permitting compensation of an elected official in excess of the amount permitted by the city's municipal code.

The $2418 in income did not show up on the mayor's 2011 W-2. I checked.

Aspen's Sister Cities non-profit publicly confirms helping "arrange" Mick's trip and even threw in $500 in mad money. I would hope this group would eagerly provide the necessary documentation to demonstrate that this travel meets the IRS guidelines for its tax-exempt mission. Let's see it, because it serves no tax-exempt purpose for a 501c3 organization to pay a private citizen $500 to go on a European vacation, which, according to the Internal Revenue Code, is precisely what Mick's junket was.

In the interest of public trust, and given the opaque manner in which this issue was communicated to the community, taxpayers deserve complete transparency. Citizens also deserve to know what "gifts" the mayor mailed back to the U.S., as documented in his expense reimbursement request, and how said gifts benefit the city or the Sister Cities non-profit. Otherwise, those gifts may also constitute taxable income. 

Who on city council is brave enough to stand up to the mayor and demand that he comply with the tax code? My guess is no one. Holding elected officials accountable for how they spend public money, particularly at the intersection of personal benefit and public purpose, which is where the real issue resides, is paramount to ensuring trust in our governmental system.

Is it avoidance? Is it evasion? As Denis Healey once said, "The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of the prison wall."

A RED ANT PILGRIMAGE TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

No, I won't be submitting my travel receipts for reimbursement from the public coffers, but my upcoming trip to China will likely be more of a "Sister Cities" trip on behalf of the People's Republic of Aspen than any bike ride through Europe undertaken by our greedy lame duck mayor last summer.

Besides, I need a break -- I'm simply horrified by the direction we're headed.

Yes, this is a call, one year out, to eligible candidates for office. Eligible. As in knowledgeable. And God forbid, educated. And dare I say, business-minded? And let's get a few private property and/or business owners up there, just for kicks. Mick will be gone so the tenor of the meetings will change dramatically. It's clear that Torre is gearing up to run for mayor. Lord help us. But should he fail, he'll be off the table. Skadron too will run - he has nothing to lose, given that he'll still have 2 years left on council. But really, folks. I know this community is WAAAAY in to recycling, but can't we do better? This is indeed a call-out to grown-ups in our community. PLEASE step forward and serve. Mayor or council - the 1/5 vote is the same. Dwayne? Will you think about it? Mike Maple? Your life-long residency and intelligent contributions on so many local issues position you tremendously to lead. Ward Hauenstein? Maurice Emmer? Your leadership with the hydro plant petition showed the community how you can uniquely build consensus across diverse groups. Off the top of my head, those names came up. There are many others. Leaders AND listeners. The potential is there. We CAN do better. And the community deserves FAR better than what we've got. We're a year out. Time to start thinking. I certainly don't have to be involved in your campaign, but consider me a resource. If you are thinking of challenging any one of these guys, please let me help.

ISSUE #77: FlagrANT Foolishness

"Foolishness is indeed the sister of wickedness." -- Sophocles

"People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools."  -- Alice Walker 

MICK'S ALL-OUT WAR ON "THE RICH"

He's gonna be a handful for the next 15 months, that's for sure. Lame duck mayor Mick is doggedly working through his "bucket list" of punitive restrictions to secure his legacy. Yes, as the clock ticks down on the term-limited career politician, he is on the brink of becoming an emotional wreck, desperately pushing massive spending projects and lashing out at those whose politics, fortunes and lifestyles differ from his own. His Nastiness is specifically on the warpath against those who desire private residential property in the downtown core.

At the February 27 council meeting, Mick went off on a typical diatribe, this time convincing no one (except for maybe the sycophants at the council table) that 3^rd floor penthouse additions to (questionably) historic buildings DO NOT economically finance the redevelopment of the entire property. Yeah, right.  He promised to end such "undesirable behavior" by changing the land use code and  removing "the incentive for doing what you don't want done."  That is, what HE doesn't want done.

Sadly, it's likely to happen. Local architecture firms are working around the clock on re-development plans for downtown buildings whose owners want to get their plans approved before the likely draconian changes to the land use code occur in early April. Property owners, developers and realtors beware.

TORRE'S BIG "NON-EMERGENCY"

Signaling his undying support for Mick's punitive plans to stifle free market development, Torre recently proposed an Emergency Ordinance that would have IMMEDIATELY capped downtown building heights at 32 feet and would have BANNED new free-market condos from the downtown core. (The current land use code allows for buildings as high as 42 feet with 10 additional feet allowed for mechanical stuff and stairwell enclosures.) Wonders never cease: Adam and Derek somehow were not convinced that an emergency ordinance was the way to go, and the ordinance failed in a 3-2 vote. (An emergency ordinance needs 4 votes to advance.) It would have been nice if these two had simply cited Aspen's Home Rule Charter (Article IV, Section 4.11) on emergency ordinances. Or, god forbid, ask the city attorney for the definition: "Emergency Ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, peace or safety shall be approved only by the unanimous vote of council members present or a vote of four (4) council members, whichever is less." So, tell me, where is this "public property" in Mick's and Torre's problem(s) with this issue? Health? Peace? Safety? It was all a sham, and they hoped Adam and Derek would be unknowlingly and unwittingly goaded into voting for it. But just when it looked like we have some thinkers after all, Adam stated, "We have a third-floor problem in this community." What???

Again, safe for now, but it's a very short "now."  A 3-2 vote will be a "win" for the bad guys come April when they present it again through proper channels.  We'll have to come up with a good moniker for the legislation.  Something like: SMT for Scr*wed My Town, or TSM for Terrible Socialist Method -- the 3 letters representing Torre, Steve and Mick who are the drivers of such ridiculous and punitive (and inevitable) legislation.  (It's right up there with banning residents for race, religion or sexual orientation.  This time though, it's just because the people they wish to ban actually HAVE money!)

AN UP-DOWN VOTE ON THE HYDRO PLANT IN NOVEMBER!

Victory! As predicted, council opted to ignore the recent petition's demand for a spring special election, but they did rescind Ordinance 30. Best of all, they have committed to an up/down vote on the hydro plant in November. THIS is GREAT news. That is, aside from the fact that the city clerk will write the ballot language. (No doubt this will be a convoluted mess of yes-means-no and no-means-yes gobbledy-gook, intended to confuse the voters.) But I am especially pleased that the city CANNOT BY LAW expend public funds in its advocacy of the issue. They'll call in the "surrogates" to tout the disastrous project, but the project's opposition is certain to organize (soon) and begin fundraising and campaigning. It's nice when the local environmentalists, fiscal hawks, national environmental organizations, neighbors, good public policy advocates and 953 citizens agree on one thing: the hydro plant must be stopped!  More to follow.

AACP ADOPTED DESPITE BEING BEYOND BAD

Four years and over $500K of your money later, the latest shameful chapter of bad leadership and even worse legislation continues with council's recent approval of the long overdue Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). While not a "regulatory" document per se, this decade's version presents "aspirational goals" for the community that allegedly reflect the desires of the community itself. (Never mind that much of the data collected by the planning and zoning folks who crafted the missive was tossed out when it didn't match THEIR goals for the community.) The final document is sure to keep the city's 300 employees gainfully employed while they strive to create programs that address the fulfillment of such "aspirations" as "providing accessible and affordable health and dental care for residents" and "possible amendments to the city and county codes to include review criteria for self-reliance, health and safety issues" (in other words, the creation of a fee or other methods to off-set the health-related effects of development). No, I am NOT making this up! These, and other such "philosophies," will provide decision-making "guidance" for the remainder of the decade. Good grief.

Just how did this thing pass? In a UNANIMOUS vote, the 103-page document was passed despite a lack of support by council. Huh? (Good question.) Yep, the guys were just worn down by the process. Adam Frisch notably told the Aspen Daily News, "Every time I see the word 'jobs' in here, something negative is associated with that, and I think that's horrible." Ya think? Then why on earth did you vote to approve it, Adam?

Even the city planner who spear-headed the AACP process told council, "Nobody is 100% happy with it, including staff, including the planning commissions, including you, but I think that it's a good reflection of the community discussion, the community dialog that we had on these very important issues." The Red Ant is simply aghast.

(While everything in the AACP is advisory, actual policy changes can be enacted separately by a majority vote of council. Fun times ahead....)

BURLINGAME 2: THE NIGHTMARE BEGINS

It just sickens me to write this. The city apparently had an extra $9M lying around in the housing fund so they decided to spend it on "infrastructure" for Burlingame phase 2. Here it comes. The deciding factor to move forward? 67 people have qualified with APCHA and have mortgage pre-approvals. Yep, 67 people. No commitments, no down payments, no non-refundable deposits. How this community will pay for the $100M project is beyond me and the city is staying mum.

I've acquired the list of those 67 names. It will be interesting to see how many (if any) of these folks actually close on a unit at Burlingame 2 once it's built! A quick glance at the list identifies numerous folks who already live in subsidized housing elsewhere. That's the game - when the community kicks down for new units, those in the system just move into the new places. The whole thing is a complete joke. There are currently numerous units at Burlingame for sale, not to mention throughout the APCHA portfolio - enough to fill 2/3 page in the Wednesday paper every week! Even the Burlingame 1 condo association president spoke out against the city's construction "green light," pointing out that the unsold units in the first phase indicate a lack of demand for more housing there. Council didn't care. Torre even went so far as to suggest that we raise the subsidy to fill the new units! Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

** THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

The tax man commeth.  In November.  Tin cups are rattling throughout the town: 

• Our 21-year-old library is hoping to put a $5M general obligation bond on the ballot for a 7,000 sf expansion; they've been talking about it for years and the county has already spent over $500K on plans and consultants.  Most of the new space will be public meeting rooms, and the children's area will be "revamped." Apparently our local "book warehouse" needs to be more of a "community hub," according to the librarian and a fancy international library consultant.  The library currently has an existing $5.3M endowment, but the consultant says that's not enough.  The planned $10+M project needs more money -- from your property taxes.  Really? How about an old-fashioned capital campaign?
• The Aspen School District expects a $700K deficit next year and twice that in years to come.  That is not good.  But is a 0.5% sales tax, expected to raise $2.5M annually for the schools, the best answer?  Looking at all the money that city hall has stashed in various superflous "funds," wouldn't you think that as a community we could look at re-allocating some existing taxes (or other revenue streams to the city) to our schools?  How about the 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)?  We certainly don't need any more subsidized housing and the Wheeler has a gold mine in its endowment -- how about re-allocating the RETT money (or at least some of it) to the Aspen School District for 5 or 10 years?  We could set it up so that it grandfathers back to its original purpose unless made permanent.  Now THERE'S some money that would REALLY help our schools -- and it's money that would not be missed!  Let's get smart about this, folks! THAT's one issue I'd like to see on the November ballot!!!
• Council is looking at numerous spendy projects that may or may not necessitate new taxes.  It's still early and unclear.  Heads up for: a Rubey Park (bus station) "overhaul" so that it becomes a "better place to hang out," a "friendly walking corridor" that links the library to Rubey Park, and yes, the Main Street median concept raises its ugly head again.

 Like I said, you can't make this stuff up!

GET YOUR $50 FOOD TAX REFUND - DON'T FORGET!

HERE's the form. Simply fill it out and send it in by April 16!

Just think, when you get that $50 refund check in the mail, you can turn around and make a donation. Me? I'm giving my $50 food tax refund to local stream-protection non-profit Saving Our Streams.

It's a win-win: a tax-deductible donation for me and a contribution to the group that is fighting to protect the Aspen-area streams that are threatened by the city's ill-conceived hydro plant.

 Saving Our Streams    PO Box 4135   Aspen, CO 81612  www.SavingOurStreams.com

ISSUE # 76 ... ReluctANT Minds

"Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel." -- Banker Sir John Quinton

"The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts." -- John Locke

THE LITTLE ANNIE'S BROU-HA-HA  You've probably heard that Little Annie's and its next-door neighbor the Benton Building have been spared from the landfill. Considering the two are questionably historic (at best), this is indeed a victory for the sentimental "I wish it were still 1972" Historic Hysterics who want nothing to change downtown, ever. But why don't they recognize this victory? Why are they still complaining? It's simple. The very land use code that many of them helped design that provides incentives to owners of historic properties came back to bite them. In 2011, after a nearly 18-month fight to create a law that would enable the involuntary designation of private properties, the end result was instead a voluntary historical designation program called "Aspen Modern." The program enables private property owners of buildings on "the list" to negotiate with the City for "benefits" if they choose to voluntarily designate their property. Such "benefits" include variations from and exceptions to the land use code, economic benefits, fee waivers, and priority approvals, among others. When Aspen Core Ventures, owners of Annie's, Benton and the big empty parking lot at Hyman and Hunter, submitted their development plans for a mixed use building on the site, some (including mayor Mick) went wild. How could anyone tear down Annie's? Or the Benton building, where artist Tom Benton lived and worked (before it was changed numerous times and included many different businesses including O'Leary's Pub)? But the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) did not consider either building historic so the fate was sealed. But life-long local and Aspen Core Ventures partner Nikos Hecht heard the outcry, and saw the opportunity that Aspen Modern provided. If he were to voluntarily historically designate Annie's and Benton, then his building proposal would be in a position to negotiate for benefits from the City. And that's exactly what he did. By sparing Annie's and Benton from the wrecking ball, Hecht is now able to build a larger penthouse on the building's third floor (one 6900sf unit as opposed to several 2500sf maximum-sized units) and a second unit on the second floor (2000sf). But the outcry abounds. Some think the penthouse itself was a concession by the city. Nope. The land use code allows for every inch (height/mass/scale) of the new building. But mayor Mick is incensed. He even called Hecht an "extortionist" and his proposal "blackmail" because he couldn't legally kill the project. Aspen Modern and the law of unintended consequences have created inevitable negotiations between the city and private property owners. These don't necessarily favor the city and certainly don't kill development. In the case above, it was a win-win for the developer because his building proposal with or without Annie's and Benton was completely within the code. It was through Hecht's generosity and subsequent negotiations with the city that the Historic Hysterics eeked out their own win when the city made concessions to keep Annie's and Benton standing. In addition, Hecht agreed to lease the Annie's building to an affordable restaurant tenant in perpetuity. Former Mayor Bill Stirling recognized the up-side of the deal, stating that the city has "something on the table that is very workable." So now what? Look for draconian changes to the land use code. I've mentioned before how mayor Mick is vehemently opposed to any more free-market housing in the downtown core. He went so far as to tell The Aspen Times, "I want to make downtown less attractive for luxury residential speculation."   Subsidized housing, fine. Free market housing, not so much. Council is inclined to agree. Councilman Adam Frisch speaks often about making changes to the land use code, recommending "shrinking the goalposts" and not moving them. Ok, sounds like good campaign rhetoric, but what will it really mean? Watch council pull a classic (and predictable) knee-jerk reaction and limit all downtown development to current height limits or to just two stories. It's likely. This will prevent the addition of within-current-code penthouse additions to tired (and debatably historic) buildings. Mick will be happy because no part-time residents will live in the core. Oh, but here comes the law of unintended consequences once again. The next questionably historic building will instead be fast-tracked to the landfill. It's that simple. Without room for negotiation, incentives for the owner, and/or the opportunity for the construction of an economic engine to fund the voluntary historic preservation of buildings, who in their right mind would keep them standing? Not a soul. It'll be a mess. And then we'll be back at square one. The Historic Hysterics have a choice: stay with Aspen Modern and recognize that "negotiation" means give something to get something, OR force a radical change in the land use code. If it's the latter, don't come crying when your next sentimental shack meets the bulldozer. MICK'S CLASS WARFARE WILL HAVE IMPACTS Another less-immediately apparent impact of Mick's ongoing vitriolic and punitive attitude toward development of private property could very well be a reduction of our competitiveness as a high-end, world class tourism destination. Aspen is tremendously unique as a destination because the town IS the resort. This can't be said of other ski resorts. Locals, part-time residents and visitors all converge (sleep, eat, recreate) in the same place --- Aspen. To say that certain people are no longer welcome to physically live in the downtown core WILL have repercussions. There are many other choices for those who wish to purchase private residential property downtown; they may very well stop coming. In turn, the town, its businesses and consequently the locals will feel the effects as the make-up of the community experiences incremental change. This, of course, is the intent of Mick's class warfare. But it's simply not good for Aspen. HYDRO HAPPENINGS It's official. The city clerk has confirmed that the 953 petition signatures turned in last month included at least the 594 required to force council to make a decision: rescind Ordinance 30 of 2011 that rezoned open space land for industrial use (for the Hydro Plant) or conduct a special election on the issue. Citizens are hoping for an election, primarily because many feel duped by the bond measure that passed in 2007. The horrific escalating costs and the environmental mess are the primary concerns of local voters who signed the petition. Mick is going berserk with the knowledge that SO many citizens loathe his pet political destiny project. Rather than addressing or even acknowledging the community's concerns, he has turned his efforts toward a witch hunt to root out the funding source(s) for some educational advertising that ran in both papers during the petition signature collection period. Local stream-protection non-profit Saving Our Streams (SOS) has proudly claimed responsibility for the ad buys, citing its shared desire for protecting Aspen-area streams with petition initiators Ward Hauenstein and Maurice Emmer. SOS' interest was in educating the public on the petition effort, but Mick is incensed since he does not know who the donors are to this private entity. His latest diatribe against the entity was that voters would be "suspicious" if SOS donors are not disclosed. Mick has additionally created a legal "goose chase" that only serves to utilize taxpayer funds (through legal costs) and cost the non-profit money. He has demanded that SOS register as an "issue committee" because the group spent more than $200. This is ludicrous because there is no "issue" on the table (or the ballot) at this time, and the non-profit does NOT have a major purpose of supporting a ballot question or issue. Obviously, Mick just wants to run up the group's legal bills because his argument "is incorrect as a matter of law," according to the group's Denver-based attorney. Meanwhile, for the past month, the City of Aspen has been purchasing (with taxpayer funds) print advertising in both papers that promotes the Hydro Plant! Yes, quarter and one-third page color ads. With YOUR money. But worst of all is the content of the PROPAGANDA (see bullets below) campaign called "Aspen Hydro Power - Smart, Clean, Local, Healthy" they are putting forth to mislead voters toward supporting the Hydro Plant, should the issue come to a vote. (IF/WHEN there is an election, it is ILLEGAL for the city to expend public funds to promote its stance in an issue, therefore they are just doing it early). The Castle Creek Energy Center (CCEC) will ... be the ONLY significant source of power that could be used in an emergency if the grid is down. Nice. The ad shows a picture of "Emergency Shelter at the ARC (rec center)" on CCEC power vs a dark square illustrating "Aspen in an Emergency without CCEC." Really? This argument is an insult to the intelligence of every Aspenite. This is the City's emergency plan? A small hydro plant that is designed to produce just 8% of current demand and is likely to be producing far less at the time of year such an emergency is most likely to occur, such as during a major winter storm event when the water levels are very low. Where is the City's REAL emergency plan?? Please tell me that Aspen has a better plan than sending everybody in town - residents, tourists, employees -dashing on over to the ARC in the middle of a 100-year snow storm event or other emergency? All 30,000 people during high season? Yeah, right. That's not an emergency plan, that's a scare tactic!! The useful life of solar panels and wind turbines is 20-25 years. Hydro is paid off after 25 years with at least 50 more years of hydro power for Aspen to use. For well-planned, economically-constructed and efficiently-maintained hydro facilities, this may be true. But for CCEC, this is flat-out nonsense. It has been shown by numerous sources, The Red Ant included, that the poorly planned and politically motivated hydro plant will operate at a loss for its entire lifetime. If you are aware of a 75-year-old hydro plant that has covered all of its costs over its entire lifetime, please forward the audited financials to The Red Ant. I would love to see the proof. There just may be a few examples where this has happened, but the history of hydro is that over decades, the cost to mitigate for its slow but steady environmental damage and unanticipated maintenance costs overwhelm any chance of breaking even. Ask the Bonneville Power Administration about that one. They operate some of the oldest and largest hydro projects in the nation, and they lose money every year. Why? Mitigation for environmental damage that was not recognized until decades after construction. Plus, given the city's track record in maintaining small hydro projects (back in the 90's they had to replace the turbine at the existing Maroon Creek facility after only a few years due to poor maintenance), this project's costs are going nowhere but straight up! Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Aspen is ignoring not only history but its own incompetence. Aspen will continue to buy as much wind as possible but a utility portfolio cannot be made up only of wind (or solar) because when it isn't windy (or sunny), there is no power. There must be reliable back-up power which is coal or hydro. One is green (hydro), one isn't (coal). The City argues that wind-generated electricity is not available as "base load" power - that is, power necessary to provide base services on a 24-7-365 basis. Yet independent inquiries of MEAN (the Municipal Energy Authority of Nebraska), the City's provider of electricity through the power grid, have indicated that the City could purchase more wind power if they wanted to. Additionally, "green" energy is growing, with more wind and solar power being added to the grid annually, and the technologies for generating and delivering such energy are improving. So why does the City prioritize an overpriced, old technology solution that is likely to harm our local ecology while only generating a fraction of Aspen's power needs over the virtual certainty of less expensive options with no negative local impacts? So Council can take credit and get their names on the plaque of the new Castle Creek Energy Center, that's why. Aspen should take responsibility for its own energy production and contribute to lowering global carbon emissions. Really?? I beg to differ and bet dollars to doughnuts that the citizens of Aspen agree with me. Aspen should take responsibility for being a good environmental steward, but not at ANY cost (monetary, environmental, public policy). This project's "opportunity cost" - that is, the relative cost of current and future alternatives to achieve the same environmental result over the project's lifetime, is far too high to be justified in economic terms. The CCEC is an environmentally sound project that is emission free, local and offers unprecedented protection for Castle and Maroon Creeks basing energy production on water flows. No other water users on those rivers have offered such protection. Ever. This is a seemingly plausible argument that is factually inaccurate and misleading. In other words, it is sophistry. The Red Ant knows of no other Castle or Maroon Creek water users who are currently required by law to take action to protect Castle and Maroon Creeks. The City, on the other hand, very clearly attempted to mislead the Feds by applying for a "conduit exemption" that would have allowed them to sidestep much public review, and environmental disclosure and study necessary under a normal FERC permit application process. And now they have the nerve to claim they are the ones PROTECTING the streams?? Good grief! 66% ($6.9M) of the Hydro Plant is already paid for. $3.6M more to complete the project. Finishing the project is a local investment which builds wealth in the community. Puh-lease. Only Aspen's city hall would use its own incompetence as defense for continuing to build such a poorly planned capital project. To quote a recent letter to the editor from a Glenwood Springs resident, "Their argument is that even though they're running 70% over budget, they've already built or bought most of the plant. So if they've gone this far without really caring what many respected members of the community think, why stop now?" Classic. Besides, do they REALLY think anyone buys this nonsense? "Builds wealth in the community?" As if. You get the idea: This is propaganda at its VERY (and desperate) best! The cost of these misleading ads has exceeded $10,000 to-date. Next steps: My guess is that council will be too chicken to put the issue before the electorate. They'll rescind the ordinance, which sadly will not kill the hydro plant, yet. (They can re-zone later if/when they get federal approval.) Even though this will be a big middle finger to the Aspen voters, they'll do it anyway. They are in a hole and simply can't stop digging. But, if they were smart, they'd quickly throw the issue to the voters. When it gets voted down and the hydro plant gets shut down, they can just say, "It was the will of the voters." These guys HATE making decisions so a public vote would be the easy way out. To further illustrate the contempt the City has for the public process related to the Hydro Plant, they issued a victorious press release when the feds (FERC) recently approved their application for a "traditional licensing process" (TLP) for the Hydro Plant. Many respected entities and experts opposed this application, including the White River National Forest, American Rivers, the Western Rivers Institute, Trout Unlimited, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Public Counsel of the Rockies, and Aspenites Connie Harvey, Tillie Walton and Tom and Maureen Hirsch, who instead favored the more stringent "integrated licensing process" (ILP). Since when is an expedited application process that minimizes public input a victory? Only in Aspen's city hall. It is my guess that with the esteemed and diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the project, the licensing decision will be legally contested. Look for a rescind vs vote decision at the March 12 city council meeting. It will take four of the five votes to rescind the ordinance, so there is still a glimmer of hope for that election.  Keep your fingers crossed. IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT.... City attorney John Worcester resigned recently. Seems the legal issues that the City is currently facing grew too cumbersome for the long-time civil servant. The City faces a Colorado Supreme Court battle with Marilyn Marks over public access to the voted ballots from the 2009 municipal election, and Worcester has been a key proponent of keeping the ballots locked up, despite showing the ballots on GrassRoots TV on election night. It has long been wondered what is on those ballots that Worcester doesn't want shown to the public. Furthermore, the City is embroiled in a lawsuit with neighbors of the Hydro Plant who claim that the City abandoned its water rights for a Hydro Plant when they decommissioned an earlier plant on the site in 1958. And there's the looming question for the City of whether or not the Colorado Supreme Court will take on a case APCHA (the housing authority) has been fighting since 2008. The case involves a landlord who sued APCHA claiming that its affordable housing program that mandates below-market rents in his local buildings is unconstitutional. The case is expected to go before the Supreme Court this year. (If APCHA loses the case, it could potentially have a $100M consequence for the City of Aspen.) I simply loved Worcester's claim in his exit interview that he said he never "technically" lost a case in his 21 years in the city attorney's office. So, losing 3-0 at the court of appeals on the 2009 CORA/ballot lawsuit doesn't count as a loss? Or how about that inane 2004 lawsuit Worcester filed against Kinder Morgan alleging consumer protection violations because the company doesn't account for the impact of high altitude on the heating capacity of natural gas in its rates? That was another loss at the 9th district and in the court of appeals. I guess "loss" means different things to different people! I am personally glad to see Worcester go. He was instrumental in the dismissal and public humiliation of the 2009 Election Commission of which I was a member. Worcester's collaboration with former councilman Jack Johnson to obfuscate the real issue (the election commission refused to certify the 2009 election due to numerous irregularities) and instead vilify the members showed me firsthand what citizens of Aspen were up against when challenging the City on any legal front. Worcester's resignation does save me the completion of my formal complaint to OARC: the Office of the Attorney Regulation Council regarding Worcester's role in the 2009 election commission dismissal. Worcester was a classic perpetrator of SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense. His goals were accomplished when the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, legal costs and exhaustion. SLAPP also intimidates others from participating in the debate. With Worcester now gone, will the culture of "so sue us" end at city hall? Time will tell. But his replacement is assistant city attorney Jim True, who never met a conflict of interest he didn't embrace -- so don't hold your breath! That OARC complaint draft may just come in handy some day! MY RIDDICU-LIST: THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE My favorite statement from council on the subject of a special election on the Hydro Plant came from councilman Steve Skadron who complained about the $16K cost of a special election, "My preference would be a November vote rather than a special election; it's less expensive." Never mind by law the special election must be scheduled during a period of between 30 and 90 days following the March 12 meeting. And especially never mind the $10.5M project is $5M (and counting) over-budget. Puh-lease. Less expensive? Since when does Skadron care about money?? ST. ANTon RECAP My recent ski trip to Austria and Switzerland (St. Anton, Kitzbuhel and Gstaad) was great fun with fabulous skiing. They have more snow this season than they've had in 50 years! Doing our part to undo the PR damage mayor Mick did in Europe last summer on his unofficial and unauthorized (yet still reimbursed from the public coffers) goodwill tour, my friend Gail and I donned our Aspen best at après ski:

ISSUE # 75: Gone Skiing: St. ANTon

"Snow: A form of precipitation that usually occurs three weeks prior to and the morning of departure for your ski vacation."     -- Unknown 

HYDRO: SIGNATURES ARE IN!

It was incredible. Nearly 50 local citizens voluntarily circulated petitions and garnered 953 signatures that were turned in yesterday. While the effort does not necessarily stop the hydro plant in its tracks, this certainly IS a referendum on the hydro plant! Gone are Skadron's and Torre's claims that opposition to the hydro plant is from just a "vocal minority." And more importantly, gone is Mick's favorite claim that there is a referendum on the hydro plant since 77% of voters supported the hydro plant in 2007. That particular election attracted just 800 local voters, and yes, there was overwhelming support for a $5.5 million bond to build the hydro plant. But now, at $10.5 million in costs (and counting), more people signed the petition than turned out to vote (either way) in 2007! It's abundantly clear, there is widespread outrage against the hydro plant, its environmental impacts, its ballooning costs and the city's failed process of building yet another disaster!

Now it falls to council. They have two choices. They can simply repeal Ordinance 30 that rezoned open space land for industrial use. Or, they can put it to a vote. The latter is clearly the preferred choice, but will council have the guts to go there? By law, they must conduct the special election no less than 30 days and no more than 90 days from the clerk's verification of the signatures. (Mick had been whining about wanting to possibly conduct the vote in November, but think of all the damage the city could do in 9 months!? Besides, it's not a legal option to wait.)

Councilman Adam Frisch signed the petition, citing the escalating costs and the need for citizens to again weigh in on a project that is far different today than the one approved 4 years ago. Thankfully, one of our representatives sees the value of citizen input on the issue of this runaway train. Let's hope he puts his vote where his signature is - with the citizens!!

Kudos to locals Ward Howenstein and Maurice Emmer who led the heroic community petition effort. Howenstein said upon submitting the petitions to the city clerk, "While we believe that giving the citizens of Aspen a say in the hydro project was important, we are humbled and heartened by the overwhelming support and enthusiasm we have encountered from citizens, business leaders and organizations in the Aspen community who also believe the public deserves the right to vote on this important matter."

Stay tuned. This one is about to get good.

FEAR AND LOATHING

It's always interesting to learn who will and who won't sign a petition, and why. This one was unique in that it wasn't political. It was civic. All it asked was whether or not one felt that another vote is in order given the outrageous fiscal, environmental and public policy behavior by the local government concerning the hydro plant. As a petition circulator, I had some interesting responses. Some people are STILL very frightened of the city and what will happen to them when "Mick sees that I have signed."

One friend wanted to sign, but felt that his role on the board of an organization that gets money from the city would jeopardize those funds. Puh-lease! Others who have pending development approvals in the works were frightened that these would be jeopardized. A city employee praised the effort but feared for her job if she signed. And still others feared that their subsidized housing would be affected. This, in a democracy! Isn't that amazing? Or is it? What has happened to put this genuine fear into so many citizens? It is widely "known" that there are reprisals, but are there? Really? Please be in touch and tell me your story. I will not identify you in anything I write. I'm just very curious. Is this myth or is it reality?

NO "COLD BEDS" FOR MICK

He is on a roll. Mick recently proposed to council that the land use codes be changed to prohibit free market condos, townhomes and single family homes in the downtown core. He says it's to enhance our tourist-based economy. But I know better. HERE is a letter that I wrote to the editor last week. Class warfare is indeed alive and kicking in Aspen.

NO CARS FOR MICK EITHER

Clearly the cold weather is keeping mayor Mick at his desk, dreaming of new ways to thwart the free market, especially local businesses. Yesterday's paper outlined Mick's dream of paving part of Galena Street and eliminating parking altogether on Galena and Cooper. This would result in the loss of up to 80 downtown parking places. Mick, ever the economist, told the Aspen Daily News that bigger sidewalks and better lines of sight thanks to fewer parked cars could be a boon to businesses on Galena. Ya think?

The big picture is that Mick wants to link the soon-to-be-repaired parking garage to downtown retail. And estimated costs are projected at $4.4 million. (Here we go again!) We all know that Mick hates cars - and those who drive them - so fewer cars are somehow a win for him. It surely won't be a win for local businesses. The idea is to bring people to town. And no, I don't mean by bicycle.

I will report back on how council reacts to these ridiculous ideas. And I will name names. The madness must stop.

GET YOUR $50 FROM THE CITY

Free money. It's not too often one can write that in these parts! For Aspen residents who lived within the city limits for the entire year of 2011, you are entitled to a $50 food sales tax refund. This is the result of a sales tax referendum that was passed several years ago that imposed a 1% city sales tax. It was deemed that $50 was the approximate amount of sales tax that locals would pay annually on their grocery purchases. Here's your chance to get that money back (so it's not actually free). Don't miss the deadline. Print THIS form and mail it in by Monday, April 16.

ISSUE # 74: Ant Alert: Sign the Hydro Petition

  "The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference."          -- Bess Myerson 

AN AUSPICIOUS START TO THE NEW YEAR!

A diverse group of citizens recently initiated a formal petition to repeal Ordinance 30 of 2011.  The ordinance, integrally related to the city's disastrous hydro plant project, re-zoned land in the Marolt Open Space subdivision for industrial use by the Castle Creek Energy Center and Hydro Plant.  At issue?  The city does not have federal approval to build the plant and will not for several years to come, if ever. 

This was a premature action and one in which City Council brazenly ignored all input except that from city staff before unanimously approving the land use change.

Led by Aspenites Ward Hauenstein and Maurice Emmer, an effort is underway to collect 600 signatures from REGISTERED CITY OF ASPEN VOTERS.  Upon reaching that threshold, city council will have two choices:  repeal the ordinance OR refer the issue to the electorate at a special election. 

I have recently volunteered to circulate a petition and collect signatures.  As you are well aware, The Red Ant is vehemently opposed to the city's management of the hydro plant project, primarily based on the fiscal picture.  We have seen a budget of $6.2M in 2007 balloon out of control to $10.5M in costs today, and this is certain to rise.  (HERE is a full-page ad I ran in the December 28 Aspen Daily News with cost details on the project.)  There are numerous serious environmental concerns as well.  Even the Daily News is in support of the petition effort, acknowledging that "the local press failed to do its job" educating the voters about the issue when it was approved in 2007.  Read their editorial HERE.

PLEASE sign the petition!  Just hit "reply" to this email and let me know when and where I can come to you for your signature.  There are 2 weeks left to collect the signatures and I would like to do my part!  See you soon!

Happy New Year!  May 2012 be the year we take our government back!

P.S. Voters in the County and elsewhere, please email your support for the effort to CitizensPetition81611@gmail.com  While these messages will not be counted in the "official" ordinance repeal process, your voices will be collected and heard as efforts continue to reign in this mess!  Thank you!

ISSUE #73: sANTa's Back: 2011

"Ring out the old, ring in the new

Ring happy bells, across  the snow.

The year is going, let him go

Ring out the false, ring in the true."

                  --- Alfred Lord Tennyson, 1850

'Twas winter in Aspen, it comes every year.

A long runway, more airlines and lots more to cheer!

We made it through '11 with some wins and some losses

But nothing's so bad as our corrupt city bosses.

To shine a bright light and cry-out upon news

The Red Ant is eager to email my views

I name names and wonder, what are they thinking?

The ethics, the corruption -- this boat is sinking!

The politics, they're nasty -- really, what's new?

Mick's leadership's lacking: so predicted, so true.

The boys they just sit there, scared to say boo

So the mayor steamrolls his agenda through.

We voted for Adam and got Skadron back

Independent thinkers -- still something we lack.

Torre's emotional, but he gets things done

But Derek, oh my, he is just dumb.

They don't do the reading; just sit there like fools

Their eyes? Glazed over like cold swimming pools.

Mick rants and he raves, and he yells at the folks

Council reacts like he's just telling jokes.

They ignore the public (who cares what we think?)

Steve Barwick and staff - they're tickled pink!

Council just looks to them for direction

All I can think of is the next election!

Grocery bags in plastic, they have been banned

The legislation was sloppy; the decision panned.

Now bring your own bag, or be prepared to pay

Paper bags will cost 20 cents every day.

The hydro plant faces its federal review

(An environmental study's the right thing to do.)

This slows things down, likely for years

Plus a lawsuit was filed, and the city has fears.

A decision in '58 to turn out the lights

Means the city abandoned its hydro plant rights.

The old plant was closed, pipes were ripped out

To rebuild the thing now is clearly in doubt!

We should stop now and just call it a loss

But the tab keeps on growing with Mick as the boss.

$10.5 million - today's estimated cost

It may never get built, and millions more will be lost.

Economic analyses - these were compiled

For taxpayers - wow, how we've been beguiled!

The experts, they say the project's a mess

But staff at the city will never confess.

They once again built -- with money from bonds

And when this was all gone, they just waved their wands.

Electrical rates -- these increased for us all

The costs keep on rising, the fall-out? Not small!

The "Sick of Mick" effort, while it didn't succeed

Showed disdain for the mayor, but nothing he'll heed.

Mick won his third term, thankfully his last

Let's hope that May '13 comes around fast!

Drug cartels reached our nice little town

Made clear when a major cocaine bust went down.

Several old locals were caught and were busted

The DEA made it happen; our Sheriff -- not trusted.

Occupy Aspen -- they came and they roared.

(Just 20 showed up and many looked bored.)

Of all who were there, I soon realized

Most live in housing -- yep, subsidized!

Marks won her appeal against the city

Their reaction was predictable: vengeful, not pretty.

They're hiding something from the '09 election

Courts say show ballots; city ignores the direction.

Now they appeal to the state's Supreme Court

Costing hundreds of thousands on unneeded tort.

So ironic to note that if the city should "win"

Honest elections will be over; not seen again.

It's likely they'll lose, they have a weak case

Mick vs Marilyn: looks personal on its face.

But the facts are important, no matter your side

It's abundantly clear the city's got something to hide.

Burlingame raises its big ugly head

The next phase is coming, or so it is said.

Never mind there aren't jobs nor demand for the places

The city's happy to build for imaginary faces.

They've been running an ad, begging for takers

Just sign on the list - who cares if they're fakers!?

The city just wants to break ground and dig

It's all about votes, folks, and Burlingame's BIG!

They're sneaking around, contracting to build

We don't even know if their coffers are filled.

Once again they have plans that ignore stuff like money

Want subsidized housing? Just sign up, honey!

Mick took a vacation (nothing wrong with that)

But charged us for expenses, that dirty rat!

City manager Barwick just cracked him a check

It's taxpayers' money - so what the heck!?

The bike racers came from over the Pass

In terms of spectators, we prepared for a mass.

But most were just locals, up on the hill

Restaurants went empty; no bellies to fill.

The city spent thousands, and took a big loss

What did you expect? Mick was the boss.

We're indulging Mick's fantasy (for tourism?) again

(The Red Ant personally thinks it's a sin.)

Little Annie's: a dive where we all like to eat

The menu's affordable, the façade western and sweet.

The building's in jeopardy, could be torn down

Can't we move Annie's elsewhere in town?

Below the earth's surface geo-thermal temps are hot

But drilling to harness these, a good idea? Not.

It's part of the "green" thing that pleases the city

The neighbors find the experiment noisy and gritty.

Weeks past the deadline, no water's been found

Maybe there's nothing in our under-ground!

No hot water, cold water, nothing's been hit

But the city keeps drilling; these guys just won't quit!

And then there's the Wheeler, our opera house prize

With a taxpayer subsidy - horrors, the size!

$3 mil a year for movies and shows

Nothing there makes money; that really blows.

Finally an approval for a lodge at 1A

Too bad in the process the Poma went away.

The city fought hard against new free market places

But settled when they got on-site worker housing spaces.

The Given, it's gone and the furor is done

CU sold the land and the impact was none.

Now on the site will be one private dwelling

The trees, they're all standing. The next fight? No telling.

Digging into our pockets whenever they can

The County concocted a spectacular plan:

Special non-profits now don't need to raise money

They've just upped our taxes! Don't laugh, it's not funny.

The city says rentals of your home or mine

Need to pay taxes or be guilty of crime.

They want a cut of our personal deals

Likely to spend it on staff parties and meals!

'12 is upon us and we'll be spending a lot

The city budget has 70 mil in its pot.

Capital expenditures increased the most

Fiscal responsibility? Nah! That thinking's toast.

The AACP threatens early next year

But the only answer we really need to hear:

Will it be regulatory or just serve as a guide?

If not the latter, the community's hands will be tied.

Planning & Zoning, they've been at it for years

Their draconian plans have justified fears.

Each draft in the process has met with jeers

They all prefer a return to The Quiet Years!

The Thrift Shop ladies (all volunteer)

Weeding through old stuff, garbage and gear

Made a silk purse from a sow's ear

And donated half a mil to the community this year!

Tony is back at the Hotel Jerome

The gem is again a great local home.

The J-Bar, The Library, The Antler Bar

The corner of Main & Mill: our historic star!

SkiCo stepped up and made some big changes

New lifts, new restaurants on our mountain ranges!

Better is best, and here skiing is GREAT --

The Crowns and the SkiCo -- what I call "first rate!"

Ever onward and upward in our cul-de-sac nest

We all love it in Aspen - it's simply the best!

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

Holiday blessings to you, your family and friends.

ISSUE # 72: From My vANTage Point

INEPTOCRACY (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy): A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of achieving, and where the members of society least likely to succeed or even to sustain themselves are abundantly rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

 CARBON MONOXIDE IS POISON

I've had the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department (A.V.F.D.) on my mind a lot over the past few days. Yes, I do enjoy a regular coffee at Peach's, next door to the fire station, but it's more than just checking out the awesome fire equipment. It's Thanksgiving season, and this one marks 3 years since the carbon monoxide poisoning deaths of my dear friends the Lofgren family, who died tragically at a rental house in Aspen that they acquired at a school auction. This sad anniversary was exacerbated this year by the Thanksgiving Day suicide of local restaurateur Scott DeGraff, a married father of 2, who chose carbon monoxide as his means of escape from life's troubles. Many of the same firemen who were first-responders to the Lofgren tragedy also went out on the DeGraff call.

Our fire department is comprised of community volunteers. That's why it's called the Aspen VOLUNTEER Fire Department.

PLEASE be sure that you have carbon monoxide detectors in your home. No more senseless and preventable carbon monoxide-related tragedies for our fire department or our community, please.

Lofgren update: The criminal cases in the Lofgren matter were recently dismissed. Yep, thrown out. The judge (Judge Boyd) ruled that the statute of limitations on the charges had expired. A former city of Aspen building inspector and the owner of a Glenwood Springs-based plumbing and heating company walked, just weeks before they were scheduled for jury trials on four counts each of criminally negligent homicide. The city/county argument? Implementation of a building code is voluntary and shields the inspector from any civil or criminal liability. Swell, then why have an inspector?? A civil case remains. And don't forget, as a community, we paid the $250K+ in defense bills for the former building inspector with public funds.

As a result, there are still so many unanswered questions related to the Lofgren tragedy:

• Why was this home so lethal?
• Why was there no carbon monoxide detector as required by law?
• Why did this home have a certificate of occupancy?
• Who is responsible for their deaths?

And most notably, with no criminal trials, there will be no insight obtained as to what actually happened. The friends and family of Caroline, Parker, Owen and Sophie will never hear the evidence that the grand jury heard; evidence that compelled them to issue indictments. There were countless failures that led to this tragedy. By dismissing the cases, the judge, and we, as a community, have again failed the Lofgrens. Carbon monoxide detectors save lives. Get yours today. And give one to a friend.

(Side note: Judge Boyd is the same judge who dismissed Marilyn Marks' lawsuit against the city for refusing to disclose the anonymous voted ballots from the 2009 municipal election. His dismissal was recently slapped down when the Appellate court overturned his decision unanimously, 3-0.) 

HYDRO PLANT: THE ECONOMIC BASICS

I recently got so fed up with the ineptitude of those on city council who regularly continue to blindly grant more and more funding (today we're up to $9.5M on the $6.3M project, and FAR from finished) for the ill-conceived Hydro Plant and Castle Creek Energy Center that I did a top-line economic analysis of the project. When both papers refused to run my essay as a Guest Opinion (lest they give me any credibility), it was likely because the piece blew several enormous holes in the B.S. the city has been peddling in defense of this misguided endeavor. So, The Red Ant purchased a full-page ad in the paper and ran it anyway over Thanksgiving weekend. HERE it is: 

ASPEN'S WATER-GATE: THE HYDRO PLANT DEMONSTRATES HUBRIS WITHOUT PARALLEL

Aspen's exclusively political program of environmental hubris, funded by the bottomless pit of its underrepresented tax base and fueled by the misleading 2007 ballot measure promising clean energy at a construction cost of $6.3 million, is finally facing its Waterloo. If built, the Castle Creek Energy Center will for decades be defined as Aspen's "environmental loss leader," costing millions more to build and operate than it can recover in energy revenue over the next half century. Here are three important numbers:

• 2.83 cents: The 2010 actual direct cost per kilowatt hour (kwh) to generate 16.8 million kwh of hydropower from the City's two existing hydro facilities at Reudi Reservoir and Maroon Creek.
• 9.47 cents: The estimated direct cost per kwh to generate 5.6 million kwh (8% of the City's 2010 total energy load of 69 million kwh) of hydropower annually from Castle Creek. That's more than three times the 2010 actual cost.
• $1.9 million: The resulting - very, very conservatively estimated - loss in current year dollars of operating Castle Creek over the coming half century.

The City currently pays just 4.6 cents (plus a small charge for transmission services) per kwh for wind energy purchased from its primary energy provider, the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN). That's less than half of Castle Creek's projected cost. Why does the City insist on passing such costs along to its customers when far less costly yet still "renewable energy" options exist?

Because destiny trumps environmental stewardship, Aspen's leadership seeks not just political credit but political immortality. A permanent edifice to their wisdom, like a marble statue of a Greek tragedy, the Castle Creek Energy Center is their end goal. And when seeking immortality, cost becomes secondary when it's somebody else's money. Their arrogance enables the over-estimation of their own competence, resulting in tragically poor decisions despite overwhelming facts and recommendations to proceed differently; the very definition of hubris.

For those with the stomach for it, here are the underlying details, derived directly from information provided by the City through numerous Colorado Open Records Act requests. The most recently disclosed Castle Creek Energy Center construction budget, which includes a new 1.175 megawatt hydro plant, is $9.5 million. A 50% increase over the original budget, it is sure to increase, but $9.5 million provides a conservative starting point for this analysis.

Cost of Capital

Capital always comes at a price. Assigning a conservative 3% cost of capital and a 50-year life expectancy to this $9.5 million "investment," the resulting 6.64 cents per kwh cost of capital alone is over twice the total cost of power generation from the debt-free Reudi and Maroon Creek hydro facilities.

Operations

Let's conservatively assume the cost per kwh to operate Castle Creek will be the same as Reudi and Maroon Creek. The combined cost of capital and operations (6.64 + 2.83) brings the estimated direct cost for Castle Creek to 9.47 cents per kwh.

Loss Leader

At 9.47 cents per kwh, power from the Castle Creek hydro plant is so expensive it would cost more to generate than the City could charge under its 2010 rate structure. Specifically, Castle Creek power will be 43% and 12.7% more expensive than the City's 2010 residential and commercial base energy rates of 6.6 and 8.4 cents, respectively. This translates to an estimated loss of $38,000 per year, or $1.9 million in red ink over 50 years. And those are just the conservatively estimated direct costs of a facility designed to provide only 8% of the City's power load. This analysis does not reflect the very real additional costs of overhead and administration.

The financial shock from this new cost center has already resulted in rate increases for local residents and businesses. Earlier this year, city council increased electric rates an average of 16% over the next four years (for a residential customer using 1,350 kwh per month). The first phase of this increase became effective November 1, and future annual increases through 2015 have already been approved. Without this pricier new rate structure, the annual losses for the hydro plant would be an order of magnitude greater. Even with these rate increases, however, the hydro plant will still operate at a loss for its entire lifetime.

Not only will the Castle Creek Energy Center be a loss-leader for the City, it will be the most expensive source of power in the City's energy portfolio. Combining Castle Creek's cost with that of Reudi and Maroon Creek, and conservatively assuming the new hydro plant will run at full capacity, the "blended" cost for all City of Aspen hydro power generation will increase 58%, from 2.83 to 4.48 cents per kwh. In reality, however, this 4.48 cents per kwh rate will likely be much higher because Castle Creek will not initially and may never run at full capacity to produce the promised 8% of total power generation.

In Aspen's council chambers, political hubris reigns. City leaders seek the credit while we pay the ever-increasing costs and on-going subsidies. With cheaper and more environmentally friendly options at their fingertips, City leaders aspire to an expensive and ill-conceived "clean green" destiny despite the fundamental flaws in their plans. Why? Political credit outweighs public benefit. Ambition trumps principles. Immortality overshadows environmentalism. And political destiny, no matter how misguided, is worth more than any amount of other people's money necessary for its attainment.

STOP THE HYDRO PLANT TODAY! NO MORE SPENDING UNTIL THE LEGAL CHALLENGES ARE RESOLVED AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE KNOWN!

Immediately after this ad ran, council quickly postponed its impending meeting on rezoning a city-owned parcel of land along Castle Creek upon which the city intends to build the Castle Creek Energy Center from "residential" to "industrial use."  Council will now have a work session on December 12 to discuss "economics" and "water quality" issues pertaining to the Hydro Plant and Energy Center and will follow up on the rezoning issue in January. Of note, it appears that the city is now attempting to seperate one project (Hydro) from the other (Energy Center). I see this as positive indication that the city is fearful that its $9.5M investment in the Hydro Plant infrastructure (built prior to having a permit and with a current lawsuit challenging the water rights to even build one) is in serious jeopardy. But, while the Hydro Plant may get tied up, the rezoning of this specific parcel (amidst a residential neighborhood) for an undisclosed "industrial use" stands to proceed. If I had to speculate on what's going on, I'd guess this t.b.d. "industrial use" could at some point in the future be so intrusive to the neighborhood that the neighbors might regret not allowing a hydro plant there. How's that for vengeance? These guys are bad. Really bad.

**And a big THANK YOU to readers of The Red Ant who generously contributed to this impactful "strategic communication" (advertising) effort. I'd like to run the ad again. If you are interested in helping with the cost, please "reply" to this email.     

BALLOT BROU-HA-HA: THE CONDENSED VERSION

The legal fight continues with the city's recent appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. It's really simple: the city attorneys argue that public disclosure of voted ballots will cause public harm because (in Aspen) ballots may not be anonymous, therefore they must remain secret, where only election officials and city staff can see them and know how people voted. Now remember, by law, if the city doesn't conduct an election that ensures anonymous untraceable ballots, that election is unconstitutional. Period. And an unconstitutional election can be nullified by the courts, even years after the election.  (Get the picture why city council might be a little worried about exposing the ballots?) Like I said, it's simple. Somehow, the city geniuses (this includes city council) feel that Aspen is special and our ballots SHOULD be traceable to the voter and available only to "insiders," therefore they cannot be made public and must be kept secret. The legal update: Marilyn's original case against the city (to disclose the 2009 ballots) was dismissed in bureaucracy-friendly district court (the case was deemed not worthy of being heard), but when she appealed to the State Appellate Court, surprise, they came down 3-0  strongly and clearly in her favor. The city is ignoring the appellate ruling while it appeals, likely risking hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to keep whatever it was they did to those 2009 ballots in the dark. For now. THE PATTERN OF SECRECY LIVES ON I looked back at an earlier issue (#48) of The Red Ant that focused on "Secrecy at City Hall," the subject of a speech I made at a September 2010 Aspen Business Luncheon. It's frightening how little has changed. The city's legal obsession with "secret" vs "anonymous" ballots fits right in, underneath the big "secret" umbrella. I hate to pull a "Danforth" (the owner of the Aspen Daily News who regularly recycles old columns instead of writing new ones), but I thought the following excerpt from the Business Luncheon speech was worth running again amidst the latest goings-on: "I'm here today to talk for a few minutes about what I see as the "Culture of Secrecy" at Aspen's City Hall. In general, when I use the term "city hall," I am referring to city council, city attorneys John Worcester and Jim True, and city manager Steve Barwick. Now, it's no secret that I was appointed to be an Election Commissioner in 2009, just prior to the now infamous IRV election. In short, here's how it went ---- The public voted in 2007 to use Instant Run-off Voting in our elections. That there were multiple methodologies of the controversial vote-counting scheme was kept secret from the voters. The "rules" for Aspen's vote count were determined mostly in secret meetings of city staff, the city attorneys and the incumbents running for office -- Mick and Jack. Among other problems, as an election commissioner I witnessed messed up pre-election software testing. In one case, the candidate with lowest number of votes came out as the winner, while the candidate with the highest number of votes became the loser. Reminds me of the biblical reference "the first shall be last and the last shall be first."   ---- But I digress..... This precipitated some late-night last-minute software changes in the wee hours before the election. City attorney Jim True tested this software alone, in secret, in his office. And after the election, when the city's election contractor discovered a vote tabulation error, the city kept this secret until the deadline for a recount had passed. But when the election commissioners began to ask questions, we were swiftly "disappeared." Before I left ---- one big secret had been revealed: the city knows how you voted. It's been proven. Your constitutional right to an anonymous ballot has been violated, and this was likely not the first time. Now the city calls that election "the most transparent" in history. WRONG. It's all a big secret. It comes down to this fundamental question: Why won't the city show the same ballot images that they showed on television screens the night of the election? What are they hiding? It will be extremely difficult for the current election commission to make the changes that the city attorneys and city council don't want made. But laws were broken, and we must demand that integrity and honesty be returned to our local elections. That's no secret." Scary, huh? As true today as it was 15 months ago. THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE Remember the city's messy and loud $200K geo-thermal drilling experiment (See Issue #67)? A friend of The Red Ant informs me that "not only have they not hit ANY water, hot or cold, the city has asked them to drill down to 1500 feet. We were told that the contract was for 1000 feet. And they are to be finished by December 1. I hate to bitch, but .... Oh yeah, it's our city. Gotta trust them, right? You should know!" .... Like I said, you can't make this stuff up!! AND ONE MORE ADDITION TO THE "FILE" Check out this official agenda from the city clerk's office for the recent Election Commission meeting on November 29. Yes, you are seeing it right. I received an email the morning of November 29 with the following message: "Damn. We missed the meeting. It was at 1am. (City clerk) Kathryn Koch confirmed last night that it was at 1pm. In the dark of night is where city council does its business." Now at least we have the answer to all of the "darkness" that pervades local governance.

ISSUE # 71: RampANT Abuse in Subsidized Housing

"Subsidizing the markers of status doesn't produce the character traits that result in that status; it undermines them. It's easy to see why. If people don't need to defer gratification, work hard, etc., in order to achieve the status they desire, they'll be less inclined to do those things. The greater the government subsidy, the greater the effect, and the more net harm produced."  

                     --- "Philo of Alexandria," 2010, blogger 

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING: THE BIGGEST "GAME" IN TOWN Despite recent news of an unprecedented glut in local subsidized housing inventory, and ongoing record levels of foreclosures in the working-class neighborhoods of the mid-valley, the city of Aspen's plans for 167 more subsidized housing units at Burlingame phase 2 continue. There is $7.2 million proposed for infrastructure construction at Burlingame in the city's 2012 proposed budget. And the city is even planning to lease excess seasonal rental units at Burlingame to the Aspen Valley Medical Foundation for use by the local homeless. Remind me again why we need more subsidized housing?? Over 200 people have signed up for subsidized units at Burlingame 2 on the no-risk waiting list, but to-date, just 22 are both APCHA and bank loan pre-qualified. Council has indicated though that with 60 pre-qualified buyers (who still won't have to commit - financially or contractually), they will likely give the go-ahead to begin construction. Even if the plans are delayed a year, the city will spend $1.9M in 2012 "planning" Burlingame 2.  In the meantime, the city is currently running half-page 4-color ads in the local papers, imploring those interested to "Do your part (get qualified with APCHA and for a loan) so we can start digging in 2012."  Shameless. This is all before city council's promised "strategic review" of subsidized housing, allegedly an in-depth analysis of critical issues facing the program, including: retirees in housing created for workers, governance of the program, and the government's role in HOA solvency issues, among others. It seems that the bureaucrats at city hall simply intend to steam forward despite the economy, the enormous excess housing inventory and all matters of better judgment. *** I've been planning a multi-issue expose on housing, and there's no time like the present to launch it. Reader's Tip: In early 2009, Issue # 22 of The Red Ant "Affordable for Whom?" outlined the subsidized housing basics. I don't plan to bore you by repeating them. Please take a minute and glance back through that installment to refresh your memory on how subsidized housing works around here. The one key point is to recall that two-thirds of the 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) goes to the subsidized housing fund. If this money was not thus dedicated, we would not be having this discussion. However, the use of "other people's money" has made it far too easy to be careless with this particular "marker of status." This issue will simply whet your appetite for what's to come, and several issues that follow (schedule to be determined by the events of the day) will explore and expose the corrupt underbelly of our subsidized housing program, focusing primarily on the ineptitude of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA), its board and its rules, and demonstrating through blatant mismanagement, negligence, lack of proper oversight, and special favors for special people that the program is the embodiment of the law of unintended consequences. In short, we need more subsidized housing like we need a hole in the head. I am often challenged on my disdain for our subsidized housing program. It's true, I think it stinks. This fabulous community asset has been so horrendously mismanaged since its inception that gaming the system has become the rule vs. the exception, and as many subsidized housing complexes find themselves horribly underfunded for ongoing and deferred maintenance, it becomes ever more clear that the program was doomed from the start. The continual answer to compliance problems is simply to build more housing; somehow non-compliant dwellers and those who constantly want to move to newer units are seen as indicators of legitimate demand for the construction and funding of more and more units. The telling quote of the decade related to the substandard maintenance of subsidized housing came from former city councilwoman and Housing Frontiers Group member Jackie Kasabach, who asserted (4/18/11), "Nobody thought about it... that this program (subsidized housing in Aspen) would last 30 years and that these buildings would need to be maintained." (It's a naive perspective for sure, but indicative of how many residents of our subsidized housing projects actually think!) Of course nobody thought of it. And there's a long list of other things nobody thought of. Such as selling homes to people without explaining the responsibilities of home ownership (like paying association dues), and turning these multi-million dollar public housing complexes over to residents to manage (and theoretically collect association dues from their friends). Each complex's set of rules and declarations is different, and APCHA has no, zero, zip role in ongoing "management" once the units are sold, aside from "dealing with" compliance issues, which they do very very poorly. And this is not to mention APCHA's chain of title/custody dilemma: each time a unit is sold to a new buyer, APCHA oh-so-briefly holds title to the unit. As the rapid and unchecked deterioration of the housing stock continues, APCHA's responsibility for disclosure and overall liabilities increases. There is a troubling groundswell among various subsidized housing project residents that the deferred maintenance issues should be paid for by taxpayers, never mind it was the private property owners who subsidized these places to begin with and the deferred maintenance is solely because the residents neglected to contribute to and build up their own reserve accounts! So, as questions arise about funding more and more and more subsidized housing units, I feel strongly that it is far more important for this community to get a handle on just what it is we currently have in our inventory (APCHA cannot produce a comprehensive inventory list, just that we have approximately 2800 units), who lives there (APCHA's list is sketchy and not easily obtained - it should be a matter of public record), whether or not the current residents qualify (there are various income maximums, asset maximums and annual work requirements), what the unfunded HOA liabilities are across the portfolio, who is responsible for making up the shortfall(s), who is ultimately "in charge," and what can be done to better prepare ourselves and these complexes for the next 30 years. Clearly the status quo is an abject failure. In short, before we build more units, we must learn to take care of what we have. (Ya think?) And if that means blowing APCHA and its incompetent board up in the process, that's a start. To illustrate the caliber and quality of work done by the 12 members of the APCHA staff (at combined salaries totaling approximately $658K annually) and its equally dysfunctional board, here are a few colorful vignettes. Sadly, this is just a sample of the recent goings-on:  APCHA STAFF ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL PUBLIC RECORDS/ALTER POLICY DOCUMENTS The Red Ant regularly employs the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) to obtain public documents from our local government. In the process of trying to obtain APCHA materials, I was met with great push-back. When finally directed by the city to provide me with the requested information, APCHA director Tom McCabe went berserk. Wildly making hundreds of copies of documents and commissioning the county's outside council to review them, McCabe tried to charge The Red Ant nearly $1000 for the materials and legal advice --- a foolish attempt to punish The Red Ant for making an in-depth inquiry. (I am incidentally a member of the Colorado Press Association and enjoy all the rights and privileges of working press throughout the state.) When questioned about the $475 hourly rate paid to local attorney Tom Smith through yet another CORA request ("please show me all billing statements for Tom Smith in 2011"), ooops, APCHA was forced to admit that they lied. Mr. Smith apparently "only" gets paid $250/hour. APCHA was just trying to stick it to The Red Ant for digging around, and no, of course The Red Ant will not be paying one cent for that! And all those copies? Bummer. That's not how it works. After a CORA request, the requestor can review the materials but must only pay for any copies that are taken away - not the entire request before review! Another attempt to keep The Red Ant at bay. Best of all was the CORA request about APCHA's own CORA policies. When I received the document via email, it was hilarious to see in the embedded meta-data that the document had been conveniently edited THAT DAY! Hmmm. Wonder what it is they're hiding!?! The liars, cheaters and scofflaws at APCHA thought they were thwarting The Red Ant and my access to public information. But alas, they simply showed the caliber of their own professionalism. INMATES RUNNING THE ASYLUM In case you were wondering how the egregious decisions affecting our housing inventory are made, it's best to start by looking first at who makes those decisions. In the case of the APCHA board, this means Marcia Goshorn, Ron Erickson, Kristen Sabel and Erin Smiddy. And when you include APCHA director Tom McCabe, it is noteworthy that ALL live in subsidized housing -- the very inventory they are designated to oversee and whose rules they are responsible for enforcing. (At press time, congratulations are in order to former APCHA board member Cathy Markle who recently purchased a free market home in Eagle County, taking full advantage of the recent decline in real estate prices -- the original intention of the subsidized housing program!) Frankly, it's Aspen's very own "Peter Principle" in full force at APCHA: in a heirarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.  All these entrenched bureaucrats with no place else to go, making the same mistakes and intentional oversights again and again and again.... A SPECIAL DEAL FOR AN OLD FRIEND When former county commissioner Wayne Ethridge was found in violation of his deed restriction (renting out one unit that he owns while living in another, owned by his ex-wife), the APCHA board voted to let this infraction slide. Even APCHA staffer Julie Kieffer who is a "qualifications specialist" to the tune of $52K annually, recommended that APCHA force Ethridge to sell his Aspen Village trailer or force his ex-wife to sell the W/J Ranch unit where he currently resides. (In his own defense for breaking the rules, Ethridge claimed he would lose most of his life savings if he sold in this market.) Kieffer reminded the board that "we never guaranteed a profit," but the board completely ignored her recommendations. They just kinda felt bad for their friend. RESIDENTS WASTE ENERGY WHEN THEY DON'T PAY THE BILLS! Tenants of the Truscott Place subsidized housing project (next to the golf course) have long had utilities included in their rent. But with no incentive to conserve energy, residents were known to often leave the heat on with windows open throughout the winter. In late 2010, APCHA decided to pass the electric costs along to tenants in addition to their rent in 148 of 198 units there. (50 units do not have individual meters so these will see 5% annual rent hikes beginning in 2012 to account for the electricity costs.) Sounds pretty reasonable, especially for a city with aggressive energy conservation goals! But wait, APCHA then decided to lower the rents for these new electricity customers since they might see a considerable jump in expenses if they have to pay rent plus electricity! APCHA director Tom McCabe somehow thinks that conserving energy will be "more apparent" to renters who pay their own bills, but I disagree -- not in this case. It won't happen if the rent is reduced accordingly "to make the cost of rent and electricity roughly equal to what tenants are paying now." C'mon! Theoretically, grown-up local workers live at Truscott. In order to get people to conserve energy, make them pay for their electricity usage just like the rest of us. Obviously. W/J RANCH vs ORDINANCE 22 (APCHA vs FREE MARKET) - TOTAL HYPOCRISY! Remember Ordinance 22 of 2008? (Read Issue #9) The punitive and anachronistic measure made certain that owners of adjoining condo/townhome units in the city of Aspen could not combine multiple units into a single larger space -- without building a subsidized housing unit on-site -- because this would create a "loss" of rental inventory, presumably for local workers. Many local residents own multiple units in in-town complexes and had intended to combine their units, but Big Brother stepped in and said No Way, No How. But then it happened in subsidized housing! Picture this up at the subsidized W/J Ranch (on McLain Flats Road): guy owns one side of a duplex, girl owns the other. They date, marry and adopt two kids. And then they knock out the common wall to make the duplex into a larger family home. APCHA thinks this is just great. Board member Ron Erickson even went so far as to endorse the violation, "I don't see this as a problem in keeping with the spirit of the housing code - to accommodate families as they grow. They just took a short cut." C'mon Ron, they broke the rules! Current housing guidelines do not allow a household to own two separate subsidized housing units. But the APCHA board didn't care. As long as the wall is replaced when the family moves, they can maintain their status quo. I wonder what would happen if someone tried this at South Point (free market) condos? What's good for the (silent tax-paying) goose is clearly not good for the (entitled) gander. And now there's one less subsidized housing unit available for a qualified employee or family as a result. Ahhh the hypocrisy! SCOFFLAWS WELCOME APCHA currently has no policy for background checks on applicants for subsidized housing. In late 2010, the idea was brought before the county commissioners by APCHA's attorney. Predictably, Jack Hatfield saw the concept of checks as "oppressive and draconian," but George Newman saw the wisdom, "Housing is not a right, it's a privilege." The permissive nature of the APCHA program has enabled several of our recently-busted alleged cocaine dealers to enjoy living in subsidized housing, and has even enabled a local scofflaw to rent a studio apartment at Truscott despite trashing her previous free-market rental and telling the judge that she couldn't/wouldn't pay the damages because she has no job and no income. How does this happen? How and why can she occupy a subsidized housing unit for local employees if she doesn't work? Strangely, she and her boyfriend (who listed his official address as the Pitkin County Jail) managed to pay rent at their free market rental, but she now claims (and collects) disability which she uses to pay $642/mo rent and live subsidized at Truscott. The judge has ordered her to pay her former landlord $3000 for repairs to the trashed apartment, but to-date she has merely sent in a $5 bill. But she's safe and warm in her APCHA studio. APCHA claims she provided proof of Pitkin County employment and disability, but these records were not kept. Puh-lease! Talk about corruption! The Red Ant is in possession of photos of this tenant's move-in to Truscott -- using a RFTA truck to do so. Apparently her brother works at RFTA. Hmmm. Is this why she gets a subsidized housing unit without working and doesn't have to pay court-ordered penalties?? LITTLE APCHA FACTIODS TO SHOCK AND AWE In 2009, 7 owned subsidized housing units went into default. Of these, 3 went through foreclosure. In 2010, these numbers were 9 and 4. When a subsidized housing owner forecloses on a unit, there are several little-known "special funds" at the city (#150: Affordable Housing/Daycare Fund and #160: Housing Authority, and perhaps others) that the city uses to buy the note (and thus the unit) from the foreclosing bank. In 2010, the city used at least $567K from these two funds to buy foreclosed subsidized housing units. The Red Ant is investigating these funds, the available balances for such purposes, and other interesting tidbits. Can this go on indefinitely? How soon until the foreclosing banks can sell the note(s) to just ANY buyer?  Stay tuned.... In 2008, a survey of APCHA owners and renters showed the average age of the owner as 48 and the average age of the renter as 44. It's late 2011, so these numbers are now approaching 52 and 48! APCHA does not know how many of its units are currently for sale. (Not all units are required to list with APCHA.) The weekly listing in the Aspen Daily News on Wednesdays used to fit into a vertical half-page spot. Today the listings fill a full page. There have been ZERO evictions for employment non-compliance (not working) by APCHA since the beginning of 2009. In 2010, APCHA was granted permission to "randomly audit" 100 owners of APCHA units for compliance. To date, APCHA has not audited any. APCHA has no idea the number of retirees currently occupying subsidized housing units. (This is distinctly one reason why I do not refer to the units as "employee housing.")

And like I said, this is only the beginning.  There is much more to come on the corrupt underbelly of our subsidized housing program.

** MY "RIDDICU-LIST" -- THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

It was confirmed by Aspen's Sister Cities organization on October 14 that, in addition to the $2418 mayor Mick got from the Aspen taxpayers for his European vacation, Aspen's sister cities program gave him $500. (Yes, sister cities gets its $15,750 annual budget from the city of Aspen, so taxpayers paid twice!) I wonder where else the mayor finagled public money for his boondoggle.... The water fund? The housing fund? Let's face it. When lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick approves such reimbursements, it's amazing there isn't more fraud. Or is there? 

Notably, when The Red Ant notified council of this additional stipend for the mayor, Mick suddenly announced at the October 24 council meeting that he would be returning the $500 -- not because he admitted wrong-doing (he would NEVER do that), rather, so that he could participate in a discussion over a local event that benefits the Sister Cities program.  I'll be following up to make sure he does return the cash!

ON A LIGHTER NOTE....

On the subject of mayor Mick's taxpayer-subsidized European vacation, local resident Denise Malcolm submitted one of the better letters to the editor I've read in a long time, entitled "Love the New City Program." For a good laugh:

Editor:

I was delighted to discover that Aspen has a new vacation subsidy program. I had a wonderful two week vacation last month with my two daughters in England and France and those 5 euro cokes at Parisian cafes start to add up. Like mayor Mick, I would estimate that I shared the "awesomeness of Aspen" message at least two out of three vacation days with local people that I met. Of course, in all fairness, I probably spent less than 1 percent of my total vacation time sharing that message, but it appears that the proration formula is that any day that you share the "awesomeness of Aspen" message, you can get a reimbursement of your total vacation expenses - excluding traffic tickets incurred by your loved ones - regardless of how much actual time was spent sharing the message. 

Since mayor Mick was not on pre-authorized city business, it would seem that all local residents should be eligible for this vacation subsidy program. Where should the residents of Aspen be directing their 2011 vacation invoices? How much detail should be included about our personal campaigns to promote the awesomeness of Aspen while on vacation?

I am getting ready to plan my vacation for the summer of 2012, so just to clarify, are all overseas destinations eligible for this vacation subsidy program, or just Europe? Will Aspen establish an Affordable Vacation Authority to run this new program?

Denise Malcolm
Aspen