Archived Ants

ISSUE #134: I MeANT to Tell You to Vote!!  5/23/2017

"While I can't promise you that I'm going to be a perfect candidate and I can't promise you that I'm not going to make mistakes, I can unequivocally promise you that no one, no one, will work harder on your behalf, no one will fight harder with you and no one will make you more proud."   
Alexi Giannoulias


As predicted, it was a low turnout election.  Of approximately 6400 registered voters in Aspen, 5426 are considered "active," and of those, only 2413 cast a ballot on May 2 in Aspen's recent municipal election.
Congratulations to Steve Skadron, re-elected (no surprise) to his third and final mayoral term with 1875 of the votes cast (challenger Lee Mulcahy received 378 and another 160 left the mayoral "bubble" blank), and incumbent Ann Mullins, who garnered 1108 votes, enough to be re-elected to her second council term in the first round.  As a result of no other candidate reaching the 45% plus one threshold, the No. 2 and No. 3 vote getters in the 6-person field will face a run-off for the one remaining council seat on June 6:  Torre (with 972 votes) and Ward Hauenstein (who captured 894).

Ballots will again be mailed to all active voters in the city last week.  Early voting will be held from 8a to 5p, Monday - Friday, from May 22 through June 5 at the city clerk's office on the second floor of City Hall (130 S. Galena), including from 9a to 3p on Saturday, June 3.
You may also request an absentee ballot by completing THIS form and returning it to the clerk's office.  Forms must be received by June 2 in order for a ballot to be sent out to you.
PLEASE take the time to vote in this run-off election.  Yes, it matters.  A lot.  And your vote most certainly counts!
Questions?  Please contact the city clerk at (970) 429-2685.

I'm not going to change a thing endorsement-wise.  The June 6 ballot has two names on it and I encourage you to again vote for Ward Hauenstein -- for many reasons.  Let's face it, we know of a few issues facing council in the near-term, but no one can predict which critical issues will arise to challenge council in the next four years.  Given that two of the three incumbents running for re-election were successful, NOW is the time for a new voice at the council table to change the dynamic and bring fresh ideas and perspective to the debate.  Aspen needs a council member with the right qualities to handle ANY issue in the community's best interest.  Both candidates are eligible, but only Ward is qualified.  Specifically:
  • Proven leadership when leadership is needed:  Ward's willingness to stand up and speak truth to power was evident when, as a private citizen, he led the successful petition efforts and subsequent campaigns to challenge council decisions and defeat both the Hydro Plant (2012) and the Base 2 lodge (2015).
  • Strong on the issues:  Ward is committed to protecting local businesses from predatory practices (such as implementing legal ramifications for businesses who "stiff" local vendors), retaining Aspen's water rights but opposing dams (by looking at alternative water storage solutions and locations), and developing innovative ideas to optimize workforce housing (support for a program census, encouraging compliance enforcement, offering incentives for "right-sizing," and requiring owner maintenance of the existing physical structures) in order to protect this $1 billion community asset.
  • Mature and open-minded:  Ward has a well-known track record of being accessible, receptive to all viewpoints, honest in his dealings and willing to change his mind.
  • A principled and deep thinker:  Ward is interested, informed, engaged and prepared.  He will not only read your emails, he will give them proper consideration and thoughtfully respond.
  • Independent in his opinions:  Ward recognizes merit and goodwill in all sides of the issues. He knows how to accept criticism without personalizing it, while still being willing and able to test the status quo and challenge what doesn't pass the smell test.
  • A local small business owner:  Ward's decades of experience owning and running a local, small computer company has given him unique perspective through his regular interface with Aspen's local businesses. This personal access has provided him with insight and a first-hand understanding of the ongoing and evolving challenges faced by those, like himself, who are doing their very best to make a living in Aspen.
  • Dedicated to his family:  Ward met his school teacher wife Mimi in the Bell Mountain Lift line.  They have two grown daughters who were educated in the Aspen Public Schools, graduated from top colleges (Tufts and Brown), and are active and productive young women with interesting careers and strong ties to their hometown.
  • Active in Aspen Chapel:  Ward's commitment to Aspen extends well beyond his family, his business and his civic activism. He is also a compassionate leader and dedicated volunteer in his faith community.
I'll be sharing some fascinating voter turn-out facts and data (and some "you can't make this sh*t up" stories) once this one is in the rearview mirror!

ISSUE #133: 2017 EndorsemANTs  4/11/2017

"Democracy is a device which ensures that we shall be governed no better than we deserve."  
                 --  George Bernard Shaw


This season's yawner of a municipal election is a mail-only ballot one.  If you are a voter in the City of Aspen, your ballot was mailed to you yesterday, April 10.  Look for it.  Open it.  Don't dilly dally. Vote.  Be done with it.
This is an incredibly uninspiring election.  There are no issues to decide, just the opportunity to vote for Mayor and two Council seats.  Expect VERY low voter turnout, as much a result of the apathetic Aspen voter as a relatively apathetic slate, which, somewhat ironically, makes your vote even more impactful and therefore important.  So remember, in my opinion, no matter how boring the choices, the act of voting upholds your right to complain about the outcome!!  Don't lose that!! 
And whatever you do, DO NOT throw your ballot away at the post office.  Mail ballot elections are ripe for voter fraud.  If you choose not to vote, please destroy your ballot.
Incumbent Mayor Steve Skadron is running for his third and final term against Lee Mulcahy - artist, property manager, taxi driver, substitute teacher and local agitator.  In the Council race, laconically-inclined incumbents Ann Mullins and Art Daily seek re-election, but are being challenged by long-time local business owner and civic volunteer Ward Hauenstein, "whiny millennial" posterboy and self-promoting activist and organizer Skippy (yes, that's his real name) Mesirow, tennis-teaching former councilman Torre (like a phoenix he rises from the ashes), and PhD/artist and Mulcahy affililiate, Sue Tatem.
A strange Aspen pathology infects us all during election season.  It seems that when discussing candidates for office, one MUST preface all comments with the statement, "He/she is a good guy/gal...."  Fine.  Thank you to all 8 candidates for throwing your hats into the ring.  It takes a lot of guts.  I am certain that you are ALL "good guys and gals" by Aspen standards.
When endorsing candidates, The Red Ant prefers to focus on policy issues over personalities, track records instead of propaganda statements, and leadership acumen over self-promoting schmooze.  I've learned the hard way that sometimes even the nicest guy or gal isn't the best candidate for elected office.  But now I am officially on the record with the "good guys/gals" thing.  Moving right along....
  • The mayor must be elected with 50% + 1 of the votes cast on May 2. There are two candidates and one position up for grabs. There will be no run-off election for mayor.
  • Council candidates, on the other hand, must garner 45% + 1 of the votes cast on May 2 in order to be elected on the first ballot to one of the two open seats.  
  • Now this is important. Because there are two positions up for election in the council race as opposed to just one in the mayor's race, "votes cast" shall be calculated by dividing the sum of all votes cast for all city council candidates by 2.  With 6 candidates running for two seats, there is a STRONG likelihood of a run-off.
  • Run-off election option 1: On May 2, if only one council candidate passes the 45% +1 threshold, that candidate is elected to the first open seat, and the next two council candidates with the highest number of votes advance to a run-off on June 6, when each elector may cast only one vote.  The candidate with the highest number of votes on June 6 wins the second open seat.
  • Run-off election option 2: On May 2, if no council candidate reaches the 45% + 1 threshold, the four highest vote-getters advance to the run-off on June 6, where each elector may cast two votes.  The two highest vote-getters win the two open seats.
  • If needed, and it likely will be, the run-off election is Tuesday, June 6.  Ballots will be mailed out by May 22 with early voting beginning that same day at City Hall.  
  • If you know you are going to be out of town on June 6 and likely will miss receipt of your mail-in run-off ballot, please refer to the city clerk's website for more info HERE.  Questions?  970-429-2685
If you read no further, you will miss out on excerpts from each candidate's responses to The Red Ant's 2017 Candidate Questionnaire -- AND my rationale for endorsing the candidate(s) who I feel will best represent us with thoughtful, pragmatic and informed decisions, while looking at the bigger picture, in order to combat Aspen's ever-present nemesis, the Law of Unintended Consequences, lurking in every shadow and around every turn.  But for this 2017 election, if I am honest with myself -- and you -- if you stop now, you really aren't missing anything - it's a boring election and The Red Ant's ONLYendorsement is Ward Hauenstein for Council. Period.
That's right. No endorsement for Mayor. I cannot support either candidate. And no endorsement for the second Council seat either. Neither of the incumbents have dazzled me, in fact they just make me tired. I wish there was some excitement in this race, but so far I haven't seen any. 
Furthermore, for the first time in history, a candidate has flipped the bird at The Red Ant readership by not submitting answers to the candidate questionnaire.  Heck, it happens to me personally from time to time so I can take it.  But what Skippy Mesirow is really doing is telling you - my 2500 readers - where to put it.  Is it arrogance?   Indifference?  Hubris?  Probably all three.  But whatever you do, just don't vote for Skippy Mesirow. He doesn't want your vote.
I have long espoused the benefits of what's called "bullet voting."  This is a process that makes it more likely that your desired candidate will be elected when running for one of several openings (in our case, two) amidst a field of competitors.  The theory is to vote for just your favorite candidate, thereby boosting your candidate's total by one with a sole "bullet" vote.  By not voting for a second candidate although you are permitted to, you are reducing the number of votes used to calculate the 45% threshold for victory while increasing only your candidate's individual vote total. 

It's just math. And strategy. And there's nothing fuzzy or improper about doing this to get your desired candidate elected. "Bullet voting" merely causes your candidate's likelihood of garnering one of the two open council seats to increase disproportionately to the likelihood of other candidates getting the same result.

In this year's tedious excuse for an election, The Red Ant advocates a "bullet vote" for Ward Hauenstein.  

If you employ this voting strategy, Ward has a solid shot of being elected in the first round on May 2 (with at least 45% + 1 vote). That is the goal.  Simply put, we need to get Ward in on the first ballot, especially with two incumbents running for re-election amidst a crowded and competitive field.  To get Ward on council in the first round gives us one "friendly," and by that I mean thoughtful, prepared, even-handed, interested, principled and approachable.  The field will then be democratically narrowed for a June 6 run-off for the second council seat, and we will cross that bridge when we get there.

Yep, Ward is my guy.  We met as election commissioners amidst the Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) brou-ha-ha in 2010 and have been collaborators, co-conspirators, respectful adversaries and friends ever since.  This is not to imply that we always agree - we don't.  But we have a seven-year-long running dialog about all things Aspen, and have worked to understand each other's viewpoints when we come at things differently.  We seek each other out on the issues, as much due to mutual respect as to learn.  Ward is a trusted confidante who always listens before making a decision.  We teamed up to defeat the Hydro Plant in 2012, and when he led the anti-variance bandwagon as it related to the Base 2 hotel project in 2015 and later championed Referendum 1 which amended the Charter to legally stop the "variance" trend, I didn't necessarily agree with him, but based on his sound reasoning and consensus building, I modified my stance to a mere lukewarm opposition.  (Simply put, he made a lot of sense -- and took the pulse of the community to heart.)  
When he prevailed, I smiled.  He'd done it again.  He showed up (as he always does), made the case, worked tirelessly toward his goal, built yet another diverse coalition and whooped the opposition at the polls.  And no spiking the football for Ward.  That just isn't his style.  It was simply on to the next thing he cares about, including, most recently, an impassioned desire to find a legally binding method to protect local small businesses from predatory "clients" who blow into town and stiff the locals when bills for their services come due.  He knows all about it firsthand, owning a respected small computer company that serves many businesses here. 
As a 40-year resident, Ward has seen and lived through the changes in Aspen.  He is known for acknowledging the reality that "the only constant is change."  This is not at all to imply that he is pushing for change for change's sake; quite the opposite.  It's just that he is a responsible realist, and strives to deal with substantive issues in a substantive manner.  It will shock Aspen's political system to have a representative who listens as completely and cares as deeply up there at the council table.  

I have long encouraged my friend to take his interest in and commitment to Aspen civic matters to the next level by running for elected office.  Now is the time.  We need his insight.  We will benefit from his thoughtfulness.  Let's get Ward elected on the first ballot.  Please join me in "bullet voting" for Ward Hauenstein.
The Red Ant sent each of the candidates a questionnaire several weeks ago that touches on what I consider issues of the day.  I am thankful to 7 of the 8 candidates for their time spent on these questions.  YOU deserve to hear from each of them in their own words.  My 12 questions follow, with excerpts and snippets from the individual responses.   (The candidates' full and unedited responses are linked at the end of this issue.)  And, I know, it's truly remarkable how several of these candidates could not manage to actually answer the questions asked.  I'm really not sure why.  Can't read?  Don't understand?  Don't care?  You decide.  
1.  Please describe specific experience from your (professional) career that has impacted/influenced you in such a way that it contributes to your qualifications to be a City Council member.
ART DAILY: It's time to put what I've learned during my first term to work.  I believe I bring a balance to the council, which can be a meaningful contribution in a strong-minded community.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: I started my computer business over thirty years ago.  There was no internet.  Computers came with DOS 1 and dual floppy disk drives.  Windows were in your house or car.  Every step of advancement I have adapted to, learned, absorbed and moved forward.  I had to discern what technology to support and how to integrate it to solve the business needs of my clients.  The first step is to identify the problem.  I start with what is the desired outcome.  Then I work through how to get there.  I have had to think outside the box because the box was not yet invented.  The challenges the city of Aspen faces now and in the future require the same rational and logical assessment of problems and solutions.
LEE MULCAHY: My vision of Aspen is a place where its community members still shake hands even if we disagree, of one where artists aren't evicted from their self-built homes and where whistleblowers aren't banned from public lands for passing out a living wage flyer.  I promise to be the voice of the working man, of the community, of freedom and liberty.
ANN MULLINS: The accumulation of business experience (as a landscape architect and urban designer) through upturns and downturns, and the experience and knowledge gained through working on numerous different projects in many different places has affected my role as a council member.
STEVE SKADRON:  I have an MBA, experience in the corporate world, and a successful entrepreneurial record creating a thriving small business. 
SUE TATEM:  I attended CU (biology), Rice U (graduate work), UT Austin (PhD), NIH (postdoctoral fellow), and was a professor of biology at Temple U for 22 years. I have published 4 science books and other nonfiction about Michener. I am a plein air artist with a studio in the Red Brick.  I have experience writing and reviewing grants, administering a laboratory, budgeting and public speaking.
TORRE: I have a broad range of work history here (snowboard instructor, race crew, concierge, retail manager, waiter, bartender, restaurant manager, construction, maintenance, housecleaning, tennis teacher) that has given me a great perspective on the lives of Aspenites and our visitors, and the challenges we face.  I have also learned the business and personal skills from these jobs to understand hard work, team work, economics, decision making, negotiations, collaboration, leadership and other skills that make a good representative.
2.  In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing the city today? How would you approach dealing with this issue?
ART DAILY: The single most important issue facing our town today has remained unchanged since the mining days - how well do we watch over and take care of one another, and how thoughtfully do we protect and preserve our natural environment.  Let's do all we can to understand and to support the values and principles set forth in the Aspen Area Community Plan - and to improve upon them when feasible.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: Forced to name one thing, I would say sustainability.  What threatens the sustainability of Aspen?  Congestion, traffic, over-development, workforce housing and parking are all issues individually worthy of being the most important issue Aspen faces.  To focus on any one without seeing the connection between them is short-sighted and will produce solutions but not solve problems.  Beware of simple solutions.  The duty of city council is to set policy.  My approach to setting policy will be to view all through the lens of sustainability.  City council must make decisions that will ensure that Aspen will survive and thrive economically, while preserving it as a desired place to live for locals.  My approach will be to solicit divergent voices to fully explore the challenges and possible ways to assuage them.
LEE MULCAHY: The bigger the government, the less the liberty. The growth of the city of Aspen is the single most important issue facing the city. If elected, I would: fire the city manager and pass a city hiring freeze, curb local government's unrestrained growth by killing the "Taj Mahal" office building, and pass a property tax cut.
ANN MULLINS: Climate change and its effects.  Aspen city council must take an active role in protecting our environment and meeting the needs of our people.

STEVE SKADRON:  Aspen is drowning in automobiles. I want to leave the transit landscape forever changedby providing viable alternatives to cars, and building on technologies that are not reliant on more lanes and more parking garages in town.

SUE TATEM:  Transportation in and out of Aspen, difficulties on 82 and parking in the city.  I would attempt to address this by gathering all responsible parties and soliciting suggestions from citizens.
TORRE: The most important issue facing the city is this council election.  We have seen a disconnect most evidenced by the repeated citizen referenda on council decisions.  I was disappointed by the power plant process, the failed lodging incentive package, a land use code rewrite that discourages affordable housing downtown, and the recent dam and reservoir applications.
 3.  There is widespread belief that fraud and abuse are rampant in our subsidized housing program.  Do you see this as a problem?  Do you support an independent and comprehensive audit of the entire APCHA subsidized housing program portfolio that would clearly determine:
a)   What do we have in our inventory?
b)   What is the physical condition of each unit?
c) Who specifically lives there?
d)  Do they comply?
Why or why not?  If yes, will you commit to furthering this as a Top 10 Council Priority for 2017?  If not, why not?
ART DAILY: I'm not part of the "widespread belief that fraud and abuse are rampant in our subsidized housing program," but it may be that I simply don't know enough about it and I definitely want to understand the situation better.  Hence, I do support an independent and comprehensive audit of the program and its portfolio.  It can only serve to make the program more fair, more up to date, and better understood, and I do support making such an audit one of the council's top 10 goals for 2017.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: Workforce housing is perhaps the largest single asset the city and county own.  We paved the way in workforce housing.  It is vitally important that we dedicate our energies to address abuse and optimization in the program. I do support an independent and comprehensive audit of the program.  With information in hand, we can determine to what degree abuse and fraud exist.  Top 10 goal, yes.
LEE MULCAHY: Yes, yes and yes.  As mayor I would propose an independent commission to investigate the cronyism and corruption at the Housing Department.
ANN MULLINS: One of the next Top Ten Goals will be a comprehensive review of the Affordable Housing Program to address assets, non-compliance and aging inventory.

STEVE SKADRON: Important topic, but I disagree with the general premise. While there are problems, the belief that there is rampant fraud and abuse is overblown. Yes, I'm willing to look at all of it and make improvements to the program as a Top 10 priority.

SUE TATEM: The suspicion of employee housing was the second most mentioned issue when I was collecting signatures.  Most of the employees are afraid to speak out. Definitely top ten.
TORRE: Yes, any distrust or compliance issues can undermine the effectiveness of our housing program.  An accurate inventory of our housing can only help us plan for future needs, opportunities and adaptability to changing circumstances.
4.  As it currently stands, those who purchase subsidized housing units (categories 1-7) from APCHA have no "skin in the game" because they do not pay the 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT).  Recall, the funds raised by the RETT go toward the subsidized housing fund (1%) and the Wheeler Opera House (0.5%).  Given that the average 2016 APCHA-brokered sale was $318,000, (making the hypothetical average RETT contribution from these sales $4770) would you support subjecting all future purchases of subsidized housing to the 1.5% RETT along the lines of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"?  Why or why not?
ART DAILY: I'm not persuaded as yet that such a requirement would be consistent with the principles of subsidized housing.  We're trying to make this housing as financially accessible as possible to qualified buyers.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: Yes, I think workforce housing purchases should be subject to the RETT.  I think it is fair.
LEE MULCAHY: Yes, I would, for the common sense reason you state: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."  Local government is drunk with power and frankly, out of control.
ANN MULLINS: This question and other specific questions will be better answered after we complete the comprehensive assessment of the housing program.

STEVE SKADRON: No, I don't support AH transactions paying the RETT. It simply makes affordable housing more expensive and places an additional burden on a workforce we are trying house.

SUE TATEM: I don't fully understand the complexity of this one and wondered why the Wheeler is getting any of it.
TORRE: I will be willing to have this conversation if elected.  I do know there are other areas for improvement in the facilitation of buying and selling AH units.  I foresee our housing program landing on the Top 10 goals for this coming year.
5.  There is no Council oversight of actual spending by the city.  In most other cities (and especially given our $100+ million annual budget), there is a Council designee or committee that reviews each "payables" batch with the city finance director (or designee) prior to the issuance of payments.  This would typically be a printout of payables, sorted by size and vendor.  The Council designee or committee would review this list and could ask for backup on any proposed payment to review the details of any transaction to sample city spending and ensure it is in line with Council's budget policy approvals, and as a way to limit wasteful staff-driven discretionary spending.  Would you favor the implementation of such an oversight role?  Why or why not?
ART DAILY: I have no reason to believe that the city is a victim of "wasteful staff-driven discretionary spending."  That being said, I do think the budget process and the council's understanding thereof (and public confidence therein) could benefit from an up-to-date analysis and summary from the city manager's office of council's role in the process.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: Our governmental structure is a strong city manager, weak council. By charter, council directs staff through the city manager. I believe council needs to give the city manager specific expectations and trust him to implement them.  With expectations in place, accountability is possible.  I do not advocate council micro-managing staff.  I would support random audits where wasteful spending is suspected.  If wasteful spending is found, the city manager is responsible.
LEE MULCAHY: Yes, transparency and sunshine are the best disinfectant for government policy.  Cronyism and corruption run rampant in our city manager-dominated local government.
ANN MULLINS: Currently city council reviews any expense over $25,000.  And of course, council can review any expenditure at any time.

STEVE SKADRON: Every contract over $25k is reviewed by the city council. This is council oversight of actual spending and I've insisted that this policy be maintained.

SUE TATEM: I would like to have oversight of the spending and might do that or be on the committee myself if I'm elected because I have experience checking on expenditures.
TORRE: I think that budget transparency is a top three goal.  There should be more discussions throughout the year instead of just end-of-year budget sessions.  A citizen budget committee would be a good way to involve the public and get more eyes on the issue.
6.  The current council has approved the potential future construction of large reservoirs in the Castle and Maroon Creek valleys. The necessary final decision would merely take a majority of Council (3 votes) to approve what would be considered an administrative matter.  As such, there is no possible citizen recourse to reverse the decision.  Do you favor a change to the Aspen City Charter that would require a vote of the citizens to approve the construction of a dam or dams in the Castle and/or Maroon Creek valleys, or at the very least, make the decision a legislative one that could be subject to citizen over-ride if desired?  Why or why not?
ART DAILY: For the past 45 years or so, the then-sitting council has supported a continuing effort on the part of the city to maintain diligence for two conditional water storage rights in the Castle and Maroon Creek valleys.  In 2016, council directed staff to implement certain water management measures to improve resiliency against future climate change impacts.  I don't think anyone on the council has any current desire to build the subject dams.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: One of my stated top three goals is to ensure that if a future council approves the construction of a dam on either or both Maroon or Castle Creeks that the citizens have to approve construction via a vote.  I favor changing the Charter to require a dam vote.
LEE MULCAHY: Yes, at the very least.  Say "no" to dams at the Maroon Bells.  If you care about conservation, wilderness, healthy rivers or our rural lifestyle, you need look no further than the mayor and the incumbent council's plans to build a pair of 15-story dams in the shadow of the world-famous Maroon Bells as reason to clean out city hall. Get the dam plans off the books.
ANN MULLINS: The Aspen city council has not approved the potential future construction of large reservoirs, but has submitted an application to protect the conditional water rights of the city of Aspen.

STEVE SKADRON:  Wrong. Citizens do have recourse. They can recall or not re-elect a councilmember. Any decision on actual construction of dams requires more than one election cycle.

SUE TATUM: I have not seen the full "use" planned for the reservoirs. Are they to be available for recreation? Will they be drained every year leaving ugly mud? There should be an opportunity for citizen override.
TORRE: Dam No!  Dam Never!
7.  The proposal for Gorsuch Haus, a new hotel at the top of South Aspen Street, is likely to be one of the first matters of business for the new Council.  Do you support this project and what it will bring to the western portal of Aspen Mountain?  Why or why not?
ART DAILY: I've been conflicted from participating in Gorsuch Haus deliberations because of my partnership status un the law firm that represents the applicant.  At the end of 2016 I retired as a partner and if re-elected I plan to consult with the city attorney regarding my ability to participate in Gorsuch Haus matters.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: The latest submission of Gorsuch Haus (GH) is stunningly beautiful.  I think this hotel would be a treasure for Aspen, however issues still remain to be resolved. The challenge of getting people from Dean Street to GH remains unresolved to my satisfaction. The current council gave away a portion of Aspen Street to the approved lodges on the east side of the street.  This short-sighted decision combined with the Dolinsek agreement makes a people mover to the base difficult at best.  Piecemeal decisions do not serve the community well.  An integral solution considers not only the building but also the lift alignment, getting people to GH and the historic character of the area.  If elected, I will work for a complete solution that considers all the above-mentioned factors.
LEE MULCAHY: Yes, I do.  The time for Gorsuch Haus has come.
ANN MULLINS: Since this is an active application, I cannot speak specifically about it.

STEVE SKADRON: I support efforts to move the lift the lower, make a great public space and modify the building size.

SUE TATEM: I am not yet familiar with the Gorsuch Haus project enough to comment yet.
TORRE: I am supportive of a new lift and the appropriate services that it can support.  There are still many unanswered questions.  South Aspen Street is undergoing many changes. We need to get all the players in the room together and resolve the vision for this side of the mountain.
8.  Do you support the new Chain Store Regulation ordinance?  Why or why not?  Please describe how you see this impacting opportunities for locals to open downtown businesses, as well as how you see it affecting commercial lease rates.
ART DAILY: The new chain store regulation is modest in its language and in its anticipated impact.  I supported it for the simple reason that I believe it sends a message that Aspen cares about the make-up of its retail environment and that high end exclusivity is not a community objective.  Hopefully it will serve to encourage a more balanced mix of retail uses and will over time improve opportunities for locals to engage in downtown businesses.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: I believe it is symbolic only.  I think it creates a false sense of hope.  Attempts to control the free market largely meet with more unintended consequences than real benefits.  The ordinance attempts to place blame on chain stores for change that some do not want to accept.  The only constant is change.  I see this ordinance doing nothing to decrease rents.  Locals on a shoestring budget will find it very difficult to open businesses in the core, chain store or not.
LEE MULCAHY: No, I do not support it.  Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."  As a libertarian, I believe the less the government interferes in the free market, the better.
ANN MULLINS: I was unable to be at the city council meeting where the final version was reviewed and voted on.  I had questions that would have informed my final vote, some of which were unanswered, so I don't know what my final decision would have been.

STEVE SKADRON: The goals it set out to achieve were meritorious.

SUE TATEM: I would rather have chain stores than empty storefronts.
TORRE: I do support the ordinance, but keep in mind there are other missed opportunities that this council failed to act on that predicated this action.  We still need action on other opportunities for local businesses and diversity support.
9.  Please describe a recent decision by the Mayor that you did not agree with, and why.  (Mayor Skadron, please describe a recent decision that you regret, and why.)
ART DAILY: I supported the One-Roof City Hall solution (the Galena option).  The mayor supported the Three-Roof solution, including continued use of the Armory building.  This was the prevailing solution.  I had a range of reasons for my perspective on the issue, including a significantly lower cost, less construction time and risk, lower traffic and parking impacts, and greater efficiency and effectiveness as a municipal headquarters.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: I did not agree with the mayor placing the chain store issue on the city council agenda.  I question the process the ordinance took getting to council.  It came from a member of the public, not from staff or anyone on council. The proponents said put it on the agenda or we will via a citizen petition. I would have told the proponents to go ahead and get the signatures, stand in the cold and do the work.  This decision by the mayor sets a precedent.
LEE MULCAHY: Wasteful spending and uncontrolled government development.  The mayor's empire building now includes a 45'9" tall "Taj Mahal" city office building. (It's awesome to be the city so you can erect a 17' taller building than anyone else!) Transparency and secret executive sessions.  The cronyism and corruption displayed by the mayor and city manager create much of the divisiveness from people feeling they're completely shut out from the non-transparent process.
ANN MULLINS: I supported the one-roof option for city hall.  The three-roof option was approved instead and the mayor cast one of the supporting votes.

STEVE SKADRON: I regret letting the Powerhouse decision take as long as it did. In retrospect, I would have set a hard deadline sooner, say 3 months.

SUE TATEM: I was very unhappy and blamed the mayor for the fiasco with the Power House.  If the city needs space, they should have kept it to begin with.  The nonprofits competed and then had the rug pulled out from under them for the awful idea of a beer garden.
TORRE: I disagreed with the approval of the new city hall on Rio Grande.  I thought that the mayor and council members should have defined the office and space allocations better and reinforced that the mayor's office and managers should remain in the Armory building that currently houses them.
10.            Please evaluate the current City Council's job of holding the city manager accountable for running the city, given the numerous scandals (parking, hydro plant, fiscal irresponsibility, lack of transparency, subsidized housing favoritism and abuse, etc.) that keep occurring on his watch.  He has just completed Year 7 of his 10-year, $170K+/year contract.  In your opinion, can anything Barwick has done be considered "gross negligence" or "malfeasance"?  How can Council improve in its duty to supervise the city manager?  What steps should the new Council take in the next 2 years to prepare for replacing the city manager in 2020 when his contract is up or conducting the proper public review and evaluation for offering him a new contract?
ART DAILY:  I believe Steve Barwick does a good job for the community in his role as city manager.  He receives periodic reviews from city council, including most recently in January of this year.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: The city manager must be given expectations.  Without these, the city manager cannot really be held accountable.  I met with the mayor 2.5 years ago and asked city council to put these in place.  His reply was that nobody had ever done that.  It needs to be done. I do not believe in witch hunts but I do believe in accountability.  If elected to city council I will do everything in my power to put expectations in place.
LEE MULCAHY: Yes, council should put the city manager's office "on notice."  If elected, I would explore steps on reducing the city manager's power.
ANN MULLINS: The health of the city is a reflection of its council and city manager, and the council continually judges the effectiveness of the city manager in maintaining the well-being of the city.

STEVE SKADRON: The premise of the question is false and unfair. Council evaluates the city manager appropriately. We think he does an excellent job. Consistency at the city manager's position is a challenge for many cities. We're fortunate to have a qualified, hard working, professional serving the Aspen's interests.

SUE TATEM: I am supposed to meet with the city manager and have not yet done so.
TORRE: I think there is a lack of accountability on our current council.  We need a better system of communication and oversight on the managers' offices. I look forward to working with council and staff to mend the broken chain of responsibility.
11.            With the abundance of marijuana shops and their significant financial impacts on the local commercial real estate landscape as well as the city's sales tax revenue, which of the existing "pot shops" should be held up as the gold standard for future pot shops in town?  (I asked this question to gauge the knowledge, experience and exposure of the candidates to the burgeoning "pot" industry in Aspen.)
ART DAILY: While I wish I could say otherwise, I'm simply not in a position to judge which of the existing pot shops in town meet the "gold standard" for future pot operations.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: I am not an expert on pot shops.  I do however know that they are closely regulated.  I did discuss pot shops with the chief of police.  Based on that, I feel comfortable that pot shops are safe and that is my main concern.
LEE MULCAHY: Honestly, I don't know.  But my most important concern is that we as a community discourage and make it very difficult for young people to access cannabis.  The problem for tourists is the prohibitions from smoking cannabis in public or in local accommodations.  If elected, I would support legalization of cannabis clubs.
ANN MULLINS: Currently there are seven shops in town and one more approved, but not open yet.  They are all strictly regulated and all compliant with the city ordinance.

STEVE SKADRON: Generally, all shops have met the letter of the law and have been good corporate citizens.

SUE TATEM: I did not vote for marijuana legalization nor have I ever been in any pot shop.
TORRE: I have not done a shop-by-shop comparison.  I do support the valley wide organization - Valley Marijuana Council - and their initiatives for safe, educational, informed pot sales.
12.            Please describe your latest and greatest experience in the past 12 months at any one of the following local establishments: (I asked this question to understand the experience of the candidates at popular and lively establishments frequented by our tourist guests as a gauge of how they relate to contemporary Aspen visitors.)
  • Ajax Tavern
  • Bootsy Bellows
  • Belly Up
  • Cloud 9
  • Cache Cache
  • Matsuhisa
  • Caribou Club
  • Campo De Fiori
ART DAILY: Matsuhisa is my son Rider's favorite restaurant in town.  He loves the sushi.  Some of my own most memorable experiences took place in the Pub and similar outlets, all long gone.
WARD HAUENSTEIN: I really enjoy people in an atmosphere conducive to conversation, so I would say the greatest experience at the listed spots was a dinner with my wife and three other people at Cache Cache.  After involvement in one of the issues I was deeply engaged in, I became estranged from a friend of 30 years.  At this dinner we started talking again.  In a way it was a therapy session with great food.  I believe people should be able to disagree and still be friends.
LEE MULCAHY: Bootsy Bellows - Fantastic. Went to an African fundraiser - always a blast.  Belly Up - Attended several fundraisers, reasonable prices at the bar and great service!  Cache Cache - love the bar menu and the atmosphere, a lot of the servers are longtime friends.  Caribou Club - great music.
ANN MULLINS: Belly Up - Clint Black concert a few years ago.

STEVE SKADRON: Cloud 9 for a birthday party. Yep, I danced on chairs and was sprayed with champagne. But I kept my clothes on.

SUE TATEM: I have not been in any of the establishments in the last 12 months, though I did dine in some of them in years past.  I am sorry to lose Little Annie's, the Wienerstube, McDonald's and the Main Street Bakery.
TORRE: Ajax Tavern - I had a great late lunch with friends on the deck after skiing.  Bootsy Bellows - Snoop Dog just came through for what seemed like 3 days.  Belly Up - the Aspen Cares benefit.  Cloud 9 - A quick beer and lunch on the deck, and back to the lifts!  Cache Cache - Yum! I have cut down from almost once a week to once a month. Campo De Fiori - Adam's birthday, details not available.


SKADRON: Steve and I don't agree on much.  Whether it's his unabashed support for city manager Steve Barwick who effectively leads him and the current council around by their noses, past advocacy for the hydro plant (which I always fear might again rear its ugly head), anti-car zealotry, lack of understanding of (and support for) the issue of dams of Castle and Maroon Creeks, lack of confident leadership, closed mind and inability to even contemplate the other side, "godfather" role in the failed "brewery at the Old Power House" decision and eventual retraction, and recent Land Use Code re-write that courts the Law of Unintended Consequences with VIP tickets to Aspen's hospitality tent, simply put, we see the governance of Aspen through very different lenses.
A walking contradiction, Steve, as echoed in his campaign materials, espouses an improvement to our subsidized housing program with better management and controls, yet his answers to the questionnaire illustrate his lack of acknowledgment and acceptance of the very real problems that exist.  He talks a lot about vitality and small town character, yet supports ardent no growth legislation that only serves to further restrict development and drive costs (of everything) upward, not the least of which are barriers to entry for locally serving (and owned) small businesses.  Steve's desire for "a healthy resort-community balance" prioritizes an enormous new city hall development higher than a well-founded vision for the future of the western portal of Aspen Mountain.  In other words, none of it makes basic common sense.
As consolation (because his third term is all but assured), Steve has been far more of a gentleman than his predecessor, Mick Ireland.  We often share a laugh on the Hunter Creek bus which we both take to the lifts.  While set in his ways and rarely open to new ideas, at least he's not a flat out jerk about it.
ART:  Thanks for your service, Art, but it's time to go.  This well-known and well-respected local attorney with a compelling personal story was elected to council four years ago by employing a strategy of minimal campaigning and guarded public responses.  It should then come as no surprise that Art kept his viewpoints to himself in order to get elected, and today, his political gestalt remains a mystery.  He never brought forth new ideas nor legislation, and rarely coughed out a remark. He is also well known for never responding to emails.  Art's palpable disinterest for his role was astonishing to witness, but not nearly as astonishing as his unexpected decision to run for re-election. Art is a big City Manager fan, clueless about the chain store regulation impacts, and, being a lawyer, it's remarkable his lack of understanding of the whole Castle/Maroon Creek "dam" issue.**
ANN:  Thanks, Ann, for your service.  Now it's someone else's turn. Like Art, Ann favors a decision solely by council on the dams** matter, illustrative of a blindness to all pursuits seemingly environmental and complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand.  The former Historic Preservation Commission chair represents a "same old, same old" ideology and "bring back the quiet years" constituency that do not accurately represent the evolving needs and values of our community.
** Dams: The three incumbents just don't get it.  By deciding to "maintain the conditional rights" to build the dams, the city has filed papers with the state representing its intent to build the dams.  But politically (and in the questionnaire), Steve, Ann and Art are less emphatic about building them.  That's not the point.  LEGALLY, to maintain the right to build the dams you must intend to build them.  You told the state you do intend to, but you told voters the opposite.  So, which is it?  FISCALLY, this puts the city in the position to defend itself against no less than 10 entities that are challenging the city's intent - because one does not exist.  We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum that are going to be spent cleaning up this mess.  And these three don't even understand what it is they agreed on.  Good grief!
I had originally planned to suggest you check the "use by" date on Torre, who has twice served on city council in the past.  I had planned to point out, "Expired."  And while I have strategically supported Torre in the past (as a potential foil to Mick when he attempted a comeback in 2015), I viewed his current candidacy, in short, as one word, just like his name: NO.  But alas, context is everything.  We don't agree on much.  Never did.  But given the competitive set and my hopes of defeating both council incumbents, Torre just may be the man to watch.  I still advocate a "bullet vote" for Ward to get him in with the first ballot, but if Torre advances to the run-off, I promise a hard look at how his past decisions and vision for Aspen's future might just work for us.  Stay tuned.
I certainly don't dislike Lee.  But I cannot support his candidacy.  We all make decisions in this world and fall on the swords of our choosing.  Lee has his reasons for taking on SkiCo, the Aspen Art Museum and the Housing Authority, and whether or not you believe him or support him or avoid him, he feels aggrieved and has sought remedy in both the court of public opinion as well as the courthouse.  He'll fill your inbox with his cases and reasons for fighting for what he feels is his, but unfortunately it's not just the facts that matter, tactics do too.  His troubles with each of the aforementioned entities are now in the courts, and I only wish that each grievance had been addressed differently.  Lee is nothing if not committed, and has thrown his hat into many rings beyond just these local "fights": school board, state office, and now the mayoral race.  It's a shame that so many past controversies and transgressions will likely forever color his name, but I am grateful for his interest in and thoughts on local matters, and willingness to try to make a difference.  He has some very good ideas.  I've told Lee that a little contrition can go a long way.  And I hope that somehow he and his adversaries can come to agreements where the vitriol ends and life in Aspen for Lee can resume anew.  His would be a valuable voice in the public square, but unfortunately today it is still distorted by the chaos that surrounds him.
With an interesting and diverse background, Sue would certainly bring a new perspective to council, however, she comes across as woefully uninformed on local issues.  The Red Ant likes to encourage people to become civically involved and hopes that Sue pursues a volunteer commission post in the near future.  There is a lot to be said for enthusiasm, so it would be terrific for an aspiring elected representative to dive in and gain local political experience this way.  Sue, I hope we haven't heard the last from you.
All hat, no cattle. There is no lack of charm, energy and enthusiasm from the current P&Z chairman and joiner of numerous community organizations primarily targeted to Aspen's millennial constituency (See Issue #129) who vows to "rebuild trust in government" and "create a more livable Aspen."  I recently spent an hour with him.  Questioned about the nature of the "distrust" and specifics on his "livability" concerns, and pressed to describe detailed ideas for real-world solutions, the candidate was vague - and intentionally so. Instead, I got a host of flowery platitudes and a glittery view of utopian Aspen from 20,000'.  There are large doses of either naivety or intent to manipulate.  A self-described "community builder" and "connector," Skippy has a proven record of gathering folks together.  To what end, I am still not entirely sure, and I worry A LOT about form over function.  I am troubled by his idealistic sense of how the world works. 
"Professionally," Skippy is the creative director of Aspen Entrepreneurs, a newly-formed non-profit that seeks to educate and support entrepreneurs and local businesses.  Sounds noble enough, so imagine my astonishment at the group's vision of Aspen as "a shared city, a place with thriving, vibrant, profitable local businesses, where we treat each other as family, invest in one another, live the Aspen Idea, and prioritize health and happiness.  We believe in inclusion, collaboration, big hugs, #givefirst, open doors, long hikes and powder days, because we know it makes us better, stronger, healthier and more profitable." WHAT?!? REALLY?!?  I laughed out loud. Furthermore, I just can't sign on to his belief that "direct democracy doesn't work" and "the whole concept of democracy is in question." (It's actually rather shocking coming from someone who is running for a democratically elected office!!  And it calls into question not democracy, rather the candidate's intentions.)
Skippy no doubt loves Aspen, and really wants us to become a more integrated and diverse community.  He's not at all opposed to the government's role as social engineer, as long as it stems from a diverse mix of people coming together, discussing, interacting and determining the make-up of the community we want to be and what that would take ("actionable goals"), then deciding if and how we make that happen - the classic utopian myth that community is synonymous with consensus (it is not).  Personally, I'm much more concerned with tangible hot-button issues on planet earth, such as the Gorsuch Haus debate - arguably the most important issue facing a new council in the immediate term, and one that, incidentally, Skippy's current role on P&Z precludes him from participating in. 
Skippy's flamboyant rhetoric is FAR too "kumbaya" for a town of 6000 with pressing development, traffic and housing issues, not to mention an annual budget surpassing $100 million.  Besides, the social engineering focus makes me nauseous. But, there is much to be said for the personal brand Skippy has successfully built for himself, ironically without saying much at all.
But, again, by opting not to submit his answers to The Red Ant's candidate questionnaire, you know that Skippy does not want your vote. Based on this alone, do him - and the city of Aspen - a favor: Don't even think about voting for Skippy!

ISSUE #132: Spring 2017 InformANT  3/22/2017

"I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership.  And when we get lazy, as a democracy, and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics."  
     -- Barack Obama, 2006
Many years ago, as an incentive to encourage voters to support a sales tax referendum, the City of Aspen created the Food Tax Refund.  Its intent is to partially reimburse voters for the approximate amount of sales tax that they would pay annually on grocery purchases due to the imposition of a 1% city sales tax.  The refund is $50 per person per year.

Applicants are required to be a registered voter in the City of Aspen to qualify.  If you are not currently a registered voter, The Red Ant and the city recommend you register to avoid any issues in the future.  (Any resident who is barred from registering to vote due to non-citizenship or due to a felony conviction shall provide alternative proof of residency as required by the finance director.  Questions: 970-920-5040.)

HERE's the form.  Turn it in by April 17 and get your $50!

This spring's May 2 Aspen General Election promises to be a snoozer of epic proportions. We'll be voting for mayor and two city council seats in a mail-ballot election.  In my humble opinion, the choices are, with one exception, nothing short of abysmal, but more on that later.  Ballots will be mailed out on April 10.  To check your mailing address or to register to vote, go to:

As uninspiring and seemingly unimportant as this election may appear, I still implore you to vote.  I expect voter turnout to be beyond low this cycle, which only makes your vote more impactful.  But fear not -- as you have come to expect, The Red Ant will have an election issue in your inbox around April 10 with everything you need to cast an informed ballot!  Don't even think about voting before reading the election issue!!

Additionally, in-person early voting will begin in the Aspen City Clerk's office on April 17 and will continue until May 1, 8am - 5pm, Monday through Friday.  There will also be Saturday early voting on April 29 from 9a - 2p.  If you will be out of town or out of the country, you may request an Absentee Ballot or Special Absentee Ballot Request Form and return it to the city clerk before April 28.  For more info, call: 970-429-2687.

I wrote about this folly in January (see issue #130 HERE).  In short, an altruistic citizen who thinks that town is being over-run with formula retail stores was successful in his push to initiate an ordinance and pass regulations that enable the city government to block the opening of new chain stores in all future development.  Council unanimously approved the unusual measure, saying that "it sends an important signal about the value Aspen places on uniqueness and small town character."  Formula retail is thus defined as a purveyor with 11 or more stores in the U.S. with standardized characteristics, including product line and trademarks.  

The chain store opposition group set the wheels in motion with a half-baked walking tour of town where they counted "chain stores" and came up with the figure of 60%, as in 60% of Aspen's retail was chain stores, and they declared an emergency! Well, not so fast.  Fake news.  It turned out, with a proper count the number was closer to 30%, and when chains with fewer than 11 stores were removed from the list, the number was closer to 26%.  The Red Ant says that's actually a really nice mix -- so what's the problem?!?!

Council buckled.  Notably, however, in the end, the new restrictions apply solely to development that has yet to be proposed - all existing buildings and others already in the pipeline are exempt.  Demolition or expansion (over 500 sf) would render previous exemptions null and void.  What the regulations' outspoken supporters (think 1980s-era failed "fur ban" mayor Bill Stirling) neglect to acknowledge are those pesky laws of unintended consequences!  Think about the inherent creation of an uneven playing field:  some landlords can now accept (chain store) tenants that their neighbors cannot.  Rumors of discrimination lawsuits are rampant (The Red Ant says, "Bring 'em!"), especially when potential tenants are subject to review by a citizen board, likely Planning & Zoning (think "retail death panels"). Besides, Aspen is already one of the most expensive places to develop real estate in the country, owing to the legion of sundry city regulations and mitigation fees.  Watch prices go up.

The biggest joke of the new ordinance is that it originated with the misguided sentiment that real estate has gotten so expensive in the downtown core that Aspen's younger set cannot get a toe-hold for their recycled water bottle businesses and kite shops (read: really bad business ideas).  Well, anyone with a modicum of business acumen recognizes what will really happen now:  the new restrictions will only ensure that commercial rental rates will remain high (and will likely increase further - think about that pesky dynamic between supply and demand).  Furthermore, this year marks the end of long Aspen runs by chain stores Burberry and McDonald's, and last fall Fendi made a corporate decision to close. The widespread but unsubstantiated belief that ALL chain stores in Aspen happily operate at a loss for the long term is clearly unfounded. And there are many that do very, very well here!  Besides, did anyone ever stop to consider the high quality local jobs (year-round pay, good benefits and paid vacation) tied to formula retailers?  Nope.

But councilman Adam Frisch did indeed acknowledge what I've been saying all along.  He does not think the (chain store regulation) ordinance will make it any easier for the whiny millennials (see Issue #129) to be able to afford leases on downtown commercial space.  Ya think?!?  He then asked the million dollar question, "Is Aspen great because of or in spite of its being 'one of the least free-market, most socially engineered places in the country?'"  I could barf.  (Sadly, I don't think his question was rhetorical.)

Look for the fallout ... Don't worry, it's coming and I'll be sure to keep you posted.

For years, The Red Ant has been writing about widespread abuse and fraud in our local subsidized housing program.  And for years, I have been advocating for a thorough and independent program audit, if for no other reason than to clarify a few key points:
  • What EXACTLY do we have in our inventory?  How many units, how many bedrooms, where?
  • What is the physical condition of these units?
  • Who SPECIFICALLY is living there?
  • Do they qualify?  Are they in compliance?
You'd think I was ordering people into the streets - guilty until proven innocent - when all I've been asking for is an accounting.  If there is no "there" there, then the audit will bear that out.  But in the meantime, just ask anyone and they'll tell you a story about their friend, their neighbor, the Airbnb rentals, etc.  Fraud is rampant. 

Aspen Times columnist Glenn Beaton regularly writes on the subject of abuse in the housing program.  HERE is a recent piece.  He sees what I do, despite the bureaucrats' aversion to even looking into it, and recently the CBS affiliate in Denver took an interest.  HERE is their television report.  (Apologies for the 15-second advertisement at the beginning....) 

In short, the piece highlights the widespread corruption in our housing program and especially the fact that our local leaders, elected and hired, simply do not care.  Several readers of The Red Ant saw the piece and have been in touch - they know how I feel about fraud in our subsidized housing program.  Here is one of the letters I received:

"Hi Elizabeth, They have finally been exposed.  The city council should resign, Barwick should be fired as well as the people who run the program.  The program should be terminated.  Those cheaters should have to disgorge rental income and be removed from the program, and the city attorney has an obligation to prosecute those who criminalize this perk.  This is the Aspen 'buddy system' lapsing into larceny.  Big surprise - everyone knows this was going on and our public servants 'winked' and went skiing.  Shameful."

For the most part, I agree.  The city manager should absolutely be fired.  But that takes a vote of 3 of 5 on council and I can only think of one who has the guts to do the right thing here.  Ann Mullins and Art Daily, the two council members up for re-election in May, are unwilling.  The mayor, also up for re-election, is also unwilling.  In my opinion, their unwillingness to enforce the rules and oversee the city manager as their employee signals their acceptance of this abuse.

The solution should be simple enough.  Change the deed restrictions on our entire subsidized housing portfolio to include the defined penalty requiring sale of the property and prohibition from participating in the subsidized housing program if the owner is found to be in any kind of violation.  Period.  Subsidized housing is a privilege, not a right.  With enforcement comes compliance.  

As for the future of the housing program, I am, however, cautiously optimistic.  In 2015, a new director (with a masters degree in public administration) was hired.  I have a huge amount of respect for Michael Kosdrosky who has been tireless in his quest to upgrade the system and bring a semblance of order to 30 years' worth of chaos.  He swims upstream every day against the status quo, but is currently working to convert a paper-based system to a database because, obviously, the management of 3000 units is not practical with a paper-based system.  Amazing that in 2017 this isn't a given?!?!  He also sees the immense value in properly managing this incomparable community asset.  

But until Kosdrosky is given the power to bring the housing program to heel, the fraud and abuse, so ingrained in its culture, will continue, unabated, because no one on council or at the top of the city hall food chain has the cajones to acknowledge the problem, yet alone straighten it out.

Told ya so.  And don't think for a minute that I am not going to try to make this an election issue.

Following a well-attended public hearing in February (I wrote about it HERE), the developers of Gorsuch Haus took the community and council feedback to heart. The pushback on their planned request for re-zoning from "conservation" to "SKI" (which would have provided greater flexibility with mass and scale) will likely now become a request for the parcel to become a lodging district.  This change, plus a redesign that lowers the height and includes other adjustments including a more "open" turn-around/drop-off area at the top of South Aspen Street, have been incorporated in time for another public hearing on March 27.  Check out the Gorsuch Haus WEBSITE to see the latest renderings.

The changes to the project are noteworthy for many reasons.  First and foremost, they reiterate the commitment by the local development team to listen to community feedback.  The fear (misplaced in my opinion, but I digress) that the access to the new 1A lift was seen to be "too private" led to a reconfiguration that makes the new access FAR more publicly accessible (both physically and visually) than the Silver Queen Gondola at Little Nell.  Furthermore, council admitted that they want the project to work, but did not appreciate the mass and scale.  This round, the height is reduced from 48' to 36-40'.  And, keeping in mind that the community development department supports lodging in this location, once council agreed with this sentiment, it was the right time to make the bold changes necessary for approval.  The upcoming public hearing will bear witness to whether or not this project is ready for the formal application/approval process.  Let's hope so.  

And here's yet another reason why...

As Aspen basks in the afterglow of a wildly successful week of hosting the FIS World Cup Finals, reality hit like a blowtorch.  The skiers, the fans, the coaches, FIS - in other words, everybody - were beyond impressed with the event.  It was nothing short of world class.  But then FIS, the governing body of the sport, spoke in no uncertain terms.  The FIS would love to return to Aspen, but not until there is a replacement for Lift 1A.  This is nothing new, and no surprise to anyone who has been following.  In fact, Aspen came thiiiis close to losing last week's prestigious event because of the old lift.  Thankfully we didn't, but for now, we're not on the World Cup schedule for 2017-2018.  Killington took over our women's technical events in November 2016 and hosted 30,000 spectators. Squaw Valley wowed with 20,000 spectators the week before the finals in Aspen.  As more domestic competitor resorts jump on the World Cup bandwagon and Aspen sits idle with its outdated Lift 1A and "third world" atmosphere in the surrounding neighborhood, World Cup ski racing will stay away.

The timing is right.  Today.  Citizens and neighbors just experienced what true vibrancy and excitement are like on the west side of Ajax.  With the approval of Gorsuch Haus, SkiCo has committed to replacing the old lift and in so doing, preserving the legacy of world class ski racing in Aspen for generations to come.  It's pretty simple.  As the leader of FIS said, "The appetite is there to come to Aspen, no question.  The question is whether the appetite is there in Aspen for World Cup racing to come."  And notably, SkiCo, which has been measured in its support for Gorsuch Haus, stepped up.  John Rigney, VP Sales and Events (and the architect of Aspen's fabulous show) told the Aspen Daily News, "I completely understand the desire to upgrade the west side of Aspen Mountain and South Aspen Street. It needs a facelift, and we'd like to see an upgrade, for sure."  Let's get this done.

Aspen Daily News columnist Paul Menter agrees.  HERE is his column which ran today.  (Great minds think alike!)

Be there at council on March 27.  Your comments definitely matter.

Instead of focusing on important things like providing safe bicycle routes to schools and implementing effective "wayfinding" signage, Aspen's Open Space and Trails (AOST) commission is charging ahead with plans to radically alter automobile traffic patterns in town.  

Using data from about 89 users of the city's subsidized We-Cycle bike sharing program (not the 6800 citizens who live here nor the 2500 youth who attend school here), AOST is planning to PERMANENTLY close off Hallam or Francis Street throughout the west end and make it into a dedicated bike/pedestrian way like Hopkins Street on the south side of Main.  Think about it, without some cars cutting through the west end and until there is some widespread acceptance and adoption of electric cars, we will soon have FAR MORE traffic and carbon emissions from cars stuck solely on Main Street.  Cyclists and pedestrians will never be as safe as they are on Hopkins because there is a cross street at every block, many with poor visibility.

In a town of 3.3 square miles, we already have 32 trails.  We should be focused on getting cyclists off our busy roads and onto the bike path across the Marolt Open Space and onto Hopkins.  One dedicated bike boulevard more than addresses the needs of a town of our size!!

Known for its lack of public engagement and little transparency, AOST has long collaborated in a vacuum with city staff to marginalize drivers while prioritizing bike lanes and closed roads for a very small population of bike riders. Several in the community have thankfully been tracking this nefarious bunch, trying to ascertain just who it is in city hall that authorizes the costly expenditures and approvals associated with these aggressive programs. By law it should be council. Compliance with council's budgetary approval and oversight falls to the city manager. Reporting to council on the city's financial activity is the fiduciary duty of the finance director.  Unfortunately, in Aspen, there is no council oversight of actual spending, just policy, which gives the city manager and his staff unchecked flexibility to spend public dollars as they see fit.  And when city staff's goals align with an opaque special interest board that thinks that the desires of not even 100 cyclists to go the shortest possible distance from the ABC to downtown should supersede the interests and needs of the entire community, we are really in trouble.

My guess is that the permanent Francis or Hallam Street closure will occur this spring.  Don't expect to hear much about it, that is, until you get a ticket.  I'll let you know what I know when I know it.

A long overdue "THANK YOU" to my friends at Aspen Sojourner magazine.  Imagine my surprise to be named as one of "The Aspen Power 50:  Who really runs this town?  Our list of top decision-makers who wield the most influence over local living."  Thank you for the recognition and honor.  Read it HERE.

ISSUE #131: End DormANT-cy at 1A  (2/3/2017)

"Some people create their own storms, then get upset when it rains."   

-- Unknown


In early July last year, I wrote about Gorsuch Haus, the exciting new hotel proposal for the western base of Aspen Mountain, at the top of South Aspen Street, next to Lift 1A.  I know you read about it then, but I am updating the status here and am not going to repeat all the factual details.  And yeah, this is a deep-dive issue, so settle in.  Besides, knowledge is power - be informed!  Big decisions on the project are on the horizon, so I suggest a quick refresher (read it again HERE) for good measure.  The following is a snapshot of the very basic details:

  • 81 keys:  60 hotel rooms, seven 3-bedroom condo suites, plus 6 free market for-sale condos
  • 68,000 SF
  • Average height is 36.5 feet; 49' high at highest point
  • 61 sub-grade parking spaces
  • 6 acre parcel; project is on 1 acre
  • Replacement for Lift 1A with a high-speed quad
  • Plaza area will serve as the portal to the mountain, and will feature a public restaurant, bar and outdoor apres deck, in addition to skier services (lockers, lift tickets restrooms, ski patrol)
  • Transit from Rubey Park via year-round complimentary shuttles
  • AND, FYI, LIKE IT OR NOT, THE SHIP HAS SAILED: DEVELOPMENT IS COMING TO THE TOP OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET (Let's be smart and approve a project for that space that benefits the entire community and preserves our skiing heritage for the next century!)

There is quite a bit of complexity involved with the next steps for Gorsuch Haus.   The project will uniquely provide public space for all comers, not unlike the Hotel Jerome, Limelight and The Little Nell.  In addition to adding to the diminished hotel bed base in town, Gorsuch Haus promises to bring the community back to Aspen's historic ski neighborhood -- once the epicenter of vibrancy, skiing, lodging and apres!  And don't get drawn into the trap of just looking at Gorsuch Haus as some "new development at the top of South Aspen Street."   While Gorsuch Haus is a critical piece in the puzzle of revitalizing the west portal to Aspen Mountain, the entire area must be viewed as a matrix.  Other nearby development projects, existing entitlements, city conveyances, conservation easements and the responsibility for revitalizing Aspen's original ski portal are tightly intertwined with the lofty responsibility of honoring Aspen's skiing heritage and ensuring our legacy into the future.  Gorsuch Haus is but one cog in this complicated wheel, but it's the pivotal one whose time has come.    


  • December 2015:  Plans for Gorsuch Haus unveiled
  • March 2016:  Land use application filed with city of Aspen
  • Summer 2016: Changes made to the plans based on initial feedback
  • September 2016:  P&Z voted 6-0 against, citing height, mass and scale, plus a desire to move the lift terminus to Dean Street (which Gorsuch Haus has no control over)
  • December 2016:  First Reading of updated plans further incorporating new feedback, City Council voted unanimously 4-0 to proceed to Second Reading despite earlier P&Z decision
  • February 13:  Second Reading before City Council with public comment (no vote).  Gorsuch Haus to request additional guidance from Council as just four votes (Mayor Steve Skadron, Adam Frisch, Bert Myrin and Ann Mullins; Art Daily has recused himself due to conflicts) will eventually determine the outcome
  • Future:  Amendments to application incorporating direction and feedback from Council; Council vote (could happen as soon as Spring 2017)

HERE are the most recent feedback-based changes to the proposal for Gorsuch Haus.  None should surprise you.  The local development team (Jeff Gorsuch, Bryan Peterson and Jim DeFrancia,) see you in town, on the mountain, at your kids' events.  They're your neighbors and they've been listening.  They are uniquely committed to this project as a legacy project for the entire community.

The following are noteworthy challenges facing the project that are currently being addressed by the developer:

  • Norway: Revisions since Summer 2016 include a west side 20-25' pullback from Norway and the exciting rumor of a potential "ski tunnel" linking the far skiers' left on Norway to the ski return.
  • Height, Mass, Scale:  The building itself if 7% smaller and the lot coverage has been reduced 8%.  See the neighborhood comps HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. (Important stuff, I swear). 
  • Lift 1A:  The new lift is positioned as far down the property as possible and the alignment provides for possible future extension downhill if neighbors provide access.  See a rendering HERE.
  • Public Access to 1A:  An expanded drop-off circle enables improved transportation, clear sight lines and pedestrian access to the lift from the drop-off on South Aspen Street, in addition to direct-to-lift access off Summit Street, which serves hundreds of condo and hotel units along Monarch, Summit, Mill and Galena.  See it HERE.
  • Trees:  Reduced retaining wall and patio massing on the east side will save 7 of 8 trees next to Caribou Condos.
  • Ski Return:  The new positioning of the hotel, combined with the alignment of the new Lift 1A, dramatically opens up the "ski return," the historic ski corridor below the ski area boundary, while honoring the historic ski return and mountain view planes.  See it HERE

These are all important concerns that the developer has been working to address -- and the conversations will continue.  But there is one hot-button issue that has become the talk of the town and an inexplicable make-it-or-break-it argument despite it being entirely dictated by complicated property ownership issues and entitlements on properties OTHER THAN the Gorsuch Haus parcel:

                                                LIFT ACCESS TO 1A FROM DEAN STREET


The area is fraught with lift access controversy.  But first a little history.  Aspen's original lift was actually a "Boat Tow."  Built in 1936, the contraption ferried skiers from a terminus near today's Lift 1A up to the top of Corkscrew at Tower Ten Road.  Then, on December 14, 1946, Lift 1, a single chair, began carrying skiers from the terminus in Willoughby Park to "midway," at the top of today's Lift 6 (FIS) chair, where it met Lift 2 and went from that spot up to the original octagonal Sundeck.  The historic lift terminus and several towers of Lift 1 remain today in the "ski return," which extends below the ski area across what's called Lift One Park and down to City-owned Willoughby Park.  These old lift structures are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  

In the days of Lift 1, skiers skied down the "ski return" to get back to the lift.  Incidentally, this path cut across a sliver of Skier's Chalet owner (and former Sundeck manager) Howard Awrey's property.  Some skiers stopped to grab a bite at Awrey's ski-up hamburger shack, but Awrey wanted a little compensation from SkiCo for allowing skiers to cross his property.  It got hot.

In the end, when the DRC Brown-era SkiCo replaced the old lift for the 1971-72 ski season with today's Lift 1A, the fateful decision was made to move the lift uphill and onto SkiCo land.  No more dealing with Awrey.  And thus ended lift service upward from Dean Street and ushered in the city's nemesis, a familiar and repeat visitor:  the law of unintended consequences. 


Take a look at this map that shows the critical property parcels and ownership in the area.  Get your bearings.  Consider the space we're looking at as a layer cake.  From the top down to Dean Street, the parcels include:

  • SkiCo-owned land:  under contract to Gorsuch Haus 
  • Lift One Lodge (formerly Holland House and Skiers Chalet)
  • Dolinsek Property (future City park)
  • Willoughby Park (owned by City of Aspen)

While not literally "stacked" directly on top of one another, the lower three parcels are bisected by the historic transit corridor of the original Lift 1, indicated by the dotted-line outline designated "ski return" above.  Many ideas are being kicked around as Dean Street to Lift 1A transit solutions, and frequently mentioned in the context of, "I support Gorsuch Haus, but only as long as there is a lift down as far as Dean Street."  Well, here's the skinny.  And do keep in mind that pesky concept of property rights; in other words, the legal reasons why you can't build something on your neighbor's property just because you and your friends think it's a damn fine idea. 

One can argue that the conundrum started with SkiCo vs Awrey, however, in recent years, the City of Aspen has made numerous bad decisions, including careless approvals of development projects along South Aspen Street and easements that have dramatically and detrimentally affected the potential for future lift service from Dean Street to 1A.  None of these decisions are those of Gorsuch Haus; in fact, Gorsuch Haus has neither ownership nor control of the parcels in question below them on the hill, as these belong to other entities. 


Established in 1949, and replaced and expanded on its original site in 1956 and again in 1963-1964 by the late Jack and Anneke DePagter, the Holland House operated as a 20-room ski lodge on the east side of South Aspen Street.  When a 1992 application for redevelopment revealed the lodge's previously unknown listing on the City's "historic inventory" despite being merely 40 years old, the owners saw ominous signs of the City's heavy hand in preventing the necessary upgrades of local small ski lodges to meet the needs of a more modern clientele.  Following a lengthy and costly appeal to Council, in 2003 the Holland House was finally "de-listed" because, while quaint, it was unanimously agreed that the building was indeed not historic.  As long-delayed plans for redevelopment began to move forward (including the addition of 8 guest rooms and private baths) the City's writing was still on the wall in the form of bureaucratic hurdles and other burdens. Faced with an uphill battle against the City for permission to make the changes necessary to run a ski lodge in the 21st century based on the priorities set forth in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (and the City's Growth Management Quota System), the owners entertained several offers and eventually sold to developers in 2006. 

The City, with its draconian historic preservation restrictions and requirements, as well as bureaucratic encumbrances, effectively forced the owners to sell their family business and with it the potential for the next generation to continue the tradition of hospitality in a beloved small hotel on South Aspen Street.  And in so doing, the City succeeded in the elimination of a locally owned and operated (not to mention vibrant and popular) ski lodge.  The building was razed in 2007 and the parcel has remained empty ever since.


Beginning in 2003, amidst the approval of a land use application for a townhome and subsidized housing project on the west side of South Aspen Street, the City hinted that a "ski lodge" is what the community really needed.  With its original approvals in hand, the developer put together a proposal that, after much back and forth, emerged as a 150,000 SF project that included said lodge.  But in 2007, City Council said no in a 3-2 vote.  Imagine encouraging the developers to incur the expense of pursuing this folly at Council's request, only to shoot it down when they delivered!?  (The anti-development Bolskeviks on City Council at the time seemed to relish hinting at approvals only to deny applications in the end.)

But the boulevard of broken ski lodge dreams did not end there.  The tragedy continued in 2007, when the City again sought to influence the development approval process in the area.  Developers of properties on both sides of South Aspen Street suspended their applications to participate in the City's COWOP (meaning "for the convenience and welfare of the public") process.  For 6 months in 2008, 28 participants met regularly for literally thousands of hours to come to a community-based consensus on a master plan for development of the neighborhood.  Representatives of the two proposed lodges, the SkiCo, the City, neighbors and citizens at large worked tirelessly to devise a plan that passed muster with the group, 19-2 (the group had shrunk to 21 members by the time of the vote).  Notably, then-mayor and our pal Mick Ireland voted as a City of Aspen representative FOR the proposal.

Once in front of Council for approval in early 2009, however, Mick's tune changed.  Despite 90% of the COWOP membership's approval, Mayor Mick launched into a typical anti-capitalist tirade and cast the deciding vote to kill the COWOP's proposal.  (Yes, he voted for it before he voted against it.) The COWOP was then scrapped, and property owners and developers proceeded on their own.  But recall, 2009 was smack dab in the middle of the economic downturn, which has kept the entire neighborhood in an undeveloped state of flux (not to mention looking much like a third world country) for the better part of the past decade.

If nothing else, the COWOP established the fervent public sentiment for lift service from Dean Street.  But did the City listen?  Or care?


In 2014, the City of Aspen purchased the Dolinsek property for $2.5 million.  The half-acre parcel, owned by a long-time Aspen family whose members were integral to the development of Aspen's first ski runs, is located between the city-owned Willoughby and Lift One parks.  Terms of the transaction ensure that the property will forever remain open space, creating a contiguous green space from Dean Street up to Lift 1A (the "ski return").  Valued at over $5 million, the property was sold at a discount to the City for use as a park, and includes a life estate for John and Josephine Dolinsek, siblings who have lived their entire lives there and may now do so for the remainder of their days.  According to the Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT), "As a condition of closing, the Dolinseks requested that AVLT accept a conservation easement over the property in order to ensure that, once they are gone, it will never be used for anything but a public park and open space." 

The scoop: a conservation easement can be appealing to land owners who want to raise funds but don't want to sell out to a developer.  Instead, they can sell conservation easements at a lower price than they could sell the land.  A land trust or open space program will oversee the binding terms whereby the land owner can then continue to live on his land, but development potential is forever restricted, if not eliminated.  The landowner receives a state tax credit for accepting less than full value for the land.  These tax credits can be sold, or can be used to reduce property tax bills.  There is also a federal tax deduction.

The Dolinsek property was a monumental land acquisition opportunity for the City to be sure, and the 2014 City Council was mighty pleased with themselves for getting it done with your public dollars.  But the devil is always in the details.  And it would appear that the Dolinseks, through exemplary generosity on one hand, also got the last word when it comes to lift access down to Dean Street.  The deed of the Dolinsek deal (obtained by The Red Ant), IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS states:

"Commercial ski lifts and ski area infrastructure (including ski lifts, ski lift towers, overhead cables) are specifically prohibited on or over the property, though Grantor may provide the right to the public to ski across the property during the winter."  Knowing what this would do to the historic transit corridor and all future hopes for a lift upward from Dean Street, one can only wonder who at the City knew of this crippling restriction and did the deal with this stipulation anyway?  What was the Dolinseks' beef with lift access?  Did anyone even think to ask them? 


Formerly the site of the beloved Holland House and Skiers Chalet Lodge and Steakhouse, the Lift One Lodge property most recently changed hands in 2015 for $22 million.  Development plans for 22 fractional ownership units (84 total keys), five free market units and a 163-space underground garage were approved by Council in 2016.  (The old Skier Chalet Lodge will be relocated to Willoughby Park for use as a ski museum, and the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse will be converted to subsidized housing.)  Despite being 54' high at its highest point, P&Z unanimously approved the 77,000 SF lodge plans and Council declined to call it up for further review, approving the plans for what is rumored to become a Four Seasons Residence Club or Soho House (both are private clubs).  The Lift One Lodge approvals additionally extend the building envelope 15' westward into South Aspen Street, an exchange with the City for allowing 50 displaced parking spaces to be relocated into the project's garage.  Gilbert Street (from Monarch Street on the east) was also conveyed as a pedestrian walkway and utility easement, and the ONLY thing that can cross this easement is a Poma lift, specifically and exclusively.  As a result, whether Council was aware of this or not (and they didn't ask), the current density and footprint approvals for Lift One Lodge impede the possibility for a surface lift AND ski return through the remaining historic transit corridor. 


This rendering shows the currently proposed alignment of the replacement for Lift 1A, as well as the alignment for a possible future extension down to Dean Street in the "ski return."  Note the "conflict" with the current Lift One Lodge building footprint.

The City of Aspen's negligence in recent years in not requiring that the historic transit corridor be maintained for future lift service is specifically why there is no straightforward solution to the Dean Street to 1A transit issue.  The City has willingly granted conveyances and approvals to various adjacent parcels with no mindful consideration or valuation of the historic Lift 1A transit corridor, the vital role lift service plays not only in the neighborhood but for the community at large, and its own leadership role in preserving and maintaining both the heritage and future of Aspen, a ski town.


Years after the 2008 COWOP debacle, one issue remains:  the community's desire for lift service to 1A originating at Dean Street.


In the intervening years, however, this broadly supported public sentiment was all but ignored amidst land use decisions by the City of Aspen that now stand to prevent any such skier transit.  Here are several of the "what ifs" that people are talking about:


Sadly, this is a non-starter.  While the thought of a skinny wire with a bunch of hooks seems low impact and relatively easy to implement, it is not to be.  While the Colorado Tramway Commission WOULD ALLOW a Poma surface lift in this space, it could only be used for hauling people up and only during winter months -- there isn't requisite space to provide both uphill transport AND to simultaneously allow folks to ski down the "ski return."  Furthermore, SkiCo would ostensibly own and operate this lift, and maintain the surface that it would operate upon, necessitating critical snow-making and grooming operations in a space deemed too narrow, constrained and, in several sections, on private land owned by other (disinterested) interests.  On a one-dimensional basis (such as a bird's eye view), it looks like this should be imminently do-able.  That is, until you check out the property lines and read the fine print of the City's deals.


The Dolinsek Property restrictions (no infrastructure on or above) and the Lift One Lodge easement for a "Poma Only" effectively put the nails in the coffins of both a chair or a gondola from Dean Street.


An additional concept has been discussed, featuring a "horizontal elevator" that would move up and down along a track.  Once again, the same restrictions that prevent a chair or gondola to cross the Dolinsek parcel and through the Lift One Lodge property prevent a funicular as well. Furthermore, Lift One Lodge principals have vetoed this idea.


A free public shuttle that would run exclusively up and down South Aspen Street, with the sole purpose of ferrying people up to the ski area portal at Gorsuch Haus and to the 1A lift is nobody's first choice.  And it never should have come to this.  But given the City's past decisions that hinder if not entirely prevent lift service from Dean Street, it IS an option that can and will work.  No easements, no restrictions, no problem.  Besides, every ski portal in Aspen is serviced by some form of mass transit or skier shuttle.  Not only is this the commonly used means of accessing our lifts, it is arguably preferred.   We all manage quite well with the RFTA buses, Crosstown Shuttle, Galena Street Shuttle, Downtowner and other "rubber tire" solutions shared by pedestrians and skiers alike all over town.  It IS do-able.  And very convenient. HERE is the proposed shuttle map.


SkiCo has committed to replacing Lift 1A with a high-speed detachable quad chair if Gorsuch Haus is approved.  This replacement is from the current elevation of Lift 1A upward.  Gorsuch Haus' plans and alignment for the replacement of 1A fully allow for a downhill extension of the lift in the future, should circumstances change, but do note, such circumstances and changes are on other people's and entities' properties, not the Gorsuch Haus property.   Folks, there is no good reason to encumber the Gorsuch Haus proposal with the responsibility for building something on other peoples' land!

Notably, the Gorsuch Haus proposal presents significant improvements that open up and restore the historic "ski return."  See it HERE


Like it or not, change is coming to the top of South Aspen Street.  This train has left the station.  When the 2008 COWOP failed, those against any future development of Aspen's historic ski portal got a reprieve.  But it is not to last.  It is exceedingly rare that we have another chance to properly develop this historic neighborhood.  There is only one option that ensures public access to the mountain into perpetuity, Gorsuch Haus.  This opportunity WILL NOT come around a third time.

The Red Ant has determined that there are basically three options for the property, and one WILL happen in some form or another:

  •  Gorsuch Haus (PUBLIC access/amenities/replacement for Lift 1A)
  • 4 private single-family "monster mansions" (Look at South Mill Street to get a feel for how that will look and work)
  • Another operator in some variation of the space, perhaps even Lift One Lodge, with an even larger "campus" (Consider the implications of a private membership residence club and how this will affect public access to the lift)


There is A LOT of good to this proposal, not the least of which is that it keeps the west side of Aspen Mountain publicly accessible.  It is certainly as good as anything we've seen, and I personally think it's better, given what's already in the works!  Don't believe for one minute the nay-sayers who are trying to convince you that Gorsuch Haus is "in the middle of a ski run."  You have the maps -- and the facts -- to know otherwise.  

When you see what is already approved for the east and west sides of South Aspen Street, I get it, you cringe at the density up there and question why a 68,000 SF hotel needs to go in at the top.  In short, Gorsuch Haus needs to go there so that we all can too!!  We can grab a beer, have lunch, meet friends, enjoy apres, and basically hang out.  If it's just a private residence club or single family homes, guess again.  And what happens to Lift 1A in the long run won't be pretty either.

Developer Bryan Peterson wrote in a recent letter to the editor, "If the lift had remained near Dean Street 45 years ago, no doubt there would be a fully developed in-town ski base.  Gorsuch Haus can't undo decisions of 40 years ago, but we can move forward and appropriately reactivate the only other portal to Aspen Mountain."

SkiCo president and CEO Mike Kaplan has stressed how critical the company believes Gorsuch Haus to be to the community.  "The redevelopment of the South Aspen Street neighborhood is important to the town of Aspen and the future of Aspen Mountain," he said.  "As we have long said, the revitalization of this area is a necessary step to the replacement of Lift 1A, and we look forward to a South Aspen Street neighborhood with new hotel and lodge projects, condominiums, restaurants and retail spaces such as Gorsuch Haus."

The Red Ant is 100% all-in for Gorsuch Haus.  Join me in convincing City Council that Gorsuch Haus is a winner: for our heritage, for our future, for our community, and especially for Aspen -- the ski town.


KNOW the facts.  Forward this email to your friends today.  There are real and distinct reasons why Gorsuch Haus cannot promise lift access from Dean Street.  Now you know why.  As much as Gorsuch Haus would LOVE lift service from Dean Street to the relocated Lift 1A, this decision is ENTIRELY incumbent upon other property owners in the neighborhood AND the City of Aspen. 

Let's get the fingers pointed in the right direction and the pressure applied accordingly.  With decisions comes accountability, and the City can and should make this right.  It makes sense that Lift One Lodge doesn't want to renegotiate now because they have their entitlements in hand.  The City CAN make a deal with them though.  Of course they can.  Incentives, baby.  Give it a try.  Offer them something that doesn't risk their existing approvals and let's see if there might be a solution!  AsThe Aspen Times' Andy Stone best put it, "And what's blocking this great leap forward for Aspen as a great ski town?  Lift One Lodge, foolishly approved (but fortunately not yet built) right smack in the way of that lift."  And if the Dolinsek parcel is a no-way, no-how proposition (Is it? Can the City and AVLT renegotiate just the "lift cable above" restriction for that tiny sliver of soon-to-be City property purchased with public funds?), then shame on council for their naive and short-sighted approval of that deal.  It won't be easy, and eating crow sure isn't pretty, but the city CAN make amends for its own myopic and damning decisions that have created this conundrum.  The outcome will be squarely on the shoulders of Councilmembers Skadron, Frisch, Mullins and Myrin.  Forever.  It's time to do the right thing.


  • Sign up as a supporter HERE (no, you do not have to be a local voter)
  • Write to City Council in support:  steve.skadron, adam.frisch, bert.myrin, ann.mullins -- all
  • Write to the papers in support: and
  • Talk the project up!  You now know the facts, and word of mouth matters!
  • Link to THIS issue of The Red Ant on your Facebook page.
  • Specifically address the "lift to Dean Street issue" now that you know what's going on!
  • COME TO THE COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13 AND VOICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR GORSUCH HAUS!!!!  Be prepared to make a VERY brief statement (less than 3 minutes) with VERY specific reasons for your support. 


And just for fun, get in the mood by checking out Aspen Journalism's fabulous and comprehensive timeline of Aspen's skiing history, including wonderful photos from the Lift 1 days.  We must never forget our skiing heritage!!


ISSUE #130: How ArrogANT!  (1/19/2017)

"You're trying to regulate something you know nothing about."   

-- Charif Souki

It turns out that the recent "controversy" over the future of chain stores in Aspen isn't about chain stores at all. 

The current brou-ha-ha about chain stores, the assumed and therefore rumored unchecked growth thereof, and the potential for banning, capping, limiting, and/or restricting them came to a fore today during a 7-hour meeting in an Aspen Institute conference room.  Organized by former Aspen mayors John Bennett and Bill Stirling, along with high tech entrepreneur Jerry Murdoch, about 25 of Aspen's "thought leaders" (as they were called) gathered to discuss Murdoch's proposed city ordinance that would "restrict" chain stores in Aspen's commercial core. (I wrote about it recently HERE.)

Today's meeting was a complete fraud. It took a couple of hours of sitting there listening and trying to figure out what was really going on before it became abundantly clear.  Like I said, the ordinance and this entire charade is not about chain stores at all. Chain stores are just a red herring.  It's about development.  Specifically, ending development (new buildings and redevelopment of existing ones) in Aspen's commercial core.  Here's how I know:

We were told at the onset that there were three possible outcomes to today's discussion:

  • Accept Jerry's proposed ordinance as a group and present it to city council.
  • Don't accept it and Jerry will circulate a citizen's petition to get the issue on the ballot for a public vote, likely in May.
  • Continue the discussion.

Glaringly absent was the option for the group to shoot the proposal down.  This assumption of moving the ordinance forward regardless of information, feedback and lessons learned throughout the day was disconcerting if not foretelling.

Next, we were informed that the object of today's discussion was to address the growth of "formula retail" (the fancy name for chain stores) with Jerry's ordinance inherently being the solution.  And so it began.  It's Aspen, so of course there was A LOT of vague, flowery discussion about "community character," "balance" and "diversity" as these relate to retail offerings here, and many truly valuable discussions on the local retail environment from hand-picked yet arguably credible local retailers, landlords, bureaucrats, realtors, business people and regular local folk.  But there was one major thing missing at the professionally moderated meeting that had lofty ambitions to agree to take Murdoch's ordinance to city council in the immediate term for adoption: consensus.

Most glaring was the lack of agreement among the group on the mere fact of what Murdoch's ordinance would actually solve or even merely address.  As the day went on and the ordinance itself was clarified, the waters only became muddier.  A participant from Australia who owns and operates a successful retail district in Brisbane called James Street was invited to share his experiences.  Patrick George thoughtfully listened to other participants and pointed out to the group that chain stores pay their bills, it's very hard to find non-chains that can compete in the long term in an expensive and seasonal environment, and the (small) size of our population effectively prevents the success of what he called "everyday retail."  Not exactly music to chain store detractors' ears, but real world experience from someone who would know.  Notably and quite ironically, he asked THE question of the day: "What is the real problem?"

This was because so many disparate and unrelated problems were brought up.  In fact, it seemed as though nearly every participant (predominantly from the bureaucratic, local retailer and "local folk" side of the house) had his or her own problem that they wish city council would address, presumably with Jerry's ordinance.  Problems, ostensibly because of chain stores in Aspen, included:

  • Erosion of the Aspen brand
  • Fear of chain stores taking over 100% of the ground floor retail space in Aspen
  • We're putting all our eggs in one basket by counting on chain stores to pay the bills
  • The city's regulations / taxes / fees make starting a business here prohibitive
  • Loss of vitality / funkiness / character  -- we're getting too homogenized
  • Locals being unable to start / own businesses in Aspen
  • Locals not being able to shop in Aspen 

But when the facts on chain stores in Aspen were revealed, the tone changed.  It turns out that "the chain store problem" isn't actually much of a problem at all.  Several participants had walked the commercial core (the 18 blocks north of Durant Street, south of Bleeker, west of Spring and east of Monarch) and identified 152 ground floor retail locations.  Of these, 46 were deemed "chain stores" because they have 11+ outlets.  That is just 30%.  Prior to the meeting, the community rumor mill was stoking fears and churning out numbers more like 60%, and growing.  And there was no real data that even addressed yet alone proved that all chain stores in Aspen operate at a loss as a matter of course.  It's a clever rumor, but a rumor none-the-less until proven otherwise. And remember, the city's largest landlords were all there, and they certainly agreed: new chain stores are NOT lining up trying to open here.

So, just what is the problem that Jerry's ordinance ostensibly addresses?  The question hung heavily in the room, but not everyone saw it.  It was fascinating to see how enraptured the millennial wannabe business owners were by the mere notion that their government might just adopt a regulation that punishes landlords and chain stores, and in so doing might just give them a boost up toward the elusive golden ring.  It was equally intriguing to hear from local retailers that maybe even more restrictions on chain stores ought to be implemented, such as prohibiting them from having sales on their merchandise except at designated times of the year.

All of this made for interesting theater, but proposed ordinance is really just a solution in search of a problem.  And despite what Jerry continued to espouse, no specific information or data was presented that supports his position that a restriction on chain stores in new and redeveloped buildings in Aspen's commercial core will IN ANY WAY ensure that unique and funky stores that will save Aspen's character will open there instead.  Nor will it make it one iota easier for locals to start and own their own businesses in town.  And I am hard pressed to see how the goods for sale in these restricted spaces will somehow be more affordable for locals as a result.  It's a solution alright.  But for what problem?

A lot of information was shared at the meeting, but the facts on the ground revealed that the "chain store problem" turns out not to be a problem at all.  So what is the REAL "problem" that isn't being talked about?

It's development.

When pressed, Jerry acknowledged that his ordinance would NOT ban chain stores in Aspen.  Nor would it cap or limit them in any way.  Not in EXISTING (and approved for development) buildings.  The buildings with existing chain store tenants can keep them and can even write leases for new chain store tenants when current leases are up.  In fact, Jerry's ordinance allows ANY AND ALL existing buildings in the commercial core to rent to as many chain store tenants as they wish today, next week and into perpetuity.  No restrictions whatsoever on chain store tenants in existing (and approved) buildings in the commercial core EVER. 

THAT was the WOW moment for The Red Ant. 

If EXISTING (and approved) buildings can have chain stores as tenants into perpetuity (meaning that many, many more chain stores CAN come to Aspen, unrestricted), what is really going on here??  Clearly, the issue is not about chain stores at all.  Think about all the potential places for chain stores in existing buildings (specifically the spaces where the other 70% of our current retail stores exist) and ask yourself:  how again does this ordinance protect Aspen's character / brand / vitality / uniqueness that is so at risk because of chain stores????  It doesn't.  What it does is place potentially cumbersome restrictions on NEW and REDEVELOPED buildings in the core, restrictions that will hinder and encumber investors and developers in such a way that new buildings and the redevelopment of existing ones will become financially untenable.  No investor or developer will risk developing new retail space that cannot ever be rented to the same tenants as those in all the buildings around them.  Theoretically, it ends development in the core.

The million dollar question is why.  And the answer is not entirely clear.  But here's my guess.  Jerry Murdoch wants to "save" Aspen from future development in the core. He doesn't want to punish the current landlords.  He is not going after Mark Hunt and his portfolio of downtown properties.  (It's next generation's Mazza-Woods-Hunt-Hecht-Marcus-Garfield-Cox-Souki-caliber property owners that will suffer.  And the community, because the passage of time inherently creates the need to redevelop at some point.)  And he wants to do it his way, right now.  He's rich.  He's successful.  He's smart. On some level, it plays as altruism.  Freeze Aspen in time.** 

And he's been masterfully deceptive in ginning up support for his plan.  The Whiny Millennials (see Issue #129) are all-in with Jerry because they currently have little chance to have what they want here, and chain stores have become the perfect villain.  He has played them.  Why?  They don't know any better, and because (recall from the beginning of the meeting) if the ordinance isn't accepted and passed by city council, Jerry will petition to get the question on the ballot where it will likely pass with the voters.  (The millennials and their "bring back the Quiet Years" brethren will absolutely vote for it.)  It will also likely pass because it will be promoted on the false premises debunked today.  And what's in it for him??  "Success."  He obviously has a beef with the ongoing development and redevelopment in Aspen, and he wants it to stop.  Now.  Forever.  This, despite Aspen being a 150-year-old town with many, many very old buildings that will absolutely need redevelopment someday.  Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with chain stores.  If he is able to jam his ordinance through (one way or the other), it will hinder if not effectively kill development in the core.  He wins.  And despite the lengthy discussion today (some parts of it more enlightened than others), the moderator made the whole game clear when he congratulated Jerry for NOT saying "It's my idea and I'm doing it," which is precisely what he effectively said in concluding the meeting.  (Jerry emphatically stated his plans to present his ordinance to council on February 6.)  He also kindly suggested that if people had other ideas, they too should present these to council, presumably as their own ordinances.

It's the hurry-up offense, folks.  The meeting was merely Jerry's way to "check the box" so he can say that he got a read on what the community wants.  He got a read alright, but certainly no consensus.  Not even close.  But he is moving ahead anyway.

A strange day indeed.

** Mt. Vesuvius famously "froze a community in time" back in 79 AD.  How'd THAT work out for the people of Pompeii?


ISSUE #129: It's What They wANT  12/8/2016

"We make money the old fashioned way, we earn it." 

-- E.F. Hutton


A small group of vocal citizens has recently been lobbying council and city staff to expedite a change to Aspen's land use code that would limit or ban new chain stores in the downtown core.  The plan would be for potential new chain store tenants to go through a "review" process before being granted a business license.  The Chain Store Control Act (CSCA), as it is being referred to by detractors, is being pushed as a means of enabling "locally owned" or "locally serving" businesses to get into the retail game in our expensive and exclusive resort town.  The CSCA pushers specifically want lower rents for these local businesses which will occupy the same spaces that they can't currently afford in the existing market.  Never mind the spaces are private property. 

The Red Ant sees this whole CSCA charade for what it really is - social engineering, a taking, a solution in search of a problem and the city government's latest attempt to control the "use mix" of what will be allowed for sale in our commercial zones by being the one who picks winners and losers to please the loudest subset of our community.

Aspen's "millennials," who want desperately to make their mark on Aspen, are the loudest supporters of such controls.  They understandably want their own businesses here and feel that it's simply not fair that the high rents paid by national "formula retailers" are keeping them out of the game.

You see, framing this as a "millennial" issue sets up the battle lines.  Support for a limit or ban on chain stores signals your love and support for the younger set who, by benefit of birthright or mere arrival, want to stay in Aspen with the fulfilling and successful careers owed to them.  If you oppose limiting chain stores, you clearly don't love our local young folk and the children of your local friends.  Brilliant.  And frightening.


By demographic definition, "the millennials" are the cohort following Generation X, typically being born in the early-to-mid 1980s through the early 2000s.  In Aspen, the same definition applies, except we just so happen to have a particularly virulent strain of the whiny variety that have become politically active.  Usually, The Red Ant would say that this is an excellent thing, to have this generation's up-and-comers of our community get invested and engaged in the political processes of our community.  But our Whiny Millennials are special -- even more so than their brethren elsewhere.  Yes, it's all about them, of course, but our particularly toxic strain is not only willing but adamant about forcing the government to interfere with the local free market economy to benefit THEM!  Imagine that!?

Aspen's Whiny Millennials failed spectacularly in their recent attempt to co-opt the public process by strategically and emotionally convincing city council to grant them the city-owned Old Power House (formerly inhabited by the Aspen Art Museum) for use as a brewery and party HQ with subsidized office spaces upstairs for the creation and development of their grand plans. Tapping into council's weakness for the romantic and idealized "mind, body and culture" ethos -- and saying "no" to this group -- the Whiny Millennials' plea for beers, music, small bites and big ideas down by the river enchanted our elected reps.  In the end, however, after vociferous pushback from neighbors and concerned citizens alike, not to mention serious legal challenges, council was harshly reminded that not only was the original RFP for the space specifically for non-profit use, a commercial enterprise is most certainly not allowed there under current zoning.  In the end, with tails between their legs, council relented under the pressures of reality and rescinded from the Whiny Millennials this erroneous award.  See The Red Ant Issue #124 and #125 for a recap on the last gasps of breath of this idiotic chapter from the depths of Aspen's public policy rat hole.

But like a phoenix rising from the ashes, they're back. The Whiny Millennials and their Millennial Sympathizers (*MS) are again galvanized to take what's theirs, or, better put, what's yours that they want to be theirs.  Buckle up.

*MS:  just who are the Millennial Sympathizers?  Sure, there are a couple of boldfaced names out there, a couple of former mayors, and, combined with a council that is easily and emotionally distracted by symptoms and not actual causes, this just might be 2017's perfect storm for the government again trying to manipulate and control the local economy.  (Noteworthy is the support for the ban by former mayor Bill Stirling, perhaps best known for his ridiculous attempt to ban the sale of fur in Aspen in the late 1980s.  The attempt garnered national headlines, but in the end, only served to make Aspen look foolish.  Any surprise that he likes this new idea?!)

But if this sounds a little hinky, it does to me too.  Yes, the effort is being marketed by the Whiny Millennials, but who is really behind it?  Sure, they are an aggrieved bunch, by definition, but why the heavy handed city support?  Who there in city hall is encouraging this?  The Millennials are most certainly the straw men posing as the dispossessed to bring this issue to the fore and ostensibly generate interest and sympathy, but at whose behest?  What has been offered to them in exchange for leading this charge?  And really, while it is being promoted as settled science, what proof does city hall have that brand name retailers widely accept losses in Aspen as solely a marketing ploy?  Sure, the city can contrive assumptions from sales tax results, but without access to corporate financials (which they have absolutely no right to access), this is all simply conjecture and the basis for restrictions on the use of private property?!  And how did this whole brou-haha emerge, fully developed by the esteemed community development department with no public process?  This is right up there with the very worst public policy making, even for Aspen.  It smacks to me as city hall higher ups manipulating our young and impressionable folks to do the dirty work of sticking it to Aspen's relatively small cadre of commercial real estate owners for having the unmitigated gall of being successful.  Sounds city manager-ish.  And, combined with Mayor Steve Skadron's ongoing and vapid "mountain town values" drivel, this is a shot over the bow that challenges the right of individuals to use their privately owned property as they see fit under the law.  


From a declared standpoint, the motivation and objective (beyond just limiting or banning chain stores) of the proposal at hand is conspicuously absent.  The intent of being so vague is to additionally tap into the "stick it to the man" mentality that pervades our local culture, especially among those who lament the end of The Quiet Years (such as the *MS former mayors) -- those who just can't accept that it's still not 1975 in Aspen and never will be again.  The hope of the CSCA pushers is that emotions will again take over and no one will think beyond that.  (Along those lines, I must admit, I too sorely miss A LOT of stuff that's no longer available here:  the #2 at La Cocina, shoe shopping at Ozzie's, the clever revue at the Crystal Palace, breakfast at Gerhard's Wienerstube "stammtisch" and just about everything on the menu at Lauretta's, but I live in reality and know that on planet earth, simply put, things change).  

Having endured the painful experience of listening to the whiners once again appeal to council for pity on their plight ("It's not fair, we can't do what people who moved here in 1980 did"), their true motivation became undeniably clear (intentional run-on sentence to illustrate the "all about me" nature of this pathetic action):  They live here and they love it and they want to stay here, but for many reasons they can't get their own "things" going in order to afford them the financial ability to have the life they see others living and want for themselves, so they'd like council to take action to intentionally collapse the commercial real estate market in the downtown core so that they might then get some sort of TBD commercial toehold and ostensibly live happily ever after in Aspen like they deserve to because they were born here or moved here and others who came before them appear to have done this and it's what they want too but the world is different and it's harder and more expensive now so clearly the government needs to help them no matter the cost or inconvenience to anyone.  It's the participation trophy, Aspen-style.

Pleas for more "entrepreneurial opportunities" and emotional lament at losing leases that were only "pop up" (discounted due to their interim nature) to begin with abounded at last week's meeting.  It was pitiful, as in full of pity -- exactly what the whiners want from council.  And the blame (there is ALWAYS blame) fell squarely on the shoulders of chain stores.  Somehow, they whined, if chain stores were outlawed, the greedy landlords of Aspen would surely HAVE TO deeply discount downtown commercial rents so that Whiny Millennial bric-a-brac shops could proliferate and they too could have their longed-for slice of the Aspen pie.  (See, it's easy, just give it to us, otherwise, we'll steal it.)

No one has yet bothered to remind this entitled crew that maybe their struggle is not unique to them, so I will, starting with:  there's probably a reason why Apple was invented in a garage.  Throughout Aspen's relatively short history, people have come here and fallen in love with the place.  Again, what's not to love?  I've written it many, many times, but the mere act of crossing the Castle Creek bridge from the West into Aspen DOES NOT guarantee you one single thing except getting to the other side.  What makes this group more special than the last?  Or the generation before that?  Or the post-War 10th Mountain Division war heroes who founded the ski area?  Or the silver miners?  Or the Ute Indians.  There were no safety nets, no trigger warnings, no safe spaces, fuzzy blankets, play-doh or guaranteed outcomes for any of our forefathers in Ute City.  It was hard work and risk, not entitlement, that built this city.  (Ok, a little rock and roll too, but I digress.)

Don't be fooled.  The Whiny Millennials say all they want is a "level playing field."  It was one of the big buzz-phrases of the evening at the council meeting.  But they don't want that at all.  The level playing field implies that all comers play by the same rules -- in other words, a market economy. The Whiny Millennials want just the opposite.  They want a slanted slope of a field that benefits one side and one side only, theirs.  They want government redistribution but not even through taxes, rather via a direct taking of private property through devaluation and assignment to someone approved by the government.  Affirmative action at altitude.


In every Aspen recipe for public policy disaster, there is the critical ingredient of subjectivity.  There simply must be exceptions to the rule!  And since rules in general don't apply to the Millennials, why should the specific rules for banning chain stores be anything but ambiguous?  Well, guess why -- the Whiny Millennials actually kinda like chain stores, but only some of them -- the ones where they like to shop.  Great distress was shared about the loss of The Gap and Banana Republic.  The desire for Anthropologie was expressed.  Surefoot and Sunglasses Hut are good, but Prada and Gucci, no way.  In short, chains that please the whiners and their friends are welcome, but "those places" that are also found on Madison and Michigan Avenues and Rodeo Drive -- be gone!!

The plan is to empanel and empower a select "commission" that will determine retail winners and losers.  A retail death panel, if you will.  Just who gets to sit on this court, prescribing judgment on which consumer durables are ok to buy and sell in Aspen (and by and from whom) is anyone's guess, but smart money is on Planning & Zoning, even though it makes no sense at all.  But it's where several of the whiners and champions of this proposal already strategically serve. Kinda convenient, dontcha think!?

It all promises to be beyond any subjectivity we've ever seen from city hall.  What exactly will constitute a "chain"?  Word on the street today is a business with 11-15 or more locations.  So 10 is ok?  Promise?  Which chain store brands would automatically trigger a review?  Are existing leases to chain stores grandfathered in?  What about renewals?  Is this just a ground floor ban?  What about multi-level buildings that don't have an obvious ground floor?  What's the timeframe for death panel decisions?  Appeals?  Will there be quotas?  Interior design mandates?  The list goes on.... 


When asked what it was they were REALLY looking for, the whiners' answers were alarmingly telling.  Rhetoric such as "locally owned" and "locally serving" was bandied about, although no one can or will (yet) define for all of us just who is a real "local."  When the issue was pressed, in the end, "locally owned" doesn't really solve it for the Whiny Millennials.  You see, if a local guy were to take over the space in the Andre's building (where Prada currently exists) and sell high-end Italian clothing, would this be ok?  Apparently not, since the Whiny Millennials "still wouldn't shop there."  They're looking for something called "locally serving."  It has more to do with WHO shops in WHICH stores than who actually owns them.  Good locals and bad locals, real locals and fake ones.  The idea is that our entitled local, young folk, (literally) given space, would be able to their sell "funky" and "homegrown" stuff not only to our tourists (who they assume are looking for whatever it is they're selling) but primarily and especially to each other.  


Aspen is ground zero for making hasty decisions and dealing with the terrible unintended consequences later.  Or not dealing with them, as the case so often is.  Here are just a few that the Whiny Millennials and their nostalgic co-conspirators have no sense of:

  • Empty storefronts in the core. THAT's not vitality.  It's blight.
  • A rotation of failed businesses over multiple years creating uncertainty in the marketplace that will drive shoppers elsewhere.
  • Immediate term rush by landlords to secure long term leases with chain stores before this nonsense goes into effect.
  • There are many, many high end retailers that are not "chains" per se that can and will step in and secure leases in the absence of competition for space.
  • Does anyone think local landlords will quickly and suddenly slash their lease rates just so some entitled schmuck can sell recycled water bottles in the downtown core?
  • ACRA neutered.  Where is the esteemed Aspen Chamber Resort Association in all of this?  Do they really represent the business community or have they become just a shill for city hall?
  • When the government effectively subsidizes some businesses and not others, does this same government provide "relief" when said subsidized businesses fail?  (The Whiny Millennials will surely be looking for someone to cry to when this happens.... "But it was my life savings...")
  • Financial impacts.  Has anyone bothered to consider the financial impact of this ridiculous folly?  Ok, right now, things are ducky, but what happens when Aspen's sales tax base slowly erodes?  What of the parks and recreation facilities that serve locals at subsidized rates?  Or housing values that generate the RETT and make the subsidized housing program possible (so that all the Whiny Millennials have an in-town place to live) decrease?  What of the subsidized daycare that Millennial families benefit from - a direct result of the sales taxes paid by those who visit and shop at our high end (chain) retailers?
  • Economic downturn.  Yes, the economy has recovered and is on the upswing now, but what happens during the next downturn when revenues that subsidize the lifestyle of our local subsidized housing residents can drop as much as 40%?
  • What do we do when Generation Z shows up, wanting that era's version of what we did for their predecessors?
  • And the age-old wisdom:  We all know what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you!


Aspen is a top-tier, high-end, world class, international tourist destination. Ours is a service-based economy where jobs are primarily those that support local tourism and secondarily provide additional services to the community that developed as a result.  Over time, the jobs in Aspen that are NOT in the tourism service sector have indeed broadened and evolved.  Where it was once just teachers, doctors, first responders and those in the hospitality business, the growth of the community has come to include architects, builders, designers, lawyers, realtors, a ridiculously large bureaucracy of city and county employees, and just about every other profession found in every other large city.  But at the beginning and end of every day, Aspen is a tourist town.  We just get to live here because we each figured out our own way to make it work.

Sorry, Millennials, Aspen is NOT all about you.  Aspen owes you NOTHING -- certainly no more than it owes anyone else!  It's great that you want to start and own a business of your own.  It's the American Dream -- chase it!  But you might want to think about doing it somewhere where you stand the best chance of success, if indeed that is your goal.  But if your goal is not quite that ambitious and dreams of powder days and mountain bike rides are more proliferate, that's ok too, but maybe this business thing isn't for you.  But don't get me wrong, there are literally thousands of people who live in Aspen who have found out how to make their version of "it" work.  Talk to them.  Learn from them.  What do they all have in common?  They figured "it" out. They looked at the opportunities and the costs, weighed the risks, and threw their hats (and sometimes life savings) into the ring.  Some succeeded, some failed.  Some failed many times.  Others will fail again.  But doing it the hard way is the reality in a place like Aspen.  To the victors go the spoils.  Sorry, no blue ribbon just for showing up.

Aspen is the epitome of the level playing field.  We are open to all comers.  And sure, there is a price of admission.  But anyone is welcome to show up and give it a go.  You too are as welcome in this community as anyone who has come before you and anyone who comes afterward.  But you are NOT more special than the next guy.  And there are no guarantees of a successful outcome.  That's just life.  It's hard here.  And it's expensive.  And that can make it even harder.  Yeah, had you been born in another era**, things might have been different if you'd made your way here.  But you weren't and you didn't.  Neither did a lot of us.  Short of a quick trip in a time machine, get over it.  Life isn't fair.  

**In 1968, you could have moved to a town with dirt roads, no support system and little in the way of infrastructure of any kind.  And if you'd had the courage, you could have invested your own money, worked your ass off for several decades, and if you ended up being one of the few who made it, built your fortune.  There was risk then just as there is now.  Now think about it - these are the very people who you and those who represent you are imploring the government to take from in order to give to you.  Is this really who you are and what you stand for?  (Don't answer that, I think I know.)

Some say Aspen isn't the real world, but just like the laws of gravity, reality DOES exist here.  The question is can you exist (and hopefully thrive) in the reality that is Aspen??  The selfish act of trying to change Aspen at the cost of others to fit your selfish desires is not the path to Nirvana, regardless of where you practice yoga.

But most notably, look around -- not all your peers are whining.  Many are notable local attorneys and award-winning architects.  And don't forget the restaurant owners with multiple local outlets and those manufacturers/distributors of locally-produced beer and wine.  Some figured "it" out somewhere else and now do "it" in Aspen.  And others just worked hard at "it" and climbed their way up -- heads down, not hands out.  None of them demanded special favors and dispensations.  It IS possible to make "it" in Aspen, but perhaps recycled water bottles and ground floor yoga smack dab in the downtown core aren't the best fit for this tricky and expensive economy.  Again, that's just life.  Being born, raised in, or merely enamored of Aspen does not inherently assure you a ride on the glidepath to success. And really, it's nothing against you or your dreams, it's just that Aspen doesn't owe anyone anything.  Go make something of yourself.  Make E.F. Hutton proud.  Earn it.


Thankfully, at press time, it appears as though council has recently received enough pushback (and maybe a tad of common sense) and has slammed the brakes on a hasty decision on this issue.  Good thinking, seeing as how such foolishness was hastily thrown out there.  Those laws of unintended consequences loom large.  Staff will not be pushing this down council's or our throats until sometime in the new year.  Instead, everyone has been asked to wait for the building moratorium in downtown Aspen to be lifted in late February.  At that time, significant changes to the land use code are supposed to include streamlined and incentivized zoning opportunities that will enable second tier retail establishments in second tier downtown spaces (second floors and basements).  In other words, can't we just wait to see how the public process works out?!  In fact, this very issue (to meet the needs of locally owned/serving businesses) is specifically expected to be addressed!  Patience, people!  It sounds to me like lower barriers to and costs of entry are a'coming!

But no one ever said the Whiny Millennials were ill-prepared for possible council pushback and a potential delay.  A citizen's petition effort has been threatened and is widely expected whereby just a couple hundred signatures will ensure that a ballot measure determining the issue will be on the May 2017 ballot.  Public process be damned; just kick it to the voters who hopefully won't see any downside.  It's the Whiny Millennials, folks.  Why would they wait for something that staff has been working on for nearly a year?  And of course they're not interested in "second tier" anything.  They'll be out there in front of City Market asking you to sign their petition, and they just might get the requisite signatures.  If that happens, the real fun begins.  A divisive election season: emotions and entitlement vs economics.  Fun times ahead.


Weigh in.  Write to council.  Write to the local papers.  This issue, if not properly addressed by the upcoming significant changes to the land use code, can certainly be revisited in the future.  But to jump the gun and rush ahead is as ill-advised as the very issue itself.

My friend and co-conspirator Maurice Emmer wrote a great letter last week:

"Locals who lobbied city council to regulate chain stores should be applauded for upholding a rich local tradition.  This is how government should work: an interest group talks to elected officials to seek a change the group thinks will improve life for the group.

It's not clear what improvement this group seeks.  It could be lowering commercial rents so locally produced water bottles can be sold in local stores; or changing the commercial mix so Aspen isn't Rodeo Drive; or substituting the tastes of a small group for those of the market.  It doesn't really matter. What matters is that Aspen perpetuate a richly observed local tradition -- attempting to repeal the laws of economics.  

We've tried limiting development, thus limiting the supply of leasable space, then complained about escalating rents for the limited leasable space.  We've tried banning fur sales, having no effect on fur sales but driving the resulting revenues and sales tax receipts to other communities.  We've tried building an uneconomic hydro-electric plant instead of buying far less expensive renewable energy from our utility provider.  We've tried mandating that a developer install an affordable restaurant in a basement only to create a perpetually vacant basement.  We've tried offered get below-market leases in city-owned buildings on the condition of below-market pricing without any way to measure that pricing.

In the tradition of these quixotic causes i say, go ahead.  Regulate chain stores.  Persuade yourselves that you know what to do and how to do it.  And that you can predict the consequences.  But before you do, I suggest one other endeavor.  Recently there's been a trend of amending Aspen's home rule charter when deficiencies are identified.  Before taking on more pointless causes, we should amend the home rule charter to empower city council to repeal the laws of economics.  Maybe then these Rube Goldberg schemes can work."

And don't miss popular columnist Paul Menter's articulate and amusing thoughts on the subject.  Read it HERE.

Stay tuned.  And buyer beware.


ISSUE #128: ImportANT Election Update  10/20/2016

"Why pay money to have your family tree traced? Go into politics and your opponents will do it for you."   

-- Unknown


In an unprecedented move, The Red Ant has reconsidered and then changed my stance on the Open Space & Trails property tax extension.  It was not a matter of being questioned (harrassed?) by hundreds of readers, rather, it was a couple of very pragmatic synopses that weakened my admittedly shaky endorsement.

Change your vote on 1A to NO.  Here's why:  $500 million

Based on historical growth in the Pitkin County Open Space property tax, the proposed 20 year extension of the 3.75 mill levy would produce between $500 and $650 million in taxes for open space.  For the past 15 years, the open space tax has accounted for over 50% of all Pitkin County property taxes -- more than the combined county property taxes for the General Fund, Roads & Bridges, Social Services, Healthy Community,TV Translator and Bond Redemption combined. 

The current city of Aspen Parks and Open Space annual funding from sales taxes is $10 million, and the annual County Open Space mill levy taxes are $12 million.  Given past successes, do we really need to devote over $22 million per year (and growing) in local taxes to parks and open space?

The County Open Space program, in partnership with the city, Town of Snowmass Village and others, has been highly productive with over 20,000 acres being acquired and preserved.  Open space acquisitions have largely run their course as the most important lands have already been acquired, including Droste/Brush Creek, Deer Hill, Red Butte/Stein, Smuggler, North Star, Moore, Marolt, Crown, Grange, Cozy Point, among others.  While there still may be some attractive parcels yet to be acquired, the largest and most important lands that are in highly visible and accessible areas have been acquired. Therefore, fewer resources are needed for ongoing acquisitions.  In addition, highly restrictive county land use policies severely limit the development risk of significant tracts of land, and therefore largely assure that visual qualities will be preserved.

In recognition of past success, the Open Space property tax levy should be reviewed and redirected.  More resources should be devoted to managing, maintaining and improving the large inventory of existing public open space. Given the limited opportunities for acquisition of key open space parcels that remain within the county, fewer resources should be devoted to acquisitions.

While we all value and enjoy using our parks and open space, a commitment of over $500 million in property taxation over the next two decades is simply too much.  Rather than extend this tax that does not expire until 2019, VOTE NO ON 1A.  We must ask county leadership to evaluate our total county tax burden and associated expenditures.  The taxpayer portion should be adjusted accordingly for discretionary choices such as open space.

The Red Ant acknowledges the assistance of several people more knowledgeable than I for their invaluable assistance in clarifying this issue, especially Mike Maple.  I regret the inconvenience of this change.


ISSUE #127: 2016 EndorsemANTs  10/19/2016

"It's easy to view politicians as corrupt, and voting as essentially an act of picking the lesser of two evils.  I understand that perspective and feel it's valid." 

-- Macklemore

Yep.  Another election looms.  Here in the People's Republic of Aspen, these darned things crop up nearly as often as the seasons change.  This one promises to be a whopper -- for reasons far beyond those even contemplated in our little burg -- and I encourage you to vote.  We will be arguing about the 2016 election outcome(s) for the rest of our lives, and The Red Ant always says, if you don't vote, then you are not entitled to an opinion.  (At least I'm not interested in it.)

First, some quick housekeeping.  This will be a mail-in ballot election.  Ballots will be sent to you on October 17.  You may drop off your ballot beginning on October 17 at the Pitkin County Clerk's office (501 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 106) 8:30a - 4:30p, Town of Snowmass Village Town Hall (24 hour drop box) and Basalt Town Hall (101 Midland Ave) in a 24 hour drop box in the parking lot.  Early voting begins at the Aspen Jewish Community Center at 435 West Main Street on October 24, 8:30a - 4:30p M-F and 10a - 2p on Saturdays.  If voting via mail-in ballot makes you queasy, you may also (but not additionally) vote in person on Election Day, November 8, at the Aspen Jewish Community Center, the Town of Snowmass Village Town Hall or Grace Church in Emma.  Bring a photo ID.  On Election Day you may also drop your ballot until 7p at The Church at Redstone.  Remember, additional postage is needed if mailing in your ballot.  Ballots received after 7pm on Election Day will not be counted.  Please direct your questions to the Pitkin County Clerk's office 970-920-5180 x5.  Register or confirm your voter registration HERE

I encourage you vote your conscience for our 45th president.  But buyer beware.  Regardless of your political affiliation or your views on the inevitable election of an un-indicted criminal or a narcissistic reality tv star/businessman to the highest office in the land, there is FAR more at stake than just who gets to wake up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next four years.  Stop kvetching about who you WISH was on the ticket.  Focus on the issues!  The deficit.  National security.  The Supreme Court.  Race relations in America.  A politicized judiciary.  Our failed education system ... Among many other critical issues.  As abhorrent as each of the individual candidates is personally, their policies could not be more different.  I highly recommend ignoring the temptation to vote for (or against) one personality, but rather, vote for the candidate whose policies align most closely with your own.  The problems we face today are dramatically worse than anything we've seen certainly in my lifetime.  And if you don't think so, you are kidding yourself.  The outcome of a presidential election always has vast implications and consequences, however, this one will be particularly far-reaching.  Do the homework.  Colorado is one of several swing states that will determine the outcome of this election.  Remember the electoral college from civics class?  Let your pals in NY and CA argue til they're literally blue in the face.  Given how the electoral college works, their votes don't count.  Or, rather, they've already been counted.  Alternatively, your Colorado vote MOST DEFINITELY counts!  Exercise your right thoughtfully and responsibly.

The following are solely the opinions and endorsements of The Red Ant. This is NOT an election primer, nor am I touting it as a fair and balanced analysis of both sides of every issue.  It's not.  It's MY (well-researched and contemplated) opinion.  Period.  Every registered voter in Colorado has received a 79-page State Ballot Information Booklet.  Read it.  You can also search online for additional otherwise biased input.  And I encourage you to do so.  But because I hear from SO MANY of you each election cycle as part of your personal election research inquiring as to how I am voting, here's what I'm doing and why.  


This political outsider (and US Air Force vet) is an African-American constitutionalist who vows to fight the Washington establishment, address our crippling debt and focus on building our national security.  Sick of the rigged system in Washington and the elite insiders of both parties whose decisions are transforming America in the image of socialist European nations, Glenn will fight for those in Colorado who are equally sick of the failed policies of Barack Obama, and yes, that includes ObamaCare.  Lots of outside money is flowing into our state to oppose Glenn because he does have a shot against the incumbent.  Now is the time to send a message to Washington that the people of Colorado expect better.


I am voting for our incumbent representative for numerous reasons, but share two key ones here:  Truth and ObamaCare

Truth:  In this ugliest of election cycles, lies in campaign materials are rampant. Tipton's challenger, ever desperate to unseat him, is currently pushing an inane claim that Scott Tipton is trying to "sell" public lands.  Now's the time to blow the big BS whistle.  When asked to provide proof of this false claim, Tipton's opponent pointed to two bills.  Independently verified by The Durango Herald, one bill "does not issue any new land for sale," and the other "says nothing about transferring ownership."  This attempt to deceive western slope voters on Congressman Tipton's record is shameful and unethical.  Congressman Tipton has a record for sponsoring legislation that protects and promotes our public lands.  Do not be fooled by desperate attempts at deception by a desperate wanna-be politician.

ObamaCare:  As a self-insured resident of Pitkin County, I recently learned that my health insurance, for the second year in a row, would not be offered for renewal.  In fact, thus far this year no insurer in the state of Colorado is offering an individual PPO plan. I harken back to the days of "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."  What a joke.  Looking at my choices for 2017, they are abysmal.  I like my doctors, but most will not accept the insurance plans now available to me.  I have liked both of my recent insurance plans, despite the ridiculously increasing costs (over 40% in rural areas).  I'm not looking for a subsidy, I'm just looking to purchase quality insurance that meets my needs and allows me to see the doctors I choose.  That I cannot do this is absolutely unconscionable.  ObamaCare is unsustainable and simply MUST be repealed.  Even former president Bill Clinton calls it "the craziest thing on earth."  Scott Tipton in district 3 and a Republican-controlled congress is the only way to kill ObamaCare.  Otherwise we are barreling down the highway to a single payer system, and if you think your choices are bad now...  Oh, and by the way, Tipton's opponent recently said of ObamaCare, "This system, it's going to work.  It is working."  Yeah, right.

And don't take my word for it.  Tipton has been endorsed by The Denver Post as well as The Gazette.  Click to read those endorsements.



This amendments strikes the words "except as punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" from the state constitution concerning an exception to involuntary servitude.  Colorado has no slaves so this language is purely symbolic.  Those convicted of crimes under the law do not become slaves of the state, so voting yes will not affect inmate work programs, although legal challenges are certain to arise as a result.


This amendment proposes to exempt individuals or private businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6000 or less from paying property taxes, beginning in 2018 and increasing with inflation annually thereafter.  Exempting these (or any individual or business) from property taxes on the government-owned property they use violates the principal of equal protection.  It inherently places a greater tax burden on others to pay for local government services.  These property taxes should continue being collected uniformly from all taxpayers.  A small tax bill does not justify exempting individuals or businesses from paying the tax.


Vote NO twice if you can!!  The establishment of ColoradoCare will create a statewide single-payer healthcare system in Colorado.  This is a HUGE state income tax increase (above and beyond the state's current 4.63% income tax) with an ultimate rate of 10% on earned wages that is expected to generate $2 BILLION initially and approximately $25 BILLION per year when fully implemented, and will nearly DOUBLE state government spending.  In the initial years, taxpayers will pay $2 billion into a system without receiving any direct benefits. Many will pay more in new taxes than they currently pay for healthcare.  And taxpayers must pay these new taxes even if they do not utilize the services offered through ColoradoCare.  Under ColoradoCare, all healthcare transactions will be funneled through the state.  There are no guarantees that ColoradoCare will improve patient services, access, care, or reduce healthcare costs, and it may additionally limit consumer choice.  No implementation date has been specified.  This may be Colorado's last chance to retain taxpayer independence for healthcare decisions in our ever-developing "nanny state."  ColoradoCare is a monstrous disaster waiting to happen.


This amendment seeks to increase the state minimum wage from $8.31 to $9.30 per hour, increasing $0.90 per hour beginning in 2018 until it reaches $12 per hour in 2020, and then further increasing with cost-of-living increases each year after that.  This is a classic liberal heart-string measure that is well-intended but will likely have significant negative consequences.  The entire idea behind the minimum wage was to provide subsistence level compensation while workers gain skills and education to move up the employment ladder or start their own businesses.  Increasing this wage to a level where it is perceived as a permanent living wage will likely create an even larger population of under-trained and under-educated workers who are satisfied with adding limited productivity to the workplace their entire lives.  Businesses will adapt by hiring fewer workers and finding other ways to reduce costs.  While the federal minimum wage may arguably be too low, a measure to set Colorado's annual minimum wage at $25,000 ($12 per hour x 2080 = $25,000), while still a low wage, is not the right approach.  The right approach is to provide education and training for workers to move up and out of the unskilled labor force and into the world of skilled labor where their productivity exceeds the six word phrase, "Do you want fries with that?"


This amendment requires that a certain number of signatures be gathered from each state senate district (5% of the votes cast from each senate district in the most recent election for Secretary of State) to place a constitutional initiative on the ballot.  It requires that a proposed constitutional amendment demonstrate a minimum level of statewide support prior to being placed on the ballot.  (It SHOULD be difficult to change the state constitution -- requiring that signatures for constitutional initiatives be gathered from each senate district ensures that citizens from across the state have a say.)  Due to the relative ease of collecting signatures in urban areas compared to sparsely populated rural areas, rural citizens currently have a limited voice in determining which issues appear on the ballot.  Everyone should have a say in amending the state constitution and this amendment provides a path for an appropriate level of inclusiveness for all Coloradans.


This amendment quadruples state cigarette taxes (from $0.84 to $2.59), a $315.7 million tax increase, with revenues required to be spent on a variety of very specific programs with no guarantee that such programs will reduce the societal costs of tobacco use.  Any future change to this measure will require another vote, and in the meantime, the tax will continue indefinitely.  (In other words, if/when tobacco use declines, this amendment will have locked in state spending on the original specific programs, even if these become unnecessary or are shown to be ineffective, and other new needs and priorities are identified.)  Besides, a "sin tax" is a regressive tax that may or may not alter behavior -- if it does, such reduction in tobacco purchases will eliminate the income it was intended to provide in the first place.


This amendment provides access to medical aid-in-dying medication in the case of a terminally ill patient under certain conditions, such as a six month or less to live prognosis.  The measure allows a mentally competent individual to peacefully end his or her life in the time, place and environment of his or her choosing after voluntarily requesting and self-administering the medication.  Prop 106 also provides protections from criminal penalties for physicians and family members who choose to support a terminally ill individual through the dying process.  The state of Oregon has proven that this kind of program can work successfully and give individuals the final say in how they choose to end their lives with dignity.  Prop 106 is modeled after Oregon's program.


This amendment to the Colorado statutes establishes a presidential primary election in Colorado that allows participation by unaffiliated voters. All registered voters in Colorado should be allowed to participate in the selection of presidential nominees, even if they are not affiliated with a political party.  (In Colorado, unaffiliated voters make up more than one third of all registered voters.) A presidential primary system serves Colorado voters better than the (current) caucus system which is confusing and inaccessible to many voters.  A presidential primary will be conducted in the same manner as all other elections by experienced county election officials.


This amendment enables unaffiliated voters to vote in a non-presidential primary election without having to affiliate with a party at any point up to and including election day (the current requirement).  Instead, with the passage of Prop 108, unaffiliated voters will receive a combined ballot that shows all candidates for elected office for each political party; unaffiliated voters may then only vote in contests for one political party.  Think of it as a streamlined version of the "day of" party registration that exists today.  The measure also allows political parties (private organizations) to opt out of holding a primary that is open to unaffiliated voters.  Instead, they may choose to nominate candidates in an assembly or convention that is limited to voters affiliated with that party.



The OST mission is to acquire, preserve, maintain and manage open space properties for multiple purposes, including but not limited to recreational, wildlife, agricultural, scenic and access, and to acquire, preserve, develop, maintain and manage trails for similar purposes.  1A asks for reauthorization of the current 3.75 mill levy (not a tax increase) for a 20 year term beginning in 2020, as well as allowing for a greater percentage of funding for maintenance (the more space acquired, the more money needed to tend to the properties), including the protection of historic buildings on the properties as well as funding for bike lanes along roadways.  This was not an obvious "yes" for me, but the 25-year-old Open Space and Trails program HAS proven to be an incredibly valuable community asset that has enhanced our outdoor lifestyles while maintaining the county's rural character through the preservation of over 20,000 acres of land and 70 miles of trails, plus 90km of our Nordic ski trail system.   Maintaining the same 3.75 mill levy is probably appropriate because the OST fund is a healthy one, with a 2016 starting fund balance of $5 million, anticipated revenues from the mill levy of $12 million and projected expenditures of $5.5 million.  However, faced with a reputation for being the ultimate insiders club with little communication with and input from the community, the 5-member OST board would be very well served by some fresh, diverse blood (and perhaps term limits) while the organization adjusts to the growing concerns of balancing the often conflicting objectives of acquiring, conserving and maintaining land and providing access via recreational trails.  I am personally wary of the 20-year extension term (it seems excessive when previous extensions have been for 10 years, but alas that is not the question at hand), but have no good reason to think that (with proper oversight by the county commissioners) the stewards of OST will not continue their good work to the benefit of us all.  


It's about time.  Approximately 20% of the students in the Aspen School district reside in Snowmass Village.  This measure asks the town to FINALLY financially contribute to the school district.  It's only right.  It should not solely be Aspen's financial burden.  The Snowmass community has an obligation to cover their fair share of the costs of educating their children.  While those of us in Aspen cannot vote to levy this tax on our Snowmass neighbors, it's important to know what's going on here.  Unfortunately, this may not be an easy nor obvious "it's for the schools" victory -- Snowmass Village has three property tax measures on the ballot -- this one, one for the Wildcat Fire Protection District and one for Snowmass Water and Sanitation.  (Incidentally, this is quite a dilemma in the community where the sales tax is already at an astronomical 10.4%, which does not bode well for a future sales tax measure for the schools as a fix should 2A fail.). Without the $500K annually expected from 2A, you know all too well who will have to pick up the slack..... Yes, guilt your Snowmass friends into supporting this one.  And shame on them if they don't.


This one is a matter of housekeeping.  Current law prohibits local governments from providing cable tv, telecommunications, high speed internet, etc. unless an election is held granting it such permission.  At issue in Aspen is only the high speed internet aspect.  The city seeks to gain the ability to provide such service within the city limits.  This vote DOES NOT automatically "give" the city any specific authority nor a competitive place at the table vs Comcast or anyone else at this juncture, but it serves as a first step toward creating the OPTION for the city to consider upgrading city-wide high-speed internet service (a la a utility).  In other words, a yes vote removes a bureaucratic hurdle.  The inevitable how, who, when and costs cannot be even contemplated yet alone addressed by the city until this door is opened.  Simply speaking, this one is a reasonable YES vote.  It does not give our fine municipality control nor any proprietary advantage should improvements be deemed appropriate or necessary.  Rather, it simply opens the door to consideration of a variety of options (and competition -- public and private) in the future as opportunities, technology, funding, etc. for such an endeavor arise.  (I was particularly impacted by THIS brief article on the long term implications of providing high speed data to cities.)


Say what you will about the city manager and his decisions.  And I've said plenty.  But don't let this yes vote alarm you.  It is the city manager's job to hire and manage city staff.  Our friends on city council are elected by the populace to deliberate and adopt policy, not slide down the slippery slope of meddling in staffing decisions.  The only two city employees who report to city council are the city manager and the city attorney.  The community development director and police chief are critical city staffers who, by definition, oversee vital areas of responsibility.  We cannot allow these two positions in particular to be politicized by the revolving door brought on by city council elections every two years; both employees should be governed by the land use code and the law, respectively, and report to the city manager.  Now, if the city manager cannot be trusted to appoint the best candidates for these roles and effectively manage them, then we clearly need a new city manager.  But that's another matter for another day.


Admittedly, I am falling on my sword here.  Sure, the schools make a compelling argument for needing the funds, there is no question.  But for several years leading up to 2E (below), I have lobbied the Aspen Education Foundation and anyone school-oriented who would listen to organize and make a compelling case to go after some of the Wheeler Opera House's portion (0.5%) of the real estate transfer tax (RETT), which amounted to $5.4 million in 2015.  I even offered to help.  (Imagine, the matter could have been on THIS ballot!)  No one was willing to step up and make the case.  I see it as laziness and entitlement.  The prevailing wisdom of those who make such decisions is "It's for the schools so who is going to vote no?"  It's my belief that this wisdom WOULD have prevailed in a "re-allocation of a portion of the Wheeler funds for education" measure.  In this (sales tax extension) case, I am going to vote NO. And I encourage you to do the same.  I pay plenty for the schools with my property taxes and so do you.  When a generational opportunity presents itself and that opportunity is ignored outright, I say "enough."   (It will probably pass, but I say send the message anyway.)


The Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) money that goes to the Wheeler Opera House was first directed there in 1979.  In 1997, the tax was extended and is set to expire 12/31/19.  This question asks for another 20 year extension.  Originally, the RETT money was designated for "the purpose of renovation, reconstruction and maintenance" as well as "supporting the visual and performing arts."  This round, funds will be earmarked for "maintenance" of the building and "support for the visual and performing arts."  Notably, in the 40 years since deriving funds from the RETT, the Wheeler sits on a fund balance of $29.17 million.  The RETT is not the Wheeler's only source of income -- in 2016, it is projected to generate $744K from event productions, $212K in rental income, $290K in investment income and $88K in loan repayments, a total of $1.34 million in non-RETT revenue.  Such funds are used to support production, operations and art grants.  What cannot be afforded is covered by the healthy pot of gold from the RETT ($5.4 million in 2015). Incidentally, the Wheeler's reserve fund is the city's largest fund balance, and the city is known to dip its sticky fingers into this readily available cash bucket at will.

See where I'm going with this?  There is a crazy wealth of money parked at the Wheeler.  I don't see why we should, as a matter of course, automatically renew this tax and lock it in for another 20 years.  For one thing, the current RETT for the Wheeler is in place through 2019.  There is still time to regroup and properly evaluate alternatives, and return to the voters in another year or so.  Additionally, the operating subsidies and excessive fund balance tell me that, at the very least, we should give the Wheeler operations a good hard look to determine "real" needs, and at the same time, look hard at other "real" needs in the community.  With this kind of money at stake (an annual average of $4 million), how about a re-allocation of SOME portion of this "free money" to the schools?  What about mental health care -- a local hot button topic if there ever was one.  What about both of those as well as funds for the Wheeler?  No one says the 0.5% has to go to just one recipient.  There are many ways to skin this cat.  (And shame on the Aspen School District for not making the case to share in this revenue!!)

No one is saying "Leave the Wheeler out in the cold."  Not even close.  But perhaps, given the Wheeler's strong financial position, there are other worthy beneficiaries of SOME of those RETT funds.  Considering that RETT funds come directly from those buying real estate in Aspen, the burden of the tax falls mainly on wealthy property owners.  Many locals (especially those who live in subsidized housing who do not pay a RETT upon purchasing their properties) argue that the Wheeler RETT provides them with affordable tickets to Wheeler programs.  That shouldn't change if the Wheeler sticks to a realistic operating budget.  And if the Wheeler needs supplemental funding for programming or capital improvements, they can go before council and request funding, just like other city departments.  I just think the time has come to share the spoils across a broader community spectrum.


Poschman is a pragmatist.  This Aspen native approaches his decision-making in a calculated and collaborative manner.  A life-long Aspenite, Poschman appeals to me for a seat on the BOCC because of his philosophy of measured growth, public-private partnerships for subsidized housing, and most notably, his realistic views that just because someone is born and raised here, it's probable that many may not be able to live here.  The Aspen Times has also endorsed Poschman, stating, "(He) has proven throughout the campaign that he has the chops to tackle county business.  As an outspoken preservationist, Poschman would bring a smart approach to county land-use decisions.... He has the demeanor to work with diverse personalities and appears to be a good listener.  His consideration for the environment and the general direction of the county would be a welcomed addition to the board."

Poschman's opponent is someone I cross swords with time and again and could NEVER support.  This weird agent is hell-bent on the belief that Aspen should drastically expand its subsidized housing program so as to additionally subsidize "the middle class," and favors government subsidies of local businesses.  His "cradle to grave" subsidy concept for those who are from Aspen as well as those who pass through its pearly gates and set up camp here are not only impractical and ridiculous, but illustrative of exactly who we do not need anywhere near the $105 million annual county budget!!


Why are Steve Child and George Newman running unopposed?  I can't stand it when this happens!  Can't we as a community do better and at least challenge the incumbents?  As I've recommended in such cases in the past, go ahead, vote for them if you must, but you can also send a message.  If you think they are good and you want them back in office, go for it.  If you're indifferent (as I am) and only wish someone more interesting would have thrown their hat into the ring, well then, leave it blank.  Obviously these two are on the glide path to re-election, but if you're not thrilled, do your part to keep their re-election percentage low.  It may just entice someone to run in the future.


First and foremost, McCrory is an independent.  He is not beholden to the political insiders.  And yes, in a perfect world, the DA should be apolitical.  As a highly respected defense attorney for over 20 years, McCrory served as the chief deputy DA who ran the Aspen office in the 1980s and 90s.  In an increasingly politicized judiciary, now is the time to bring McCrory back.


As I have said before, DO NOT skip this important part of the ballot, even if you neither know nor care about who they are or how they dispense justice.  By not explicitly voting NO on each "shall (judge) be retained" question, you are implicitly voting YES to keep him/her on the bench.  Unless you personally know a given judge to be honest and fair (i.e. non-activist), vote NO on retention!