ISSUE # 70: IncessANT Taxation

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. 

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. 

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."  

                                        --- Abraham Lincoln

Election season in Aspen never seems to end. This time, it's an off-year Pitkin County election, conducted solely by mail-in ballot. Remember, these must be received by the clerk no later than 7p local time on Tuesday, November 1. For more information, go to www.PitkinVotes.org THIS IS NO TIME FOR PUNITIVE ARROGANCE We have relatively few issues to decide on this election cycle. The biggie is Referendum 1A: Dedicated Property Tax for Healthy Community Fund. In short, we've had the Healthy Community Fund since 2002 with about $800K in annual funding from property taxes for its first 5 years.  In 2006, voters upped the take to $1.25M a year through 2012. The money supports a wide range of "social services" non-profits and cannot be used by the government for any other expenses. With the fund's expiration on the horizon, Referendum 1A is on the ballot, not as a renewal, but as an increase to about $1.9M annually.  That means a property tax hike. I briefly grappled with 1A but just can't support it. The county commissioners originally debated a simple renewal of the fund at its current funding level. Had they done this, I'd go along. However, when commissioner Rachel Richards pushed for a $3.5M funding level and the issue was later "compromised down" to a $446,000 increase ($1.9M annually), it made me sick. Why? She knows (as do you and I) that property tax measures regularly pass in Pitkin County. (It's because so many of the voters pay so little of the taxes.) In this economic environment, for Richards and her cohorts Michael Owsley and Jack Hatfield to simply up the ante just because they can is punitive arrogance; plucking the silent goose yet again. I REALLY don't like the government deciding which charities I MUST support either. My guess is that this, like other property tax measures before it, will pass. But not with my vote. FYI: THE GOVERNMENT "WINNERS" Referendum 1A can be viewed as a tax that makes select local non-profits into component units of government, reducing and potentially eliminating their need to fundraise, and replacing private donations with tax dollars.  This would make these non-profits subservient to the government's political mission rather than their own missions to serve people directly.  And who is the government to pick non-profit winners and losers anyway? The following is a list of local non-profits that the government has deemed "winners" - a bigger pot of gold with a new and bigger "fund" will add to these organizations' dependence on your tax dollars. Among others, you're already donating to these organizations, like it or not: Mountain Valley Developmental Services RESPONSE Family Visitor Programs Community Health Services Mountain Family Health Centers Planned Parenthood Sopris Therapy Centers Aspen Counseling Center The Right Door Valley Partnership for Drug Prevention Alpine Legal Services Colorado West Psychiatric Hospital Roaring Fork Early Learning Fund GRASSROOTS TV Aspen Public Radio Aspen Center for Environmental Services (ACES) Independence Pass Foundation Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers This is NOT a judgment of any kind on these entities, just an FYI to let you know that you already support them so you can now make your discretionary charitable donations to other worthy programs that are not on the government's list of "winners" and likely REALLY need your contributions! HERE'S HOW I'M VOTING To see a sample ballot, click HERE. State of Colorado Proposition 103: NO (I hate property tax increases and sales tax increases, and I especially hate throwing good money after bad at our failed education system.  HERE is an intelligent commentary by Joyce Rankin on why this measure and Garfield County's 3A won't change a thing, other than  your property taxes!) Referendum 1A: NO (I'm taking a stand and falling on my sword.) Referendum 1B: YES (Expands the current FM radio and TV translator tax to include wireless and internet when the technology is available and affordable. No tax increase today, just the ability to expand the category of services.) Referendum 1C: YES (House-keeping edits to County's Home Rule Charter.) Referendum 1D: YES (House-keeping edits to County's Home Rule Charter.) Referendum 3A: NO (I like term limits. A lot.) School Board: I do not have an educated opinion on any of the candidates. (Garfield County/Referendum 3E:  NO.  See Prop 103 above.) PITCO'S VOTER ROLLS Ever wonder how and why a county with a total population of 17,148 (according to the 2010 US Census) can have 14,000 people on its voter rolls? I wonder all the time. The reason is simple: our voter rolls are swollen with former residents, wanna-be residents and residents of the afterworld. No kidding. I know this because I acquired a copy of the list and was horrified to see the names of many people who simply should NOT be registered to vote here!  And they're all being sent ballots this week!  (WHERE will these end up!?!) AN ELECTION INTEGRITY EXERCISE -- EVERYONE CAN HELP! HERE is the hot-off-the-press list of all 14,000 registered voters in Pitkin County. Yep, 14,000 is a lot of names, but do me a favor. Glance through it online. (You know you're curious!!  I sure was!!)  It's easy - the names are alphabetical and it really goes quite fast. And yes, it is entirely legal that I have this list.  It's a public record.  Jot down the names that you believe to be on the list in error (for whatever reason) and please send these to me. This exercise won't remove anybody from the official list, but will likely demonstrate what I know to be true - our list isn't accurate. I plan to compile one comprehensive list of suspected "erroneous" names and provide them to the County Clerk. It will become that office's responsibility to look into these potential problems, if they so choose. I already have a list started. I'd like to add your findings to it. It won't be scientific by any stretch, but is intended to make the case that we have some spring cleaning to do! As you are all too aware, our local elections are hotly contested and every single vote counts. It is more important now than ever that we work to clean up our database. Besides, the 2012 general election is shaping up to where Colorado is highly likely to be a bell-weather state for the Presidential election. Voter integrity is of the utmost importance. Thanks in advance for your assistance with this unique grassroots exercise!

THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE As we all watch "Occupy Wall Street" across the country with varying degrees of bemusement and dismay, did you realize that we had a fledgling "Occupy Aspen" event last week in Wagner Park?  Thankfully the small handful of participants didn't camp out, but the sentiment was the same -- "People get so fed up and pissed when they don't have jobs and when they don't have money," according to one of the organizers.  The irony?  Their next organizing meeting is tomorrow at a home in the Burlingame subsidized housing project.  Yep, the same project for which the evil Aspen private property owners paid a $350K+ per unit subsidy.

ISSUE # 69: September bANTer

"We must be vigilant to guard against the hubris of elected officials."  -- Keith Self

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."    -- Thomas Jefferson

**VOTER NOTE: NOV 1 COUNTY ELECTION IS MAIL-IN BALLOT ONLY

Take 2 minutes right now and go to www.PitkinVotes.org to verify your voter registration status and mailing address in the "Voter Services" section. If you do not show up in the system as an ACTIVE voter, you will not be sent a ballot.  Make any and all changes before October 3.  Ballots will be sent by October 14.

HYDRO: FINALLY, A LAWSUIT TO STOP THE MADNESS

Litigation. It's all they understand at city hall. Lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick and his wingman, crooked city attorney John Worcester, regularly break the rules and frequently dare citizens to sue them, knowing that most won't. But when citizens do, it's often very bad news for city hall.

Think of the Wienerstube lawsuit (challenging the Aspen Area Community Plan), which the city settled (lest the document be deemed simply advisory), yielding what is now to become the new Aspen Art Museum complex at Spring St and Hyman Ave, to be designed and built without Planning & Zoning review, per the terms of the settlement.

Then there's the city's fight with the owners of the Hotel Jerome over nearly $500,000 in real estate transfer taxes. Despite the current owners acquiring the property though a "deed in lieu of foreclosure" proceeding, the city went after them for the cash as though it were a standard sale. This was a pure attempt at a money-grab by the city. The judge ruled in favor of the hotel owners in June, and refused to reconsider her ruling.

And don't forget Marilyn Marks' lawsuit challenging the city's adherence to Open Records laws, specifically pertaining to anonymous voted ballots from the 2009 municipal election. The city won the first round in our notoriously government-friendly district court, but a ruling on appeal is expected any day now. In the meantime, a state court judge in Saguache County (CO) has ruled that voted ballots are indeed public records as there is no way to link a voted ballot to a voter, that is, if the election was conducted fairly and legally. Advantage, Marilyn.

On Friday, a local non-profit called "Saving Our Streams," joined by a group of neighbors whose homes exist along Castle and Maroon Creeks, filed a lawsuit against the city to stop the beleaguered hydro plant dead in its tracks! Their case? It appears that regarding the Castle Creek flume ditch, the Midland flume ditch and Maroon flume ditch, "the city of Aspen has not used the water rights decreed for hydropower use for over fifty (50) years, the city of Aspen has shown its intent to abandon the water rights decreed for hydropower use by not using the water right for this purpose for over fifty (50) years, and the city of Aspen has shown its intent to abandon the water rights decreed for hydropower use by, among other things, deciding to decommission the hydropower plant for which the right was decreed, by dismantling the electrical generation equipment, by allowing the water delivery pipelines to deteriorate to an unusable condition, by failing to repair the water delivery pipelines to the hydro plant, and by purchasing its electrical energy from Holy Cross and others since 1957."

No one is questioning or challenging the city's municipal water rights to the streams for domestic or irrigation uses. Just for hydropower generation. In short, use it (for hydro) or lose it. And they haven't used it in over half a century. (According to abandonment lists maintained by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, there is legal precedence where the State water courts have declared specific decreed uses within a larger water right abandoned.) Read the full complaint HERE.

But perhaps the juiciest and most colorful part of the whole hydro debacle is the "Mick vs the Koch Brothers" sideshow. Obsessed with the politically conservative Koch brothers of Wichita, KS, Charles and David, Mick regularly carries on about a vast right-wing conspiracy that he portends exists whereby the water from Castle Creek will be sold to the front range of the Rocky Mountains if somehow the city of Aspen does not harness it for hydropower. This is of course preposterous. Charles and David Koch have nothing political to do with Aspen or Pitkin County, and it's their brother Bill who owns the former Elk Mountain Lodge at the upper end of the Castle Creek Valley and is one of many plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The family ties simply send Mick into a tizzy. "It's an open mystery why someone would be concerned about water being diverted eight miles downstream from them," Mick recently told the Aspen Daily News. Hmmm. I wonder how SkiCo green guy Auden Schendler feels about such a strange statement. (Schendler spent the last week in Washington DC, trying to get lawmakers there to focus on environmental issues here. And that's quite a distance greater than 8 miles away!)

MICK'S SOLYNDRA

It sounded so "green." Hydro power. Vote for it (in 2007) and feel the love. (And we did.) Never mind the facility can never cover its costs, even over a 50-year lifespan. (And the costs have escalated from $6.3M to $8.3M, so far.) Build it without permits; nobody will notice. Lie about an "existing" conduit in order to get an exemption from federal environmental impact studies and oversight. Ahh, but the truth comes out in the end. While the neighbors have now tied up the project and any possible federal approvals (the feds certainly can't and won't grant approvals when the water rights are in question), the city's arrogant indifference continues:

• Inept city attorney John Worcester said of the lawsuit, "It's a shame that citizens have to sue each other and attack our water rights since they belong to everybody." Well Worcester, no citizens are suing each other. They're suing YOU, the city of Aspen. And they're suing over water rights for a hydro plant that apparently YOU no longer have after abandoning and decommissioning the previous hydro plant in 1957, more than 50 years ago. Worcester's inane statement vividly illustrates the city's willingness to sacrifice the environment in order to build its precious hydro plant in hopes of someday being able to say its energy is "100% green." The city's real political end-game? Green energy at ANY price, even if it turns out not to be so green. The environment be damned!

In response to the city's arrogance, Ken Neubecker, director of The Western Rivers Institute responded in a RECENT LETTER to the editor:

• "Save Our Streams, American Rivers, The Western Rivers Institute and others have all tried to work with the city on this project and create something that meets both the goals of clean energy and protecting the stream environments. The city has been nothing short of obstinate and disingenuous." He continues, "Aspen says it wants to set an example to the world on how to be environmentally responsible. They are doing a pretty poor job so far."

The Red Ant is all over the financial picture. It's bleak. What did they know and when did they know it? Stay tuned. I'm all over this one!

THE GROCERY BAG TAX

The latest is that the boys moved toward an outright ban on plastic bags (instead of levying a 20 cent "fee" on each one), but then they'll charge that same "fee" for PAPER bags. No plastic bag option, just paper bags - for 20 cents each. And only at grocery stores. Does this really solve anything? Perhaps the most intelligent thoughts on the matter were summed up in a recent Aspen Daily News guest column by former city finance director Paul Menter. Read it HERE. In short, Menter argues that the "assignment of an arbitrary economic value for bags is an illegitimate use of regulatory authority. Dollars collected will fund environmental programs rather than address the impact of the bags themselves. The bags will become like cigarettes, primarily a source of government 'sin tax' funding and bureaucracy expansion; only secondarily an environmental problem to be eliminated."

He continues with a thoughtful argument that this so-called "fee" is actually government-mandated price fixing, a government-assigned price for a private good. Next, he illustrates that the "fee" is not a "fee" at all. "Fees" are set to "cover the cost of services provided to individuals, such as water and sewer services." This government-imposed charge on purchase and sale transactions to provide community programs is "the very definition of a sales tax, not a fee." He concludes by pointing out that such a sales tax does not comply with the US Constitution's 14^th Amendment's equal protection provisions, nor does it comply with TABOR (Taxpayer's Bill of Rights). The "equal protection issue" relates to the "grocery stores only" aspect of Aspen's plan, and TABOR requires all new taxes and changes in tax policy be approved by the voters.

In a subsequent letter to councilmembers, Menter continued with his analysis: "Your policy approach seems fractured and based on something other than the law, environmental protection, or good governance. To ban plastic bags and charge a fee on paper bags that are arguably worse for the environment illustrates this point. You want to be seen as 'leaders' but don't want to take the risk required to lead. Plus you have been persuaded that it is proper policy to 'feed the bureaucratic beast' by collecting money from private businesses through this policy without asking the voters if this is their desire. Not only is this illegal, it is a deeply cynical act, rooted in the belief that conscripting private businesses to do your policy bidding is proper governance. Its magnitude keeps it below the radar, but it is really, really bad policy and a dangerous slippery slope. Be very careful what you agree to. You are being asked to carry water for people who don't care about the consequences."

I couldn't have said it better myself. The updated plastic bag ban / paper bag "fee" ordinance will come before council in October. In case you were wondering what our local Gestapo thinks about being able to enforce the bag ban amidst speculation of myriad legal issues, city attorney (my, he's gotten vocal lately) John Worcester told the Aspen Daily News that he is confident "the city of Aspen has the requisite police powers to ban plastic bags." Nice. Police powers. Just what we need. In the meantime, make your thoughts known through letters to the EDITOR and/or letters to COUNCIL.

A $2418 SUBSIDIZED VACATION FOR MICK? JUST SAY NO! 

The following is a Letter to the Editor of the Aspen Daily News than ran today: 

Upon learning that Mick charged the city $2418 for a portion of his summer vacation in Europe, I looked into the Sister Cities program to research their mission for a better understanding of why our mayor deserved this subsidized trip.

Ironically, Sister Cities does not endorse individual visits by elected officials between cities.  It endorses information sharing (brochures, city reports, videos), strong city hall and business support through committees made up of a wide range of citizens, officially planned delegation visits (including a high-ranking city official, representatives of the business community, an official of the Sister Cities program, an educator and someone such as a performing artist who can highlight local culture), and specific substantive exchange reports. 

When Mick visited Aspen's Sister Cities of Davos, Garmisch-Partenkirchen and Chamonix, it was clearly not an officially planned delegation visit.  He was just there with his girlfriend.  Inquiries to Aspen's Sister Cities organization have gone unanswered, but I highly doubt they knew Mick planned to charge taxpayers for portions of his European vacation under the auspices of their esteemed program.

I've consulted with a city councilman and the city clerk, and both say there was no council pre-authorization of such travel by the mayor, despite the city's travel policy which states that personal travel may be combined with business travel only with notice to the department head.  In the case of the mayor, it is reasonable to assume such notification would be to city council.  Regardless, Mick's trip gives no appearance of official business travel to begin with.  Mick simply returned home and arbitrarily divvied up his vacation expenses, charging 60 percent of his airfare, half of his rental car bill, two of six tanks of gas, toll road charges and dinner with the Sister Cities folks in Garmisch to the Aspen taxpayers.  And city manager Steve Barwick presumably approved the fraudulent reimbursal.  Such leadership at city hall!

Can't you just picture the courteous Europeans unwittingly entertaining Mick and his lady during these unofficial and unapproved visits?  And, you can bet that Mick took full advantage of the gracious trappings of their hospitality.  One can only wonder the monetary value of these gifts.

Mick, if you cannot afford a European vacation, don't take one.  Get a job, or take a vacation in Moab on your own dime.  In the meantime, reimburse the city the full $2418.  Your European boondoggle was not city business and we shouldn't pay a dime for it!

Elizabeth Milias

I will be relentless in my pursuit of this reimbursal.  Stay tuned.

MICK: A 4-LETTER WORD, BUT A 4-YEAR TERM TOO?

Just six months into his third term as mayor, Mick predictably moved to extend the mayoral term from two to four years. He has done this without success in each of his previous terms, but this time he threw in the plea for beefier salaries for himself and fellow councilmen, likely to buy the support of his buddies at the table. (Recall that Mick does nothing professionally except reign over us all, so he is likely a wee bit worried about May 2013 when he is term-limited out of office and will no longer receive the $27,900 mayoral stipend plus city employee health benefits that he lives on.)

Mick complains that the job has become a full-time commitment, and the mayoral races start earlier each cycle, requiring more and more fundraising. Most notably, he fears that every election could possibly yield 3 newcomers to the council table. (Two council seats are up every four years.) The Red Ant asks, since when is the ability to change the majority with each election a bad thing?? He wanted the election commission to take the issue on and theoretically recommend a ballot measure.

The good news is many-fold. The election commission wanted no part in Mick's highly politicized request, as their focus is on election conduct and integrity. And, despite what was written in the papers, council did not fall for Mick's bribe. Torre went so far as to submit a letter to the editor, reiterating that he does NOT support Mick's request to change the mayoral term! And, in a subsequent personal conversation with councilman Steve Skadron, I learned that he too feels that a two year term is just fine.  

Additionally, while many feared that Mick would finagle another couple of years onto his current term, this cannot happen. A change to the mayoral term would need to be approved by voters in the next municipal election, which marks the end of Mick's current term. If anything were to change, it wouldn't affect him because thankfully, he'll be gone. He does need to sit on the sidelines for a couple of years before running again thank goodness, but considering his employment prospects (after 18 years in elected office in the county and city), he'll be back. What else can he do? In the meantime, he's not giving up. Mick plans to try again with council soon, this time to propose a "citizen review committee" that will study his request. Look for a team of sychophants to comprise THAT panel!

The Red Ant says, "If the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives can run for re-election every 2 years, so too can Aspen's mayor!"

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

You recently read about the city's desire to harness geothermal energy from beneath the earth's surface by drilling 1000' holes right here in Aspen (ISSUE # 67). Turns out the $200K test-drilling project has attracted a total of ZERO bids. Yep, ZERO. Apparently it's the first time in 10 years that NO BIDS have been received for a city project. Maybe it's just a REALLY bad idea. Ya think?

DESPITE THIS CITY HALL B.S., THERE'S A LOT TO LOOK FORWARD TO AND BE PROUD OF...

I attended the ACRA luncheon on Friday, Sept 9, at the Sundeck atop Aspen Mountain. In addition to culinary treats from various SkiCo on-mountain restaurants, there is much good news to share:

• World Cup returns to Aspen Thanksgiving weekend
• The benevolent SkiCo owners, the Crown Family, have invested $26 million in on-mountain capital improvements. These include:
  • $6M renovation of Merry-Go-Round restaurant at Highlands
  • $7M Tiehack Express chair will take 7 minutes from bottom to top; opens Dec 10
  • A new Elk Camp Restaurant at Snowmass, to open Winter 2012-13
  • 50 miles of biking terrain at Snowmass on the Free Ride Trail
• Aspen will welcome up to 30 daily flights into ASE from 6 hub cities:
  • American Airlines begins service into Aspen from DFW (its largest hub) and LAX
  • Frontier will offer 4 flights daily from Denver, its hub, through 4/15/12
  • United will offer 2 daily flights from Houston, 4 from LAX, 2 from SFO, plus 12 from Denver
• The discovery of mastodon and other prehistoric bones in the Ziegler Reservoir at Snowmass have put Aspen/Snowmass on the elite map in yet one more category:
  • According to the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, the skeletons (almost 5000 fossils were found) are like "tweets from deep time" 
  • Snowmass is "the richest mastodon site in the world, by far"
  • The Ziegler Reservoir site is "the best high level ice age site in the world"
  • Who knew?

Happy fall.

ISSUE # 68: MiscreANT - $1 Million Barwick Bailout

"Guilt is the price we pay willingly for doing what we are going to do anyway."   -- Isabelle Holland  

*** BREAKING NEWS *** What kind of defendant settles a lawsuit by giving the plaintiff everything they asked for? A GUILTY ONE!  Especially when the defendant can use other people's money and has zero accountability! Just prior to a sexual discrimination trial against the city of Aspen and city manager Steve Barwick (it was scheduled to begin Wednesday), the city settled. It's unconfirmed, but sources close to the case tell The Red Ant that the city has agreed to pay former Aspen police officer Melinda Calvano the full amount she sought PLUS all legal fees.  (Calvano sued the city and Barwick in 2007 following her termination over a controversial "use of force" incident, alleging that the city manager ignored her claims of sexual harassment in the Aspen Police Department. The lawsuit included claims of wrongful termination, gender bias, a hostile work environment, as well as sexual harassment.)  The settlement deal, inked late Tuesday night, is estimated to be worth as much as $1 million. Could there be any greater admission of guilt?   Mick and the boys on city council approved this last minute bail-out of our very own lazy and incompetent city manager with allegedly $1 million dollars of your tax money! Yep, just like when they voted to give the financial fraud-favoring city CEO a $170K annual contract, the boys once again voted to throw Barwick a bone, presumably because, as Torre likes to say, "He's a good guy."  Some good guy.... How much more of Barwick and his "leadership" can we take?  How much more can we afford?? The Red Ant has learned that the facts surrounding the case and the long list of witnesses chomping at the bit to testify against Barwick were far more damning than the case itself!  I'm hearing from many of them and it's shaping up to be a fascinating story!  (For $1 million, I suppose it'd better be!)  You'll read ALL about it here in upcoming issues -- this story is not going away! Rest assured, The Red Ant has sources everywhere, and distance is no excuse for not telling it like it is!  In the meantime, on nANTucket, we're battening down the hatches in ANTicipation of hurricane Irene's arrival later this weekend!

ISSUE # 67: pANTs On Fire

"I'm upset that you lied to me; I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche  "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."  -- Joseph Goebbels **SAVE THE DATE:  Sunday 9/11, 5 pm Aspen photographer Andrea Booher was one of two official government photographers at the WTC site from September 12, 2001, until late November that year.  She has just completed a documentary for A&E on her experiences reconnecting with 10 first responders she met there amidst the rescue and recovery efforts.  The 90-minute documentary will be shown as a public event, free of charge, at the Wheeler on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 at 5 pm.  Andrea will additionally have a Q&A following the film. SOMETHING'S BURNING Eeeeew. What's that smell?  Could it be the acrid smoke from one of Aspen's medical marijuana dispensaries?  Nope. More like burning khakis. Smoldering jeans. Trousers a'flame.  Pants on fire. The following recent examples of malfeasance at city hall are mere examples that yet again further illustrate a culture of lies and corruption in our local government.  Aspen's city hall has become a place where truth and transparency do not matter.  City staff has been conditioned to say or do whatever furthers council's agenda.  (Actually, Mick's agenda, but since no one on council stands up to him, they're all complicit.)  This behavior is all that's rewarded.  LIES & THEFT IN THE PARKING DEPARTMENT In their July 18 edition, the Aspen Daily News asserts to have notified the city that their solar-powered parking meters, designated to collect parking fees 10a-6p Monday through Saturday, continue to accept credit card payments after these hours.  The city, specifically parking director Tim Ware, claimed to know nothing about the problem.  "Nobody's called to complain so we didn't know," Ware told the Daily News.  He also claimed that there is no way to determine how much money has been collected by the city from these unnecessary payments. Tim Ware is a LIAR.  It turns out that Ware and the parking department have known of this problem for 3 years and did nothing to fix it.  Local resident Jena Wright emailed Ware in 2008 specifically on this issue.  He responded, telling her that the issue would be remedied with the next software update later that year.  Once caught in this LIE, Ware, with his tail between his legs, stated, "The program hasn't had a major update in 3 years, which is when the problem was slated to be fixed but was forgotten about.  I didn't catch it.  It's my fault."  Yes indeed it is.  But that Ware LIED when first questioned is reprehensible, dontcha think?!   The city still stands by its stated inability to determine how much money was collected fraudulently.  This is another LIE.  Anyone with a shred of know-how about credit card processing knows that each and every transaction is time and date stamped as a matter of course.  It would be exceedingly easy for the city to determine this amount.  My bet is that they absolutely know it but don't want you to.  It's just easier to LIE. This is nothing more than the city KNOWINGLY turning a blind eye to a flaw in its software that enables it to collect money it is not due from out-of-towners who don't know the rules.  Hey, just let them pay a little more because they can afford it, and besides, they drove their evil cars into town anyway, right? As you can imagine, Tim Ware reports to inept and lazy $170,000-a-year  city manager Steve Barwick, and the two were undoubtedly aware of this financial windfall all along. Barwick, known for his sketchy "off the books" financial deals, once again commits intentional financial fraud.  After all, it's easier to collect from unknowledgeable tourists than to collect the town's own receivables from unpaid parking tickets.  (This figure is cited by parking officials to be in the $250K range, but the former city finance director confirms it was already over $500K when he was there in 2005.)  Ware told the paper, "It's not as bad as you think."  REALLY? This is one more example of the pattern of malfeasance and poor management at city hall.  In fact, I'd call it corruption!  Why does Ware still have a job?  (Why does Barwick? This is simply the latest financial scandal that occurred on his watch!) CITIZENS CRY FOUL Local Wilbur Rutledge sent a series of humorous and pointed letters to the Aspen Daily News editor on this very issue.  This one is my favorite:  "Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, ticket head Ware gives another half-hearted apology and more excuses for straight-up lying about not knowing about the parking meters taking after-hours charges.  What is more of a priority than stopping what's under your watch from stealing?  To make things more hilarious, the city doesn't know how much it over-collected but the lead article on the same front page documents a local city budget surplus of almost a million freakin dollars.  And icing on the cake?  The last sentence of the article on Ware: '..at least we got Sundays and holidays right.'  Stop while you're behind, buddy."  --  July 25, 2011 Daily News columnist Sheldon Fingerman added, "How long have we had paid parking and how many times have you seen someone trying to feed the meters after hours and on Sunday?  And someone is just noticing this?  So, for years, those in power have been clueless, and all they had to do was walk around town and open their eyes.  More than once I've had to tell a tourist there was no need to feed the meter after hours." It is yet to be seen what the city will do to re-program the meters and fix the problem now that they've been caught.  My bet is that they'll do absolutely nothing, at least until the busy and lucrative summer tourist season ends! CARPOOL PASSES:  PARKING DEPT CAUGHT LYING YET AGAIN Along the same LYING lines, this classic came to me from a down valley commuter who caught the city in yet another parking-related LIE.  It's a classic.   In March of this year, the city abruptly stopped giving this driver and his family a carpool parking pass because they suddenly "didn't qualify."  (According to the ordinance - Sec 24.16.080 - the city issues daily High Occupancy Vehicle - HOV - parking passes to "vehicles with 3 or more occupants for use on the day of issue only.")  They were suddenly told that since their two high school-age children were not licensed drivers, they did not count as eligible passengers.  The following is a condensed version of the email exchange between the driver and several morons in the city's parking department.  Brace yourself -- it's a doozy! Driver to city:  I do not understand the rules and how they are being applied. From my experience, they are not being applied as written.  After being told that our children are no longer eligible for carpools, I watched the attendant give a carpool pass to a woman alone in her car with an infant in the back seat.  I asked him about it and he said that the rules allow for a single adult in cases when there is a child under 3 in the vehicle.  I have never heard this rule and it is not disclosed either on the pass or on the city website.  Where did this rule come from and who approved it?  It makes no sense whatsoever from a carpool policy perspective to allow this so I question the veracity of what I was told. Furthermore, the passes themselves say that there must be "two (2) adults of driving eligible age" for a pass to be given.  There is nothing about infants on the pass or the city website.  There is nothing about requiring a driver's license of the second adult, only that they be of driver eligible age.  Obviously we would like to regain the right to get a pass with just one of us and one of our children in the car, but if not, that's fine, just please enforce the rules fairly and state clearly what they really are on the pass and the website because according to both, we are indeed eligible. Parking Department to Driver: The intent of the carpool passes is to take another driver off the road, so driving age doesn't really do anything unless they have a driver's license.  As far as the driver with the infant, that was not in the original rules but as an afterthought agreed upon by the city manager's office (Barwick!!) to appease mothers with babies.  I think this is a difficult job to decide who qualifies for a permit but I always try to keep in mind the intent. The Red Ant:  Who hired this moron?  It's the easiest job on earth.  Read the rules.  Issue passes or don't according to them.  Period. Driver to City:  I am afraid that your response is not a legitimate defense of the manner in which these rules and laws are being administered.  As I read the code, it does not say anything about the age of the passengers.  How then can the city administratively modify a law approved by council and modify its intent by reducing from three to two the number of occupants necessary for a permit? The pass itself says "two or more adults of driving eligible age."  This is different from the law that says three people are required and makes no reference to their ages.  "Of driving age" therefore DOES have a lot to do with it.  Seems as though this restriction is directly contrary to the policy intent you stated which is to take potential cars off the road.  In the case of the mom with an infant, the infant is not going to drive itself into the city, so I am at a total loss to see how giving a pass to an individual driver with an infant in the car furthers the policy intent.  Finally, I don't understand why the city manager's office (Barwick!!) is administratively modifying the intent of the municipal code in a manner that restricts its intent without approval of the council.  The city manager should follow the law or get council to defer authority to him so that he can do the arbitrary things he wants.  I would appreciate either an explanation of where my assessment is wrong, or some other understanding of why the policy as currently implemented is proper, or the right to a HOV carpool pass under the terms of the current law. Parking Dept to Driver:  It does bother me that I can't give people the answer they want to hear.  I'm dealing with guidelines and lots of abuse when it comes to free parking.  Everyone is looking for a way to park for free.  I get that.  You are right, the ordinance that states 3 or more people does not require an age, but when it was modified to only 2 people that is when it was decided that it would only apply to adults.  I personally would like to see it fair and consistent to everyone and have some meaning for its intent.  I will share your comments and get back to you next week with more on the carpool pass issue. The Red Ant:  This idiot has a salary and benefits that you pay with your tax dollars! Driver to city:  One more question.  You say the ordinance was "modified," so you mean the council amended the ordinance so the law is different?  If so, can you please send me that ordinance language?  Or do you mean the city manager's office (Barwick!!) changed their administrative rules for following the ordinance?  And again, if so, could you please send me a copy of those administrative rules? Parking Dept to Driver:  You may now receive a carpool permit with your children. The Red Ant:  Hmmm. Makes you wonder how many other honest folks are being gamed by the city and its arbitrary enforcement of the local parking laws. WHEELING AND DEALING WITH THE WHEELER SUBSIDIES I'm clearly in the mood today to be the aggregator of many city LIES, so I've included the links to two poignant letters to the editor on the subject of the Wheeler Opera House and the money we pay to keep its doors open.  In (very) short, the city would have you believe that the annual subsidy to run the place is in the $200K-$300K range.  This is of course what the papers report. But it's a BIG FAT LIE.  The annual shortfall is in the MILLIONS.  Please take a minute to read Mike Maple's thoughtful letter of July 26 entitled "Wheeler Subsidies Too High," and one that I wrote earlier this summer, "Wheeler Subsidies Are Outrageous."   When Gram Slaton, executive director at The Wheeler says to council, "The best way to make money at the Wheeler is to shut the doors and turn out the lights," it's clear we have a very big problem.  A hard look at The Wheeler and its subsidies has thankfully made the list of Council's top ten priorities for the year.  The truth will now come out, and hopefully big changes will be made! THE GEOTHERMAL EXPERIMENT:  THE CITY IS IN HOT WATER In another attempt to "go green" with your tax dollars, the city is looking to tap into geothermal energy below the earth's crust right here in Aspen!  No kidding. The guys will be digging a 1000' well on city-owned land along the Roaring Fork River across from Heron Park, beginning in September.  The digging and drilling experiment is expected to last 45 days.  But don't worry, the city is happy to report that the homes closest to the mess are mostly owned by part-time residents!  Despite many questions (like WHY, to begin with), the city has already identified several other in-town drilling sites for future geothermal energy harnessing. Their big hope is that the estimated 100 degree water temps below our surface can be somehow harnessed to provide energy to heat and cool local buildings, and the greenies at the city are elated.  They don't give a whit about the cost, but I do.  The city has already dedicated $150K to the project.  But $50K of that came as a grant from the Colorado Governor's office.  So THAT's free money, right?  HA. (OK, technically this isn't a LIE per se at this stage, but this one has "WARNING" written all over it.  Need I mention the hydro plant to remind you of what happens - and the LIES that are told - when these guys get ginned up on a new green project?? Heads up.  Buyer beware.) AN OFFICIAL COMMENT:  THE PLAN IS A BUNCH OF HOT AIR An exasperated high level government official (who contacted The Red Ant and approved this reprint under condition of anonymity, for obvious reasons) wrote: "Here is one more insane city project for you to expose: the geothermal test well that is planned for construction this September.  The city has already budgeted $200K (sic) for this and possibly one more test well to determine if there is enough hot water underground to heat part of or the entire city.  Oh yeah, $50K comes from a grant from the state.  Never mind that state money is our tax money too, and they are broke to begin with.  The first well will be located across Neale Street from Heron Park and right next to the Roaring Fork.  Will the hot water coming from the well, which possibly contains heavy metals, flow right into the river?  Where does the $150K (sic) come from? That's easy, the city water and electric funds.  But does a geothermal project benefit either of these enterprises?  Don't think so.  And most important of all, what if there is plenty of hot water under the city, how much would it cost to construct an infrastructure to harness this resource? 50 or 100 million dollars? Does anyone know?  And would we all have to rebuild the heating systems in each of our homes?  Sure.  So what is the point in going ahead with this test project if we can't afford the final system in the end?  It's another waste of money, risking huge environmental damage to solve the world's energy issues.  Oh really, Mick!" THE RESIDENTIAL TAX: THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER This same friend went on to write about the proposed 2% tax on private rentals.  (The city continues to LIE about this as well.  The purpose is not at all to "level the playing field" between the lodging community and private property owners who elect to rent their homes as they claim.)  "And I agree with you on the short term rental issue.  This is not just an issue of the city trying to control the property owners and get in their pockets.  It is a rezoning of the entire city's residential zones.  It adds approximately 10,000 bedrooms to the tourist lodging base while the council would not approve one hotel room.  The council is threatening to destroy our community.  The short term rental rezoning has huge unintended ramifications for Aspen.  Don't think it's been thought out at all. And it's so unnecessary." In a guest column on the subject, Phil Verleger adds, "The imposition of the proposed tax will also force some to put their properties on the market. The supply of free market and deed restricted properties will increase. At the same time, buyers will adjust their expectations, offering less because they will fear they cannot capture that additional income from their properties. The consequence will be lower real estate prices. Those who own properties in Aspen will find that buyers are offering even less. Those that are just hanging on will be pushed to sell, accelerating the price decline. Revenues to the Wheeler fund from real estate transfer tax payments will drop. Aspen and Pitkin County will find that assessed valuations are even lower in 2013 than in 2011. Lower assessments mean lower tax revenues. Are you listening Mick?" Local resident Jerry Bovino added in a recent letter to the editor, "I am not sure why they don't see the natural fall-out from a tax that would discourage homeowner rental, especially on smaller apartments. As regulation and taxation serve to limit the number of one bedroom and two bedroom units in the rental pool, the likely result is that hotels will be able to raise rates, not lower them. To my knowledge, the law of supply and demand hasn't been repealed." The residenital rental tax will come before council this month.  Please continue to write and speak out against this ludicrous idea.  The unintended consequences are terrible! THE LATEST ON HYDRO: A WATERSHED MOMENT Imploring the city to "do the right thing" and withdraw its conduit exemption application, the Colorado director of American Rivers, Matt Rice, asserted in a recent letter to the editor that they "are not convinced the city is proceeding in the best interest of Castle and Maroon Creeks or the community.  We can no longer work with the city to design a public and open process for permitting the Castle Creek project." In response, petulant city manager Barwick told the Aspen Daily News that Rice and other observers can make as much noise as they want; City Council will act when it is ready.  (Isn't he a gem?)  It seems the city is now backing down on its rhetoric of building the drain line from Thomas Reservior as an "emergency" (now that $3M has been spent on this LIE).  The "new emergency" justification for the hydro plant is to provide power for the Aspen Rec Center (ARC) in times of natural disasters, such as floods and tornadoes.  Supposedly we will all be able to camp out at the ARC when something terrible happens.  Right. Thankfully, The Red Ant has word that a lawsuit against the city is pending.  This will hopefully put an end to the hydro plant once and for all.  (It will surely slam the brakes on the project!) Then we can cut our losses, make some personnel changes and move on. A CULTURE OF LIES  All of this adds up to a culture of deception, misinformation and lies. The city's (Barwick's!!) approach to management has filtered through the organization to the point where I don't think staff even considers whether something is truthful before they say it or use it to justify their actions. The only consideration is whether or not it furthers Mick's ends. Truth is not even secondary, it's non-existent.  If they think it will help them, they say it or use it.  And if it doesn't they ignore it. Aspen's city hall has become a completely unprincipled, souless place. It's a direct result of lousy leadership.  In a small way, I actually feel sorry for Tim Ware because he is just following the direction of his bosses. Nothing else is rewarded.  Of course, that's his choice, so he deserves whatever he gets. Until the head of the beast is severed, this stuff is sure to continue.  No lie.

ISSUE # 66: BlatANT Disregard

"We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business.  We say that he has no business here at all."

                             -- Pericles

As they say, when the cat's away, the mice will play.  In Aspen's case, while The Red Ant's away, the Ba'ath Party continues its regulatory march toward more intrusion into our personal and financial lives, its obscene cover-up of the costs and issues associated with the hydro plant, and its misguided and self-serving plans to shove more subsidized housing down the throats  of local taxpayers with a likely 8-figure general obligation bond for Burlingame Phase 2 as early as this November!
 

THE TATTLE-TALE TAX: A NEW TAX ON RESIDENTIAL RENTALS

Ever rent out your Aspen place?  Ever think about it?  Given the IRS lets you do this for up to 2 weeks tax-free annually, many private property owners in Aspen do so in order to offset costs.  But our friends at the city see this "rental activity" as yet another revenue stream they can tap into for about $100K in annual incremental revenue.  It seems the "lodging community" sees private home rentals as cutting into their business and they want to "level the playing field" as well, so the city has cooked up a revocable Permit to Rent that includes a new forced-payment 2% lodging tax.  

Social engineering.  Class warfare.  It is NOT AT ALL about the money.  There just isn't very much in this program.  The city simply wants to extend its regulatory control over free-market residential properties.  And they can.  How? It's already in the local tax code!  Yep.  Section 23.32.090 subjects "lodging services" to a tax.  And Section 23.32.100 specifically exempts lodging rentals from a sales tax when the duration of stay is 30+ days.  This whole idea appears to be a land use issue -- the city will just change the zoning to include residential properties and voila -- control.  

If this thing is enacted, private property owners who choose to rent out their units/homes for less than 30 days at a time will have to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops:  obtain a small business license from the city for a $150 annual fee, hire a local owner's rep, notify all neighbors within 300' of the intent to rent and provide contact info for the owner's rep, and get Homeowner Association approval.  Then, pay the city 2% of the gross rental income.  It's preposterous, and not just because it will cost more to administer than it will bring in to city coffers; it's just one more punitive slap in the face of private property owners in Aspen.  And it's sure to pit neighbor against neighbor.  For more information, read THIS  excellent letter to the editor from local realtor Mark Kwiecienski that outlines the pros (none) and cons (many) of this insipid idea.  I couldn't have said it better myself!

And did you know, when there's a "compliance" or "mis-use" violation (like illegal rentals) in SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, there is no anonymous reporting allowed. You must leave your name as the tattle-tale. Reports are therefore minimal. In the free-market program, however, this will not be the case. City enforcers will be strictly protecting the new revenue stream and exerting their new-found control!  And you know they'll just love the inevitable neighbor vs. neighbor conflicts!

Write to council today (see addresses below)! Tell them to focus on REAL community issues and shelve this idea!!  Besides, didn't we just approve a 1% lodging tax that specifically benefits the lodging community for marketing purposes?!  What is with the greed?!
 

PANTS ON FIRE: LIES IN THE HYDRO PLANT BOND PROSPECTUS

They lied from the beginning.  In a recent review of the "Official Statement" (government parlance for "prospectus") for the issuance of the $5.5M in bonds for the Castle Creek Hydro Plant, several blatant problems leap off the page.  Remember, any time a government issues bonds, they must publish an Official Statement (O.S.) that discloses fairly and accurately the purpose of the debt issuance and how the bonds will be repaid. Such disclosures are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and federal anti-fraud laws require that all material facts be presented accurately, completely and honestly.

SEC attorney Mary Simkins stated (1999):
"The folks whose money you borrow expect your disclosure to be true.  Not surprisingly, so does the law.  This is where we at the SEC come in.  Federal securities law has protected investors for over 65 years by requiring the information provided investors be accurate, complete and not misleading.  Issuers of municipal bonds such as yourselves are forbidden from making statements or omitting material facts from the disclosure you make in official statements and annual financial information.  These provisions, known as the anti-fraud provisions, apply to any person."

The city of Aspen told lies.  Intentional lies, designed to mislead both investors (to promote bond sales) and the feds (to fraudulently obtain a conduit exemption).  The Red Ant is not an attorney, but should these intentional lies be determined to be "material misstatements" in a court of law, the city officials responsible for including them in the O.S. could face charges of securities fraud.  The O.S. cites the following city officials - elected and hired - as responsible for its contents (ca. 2008):  Mayor Mick, Dwayne Romero, Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron and JE DiVilbiss, along with City Manager Steve Barwick, City Finance Director Don Taylor, and City Attorney John Worcester.

Again, Mary Simkins:
"In essence, the anti-fraud provisions say that any person may not make any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make something said not misleading in connection with the offer, purchase or sale of a security."

Remember Enron? Worldcom?  On a scale of 1-100, with these being examples of 100 in the world of securities fraud, Aspen's hydro plant probably rates a 20.  But lies and fraud are lies and fraud just the same.  It is simply egregious to see what our city officials (elected and hired) have done!

The following 6 lies by city officials are quoted directly from the O.S.  

LIE #1:

"The project is planned to RE-ESTABLISH the generating capacity of the original plant.... The project is also planned to include ENLARGING portions of the Castle Creek pipeline (raw water supply) to eliminate deficiencies in hydraulic capacity."  (Emphasis added)

Horse-puckey! The original hydro plant has been non-existent for over half a century. Enlarging?  There is no raw water line to enlarge!  At one point in time, prior to when the former hydro plant ceased operation  in 1958, there had been a small raw water pipeline, but in 2007, this was non-functioning and had been abandoned for decades.  But before its remnant disconnected parts and pieces were finally removed when the city constructed its fraudulent $2.3M drain line from Thomas Reservoir under "emergency" auspices, city officials intentionally lied in an SEC-regulated O.S. that a working raw water line was already in place.  The only reason to make such a false statement was to intentionally mislead the feds while applying for a "conduit exemption" that would enable the city to bypass federal oversight and environmental review.
 

LIE #2:

"The City's total budget for the project is currently $6,197,981."  (This was the project's original budget.) "The project is anticipated to be funded from proceeds of the Bonds, payments from CORE (Community Office of Resource Energy), and available monies in the City's Electric Enterprise Fund."  

The city's budget for the hydro project is $8.3M today. That's 34% over budget, and there's no end in sight.  No funds were cited to be pillaged from the Water Utility which recently kicked in over $700K as an interim cash-infusion just two weeks ago, with millions more still needed and certain to additionally be taken from this source.  It's also highly likely that utility rates will increase substantially to cover additional cost over-runs.  

The O.S. additionally stated the hydro plant would begin generating power in 2010, but its custom-built turbine remains in storage in another state.  At the rate the hydro plant is going, it will not recover its capital investment for nearly a century, and that's only if it operates at 100% capacity!  (Never mind the O.S. promises a 75-year life expectancy for the plant. And it's not likely the plant will EVER run at 100% capacity!)

The Red Ant asks, at what point does underestimation become a material misstatement of fact?  While this example may not be criminal, it surely is incompetent!!
 

LIE #3:

"The City presently expects to receive the exemption in ordinary course, and is not aware of any insurmountable obstacles, based upon a reconaissance-level evaluation of the FERC requirements."  

The city states in the O.S. that the conduit exemption is all but a foregone conclusion, but it seems they didn't count on the Castle Creek neighbors, the environmentalists (local and national groups) and The Red Ant to look closely at what they were trying to sneakily accomplish!  Big big mistake!

Reconaissance?  Try hubris!  The city made this statement with full knowledge that its application for a conduit exemption did not ever once comply with federal requirements. They said an existing raw water line needed to be upgraded when there was no raw water line to upgrade.  Then they spent $2.3M to build one and claim THIS NEW LINE as the "existing" line!

At press time, the city is dithering over whether or not to withdraw its conduit exemption application in favor of a "small project license" application, but there are no guarantees even if they go this route, and the latter comes with a long list of requirements and intense federal oversight.  The conduit exemption application was a sham from the start.  Far from the slam-dunk the city asserted in the O.S., the entire project has proven itself to be a web of lies, intended to avoid/escape federal oversight and true disclosure of the environmental impacts.

Yep, the city is in a pickle!  In fact, there are several hydro plant opponents who hope the city sticks with their current application because they believe the feds see right through the city's fraudulent behavior and there is no chance on earth they will grant a license.
 

LIE #4:

"In addition to applying for FERC licensing, the city is presently in the process of completing engineering design work for and construction of some of the project elements that are necessary for the purpose of ENHANCING the raw water supply system available to the city for is potable water supply or that are otherwise necessary for utility purposes, and that do not require FERC licensing."  (Emphasis added.)
 

What??  ENHANCING some old decrepit broken-down pipeline that hasn't functioned since 1958?  Yeah, right.  This sounds like a nervous attorney's vague C.Y.A. disclosure that there was indeed no raw water drain line from Thomas Reservoir in 2007, thus revealing the city's dark secret: With no existing drain line, the city would just have to build one to claim one.  Maybe no one would notice! Nice try!
 

LIE #5:

"The city expects the proposed facility to last at least 75 years.  The proposed date for completion and operation of the project in 2010 meets the requirements of the city's action plan for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  Meeting this schedule will also enable the city to avoid expected increases in fuel costs that would potentially raise the rates the municipal electric utility charges its customers, maintaining stable and low electric rates in comparison with other electric utilities throughout Colorado."  
 

OK, this isn't really a lie per se, but these are goals the city clearly did not meet, despite being promised in a SEC-regulated document.
 

LIE #6:

"The city expects its expenditures for the purchase of electric energy from the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) will decrease, resulting in an increase in the city's Electric Enterprise Fund revenues expected at approximately $300K annually."  

Worst of all, and illustrative of the fact that the city knew from the start that the hydro numbers did not pencil out, they lied to voters in 2007 and in the O.S. about the revenue-generating potential of the hydro plant.  In short, there is none.  

The O.S. promises a $300K annual increase in revenue for the city once the plant is fully operational, while simultaneously disclosing annual debt service costs on the $5.5M bonds of $350K per year for the next 20 years.  

The city started this project knowing full well that the hydro plant would NEVER cover its own costs, and it's only gotten worse.  With the budget increases approved by council, the annual cost of capital is approaching $540K annually for the next 20 years.  Add in operating costs and the city's overhead, the Castle Creek Hydro Plant will cost around $700K per year, and run at a $400K annual loss for the next 2 decades!

Translation:  Higher utility costs for all, especially Aspen businesses who comprise the majority of the electric utility cost base.  The city did not disclose this (for obvious reasons) in the O.S., nor did they disclose that the project will require subsidies from sources other than self-generated revenue for its entire lifetime!

Appalled yet?  Are there legal ramifications to all of this, specifically intentionally lying in an O.S.?  I'm not entirely sure, but the stench is becoming unbearable!  What do you know?  Any bond-holders out there?  Talk to me.... (And if you want an email copy of the O.S., please let me know and I'll send you one.)
 

BURLINGAME 2: BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME?

Ahh the pre-sale process for Burlingame 2 is on.  And what a joke it is.  "No Lottery - No Deposit - No Commitment" reads the brochure.  It's true.  The city will be looking at this pathetic show-of-hands measurement to determine whether or not to move forward with a likely 8-figure ($50+M) bond to build the 167-unit 2nd phase of the Burlingame subsidized housing project.  The only requirement of those raising their hands?  They must qualify with APCHA, our inept housing authority.  No mortgage pre-approval.  No matter if they already live in subsidized housing elsewhere in the inventory.  No nuthin'.  Just raise your hand and Mick can declare this as sufficient demand to build more and more subsidized housing.  This is what the city does with what they see as "free money." 

In its inimitable fashion, the city has come up with an idea to "minimze" costs:  build Phase 2 in 2-4 small parcels!  As if!  Like building in smaller parcels will net a lower end-cost.  Ha.  Do these fools REALLY know NOTHING about economies of scale?  Apparently.  They're far more focused on the APPEARANCE of a less-costly project than actually building one!  Never mind there is NO (zero, zip, nada) compelling research that truly demonstrates an actual need for more subsidized housing in Aspen, especially at subsidies of over $300K per unit!  But I digress... At press time, council has all but green-lighted Phase 2.  They treat it as a foregone conclusion -- the only question is how to fund it and when.  It doesn't look like the bond issue will be on the November 2011 ballot, but that is still to be determined. The future of Burlingame 2 is an issue to follow closely this summer.  
 

FOOLS RUNNING AMOK

They will not stop on their own, obviously.  Keep writing to council members: Mick, Steve, Derek, Adam, Torre.  Attend the meetings (council meetings and specific agendas can be found in the Calendar & Events section on the home page of www.AspenPitkin.com).  Express yourselves through letters to the editor.  This is no time for apathy!  And FYI, the dreaded AACP seems to be a big summer topic for both the city and the county.  Stay involved and stay in touch!

ONE TIDBIT OF GOOD NEWS

The county has announced that the Pitkin County Library has decided not to hit voters up for $10M in November to fund an expansion.

ISSUE # 65 .... How RedundANT: Hydro Shaping Up to be the Burlingame of 2011

"Oops, I did it again." --- Britney Spears

MOVING $$ AROUND: A FINANCIAL SHELL GAME AT CITY HALL  

How do you go $1M (and counting) over budget on a project you don't even have permission to build?  Well, you can count on the city of Aspen to find a way!  In 2007, misled voters approved a bond measure that provided $5.5M for constructing and equipping a new hydroelectric facility on Castle Creek.  Fooled by the "green" promise of our local bureaucrats (yes, our boy Mick), voters ignored or didn't even ask about the costs vs benefits of the project, the fact that the plant will only operate a couple of months a year, and the property tax increases if (more like when) the electric utility revenues generated are insufficient to service the debt, not to mention the heinous environmental damage that could be caused to the stream's health and riparian habitat by significant reductions in water levels.  (Since they don't yet have a federal permit to build a hydro plant, they are burning though money on a drain line, the purchase of a custom turbine and a new "Energy Center" which will do nothing more than to serve as an edifice to city council's misguided aspiration of environmental immortality.)

Now it seems the "budget" has been increased to at least $8.3M because they've gone $1M over.  But wait.  Was what the $5.5M for?  And how'd it get to $7.3M?  Why do they need another $1M?  Who is the mathematician here?  Must be incompetent and lazy city manager Steve Barwick!  These numbers are an insult to taxpaying citizens of Aspen.  First of all, the $8.3M has already been allocated!  And the water department insists that these figures aren't even close to being final, there are more expenses to come!  So that's not a budget!  JUST WHAT IS THE BUDGET?  Does this sound like another Burlingame?  It sure does to me!  At press time, despite NUMEROUS requests of both the water department and the finance office, no comprehensive BUDGET has been made available.  My guess is that's because there isn't one.  They continue to move money from this fund to that, muddying the waters in order to  prevent citizens from ever discovering the true costs of this latest boondoggle!

WHAT IS THE MUNICIPAL WATER FUND AND HOW MUCH IS IN IT?

In a May 3, 2011, email, the city finance director told The Red Ant that nearly $1M "was transferred from the water fund" to pay for some of the excess expenses from the fraudulent and unnecessary "emergency drainage line" the city built from Thomas Reservoir in an attempt to trick the feds into issuing a "conduit exemption" that would enable the city to bypass environmental studies and sneak by without federal oversight.  Interestingly, the water department officially asked city council for this extra $1M on May 31, exactly 4 weeks AFTER the money had already been transferred!  Barwick!  What kind of organization is this fool running?    

Still claiming that the fraudulent conduit line was constructed for "emergency" purposes, city officials feel that the Water Fund (and therefore the residents who pay into it) should pay for this alleged "necessity" above and beyond the revenues provided by the bonds (and inevitable property tax increases)!  And the budget hawks on council think it's just a-ok to fund some of the ongoing overages with money from OUR water fund. Really?

In a written response on June 23, 2011, city utilities director Dave Hornbacher, who declined to meet with The Red Ant, had his predecessor Phil Overeynder write of the municipal water fund:

"The Water Fund was established by the finance department, I assume, to properly account for revenues generated by and expenses of the City's water department.  Again, I assume that the Fund was established to segregate such revenues and expenses from the City's General Fund and other operating funds. Since the 'operation and control' of the City's water system and Water Department fall under the direction of the City Manager, it is his call as to what type of expenses are 'legal uses' of water funds."

Sources of funding of the Water Fund include: applications for utility service, utility investment charges, utility hook-up charges, monthly fees for metered/unmetered water service, late payment charges, investment and hook-up charges for snowmaking services, violations and sancitions, etc.

As of May 31, 2011, the municipal Water Fund had a cash balance of $9.4M.  (Cash balance or cash cow?  You decide.)

BARWICK'S ATTEMPT AT .... (WHO KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING)

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.  Steve Barwick, CEO of the city and czar of the Water Fund, has yet to pull the city's draft application for a "conduit exemption" from the feds, despite being directed to do so by council in April.  Instead, he wants national organizations and other outside groups to put their support of the City's change of course from a "conduit expemption" to a "small project license" in writing.  As if.  Just because someone doesn't support the city's original plan (to defraud the feds) doesn't mean they will blindly support the city's next move!  Simply preposterous.  Make the change Barwick!  Council voted and told you to!  All this delay does is increase the timeframe needed for the new application, delay the mandated environmental studies, and of course, add to the costs.

THE "8%" NUMBER 

Famous for its major capital project "brochure errors" (remember Burlingame?), the city issued a $3000, 4-page propaganda insert in the June 14, 2011, issue of The Aspen Times that stated, "Right now, the City's utilities are already 75% renewable and the hydro plant would boost this number by 8%, resulting in 83% of the City's utilities providing clean energy and reducing the City's reliance on coal as well as reducing emissions."  Yes, it's poorly written and confusing, but there's that 8% number.  Skeptics question whether the "8%" is consumption by the entire community or just by the city government itself.  City communications director Mitzi Rapkin assures The Red Ant it is the entire community's usage that is impacted.  I darned well hope so, but when the city states, "The Castle Creek Energy Center can provide back-up power for the City in times of emergency by acting as a sole power source for some municipal buildings that could act as shelters," it certainly makes one wonder.... Here are the two scenarios:

        

The elephant in the room:  Is "8%" the maximum amount of power the hydro plant can generate?  Is this projection based on the hydro plant operating full-time or just a couple months of the year?  And what if the feds require more water to remain in the stream than what the city likely based the 8% projection on?  Sounds to me like 8% is aspirational at best!

ASPEN: DOING IT MICK'S WAY VS. THE RIGHT WAY

In a June 24 phone interview with Matt Rice, director of American Rivers, I learned a great deal about Aspen's hydro plant as it relates to what's going on nationally.  In short, there are very few new "conventional" hydro plants (like ours) being built these days, however, there are many municipalities pursuing hydro power on existing dams, etc. 

The difference is that inherent to the design of Aspen's new hydro plant, water will be diverted and the streams will be de-watered as a matter of course.  You just don't see this being done much these days because the environmental impacts most often far outweigh the power benefits.  It's very rare for it to work out otherwise.  Notably and ironically, Colorado is a great example of a state that is creating incentives for what's called "conduit hydropower" (not to be confused with Aspen's fraudulent attempt at a "conduit exemption"), which promotes the use of existing diversions and conveyance systems.  This form of hydropower has NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, and American Rivers is seeing a lot of "conduit hydropower" projects here.  In fact, the State of Colorado and FERC are actually working together to streamline the process for these installations. 

Rice concluded with a reminder that "small" as in "small project license" refers to the amount of power generated, not the size of the environmental impact (which can be just as big as that of a large hydro project).

THE HYDRO FORUM: QUICK RECAP

Here are the links from GrassRoots TV to the first, second and third sections of the June 16 Hydro Forum.  For a very brief overview, watch the "second" section (link above) and fast-forward ahead to 10:32, local water attorney Paul Noto's successful de-bunking of mayor Mick's crazy "the front range is gonna steal our water if we don't build a hydro plant" rhetoric.  (Click "watch now" and enlarge your screen.  To fast-forward, press and hold down the double arrows pointing right.)  Noto's intelligent overview of the water rights specifically on Castle Creek is extraordinarily informative, with even the city's water attorney agreeing.

But don't miss the "third" section!  Fast forward to 21:00 to see mayor Mick in all his defensive nastiness.  On a panel among national experts, our boy behaved like a petulant teenager.  Don't take my word for it.  See for yourself.

WHY NOT SOLAR, FOR EXAMPLE?

Never mind the economies of scale associated with this low-cost, low-impact means of clean energy.  Never mind the scale-ability of solar farms.  Never mind that property values just a few miles from Aspen are currently affordable and solar panels there generate a third more energy than Aspen panels because of the better weather west of Snowmass Canyon.  Never mind the US Dept of Energy offers consumer tax credits from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called "Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credits" that enable consumers who install solar energy systems (including solar water heating and solar electric systems), small wind systems, geothermal heat pumps, and residential fuel cell and microturbine systems to receive a 30% tax credit (with no upper limit; principal residences AND second homes qualify) for systems placed in service before December 31, 2016.  And never mind that entrepeneurs from the Carbondale-based Clean Energy Collective that has solar farms in El Jebel and in Rifle presented a proposal to council in April called "community solar," a concept where multiple homeowners pay into large solar arrays that are professionally maintained and situated in places with maximum sun exposure, thereby enabling large energy consumers to mitigate their energy use through this already-existing local source of clean energy.  Shouldn't THESE ideas be what we SHOULD AT LEAST BE considering?  But no.

Mayor Mick simply didn't like the "community solar" idea one itty little bit because the energy would not be coming from Aspen itself.  He said in an interview with the Aspen Daily News, "It's troubling to send a message that, as an energy-hogging homeowner, you can cut a check and outsource your mitigation requirements to Carbondale."  For Mick, it's really not about the environment at all.  It's punitive.  It's always punitive!  Does that really surprise you??  And of course it's all about his resume.  He wants home-grown energy.  Down Valley energy, regardless of the economics or environmental wisdom or any other potential win-wins, is just not home-grown enough for Mick.  

MY HYDRO GOAL

I'm putting it in writing right here, right now.  We need to stop this hydro fiasco in its tracks TODAY.  The charade is up.  Had nobody been looking, the city might have gotten away with it.  But instead, the eyes of the Castle Creek neighbors, local environmentalists, national organizations and The Red Ant are all over this mess, and what a mess it is.  Costs are approaching $10M today, and at this rate could easily DOUBLE.  The city hasn't even started its new course toward a "small project license," and none of this includes the costs of the environmental impact studies that will be required.  The $5.5M in bond funds were issued in early 2008.  There's nearly $400,000 in debt service every year for this project alone, and that began in 2009.  It is next to impossible to get a straight answer from the city on where the money to pay the debt is coming from!  They're spending and spending because Mick tells them to.  IT MUST STOP.

Now is the time for this community to come together to enact a "stop work" order and/or get a legal injunction in place until a) the environmental impact studies are completed and the results discussed throughout the community, b) an external and independent financial audit is conducted to determine the financial feasibility of this hydro plant and is shared in its entirety with the community, and c) the costs/benefits of the proposed hydro plant are compared and contrasted with several other forms of clean energy.  (Another option is, of course, to cut our horrendous losses and walk away.  Remember, the city does not yet have permission to build this thing.  How much are we willing to spend and potentially waste if the final answer is a big fat NO?)

The city doesn't like citizen feedback.  It never has.  Mick has never let the facts get in the way of another resume-building endeavor built with public funds.  And just because there's no budget is no reason for him to slow down. But this time it's different. 

The financial picture will soon become abundantly clear.  It's bad, folks.  Really bad.  Put it this way, power generated from Castle Creek is going to be so expensive it will cost the city far more to generate than they will be able to charge for it.  Stay tuned!

"It's the only accounting system they are comfortable with, as it's the only accounting system they know how to use.  The ends justify the means.  The hydro plant is green and therefore good, and so it doesn't matter what it costs because it's politically correct and therefore priceless.

They have committed to the plant, and they never back down once they've made a commitment.  This is a crew that never gives an inch, never admits error, and never waivers from their dogma that green is good and money is evil.  And what is money?  It's not something they earn.  Rather, it's something they take from other people, especially rich people who can't vote here;  their voting base lives in deed restricted housing and so is largely protected from taxes.

And so they will keep feeding the plant, if for no other reason than if they don't feed the plant it will die and they've invested so much already in feeding the plant that what's a few more million of other people's money?  What's important here isn't the money, it's the plant.  And so the plant screams:  FEED ME!!!"      ---      An Angry Red Ant Reader

ISSUE # 64 .... Ant Alert: Hydro Forum This Thursday!

Hydro Forum This Thursday,

June 16, 5:30pm

Paepcke Auditorium

PLEASE ATTEND!  TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

This Thursday, June 16, please plan to attend a public forum on Hydro Power in Aspen, presented by The Western Rivers Institute with the generous support of the New-Land Foundation.  It is being held at Paepcke Auditorium, beginning at 5:30pm.  Admission is free.

The purpose of this forum is to begin a new dialog within the Aspen Community on just how a "gold standard" for hydropower in the 21st Century can be developed, or if that is even a realistic possibility with the proposed project.

This is the "hydro forum" I've written about, originally proposed by neighbors of the city's beleaguered hydro plant project on Castle Creek.  The event has been expertly saved from a classic hijack by the City of Aspen by The Western Rivers Institute.  When the neighbors, the environmentalists and The Red Ant agree on the same thing - this is worth hearing about!

Mayor Mick has stated that Aspen needs to set a new standard for hydroelectric development in the 21^st century as an environmentally responsible part of a carbon-free renewable energy portfolio.  What will that look like?  What does Aspen need to do that goes beyond the established process?  Why is Aspen building the only "old school-style" hydro plant in the US when other municipalities are tearing theirs out?  What other strategies might also be employed that help achieve the goals of a carbon-free renewable energy supply?

Be there, learn the facts from the experts and join the conversation!!  Tell your friends.

The agenda for the evening:

• ·        Welcome and Intro:  Ken Neubecker, Director, The Western Rivers Institute
• ·         How We Got Here:  Owen Olpin, moderator/facilitator
• ·         Session I:  The New Direction and What That Means

o   Dave Hornbacker, City of Aspen Water Dept:  New direction and process

o   Richard Roos-Collins:  FERC and NEPA process, the role of the public

o   Audience questions

• ·        Session II: Water Rights - What are they? Could a Front Range city take them?

o   Cindy Covell:  Water Attorney for City of Aspen

o   Paul Noto:  Aspen-based Water Attorney

o   Audience questions

• ·         Session III:  A New Standard for Hydropower (a panel)

o   John Emerick, PhD:  Hydropower and stream ecology

o   Richard Roos-Collins:  The public's role in the permitting process

o   Matt Rice:  American Rivers

o   Mick Ireland

o   Audience questions and discussion

ISSUE # 63 .... I'm IndignANT: Cocaine & Welfare. Really?

"Always the wrong way first and the right way last.  In every case, the right way, once we find it, is so direct and obvious that to have missed it seems the strangest fact of all."  -- Garet Garrett, A Time is Born

THE SUMMER SERIES

This issue of The Red Ant was to have been the first in a multi-part series on our local subsidized housing program, specifically the bureaucracy's clouded judgment regarding oversight and management of our 2800-unit portfolio, and the failed entity called APCHA (the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority).   

This expose, in the works for over a year, and timed just as the city of Aspen is pushing pre-sales for phase 2 of Burlingame in hopes of floating a bond (likely to be in the $50-100 million range) as early as November 2011, will shock and awe you.  It should galvanize your opposition to the massive general obligation bond money needed for further construction at Burlingame, as well as fuel your opposition to more subsidized housing in general until we get a firm grip on the program:  who's in charge, who currently lives in our units, whether or not they qualify, whether or not they pay (and are current on) their homeowners association dues, whether or not the various HOAs have sufficient capital reserves, etc. etc.  The list goes on. 

But alas, the news of the day delays the launch of the series.  But it's definitely coming!  Stay tuned.

THE BIG DRUG BUST

On May 19, federal DEA agents made a major drug bust in Aspen.  Six Aspen residents were popped in an early-morning raid:  Peggy Schlaugher, Wayne Reid, Jack Fellner, Joseph Burke, Joan Anastasi and Christopher Sheehan.  Who'd have guessed that 5 of the 6 are in their 60's!?  And, according to a list of subsidized housing residents provided to The Red Ant in 2010, suspects Jack Fellner and Joseph Burke live in publicly subsidized housing  (Centennial and Aspen Village, repectively)! 

Here's the real kicker: the feds (including DEA, IRS, US Marshalls, FBI and Homeland Security) admittedly and purposely left local law enforcement out of the loop on this investigation and the bust.  Hmm, you ask.  Why?  As part of its year-long investigation, the feds discovered "some kind of relationship" between our local sheriff's office and the suspects!  Yep.  It seems the feds feared that their investigation would be compromised if our local guys learned of the impending bust!  And they admit that they just don't trust our sheriff's department!

Details are still unfolding, but this is no small case.  The suspects are alleged to be part of an organized drug ring that trafficked over 500 pounds of cocaine from Los Angeles to Aspen over the last 15 years.  Yes, you read that right: 500 pounds! 

Sometimes it's just best to print the quotes.  Most of these are from The Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News interviews with participating DEA agents, however I spoke at length with DEA special agent Jim Schrandt to confirm the details.  I have a great imagination and am a true conspiracy theorist, but I'm not THIS good:

• "Oftentimes we work with other jurisdictions and we've actually integrated them into our investigations because usually there's a local narcotics task force that we're working with hand-in-hand from the inception of the case.  Unfortunately that does not exist in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County."  --  Jim Schrant, DEA special agent  (NOTE:  Agent Schrandt tells me that both Telluride and Vail law enforcement fully cooperate with the DEA.)
• "And the reason we weren't able to do that fuller notification (of local law enforcement) was because of the relationship of (current sheriff) Joe DiSalvo and (former sheriff) Bob Braudis and several targets of this investigation who were being arrested."  -- Agent Schrant
• These "arrests make Aspen and its surrounding communities safer by taking significant amounts of drugs off the street and putting violent criminals behind bars."  --  Kevin Merrill, DEA special agent
• Regarding Merrill's reference to "violence," Agent Schrant stated, "We don't know if they (the Aspen suspects) are (violent) or aren't.  But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the organization in Los Angeles is extremely violent and the kilos being consumed in Aspen - and the kilos being trafficked by this (local) organization - essentially sent money to that (LA) organization committing this egregious violence."
• Regarding Aspen's role, "The consumers funded it.  The traffickers paid for it directly with Aspen dollars in excess of at least 500 pounds of cocaine.  This cocaine appears to be consumed entirely in Aspen.  This was the end of the ramp in Aspen.  So all that dope was coming here, and this cocaine being bought and paid for in Aspen was (financially) going directly to this organization in Los Angeles."  -- Agent Schrant
• "There is a strong appetite for cocaine in Aspen." - Agent Schrant
• "Communities like Aspen are consuming these copious amounts of cocaine and their dollars are fueling violence in places like Los Angeles, places like Mexico."  -- Agent Schrant

HATE TO SAY IT BUT, I TOLD YA SO

Last fall, The Red Ant (Issue #50) endorsed Rick Leonard over Joe DiSalvo for Sheriff.  There were several reasons, not the least of which was, "Twenty-three year sheriff's deputy and current sheriff Bob Braudis' anointed one, Joe DiSalvo, stands by the status quo of the department," well known for its lax enforcement of the war on drugs.  "Leonard is a big advocate of cleaning up the local drug scene, even if this involves undercover investigations in certain circumstances.  When Braudis and DiSalvo agree that our local drug problem is a health issue and not a criminal one, we are nothing but a sanctuary city/county for drug dealers.  It's 2010.  This mentality does not fly with The Red Ant."  Alas, DiSalvo won in a landslide.

      "Frankly, based on our investigation, we had revealed close ties between the current sheriff and several of the targets that were arrested." -- Agent Schrant 

The DEA was so intent on keeping our sheriff in the dark that they stationed a DEA agent outside the sheriff's office during the early-morning raid as a "preventative measure" in case word of the bust leaked out.  The Aspen Daily News reported that this action was to "avoid a potentially violent confrontation between officers."  Good grief.  Just how far did the feds think (know?) our sheriff would go to protect the local drug trade?

While the DEA will not elaborate on the relationship between DiSalvo and the suspects, public records reveal that several of them made generous contributions to DiSalvo's recent campaign and those of former sheriff Bob Braudis.  Coincidence?  You decide.

The DEA is also quick to point out that it has no beef with the Aspen Police Department.  The Red Ant surmises that the close quarters of the APD and the sheriff's office in the basement of the county courthouse was reason to additionally keep the APD in the dark.

Best yet, our friend mayor Mick and his pal county commissioner Rachel Richards have both committed to writing formal letters to the DEA in support of Sheriff Joe DiSalvo and asking that the DEA cooperate with and inform local authorities in future investigations.  They both intend to have these letters signed by city council and the board of county commissioners next week.  This is a representative democracy, folks.  By doing this, they effectively say that the residents of Aspen and Pitkin County agree with them that, under the guise of public safety, the local sheriff's office should be notified in advance of any federal drug operation being conducted here.  The Red Ant wholeheartedly disagrees, especially when the DEA affirms that this case is "very much ongoing" and they "anticipate further arrests."  I, for one, am very anxious to know more about these "relationships" before DiSalvo gets one iota of intel from the feds!

By clicking this LINK, you can send an email to the DEA, thanking them for this major bust, their continuing investigation, their early-morning arrests (that ensured maximum public safety and minimized disruption), and their on-going fight in the war on drugs.  They have just made our community safer, when our local sheriff's office would not.  PLEASE take 2 minutes to do this.  Write "Aspen" on the subject line and share your gratitude!  It's bad enough that the Aspen community is, according to Agent Schrandt, perceived as having a "passive attitude toward cocaine use" and is viewed as a "hotbed of illegal drug activity."  Let's support the feds in their efforts to change this.

And to think we spend so much time debating the environmental impact plastic grocery bags.....

ASPEN: THE WELFARE STATE?

"The Pitkin County commissioners this week approved spending at least $9,500 for a phone poll gauging voters' mood on approving a property tax to support the Healthy Community Fund, which supports public assistance programs and aids local nonprofit organizations," according to the Aspen Daily News.  Yep, they're planning to gauge public opinion on the reauthorization and increase of the current property tax to fund "social services" in the county.  We've had the Healthy Community Fund since 2002 with $800K in annual funding for its first 5 years.  In 2006, voters upped it to $1.25M through 2012.

Now that demand for "social services" has drastically increased over the past 3 years, the Healthy Community Fund is seen as the next great way to provide more free stuff - to the tune of $3.5M annually.  This property tax increase would of course entail approval by voters, perhaps as soon as this fall.  Yes, times are definitely challenging.  But when the Wall Street Journal (3/4/11) names Aspen "The Most Expensive Town in America," at what point do we collectively acknowledge that it's ok if some people leave town when there are not enough jobs and they cannot afford to live here any longer?

Furthermore, this can be viewed as a tax that makes local non-profits into component units of government, eliminating their need to fundraise, and replacing private donations with tax dollars.  This would make the non-profits subservient to the government's political mission rather than their own missions to serve people directly.  VERY dangerous.

I received a note from a former resident of Aspen who wrote me upon his learning of these latest welfare developments.  Again, sometimes it's just best to quote:

"If I were going to create a welfare state I would find a town in the most beautiful place in the world, attract millionaires to live there, offer them services, and then impose property taxes on them at a level that would let me subsidize all my friends in the lifestyle they have seen but cannot afford."

He continued, "Apparently, Aspen and Pitkin County have chosen this road.  First there was the building phase, when lots of people were attracted to town to help construct mansions.  Then, the city imposed a moratorium on building, putting many out of work.  The solution: impose a property tax to support welfare for the out of work." 

Oh, and the $9500 buys just 300 phone calls. 

Again, can't make it up.

HYDRO HIJACKED

Was it just a political ploy during election season when Mick and council switched gears and voted to withdraw their controversial conduit exemption from the FERC in favor of a "minor water power project" that will entail more environmental studies and greater federal oversight?  Probably.  Believe it when you see it.  In a recently released report, it seems that a secret, closed-door "mediation session" that didn't even include all parties, yielded a "unanimous" conclusion that a 3-member board (a rep from the city, PitCo Healthy Rivers and Streams, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife) should make all the decisions regarding stream diversions for Aspen's hydro plant.  This is patently ridiculous -- the government is poised once again to have the final say, despite the egregious bureaucratic mis-management of the project at just about every turn thus far.  Notable is the fact that those invited to participate in the secret meeting could not bring counsel, nor could they share with the public or press any details of the meeting.  (For this reason, a large group of stakeholders - the Castle Creek landowners - declined to participate.) 

If you are interested, please plan to attend a public forum on Thursday, June 16, at Paepcke Auditorium, starting at 5:30p, although sadly, I'm not confident it will be anything more than a city dog-and-pony show.  This event was originally conceived and planned by local citizens (the Castle Creek landowners, or "NIMBY's" as the city calls them) as a "community forum" on the hydro plant and its myriad issues, but in their generosity, the group offered the city a seat at the table.  With that, the city proceeded to hi-jack the event, steam-rolling the agenda by usurping the opening statement and even featuring self-proclaimed water expert and I-want-a-hydro-plant-on-my-resume mayor Mick on the panel.  It will be valuable to get Mick on the record regarding the "Castle Creek Energy Center," the monicker for the larger project in the works under the guise of a hydro-electric plant, as well as other nefarious and dubious decisions he has personally made, but with the city in charge, one thing not to expect is the truth! 

 I'm still investigating the securities fraud aspect of the $5.5M bond and the use of its proceeds.  This story is far from over.

AACP TIDBITS

City council recently voted not to fund an update to an 2007 economic conditions study that would provide factual, realistic and current information for use in the beleagured Aspen Area Community Plan update.  The outlay?  $12,000, but ACRA had offered to pay half.  The rationale?  Again, let's quote.  Mayor Mick stated to the Aspen Times, "I don't think we need to rehash the economics because I don't think the AACP should be driven by economics."  He continued, "I think the AACP should say what we want to have happen, not what the market wants to have happen."  Yep, he said it.  Straight from the mouth of your mayor, someone who knows nothing and respects even less about business.

Here are three letters to the editor that ran in response to this patently stupid decision:

• Semrau:  Eyes wide shut? (5/28/11)
• Maple:  AACP process "hijacked" (5/27/11)
• Milias:  AACP is an advisory document  (5/27/11)

TOO IDIOTIC TO OMIT

While the city denies funds for useful, relevant and critical economic data, check-out their latest foolish $30,000 expenditure: $20,000 for re-usable water bottles and another $9400 on "filling stations" for them.  They plan to try to sell "some" of the bottles to recoup maybe $15,000.  Great ROI, huh?  (Incompetent city manager Steve Barwick must've approved this math!) Ahhh, to eliminate plastic water bottles at any cost!  It pains me to even write about this -- see this LINK for the Aspen Daily News story on the city's latest plan to pour your money down the drain!

A RED ANT REMINDER

The Red Ant is political commentary (read: opinion - mine - it's an editorial), designed to present, interpret and discuss local issues that the papers either ignore outright,  merely toe the line provided them by city hall, or fail to connect the oh-so-important dots.  Often derided as a "conservative blog" by these same papers, The Red Ant always strives to present verifiable facts with my perspective and ideas on subjects that relate primarily to accountability and transparency in our local government.  (Detractors regularly cry for more "transparency" from me.  My personal business is not required to be transparent.  I am a private citizen and The Red Ant is a private LLC.  However, the government IS required to be transparent, and that is my focus.) 

Please note that I say "verifiable facts" above.  I do extensive research and am happy to provide my facts to you upon request.  When I utilize information from the newspaper, I quote and attribute it.  And should you find factual errors in my reporting, please let me know ASAP.  The Red Ant has no problem admitting an error or issuing a correction.  Just ask Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) author and advocate Marcella Larsen.  When contacted to correct a detail of her hypocritical and self-serving land deal in Issue #52, The Red Ant graciously made the change and noted it as a correction in the very next issue.  Again, this is commentary -- my interpretations and opinions -- but I insist on the facts.  I always welcome your feedback and comments.  Just hit "reply" to this email.