ISSUE #273: Ireland's Inquisitions Are a Losing Bet for APCHA (4/23/24)

"I ruin everything I touch."

-- Inspector Jacques Clouseau

A long-time local family has recently been vindicated after a five-year witch hunt by APCHA and its resentful and power-hungry hearing officer, housing zealot Mick Ireland.  Tipped off by neighbors in 2019, APCHA alleged that North 40 residents Cameron and Tricia McIntyre were in violation of their deed restriction by additionally owning local residential real estate through an LLC called “CMTR.” Slapped with a notice of violation that accused them of controlling CMTR, which holds title to a free market Aspen townhome on Park Circle, the McIntyres were directed to sell either their North 40 home or the Park Circle property. So they lawyered up and requested a formal hearing. Enter Mick, Aspen’s former mayor, a former county commissioner, and today APCHA’s official hearing officer, whose zeal for retribution and bullying tactics over the course of a 3-day hearing generated a ruling that Tricia “effectively owned” the Park Circle property through CMTR which he deemed was her “alter ego.” He then ordered the McIntyres to sell their North 40 property within 90 days. Not the free market property, the APCHA one. (He made the independent decision to force the sale of the APCHA property – their home – surely because of the financial windfall associated with a sale of the free market property. He simply could not tolerate the idea of the McIntyre’s profiting by what he saw as a violation, and at the same time, attempted to exact the harshest possible punishment.) The McIntyres then sued APCHA, challenging the decision of the government body and its officer to determine whether the officer exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion with his ruling. Notable Facts:  ·      CMTR, LLC is actually legally owned by the McIntyre’s two adult sons who are the LLC’s sole members. Any gains, losses and tax responsibilities are borne by the sons, not Tricia and Cameron. ·      CMTR holds title to the Park Circle property that is not part of APCHA’s portfolio, therefore it is not subject to any APCHA deed restriction. ·      The McIntyre sons don’t owe any duties to APCHA. ·      The 1996/1997-era deed restriction on the McIntyre’s North 40 home does not preclude their sons (individually or through an LLC) from owning local residential real estate. ·      The McIntyre sons contracted with Tricia to manage their LLC. She is their mother, after all. ·      Tricia McIntyre “managing” CMTR’s real estate interests is not unusual nor is it unlawful. Lo and behold, it was no surprise to anyone but APCHA when the district court ruled in favor of the McIntyres, and excoriated Ireland in the process:  He MISAPPLIED CORPORATE VEIL PIERCING doctrine, employed only under extraordinary circumstances by the courts to impose liability on individual shareholders for a corporation’s obligations. It is “not a fact-finding mechanism for administrative agencies,” the judge wrote. Furthermore, Mick’s use of this doctrine to make a factual conclusion about CMTR’s ownership and ordering injunctive relief (requiring the McIntyres to sell their home) was was an ABUSE OF DISCRETION and not recognized by the law. ((Edited to include: The judge ruled that Mick had no authority to assert the equitable power of piercing the corporate veil. This is only reserved for actual judges. Mick really thinks he is a judge!)) Ireland had concluded that CMTR was used to perpetrate fraud but the judge ruled this was not supported by evidence. “Controlling and owning an LLC are distinctly different under the law.” (Tricia’s contracted management of the property is not the same thing as owning it, nor does this justify corporate veil-piercing. And there is nothing in the North 40 deed restriction that bars Tricia from “controlling” property.) In addition, Ireland went far beyond what is contemplated in the McIntyre’s North 40 deed restriction (circa 1996/1997), which plainly states remedies for established breaches, therefore his arbitrary administrative declaration to force a sale was BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY. And perhaps most damning, CMTR wasn’t even a party to the proceedings. The matter was between the McIntyre parents and APCHA. Mick LACKED JURISDICTION over CMTR yet made a judgment that EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY that amounted to an ABUSE OF DISCRETION. In other words, Mick’s quasi-judicial jackassery went far beyond the matter at hand, and in the end proved only costly to the public who now owes the McIntyres. (In late February, the district court VACATED and SET ASIDE Ireland’s ruling and order, and according to a recent filing, the McIntyres are entitled to legal fees which currently exceed $168,000.) But APCHA intends to appeal. The APCHA board is so focused on what they perceive to be a violation because how could an APCHA-housed family possibly have sons who could purchase local real estate. They not only let loose their angry pitbull on an innocent family, no one at the housing authority took the time to look at the McIntyre’s deed restriction to ascertain what is and isn’t permitted, nor the corporate documents of CMTR which plainly show ownership solely by the McIntyre sons. It is jealous rage, pure and simple, and notably outrageous given that two APCHA board members are executives at local banks, who one would think might be able to read and understand basic corporate documents. The APCHA board is surely aware now of what’s at stake. The initial investigation, followed by Ireland’s hearing and the judge’s ruling have now unleashed a problem for APCHA that no one contemplated with the original issue. Instead of doing proper due diligence and determining the McIntyre’s compliance was NOT affected by the real estate investments of their sons, APCHA has now written and published the blueprint for how any APCHA owner can now purchase local real estate as long as they do it quietly through an LLC. “Corporate veil piercing” cannot be employed for “fishing expeditions” like Ireland’s, so who would ever know? APCHA can’t use this to prove it. In short, because assets only matter on the day one purchases APCHA property, local free market real estate ownership is now possible for APCHA owners; yet another outlandish benefit for those “in the system.”  So here we are. With savvy financial planning, annual gifts and lifetime exemptions, any APCHA owner can also give their kids money and that money can be invested in Aspen real estate though an LLC unless specifically prohibited by one's individual deed restriction. There is no loophole to close. The McIntyre case, if handled with proper discretion, could have been an eye-opening, legal example of what is inherently possible within our ownership housing program with the hope that not many would actually partake in such an opportunity. However, following the brazen and ill-conceived witch hunt, hearings and judge’s ruling, that example has been lit up in bright lights for any and all to follow. Ahh, the law of unintended consequences, again.  This has become Reason #279 why APCHA housing should be all rental. The ownership model continually creeps closer and closer to mimicking free market real estate ownership on the upside, yet still reaps entitlement benefits such hefty initial subsidies, low property taxes and no income/asset limits once in the system. Hardly the intent of the program. And, at press time, Ireland finds himself at the center of yet another complex APCHA lawsuit in which the plaintiff claims APCHA has falsely accused her of marriage fraud to justify forcing her to sell her unit. Clearly, our very own Inspector Clouseau’s role as a hearing officer has once again gone to his head. He is being accused of investigating an APCHA owner far beyond the scope of her case in an effort to force a sale of her property, when the only “evidence” he had was a “recital clause” in the deed restriction which does not hold water in court. (Recognizing the recital clause was unenforceable, Ireland took it upon himself to demand tax information and divorce documents to conduct an in-depth investigation into unrelated issues in order to bolster his case.) He’s out of control. To Mick, it’s clearly personal. I can appreciate the importance of properly enforcing program compliance, but this isn’t it.  APCHA counsel Tom Smith and Ireland, an attorney himself, are clearly ill-equipped to fulfill their roles in professional, responsible or capable manners. And as a result, the public is continually on the hook for the sizable attorney’s fees awarded to plaintiffs when APCHA predictably loses these cases. (A note about how out of touch APCHA-contracted attorney Tom Smith is, earlier this year, he had a hard time grasping the concept of “remote workers.” He continually insisted that “remote workers” are local workers who live outside of the county yet work from home for local employers, seemingly oblivious to the more problematic APCHA dwellers who work for Google, Lockheed and Meta from the comfort of their in-town APCHA units.) Mick’s interrogations, investigations and inquisitions are an outrageous over-reach. He and his vendettas against those he dislikes and envies are a stain on our community that only serve to perpetuate APCHA’s reputation as a corrupt police force that picks winners and losers. Mick is the loser. He needs to go, now. * * *  THE FEEDBACK LOOP Got an issue with city government? The VERY BEST way to communicate your concerns is by email: council@aspen.gov Is CommDev taking too long with your permit? Do you have concerns about the Castle Creek Bridge replacement? Is your Burlingame 3 unit in working order? Is APCHA responsive to your inquiries? By emailing all 5 council members, you will be heard. Communicate with your elected officials!

ISSUE #272: APCHA's Pathetic Torre Story (3/26/24)

"Things come apart so easily when they have been held together with lies."

-- Dorothy Allison

I referenced this in a recent issue, but no one was more surprised - and vindicated - when the Aspen Daily News ran a follow-up to my column that broke the story about Mayor Torre's outrageous August 2023 real estate deal. (Read my original piece again HERE) I initially wrote that it was unlikely that Torre did anything illegal per se, but that APCHA intentionally broke its own rules to facilitate the secretive and off-the-books deal. After reading how APCHA staff reacted to reporter Austin Corona's follow-up inquiries, I am going to revise my earlier assessments of the less-than-kosher deal. In short, Torre completely fleeced his former landlord, taking full advantage of her incapacitation and the fact that her ill-informed daughter who never looked at the unit's deed restriction was handling the transaction. Legal? Sure. Befitting someone with any morals or virtues? No way. It was filthy dirty and self-serving to the highest degree. And if the young woman thinks Torre "deserved" the unit as she says, she should have been informed that public officials cannot accept favors of this kind because that is what's called a bribe. And, APCHA is run by executive director Matthew Gillen who is nothing short of a liar whose doubling and tripling down to normalize this obscene transaction finds him contradicting himself in the newspaper again and again, and misrepresenting APCHA's own policies to fit a ridiculous narrative of his own concoction. (Only because APCHA staff works for the city manager and not its own feckless board of directors does this arrogant miscreant still have a job. No wonder our corrupt housing program has the poor reputation it does - it starts at the very top!)  So let's dig in and take a look at Gillen's ridiculous attempts to make "The Torre Story" seem normal and go away. (It won't.) The March 12 vindication squarely proved how APCHA a lying and story-changing entity whose failed attempt at discrediting a critic (me) blew up in their faces. Their desire to have it both ways (no lottery, multiple simultaneous deed restrictions AND no RETT for Torre) and multiple occasions of outright LYING to the local media is both shameful and demonstrative of corrupt practices. When APCHA picks winners and losers - as they obviously do - this is clearly not in the best interest of APCHA residents and aspirants, nor should it be tolerated by this community. On January 20, the Aspen Daily News initially reported "Mayor's housing purchase not unique," defending the transaction based on information fed to them by Gillen. (I'd link the story but the ADN has pulled it down because of the now-proven "inaccuracies.") To "prove" how normal Torre's transaction was, Gillen highlighted the sales of two Hunter Creek units with 1982 deed restrictions that he said were "silent" on whether or not they needed to be sold by lottery, seemingly to justify not conducting one on Torre's. This was total obfuscation and misrepresentation. Yet it was printed in the paper even when the units' deed restrictions specifically DO require sales by lotteries. The ADN corrected this on March 12. Asked by the ADN for other transactions "similar" to Torre's, Gillen produced 18 from 2023. The problem was, each one was an RO (resident occupied) APCHA unit that specifically DOES NOT require a lottery, ever. Nice try, Gillen. ADN corrected that as well. The January 20 article additionally reported that Torre's unit required that it be sold to an employee at a set maximum price. This was another spoon-fed LIE by Gillen. The deed restriction, a publicly accessible document, clearly states that the unit simply be used as "employee housing." It states no such thing about who it can and is to be sold to, and for what price. HERE is that deed restriction. Read it for yourself.  Tom Thumb Unit A301 was a free market unit, encumbered by an early deed restriction that required the unit to be utilized by an "employee of moderate income" until the deed restriction expired in June 2032. Anyone could own it as long as a qualified employee lived there. Come June 2032, all bets would be off. Gillen's representations to the contrary are simply his desperate attempts to distract the community from the malfeasance that he permitted and could very well have helped concoct. It's too bad the ADN didn't seek out the deed restriction to fact-check Gillen before going to print! Recall that I had written how Unit A301 could have been sold to any buyer at any time for any price as long as it would be rented to an APCHA-approved "employee" until the deed restriction expires in June 2032, at which point it would revert to the free market. I asked numerous realtors about today's free market value of the 419 sf unit and suffice it to say, even with an 8-year "wait," to a one, they each said the unit would fetch SUBSTANTIALLY more than the $106K Torre paid his landlord!  I also pointed out that the chain of title was a seller-to-APCHA-to-buyer transaction, standard practice when APCHA acquires a unit or transacts units already in the portfolio. (Torre "brought" the sale to APCHA after negotiating with his landlord, placing them in the chain of title.) Gillen corroborated APCHA's momentary possession of the unit and describes this as APCHA's regular opportunity to update transacting units' deed restrictions. Yep. Exactly. But here's where it gets interesting. Deep in the hole of his own digging, Gillen told the ADN that in the case of Torre's unit, "Only the owner can place a new deed restriction on the property." LOL. Right. APCHA does it all the time! See THIS email Gillen wrote to APCHA board chair Carson Schmitz in October 2023 in response to a question I asked. (Gillen had no idea back then what I knew about Torre's deal.) In other words, according to Gillen, Torre struck a fabulously cheap deal with his landlord, bought the unit using APCHA as a transactional broker because despite having the listing contract with the seller they wouldn't tell the seller about the potential impending windfall (it becoming worth over $1 million in 8 short years), and then he voluntarily after-the-fact slapped a deed restriction on the unit that holds it to 3% appreciation and mandates ownership and use by an employee into perpetuity!?! Right. No one reading here doubts the abject stupidity of our one-named mayor, but even this is beyond the pale. If he had done such a thing, surely he'd have shouted it from the rooftops to brag about his magnanimity as "the housing mayor!" But recall, Torre, city officials and APCHA staff kept the whole thing hush-hush and off the sales reports, where it was bound to remain, but then a reader tipped me off. It was HIGHLY UNUSUAL. There was not even a whisper.  There is exactly ZERO chance Torre voluntarily deed restricted his unit. I know this because the APCHA board regularly kicks around ideas to financially incentivize such behavior and the county just created a $2 million fund to significantly reward people who do just this. APCHA has also identified 244 local rental units with similar expiring deed restrictions and has reached out to the current owners in hopes of acquiring these units before the deed restrictions expire. APCHA knows full well what the future values will be and wants to pick off these units before the current owners reap a large windfall, not to mention remove the units from the employee housing inventory! They're also hoping some of these owners are as ignorant as Torre's landlord's kid who now admits that she had no idea about the soon-to-expire deed restriction. (Of course APCHA didn't tell her!) Without bragging rights or money, Torre would never have done this. This is a guy who financed $95,400 of the $106K purchase, after all.  APCHA absolutely updated the deed restriction when they update the deed restrictions of all other transacting units - during the brief moment of possession in the transaction's chain of title!! But Gillen had to LIE, and this made the whole story a lot worse. This LIE in particular illustrated how irregular and against policy this transaction was. On one hand APCHA says Torre changed the deed restriction after buying it. Ok then, why was APCHA even involved and why didn't he pay the RETT? Earlier, Gillen had said the transaction was not subject to the RETT because it was a usual APCHA transaction that is exempt. The two (old and new) deed restrictions cannot be in effect at the same time - it's impossible. So which is it, because you can't have it both ways, Gillen. Illegally exempting a transaction from the RETT is breaking the law! The bigger question is why all the lies? It was obviously a clandestine deal: the assistant city manager was made vaguely aware but kept in the dark, APCHA staff knew, and of course the mayor himself was at the helm. (It was also intentionally kept from the APCHA board, but then again, what isn't.) Once revealed, why wouldn't the city and APCHA have simply owned it, acknowledged that it wasn't perfect, apologized and made Torre pay the (paltry) RETT before closing any and all loopholes to prevent such a grievous error from ever happening again?? They simply cannot ever admit being wrong. And with the city's backing (financial and otherwise), they'd rather fight. As a result, today Torre's transaction lacks any and all legitimacy. How can ANYONE respect APCHA? It's a rogue organization whose lack of transparency and accountability are a community embarrassment and liability. (And for those who are wondering, no, The Aspen Times did not react to the vindication article.) This inability to admit when it is wrong is precisely why APCHA also regularly finds itself on the losing end of notable legal challenges that I will explore in a future issue. Suffice it to say, a recent district court ruling found in favor of the plaintiffs who own a RO unit in the North 40. The case is steeped in intrigue and features none other than APCHA's very own vindictive pitbull hearing officer Mick Ireland, who was excoriated by the court for exceeding his discretion and authority, and both misapplied and misinterpreted the law. It's a doozy of a case that opens up a can of worms for APCHA far beyond what they ever contemplated when they came after the plaintiffs in the first place. One would hope that in retrospect they are regretting not taking a more objective stance, examining their current rules and the matter at hand, and realizing how an overly zealous Ireland took the initial matter too far. Instead, with a pending decision whether or not to appeal the court's decision, APCHA is potentially placing the entire future of subsidized housing ownership as we know it in jeopardy. Ahhh the laws of unintended consequences. Stay tuned, stay in touch and stay involved. EM

ISSUE #271: Aspen Spring Cleaning (3/13/24)

"Life under a good government is rarely dramatic; life under a bad government is always so."

-- Oscar Wilde

Without a Thursday filing deadline for a Sunday column, this has been an adjustment. As such, the “news of the day” will always impact when and whether there will be a “Sunday” installment. Sometimes there may not be one. But please know, as always, I am out here, I’m tracking and I will have something for you. Trust me, I’m just trying to make it worth the wait. This week, I’d like to address several “loose ends” that we’ve all been following. Here goes: VINDICATION IS SO SWEET I was as surprised as anyone this morning to wake up to a long-hoped-for follow-up by reporter Austin Corona of the Aspen Daily News to my 12/31/23 exposé on Mayor Torre’s secret and sketchy home purchase last summer.  In short, despite APCHA’s pathetic “it was entirely normal” justifications for the off-the-books transaction and both local papers’ defense of APCHA’s claims (which caused me to quit The Aspen Times because they would not listen to reason and examine the facts), the Daily News came around and actually did the work. Thank you, Austin. The transaction was indeed “unique,” to say the least. That APCHA lied, obfuscated, contradicted itself, and to this day continues to dig itself an even deeper hole, was printed today on the front page. Read it HERE. (It's still riddled with errors and contradictions, but we'll have fun digging into that!) I have A LOT more to say on the subject so stay tuned. I will be following up in depth. This one is not going away anytime soon. Rotten is as rotten does.  "Torre-Gate. It’s never the crime. It’s the cover-up." Someone should mount a campaign! Oh wait, I already did. Contact me for your pin and wear it proudly. Our housing program is rotten to its core with corrupt and dishonest leadership, our mayor was the beneficiary of APCHA’s deliberate and selective rules enforcement, and APCHA staff facilitated a less-than-transparent transaction on his behalf. As always, the facts speak for themselves. APCHA PROPERTY TAXES To follow up on the recently uncovered mess with APCHA property taxes, I am not going to condemn the Assessor because apparently APCHA has always done it this way, but that certainly does not make it right. Moving forward, knowing what we now know, the Assessor, who is working diligently to right this wrong, needs top-cover from the county to demand changes because we know APCHA certainly won’t change their corrupt ways.  It turns out that the “actual values” for the approximately 1700 “owned” properties in APCHA’s deed restricted portfolio that serve as the basis for property tax collection are not established by the county assessor who has the statutory authority to do so. Instead, she who runs APCHA in her head, deputy director Cindy Christensen (of living alone in a 3-bedroom unit fame), merely submitted a spreadsheet that lists the unverified current maximum sales price for each of the units. From this list, the Assessor deducted $55,000 (Gov Polis reduced all residential property values by $55,000 for tax year 2023) to yield the (supposed) actual value. Unfortunately, closer examination showed numerous grievous valuation and mathematical errors.  In addition, there are HUNDREDS of properties that show up as “deed restricted” on the Assessor’s website that do not show up on APCHA’s spreadsheet. How are accurate values calculated for these properties and just who is tracking their accrued appreciation? There are zero audit processes in place - this is apparently how it’s always been done. How did this pass the State’s audit? It’s time for the BOCC to assert itself and give the Assessor the power necessary to demand accountability and transparency from APCHA. This unchecked nonsense needs to end today. The inmates are literally running the asylum. Write the BOCC HERE so the Assessor can assert proper control. THE FUTURE OF THE ARMORY Meanwhile, city staff, in its zeal to have something new to build, has pushed city council into approving a $1.8 million contract for an architect/design team to renovate and remodel The Armory despite not having selected a master lease operator for the space. Never mind that staff issued an RFP for a food hall operator that no one responded to – the city knows best and they’re just gonna haul off and pay to have someone design one. Imagine the change orders and associated costs once an actual operator is on board. That is, unless the city thinks it can operate a food hall too. LOL. But there is no timeline for finding an operator. The city seriously plans to operate this itself. I am not kidding. Staff checked out food halls and found that most are not operated by private entities because they're not profitable. Imagine that. Perfect for the city to subsidize! Outreach showed "locals" want cheap food so that is what is driving the project. Moderate-priced restaurants beware. It's likely to be a $25 million renovation that will house the most subsidized food anywhere in the world, if it ever gets finished. What a complete joke. Our only hope was redevelopment by a private developer and operator.  MUNI GOLF COURSE PASSES: A “LOCAL” OFFERS SOLUTIONS When I recently wrote about the “locals first” policy at the municipal golf course (including a very geographically liberal definition of “local”), I had one notable response that is worthy of sharing. It was a heated yet civil exchange with someone I have known for a long time who shall remain nameless, for now.  “You are dead wrong on this one,” it began. When pressed, he continued, illustrating his thinly-veiled contempt for those upset by the policy, “I’m confused. They are deserving of a pass but can’t provide the documents?” I explained that actual Aspen property owners and taxpayers were being excluded in favor of “locals” throughout the region, only to then be told, “Get a DL from here. The city and state don’t benefit off that homeowner. You can’t have your cake and eat it also.”  Reminded that they pay local property taxes that pay for the course, he dug in, “I live outside the city limits. Should they get priority over me?”  Yes, in fact they should! I think City of Aspen property owners and taxpayers of all stripes should have priority. He didn’t like that one bit. “So, I was born and raised in this town, have worked here for 30+ years, have had a pass since 2000. Should I not get a pass because I rent in the North 40?” I personally think city taxpayers who pay for the course should get first dibs if anyone does.  The response was as expected. Pure class warfare and unabashed vitriol. “I spend lots of money in town. Those are taxes. My company pays taxes. I coach kids in multiple sports. I add to the fabric of the community. All they have to do is get a new DL and claim this place as their home instead of crying about amenities they can’t use. Perhaps they should give back to the community in ways that actually matter.”  This is not an isolated opinion. HERE is a (similar) recent letter to the editor that shares the same ignorance and disdain. For all you non-local taxpayers and philanthropic donors, the hatred is indeed vicious and frighteningly widespread. Notably, not one local non-profit responded to the letter’s preposterous assertion that aside from tipping on checks, “the rich” do not give back to this community. FYI. Then just this week, my “pal” sent me this: “Good news for your friends. There are ($3250) Platinum Passes left. All the golf they want.” (All other season passes are of course sold out.) As always, there’s more to come. We’ll peer deep into the hole that APCHA executive director Matthew Gillen continues digging for himself and the housing authority. Instead of ever admitting a wrong and making sure it doesn’t happen again, Gillen and his band of thieves continue to double and triple down in hopes they can get away with it. Trust me – they won’t. EM

ISSUE #270: Post-Vacation Musings (2/25/24)

"You can never really own real estate for instance; 

if you think you can, just try not paying your property taxes for a few years."

-- Michael Maloney

Apologies for the brevity of this installment, but I have been traveling overseas and decided that updating you on a few things I am thinking about would be preferable to simply skipping an issue. So let's dive in... Property taxes. How'd those pan out for you? I've heard the average Pitkin County property tax bill increased 27%, but anecdotes are of course all over the board. The county is implementing its first-ever property tax relief program targeting residents with household incomes below 500% of the federal poverty level using $200,000 from the general fund to dole out rebates in $2000 increments. It caught my attention when I learned that thankfully "APCHA-aligned" properties are not eligible because their tax increases are "already capped." But what on earth does that mean? Why wouldn't APCHA housing be taxed like everything else based on assessed value? Capped. Hmmmmm. With the help of a colleague, I did some cursory digging just to get a handle on what's what. Nothing personal against Kelly McNicholas-Kury of the BOCC, but I looked at her APCHA property first. (She lives at Burlingame in the city and is a county elected official who sits on the APCHA Board - a perfect subject, that's all.) Her property taxes in 2022 were $647.08, but in 2023 these decreased 32% to $438.96. Curious. She paid $266,619 in 2021, yet her actual value in 2022 was $254,000 which further decreased 14% to $217,600 in 2023. The assessed value also decreased year-to-year.  How do Burlingame units decrease in value when all other property values in Pitkin County increased dramatically? A great question for the assessor, right? "You would need to talk with APCHA about the deed restricted properties. We get the list from them and just enter in the amounts they tell us." WHAT?!?! For free market properties, the assessor values the subject property using comparable sales during the 18 month period prior to the valuation, but for APCHA properties, APCHA just submits a list of valuations to the assessor?!?!? Based on what? And who specifically compiles and submits this "list"? Clearly, the result of this non-transparent policy has resulted in the shift of EVEN MORE of the already substantial property tax burden from the subsidized housing sector to the free market. (Recall that my earlier investigation into Torre's sketchy real estate purchase yielded another anomaly with APCHA and the assessors office: APCHA reports the amount they sell units for but they do not report what they pay for them. These two instances where the county assessor blindly does what APCHA tells her to do can and should easily be tightened up in the name of transparency. Why the secrecy???) I'll be chasing this one down! "More housing" through buy-downs. Ugh. Thinking they're great leaders and because money apparently grows on trees at the county (see property tax increases, above), the BOCC has recently committed TWO MILLION DOLLARS to the West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition, a brand new non-profit seeking to solve the scientifically unverified regional housing crisis. (The coalition relies on numbers from a 2019 debunked housing needs study that the consultant admits did not use a scientific formula to support its conclusions.)  The BOCC is all pumped up to support the buy-down of free market homes purchased in the region for $1.5 million or less by people (with no income cap) who will make these their full-time, primary residences and won't own residential property anywhere else. The coalition will provide up to 30% of the purchase price in exchange for the buyer deed restricting the property in perpetuity. Crazy, huh? Especially when there is no mention of where or even if these potential beneficiaries will work in Pitkin County. And just who is going to handle compliance? Don't say APCHA. We know how that will go. None of this has been worked out yet, but the county is all-in solely because such buy-downs represent housing solutions without development! But the $2 million ($1.2 million from the American Recovery Plan Act that must be spent in 2024, if it's even legal to spend it this way, and the balance from the county's housing fund) is expected to only yield 5 to 7 homes in year one. FIVE to SEVEN. What a complete joke. I'll be watching closely as details come together, but best I can tell, there was no discussion of where the money, if any, will come in years two and beyond. In fact, there was suprisingly little discussion for an expenditure of this size - amazing given all the issues with APCHA and zero political will to admit or address any of these. Entry level home-buying. Only in Aspen is the "entry level" $1+ million. But keep in mind that the already tight market for free market housing below $1.5 million is now set to get even tighter with the buy-down program. The Aspen schools have been on a buying spree with their 2020 bond proceeds while the city of Aspen outbids most buyers while building its own proprietary housing portfolio by targeting these exact units. Good luck to the first-time homebuyers and businesses seeking units for their employees - the competition at the low end of the market is about to get fierce and you know what that means for pricing. I'd like to put together a tracker on the entities buying up such properties. As always, more to come. EM

ISSUE #269: In the Rough at the Aspen Golf Course (2/11/24)

"All paradises, all utopias are defined by who is not there, by the people who are not allowed in."

-- Toni Morrison

It should come as no surprise that the COVID-era enthusiasm for golf in Aspen has not died down. Time spent outdoors in the fresh air, with views of the Continental Divide, Pyramid Peak, Mt. Hayden, Independence Pass, Hunter Creek Valley, Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk - it’s right up our alley, especially when the Aspen Golf Club, our municipal course, is so noteworthy: ranked as the #1 muni course in the state and #21 nationally in 2009, the 7100-yard Parkland-style course is one of the longest in the state with water featured at almost each hole. What’s not to love? Apparently nothing. The course has apparently been getting loved to death, with 30,000 rounds played last year. And according to “the club,” part of the city’s parks and rec department, the biggest complaint is that “locals are getting squeezed” by the increased demand. Peeling back a layer or two of the onion, this non-golfer was surprised to learn how the Aspen Golf Club has slowly crept from being a public amenity not unlike our parks, trails and open spaces albeit with reservations and greens fees, to what is practically a private club with a privileged class of members and a self-serving citizen advisory board that sets the rules. But it may not be what you think. Despite the 100 Platinum passes ($3250), 185 Gold passes ($1600) and 225 Silver passes ($1050), the Aspen Golf Club has actually morphed into a “local’s only” bastion, with a mission statement of “affordability and accessibility for primary residents” and a recently stated (by the GM) challenge of “balancing those who want tee times while maintaining access to others.”  Passes go on sale February 16 so let’s dig in.  ·      Just who are these “primary residents” aka locals, as far as golf passes are concerned? According to the AGC, those with Colorado driver’s licenses stating a residence in the following zip codes qualify: 81611 (Aspen), 81615 (Snowmass Village), 81656 (Woody Creek), 81654 (Snowmass), 81621 (Basalt), 81623 (El Jebel, Carbondale, Marble, Redstone) and 81642 (Meredith). These are the “verified residents” throughout the Roaring Fork Valley who get first dibs on passes. Then, after March 4, whatever passes (if any) are left will be made available to the public at large. And beyond that, just two (2) tee times per hour will be available for everyone else. All season. ·      Is there ever a “balance” when weighing “those who WANT” access against a limited supply of highly-desired access?  This is crazy. Can you say “mission creep?” Yes, of course there need to be rules and tee times at a public golf course, and it’s great to offer affordable season passes. But why just to “locals?” And with all due respect to those from Carbondale, you’re hardly an Aspen local. Sorry. Like so much else around here, (think: little fiefdoms like the Community Garden), despite being under the city’s umbrella, the AGC operates unchecked and with so much autonomy that things cease to make sense anymore and frankly run unabashedly amok. The AGC is a MUNICIPAL course. Public. MUNICIPAL. Synonymous with “city.”  As in the city of Aspen’s general fund covers the costs of running the AGC above the revenues the club brings in. That’s called a taxpayer subsidy. Why then do full-time residents of Meredith and Redstone (both over 40 miles from Aspen) take precedence over city of Aspen property owners and taxpayers when it comes to accessing the AGC?  It defies logic. By design. The word “fair” gets regularly bandied about, and in the context of golf passes this is no exception. “It’s not fair” has become Aspen’s siren song of woe; the lament that somehow living “here” full-time (within a very wide net, apparently) makes one uniquely more deserving of an increasingly long list of benefits than those who actually pay for them. For those who are excluded from golf passes by the new rules, it should really come as no surprise: you want something that “locals” honestly think belongs to them by divine right – they live here and you don’t. And for that, you will be punished: no golf for you. (And isn’t it interesting that most non-Aspen golf pass holders come from Snowmass Village, where Aspen employees cannot qualify for SMV subsidized housing, but SMV employees are of course qualified for APCHA units? I digress.) What would actually be “fair” would be for those desiring golf passes to line up with their 81611 city-limits property tax bill, in order of taxes paid.  Pay most, go first. Then those passes remaining, if any, could be lotteried to “others” or left open to the public - there being no true distinction between a resident of Dallas who is visiting Aspen and someone who lives in El Jebel when it comes to the innate “right” to an Aspen municipal asset.  I’m not suggesting this as the solution, but it certainly would be “fair.”  And let’s not forget that we are an international tourism destination. Shouldn't some of our tee times be made available to our visitors - you know, the ones who pay the bills? But “fairness” is not what they seek. It has nothing to do with “fairness,” clearly. It’s about taking stuff and making it available only to a moving-target definition of “locals” because our elected city government and the administration thinks this is ok. It’s about control and retribution. And it’s a selfish and dangerous philosophy for an economy that relies on tourism and recreation. This notion of acting on what people “want” has become a warped rationale for building more subsidized housing, potentially subsidizing retail and restaurants, and now prioritizing golf pass sales. Where does it end? (Hint: it doesn’t. The desire for “stuff” people WANT yet cannot afford is infinite.) I know, it’s “just” golf passes. This time. But it’s yet another example of how far off the rails another fiefdom has gone. I bring it up to raise your awareness of next year’s MUNICIPAL election – your opportunity to weigh in and put an end to this nonsense and so much just like it. For now, it appears that only Aspen residents can vote, but at the rate we’re going, who knows.  The election will be on March 4, 2025. There will be two council seats up: those held today by Ward Hauenstein and John Doyle. Good riddance! Ward is term limited off council but could (foolishly) run for mayor, and John can (but shouldn’t) run for council again. Let’s work to make sure they both know the harsh opposition they will face! The good news is there will be at least one open council seat.  Torre is also term limited and thankfully cannot run again for mayor. In other words, we could easily see three open seats. This is a real opportunity to add a rational thinker or three to Aspen’s elected leadership.  Interested candidates, you have a fan right here! EM PS Please continue to share The Red Ant with your networks! I appreciate it!

ISSUE #268: Aspen and the Politics of Public Memory (1/28/24)

"If anyone tries to penetrate the past with the knife of the present will always act in vain. The past is invulnerable. Such attempts can only cause the present or the future to bleed."

-- Simon Schwartz

ASPEN TIMES COLUMN Welcome new subscribers! And thanks to all of you who continue to forward The Red Ant to your friends and neighbors. The recent enthusiasm has been unbelievable and I am eternally grateful for the support! A couple of housekeeping items as we get used to "the newsletter" again: I am planning to continue writing "a column" every two weeks, but we'll see how that shakes out. There may be "Ants" more frequently too as news of the day dictates. Say hello to "The Naughty Box." I heard the term on a recent vacation and knew it was just the vehicle to share "highlights" from our elected representatives, public servants and members of the press. Think of it as a police blotter, Red Ant style. See below. (Please feel free to contribute - I protect my sources!) And lastly, the pins are in! Contact me for your Torre-Gate pin. It's never the crime. It's the cover-up. Aspen and the Politics of Public Memory What is going on around here? This past fall, the community was surprised by SkiCo’s strange and unexpected re-naming of the newly-expanded Pandora’s terrain on Aspen Mountain and literally rocked by the sudden announcement that the Aspen Music Festival and School’s iconic Benedict Tent would be renamed following a $17 million philanthropic gift by the organization’s board chair.   In a place where perhaps the one last thing we all have in common is the value this community places on maintaining its shared history, are these just two alarming attempts at revisionist history, or does it portend more ill-conceived name changes to come? Re-naming is not a new phenomenon. The George Floyd incident and BLM riots of 2020 exacerbated the widespread pressure on public institutions and universities to remove statues and re-name buildings that previously honored individuals whose beliefs, affiliations and activities no longer align with their current missions and values. Included in recent de-naming efforts have been slave owners and segregationists, pharmaceutical manufacturers and Jeffrey Epstein affiliates, among other unsavory names and contentious figures. But locally, those reasons had no bearing on why “our” names were changed. Here, as is our penchant, it’s more often than not the result of unforced errors: someone trying to be clever, or maybe even an emotional reaction to the loss of a leader or an unexpected financial windfall. For whatever reasons, both name changes are unmitigated fails. Pandora’s  In September 2023, SkiCo announced it was re-naming the soon-to-open new terrain formerly known as “Pandora’s” in an effort “to honor all of those who played an instrumental role in the exploration and opening of Aspen Mountain’s new terrain.”  Sounds well-intended enough, aside from the fact they re-named it “Hero’s.” Hero’s? Who is this Hero for whom we have supplanted Pandora and named not only the terrain but also the lift? Gramatically, “hero’s” is singular possessive, as in “a hero’s welcome.”  And as it turns out, “Hero” is actually a slew of local ski icons, which further begs the question, why not “Heroes,” as in “the heroes of Aspen?” Or better yet, why not name the new runs for honored individuals but simply keep the area “Pandora’s,” the name we’ve called it for years and by which it went through the lengthy and controversial public approval process?   I personally think of “heroes” as veterans, first responders and the like – those who put their lives at risk to save to save others, who run into burning buildings, etc. Best I can tell, those bestowed with trail names are arguably well-deserving “honorees,” most of whom are locally well respected and several who notably lost their lives in tragic accidents. But are they “heroes?” The new quad lift takes just four-and-a-half minutes to reach the top, plenty of time to contemplate the odd name choice. Undoubtedly an emotional and reactionary response to the tragic death of SkiCo managing partner Jim Crown in June, surely there was a more appropriate way to honor the man. Even “Jim’s” would have been better.  Just call it Pandora’s.  The Benedict Music Tent Then in December, it was announced that the Aspen Music Festival and School had received an unprecedented gift from board chair Michael Klein, and for this donation, the AMFS would be re-naming the 2050-seat music tent the “Michael Klein Music Tent” for the next 25 years. While originally deemed the “Aspen Ampitheater,” in 1993 it became the “Bayer-Benedict Tent” to honor its architects Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict. The 2000-era Harry Teague-designed tent was then named the “Benedict Music Tent” to honor the longtime leadership of Fritz Benedict, both in the community and of the AMFS. While marked by name changes over the years, the tent’s name changes were notably never tied to the “sale” of naming rights. The fall-out was swift and unequivocal, and continues in letters to the editor to this day: “stunned” “a bridge too far” “It would be a shame to think that everything in Aspen is for sale” “AMFS may have gotten ahead of its skis” “disregard for history” It would appear that Aspen jumped on the de-naming bandwagon when we really had no reason to do so. As other institutions respond to de-naming pressures and attempt to establish rational and defensible frameworks along with transparent processes (“De-name very rarely and only when necessary under exceptional and narrow circumstances.” – UNC Chapel Hill), Aspen seems to have just hauled off and made changes, public memory and sentiment be damned. According to Town & Country in 2021, “Traditionally, naming rights have been viewed by the rich and civic-minded as a way to imprint their names on history while helping the organizations they support to build endowments, acquire masterpieces and undertake ambitious expansion plans.” Over the past two decades, this has become “a competitive sport” that even includes the ridiculous naming of restrooms and coat checks. Some speculate that this trend is changing and that “parading one’s wealth” is becoming a sign of bad taste.  There are increasing instances of donors declining naming opportunities and even announcements of their gifts. New scrutiny and the risk of public backlash stand to create a chilling effect, and therefore it’s a tricky balance for institutions reliant on philanthropic dollars. That’s obviously where the AMFS finds itself today.  Mr. Klein is clearly an extremely generous and committed donor to the AMFS. I have had a hard time tracking down the genesis of this naming issue: whether it was his idea or the organization’s. No one is talking. But it’s obvious that nobody anticipated the widespread backlash, and for that it’s a true shame. There is surely a way to properly honor Mr. Klein for his extraordinary gift; it’s just not re-naming the Benedict Music Tent.   The same holds true for other local landmarks. Remember when SkiCo tried to rename Buttermilk “Tiehack?” Some things are best left alone. Public memory is an integral part of history. Besides, each time I see the odd nomenclature of “Hero’s,” I can’t help but think of Nero, you know, the guy who fiddled while Rome burned. EM

ISSUE #267: Later, Aspen Times Censors! (1/14/24)

"Well, I won't back down
No I won't back down
You could stand me up at the gates of Hell
But I won't back down.
No, I'll stand my ground
Won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground.
And I won't back down."
 
-- Tom Petty

ASPEN TIMES COLUMN

Hello loyal followers!

I am sharing this week's "column" with you directly because The Aspen Times censors refused to print it. 

The Aspen Times capitulated to demands and threats from the city manager regarding my last column, editing it online after it ran. And my new editor declined to educate himself on the critical details and chose to ignore independent legal analyses of Mayor Torre's suspect real estate transaction last summer. 

Recall that I stayed with the Times throughout its serious and damning legal challenges because of the paper's iconic masthead and rich history, but cannot in good faith remain part of an editorial regime that doesn't (and I quote) "want to piss off the city because (he) has to work with them every day. Besides, it's a small town." 

As a result, I will no longer be contributing as a columnist to The Aspen Times. My pursuit of truth in journalism wherever it leads is not compatible with the culture and direction of that paper.

The Fourth Estate and holding the government to account is officially dead at The Aspen Times. Censorship is alive and well. Consider it Aspen's Pravda.

I stand by EVERY LAST WORD of this week's column and have received legal advice from an attorney who regularly beats the city like a drum. Are you really going to believe APCHA executive director and city manager puppet Matthew Gillen's defensive justifications for Torre's sketchy deal? LOL.

APCHA broke its own rules. Torre benefitted. The seller (his landlord) got royally screwed. Everyone involved kept quiet. Then the city lied when confronted with the evidence. 

The Red Ant is not going anywhere in its 16th year. I won't be silenced. 

Remember, before The Aspen Times column, together we killed the Hydro Plant and got city manager Steve Barwick fired, among many other notable victories. Lately, we prevented Mick Ireland from being elected county assessor, kept fools like Skippy Mesirow to one term on city council and have APCHA on notice. We also make several councilmen and citizen boards very nervous, with good reason. This will not change.

Contact me for your "Torre-Gate" pin (see the square above) to show your unwavering support, follow @theredantaspen on Instagram and stay tuned for UNCENSORED content as we march forward in earnest toward good governance in Aspen.

 Principles matter.

EM 

* * *

 THE RED ANT

A Highly Unusual Home Purchase

It’s never the crime. It’s the cover-up.

My last column kicked the hornet’s nest. I made bold assertions about how APCHA facilitated a special home purchase for Mayor Torre. I stand by my story.

Despite APCHA executive director Matt Gillen’s desperate attempts to diffuse the issue, he only dug himself into a deeper hole, beginning with the claim that the transaction was “completely normal.” It was anything but.

I said the transaction was “sketchy” and “squirrelly” because standard APCHA policy was not followed in a complicated and highly unusual transaction that specifically awarded Torre the 419 sf unit he now owns.

It was highly unusual that Torre’s unit had been a free market unit, encumbered by a 50-year deed restriction that was set to sunset in 2032. This is entirely different from an ownership unit in the APCHA portfolio with an expiring deed restriction. Torre’s unit could absolutely have been sold on the free market with its deed restriction intact, not unlike the sale of the Centennial Apartments in 2020. A301 was in fact not required to be sold to an APCHA buyer at a set price despite The Aspen Times’ cub reporter’s flawed reporting. APCHA can change its own rules, regs and definitions but it cannot change a deed restriction until it actually owns a property. It simply does not have the jurisdiction to do so. (This has been independently confirmed by an esteemed local attorney who is best known as "the city’s nemesis.")

It was highly unusual that Torre’s unit was Category 2 when Mr. Gillen insisted that 18 other similar transactions APCHA conducted made this one “completely normal.” What Gillen omitted and the Times’ inexperienced reporter did not properly research was that the other 18 “similar” transactions were actually APCHA resident occupied (RO) units, which never require a lottery. These transactions were in no way similar to Torre’s. 

It was highly unusual for a free market unit with a deed restriction to transact at such a shockingly low sales price considering its increasing net present value given the approaching deed restriction sunset date. The fact that Torre negotiated this unbelievable deal for himself made it a priority sales transaction for APCHA because council had made buying-down expiring deed restrictions its #1 housing priority for 2023 and this one cost them nothing.

It was highly unusual that given the attaiment of such a high profile council goal, the sitting mayor “rescuing” a unit from its impending return to the free market was not shouted from the rooftops as a huge success story for a program that doesn’t have many.

It was highly unusual that when APCHA bought the unit and quickly updated the deed restriction into perpetuity once it had jurisdiction, it did not conduct a lottery at this critical nexus of momentary ownership before it sold the unit to Torre.

It is standard policy when APCHA acquires a unit, unless it is RO, to sell it in a lottery. If APHCA purchases a unit and can legally update its deed restriction, it can also conduct a proper, fair, honest and transparent lottery. Someone at APCHA apparently chose not to.  If this has occurred before, it’s highly unusual and not adherent to policy.

Gillen dug himself a deeper hole claiming this action was because “there was nothing in this old deed restriction that said it had to be purchased in a lottery.” The 1982-era document was written pre-APCHA when there weren’t lotteries! Besides, Torre’s had been a free market unit.  Please dude, stop digging. In the absence of specific language that precludes a lottery, you conduct one!

Torre bringing the deal to APCHA likely saved the city hundreds of thousands of dollars on the unit buydown.  It’s a financial travesty for the seller, but not illegal. Perhaps this savings was grounds for APCHA to discuss allowing Torre to buy the unit. I wouldn't, but someone could probably make a case. But then own it and discuss it publicly. Instead, someone at APCHA made a highly unusual decision, then took steps to keep it quiet.

Way deep in the hole of his own digging, Gillen told a local reporter the highly unusual sales transaction was omitted from APCHA’s monthly sales report because it “had not been updated.” Pressed with proof of recorded sales from the very next day and throughout the fall and December, Gillen, with his shovel, stuck to his story.

There are hundreds of complex deed restrictions out there and it is going to be pricey and difficult to update any of them. The free market unit owners would be foolish to do so. It will not be an easy process. Special exceptions may have to be made. The key is transparency, unfortunately a foreign term at APCHA.

But APCHA has rules for a reason. It simply must live by them if they require everyone else to. Bring these anomalies to the council table, or better yet the APCHA board to give them something to do. Air them in public. But do not cheat, then deny, obfuscate and make absurd justifications after the fact. This only further muddies the already murky waters and suspicions surrounding the corrupt agency that is APCHA.

A sale to the sitting mayor should be the most transparent of all. Can you imagine what else APCHA is hiding?

The lady doth protest too much, me thinks. 

*** Now forward this to 10 friends, neighbors and your HOA,and tell them to subscribe today!

ISSUE #266: APCHA's Under-the-Radar Sale to Mayor Torre (12/31/23)

                                                "He wasn't sorry when you didn't know. 

                                                     Think about that and remember it."

                             -- Anonymous

Well, 2023 wrapped up with a doozy. Following a lead I received last summer, I unraveled this "story" through some good old fashioned detective work, research and open records requests to unveil a sneaky deal that netted Mayor Torre a condo in Aspen for life.

In case you were tiring of housing-related generalizations (no less factual, but without names), this one, if nothing else, puts a name and a face on the corruption and mismanagement of our subsidized housing program.

I apologize for the delay in getting this out to you. It's been a whirlwind.

Read it here... (I am intentionally NOT linking to the actual column in The Aspen Times today. The censors at the paper reacted impetuously to the city's pushback about the column and heavily edited my piece after it ran, making it flat, untrue and frankly lame.) Here is the piece - as submitted:

Hundreds of local deed restricted housing units that were established long ago exist within the APCHA portfolio. Due to archaic policies from the earliest days of subsidized housing, each is a complex puzzle, and many stand to revert to the free market in coming years.

APCHA recently implemented a policy that updates these deed restrictions into perpetuity when affected units change ownership. It’s a small but important effort to preserve our housing inventory.

But what happens when APCHA, operating as a department of the city, bends the rules, sets a fellow bureaucrat up for life and takes steps to keep it secret?  Ask Mayor Torre. 

Last summer, on August 17, Mayor Torre purchased a 419 sf studio apartment in the Tom Thumb Building at 400 E. Hyman Avenue for $106,363. Prior to August 17, Torre had rented this Category 2 unit for 19 years. 

One of three residential units in the downtown mixed-use building that was built in 1982, unit A301 was privately owned but bound by a deed restriction to house an “employee” of “moderate income” there.  This early deed restriction pre-dates APCHA, yet today’s housing authority oversees its resident tenant qualifications.

In the case of unit A301, August 17 was a busy day with three related transactions recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk: an affidavit cleared the title to an individual owner who transferred it to APCHA and APCHA transferred it to Torre. 

APCHA had the sales listing and is in the chain of title: seller to APCHA then APCHA to Torre, but strangely, on the settlement documents the sale is just between the seller and Torre. Even the title company said regarding the sale, “It’s a weird one.” 

A public records request revealed the great lengths APCHA went to in facilitating this unusual transaction: formally involved when convenient so as to exempt Torre from paying the RETT (ironically the tax that funds subsidized housing) and uninvolved so as to avoid its own rules. Only the appraiser inquired, “Was this sold through a lottery process?” 

No, it wasn’t. When APCHA acquires a property either by purchase or in the chain of title, it is then sold to a qualified buyer via an often very competitive housing lottery. I recently asked the APCHA board and staff if there was ever a reason that APCHA would not conduct a lottery when selling a unit. I was reminded that Resident Occupied (RO) category sales are not conducted by lottery, but there are no other exceptions. Yet A301 was sold directly to Torre.

This sketchy transaction was also omitted from APCHA’s Sales Activity Report, an online summary of annual transactions updated monthly, which notably lists other APCHA sales that occurred between August 14 and August 25. 

With residential property values in the downtown core currently far exceeding $2500/sf, the value of A301 even with the deed restriction was rapidly increasing because the original deed restriction was set to sunset on June 29, 2032, less than nine years from now. At that time, the unit would have reverted to the free market and would likely have been worth over a million dollars. Yet the seller received just $106,363, exactly what Torre paid for it. 

The one bit of good news is that the deed restriction for A301 was extended in perpetuity so Mayor Torre won’t get rich. But this only begs a bigger question. What motivated the seller, his longtime landlord?

It’s actually quite sad. The seller is infirm and her daughter is liquidating assets. “I have been so emotional… I am watching everything go and it’s tough,” she wrote to the title company amid the heartbreaking process. The complex transaction tested APCHA as well. “I would definitely not have brought things to this point if I had known,” wrote an APCHA representative. But despite paperwork that “doesn’t look real official,” the shady deal eventually got done. 

At no time, however, does it appear that anyone involved informed the seller’s daughter of the gold mine she was sitting on. Apparently the end justified the means. According to APCHA’s deputy director Cindy Christensen, “We are getting an updated deed restriction and it will now be an ownership unit.” The rules enforcer herself signed the deed transferring the title of A301 from APCHA to Torre. Rest assured, however. “In the future, it will be lotteried through APCHA,” the housing authority claims.

For those who dream of winning an APCHA lottery one day, those who believe Torre is the housing advocate he claims to be, or those who quietly and desperately play the subsidized housing game by the rules, you’ve just been had.

It’s an insiders game with special rules for special people and a corrupt system that enables them. This under-the-radar sale of a housing unit to the sitting mayor without a proper lottery and an exemption from the RETT was squirrelly at best.

APCHA can justify this however it wants. It just looks really, really bad.

I am happy to share all related documentation of this brazen abuse of power and discretion.  Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net