ISSUE #279: Bridge Wars - Two Petitions and A Lot of Bad Info (11/20/24)

"Sometimes you have to, as I say, build bridges where you can - but draw lines where you must."

-- Fred Thompson

With a municipal election merely 15 weeks away, local tempers are flaring over how to address the aging Castle Creek Bridge since our current council can’t seem to get out of its own way, or ours. In August, Torre, John and Ward killed a motion to rebuild  the aging  Castle Creek Bridge before we contemplate building a new bridge elsewhere.     (Rather than fixing the one bridge we can’t live without - and actually improving traffic in the bargain - Torre took us down the rabbit hole to chase his fantasy of the long debunked “split shot.”  This, despite comments from over 200 citizens and businesses urging council to Fix the Damn Bridge.  Where we could have gotten a fast track on a new Castle Creek Bridge, now we face a 5-10+ year white board process that no one thinks the old bridge will survive. It’s a disaster.) We currently have the Friends of Castle Creek, whose efforts I fully endorse and have highlighted HERE. Their  ballot question would ensure that Aspen voters have a strong voice in decisions to sell or change the use of our cherished parks and open spaces.  Not just Marolt—but all of them.  Currently, the City can jettison any park or open space with just 50% + 1 voter who show up at the polls.    Even in Aspen, turnout for big city elections is typically 45% meaning less than a quarter of Aspen’s registered voters can decide the fate of high value parks and open space.   The “Friends” hope to amend the Home Rule Charter to require a 60% +1 “super majority” vote.  With the typical turnout, that’s still less than a third of registered voters, but an improvement nonetheless.   The idea is to keep our parks and recreation spaces from being radically repurposed by a narrow majority that represents a sliver of all locals.  The Friends’ petition applies to all parks and open space but top of mind for most locals is the protection it adds to the potential desecration of the Marolt Open Space by a supersized straight shot—now 130’ and six lanes of asphalt.  (More on that behemoth, below.) If you have not yet signed and want to, please contact sue.atkinson@comcast.net or 970-948-6798 before Friday.  And now we have another petition to add a second ballot question in March - spear-headed by divisive class warrior Rachel Richards, that will give CDOT, by fiat, full control to build whatever it wants, unchecked, across the Marolt Open Space. In effect, it’s an anti-democratic blank check for CDOT to ignore everything already on the books, roll in the bulldozers and build what it desires.   DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION. Here are some important design alternatives and notes on what Rachel proposes.  See renderings at the bottom. THE STRAIGHT SHOT:  In 1996, Aspen voters passed a ballot measure allowing Hwy 82 to be realigned across Marolt  with 4 conditions, each of which would be over-ridden with Rachel’s plan: ·      A 2-lane parkway across the Marolt Open Space plus light rail. Rachel’s folly is a 130’ wide 6-lane freeway that features 2 dedicated bus lanes, 2 general traffic lanes and 2 twenty foot shoulders. Note the same 2 general traffic lanes as what we have today providing zero improvement to traffic congestion. ·      A 400’ cut-and-cover tunnel across the open space, preserving the Marolt meadow. With Rachel’s plan, CDOT can build whatever it wants, with or without a tunnel. ·      Protection of historic assets (the 2.5 acre historic district including Holden-Marolt Museum and the Marolt Open Space). Rachel removes this condition in her blank check to CDOT.  Move over community garden, Nordic trails and paraglider landing zone!  ·      A second public vote when the costs and design are known. Rachel wants CDOT to have full control to do whatever it wants, with no local voice in a new EIS design process. *In the absence of light rail, the 1996 Straight Shot is off the table. There is no rendering. THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE:   Following the 1996 vote, multiple affected jurisdictions signed on to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1998 memorializing the Straight Shot, but adding “temporary bus lanes” at CDOT’s request.  The catch is, Aspen voters did not approve the bus lanes bait and switch (the word “bus” appears nowhere in the 1996 ballot question).  Today, the “Preferred Alternative” has morphed further to include a cornucopia of additions such as a 130’ asphalt roadway and a giant “land bridge” arch over Marolt in place of the “cut and cover” tunnel - all to create some bogus wildlife corridor that redirects animals away from an imaginary migration route over to the golf course. Worst of all, Cemetery Lane will only be able to turn LEFT, come eastward into town and head west at a new 7th Street stoplight. And the West End gets pummeled with still more “Sneakers” that back up the neighborhood for hours every weekday afternoon.  (The PA is a moving target that gets worse with each iteration.) See today’s version of the Preferred Alternative that contains numerous elements not approved by Aspen voters below. THE SPLIT SHOT:  With this design, the Marolt Open Space becomes a highway median with 2 inbound lanes over Marolt crossing a new bridge connecting with Main Street, and 2 outbound lanes on the existing Hwy 82 corridor. Notably, Cemetery Lane will only be able to turn RIGHT, going out to the roundabout before they can come back into town.  The two inbound lanes consist of one general traffic and one exclusive bus lane - again no improvement to the two general traffic lanes we have now.  And a pitiful few seconds of time savings for RFTA riders (that is IF they don’t get a redlight at the new 7th street signal).   Same on the outbound two lanes - one general traffic and one bus lane: no added traffic capacity. See Torre’s fantasy below. And the version that Rachel emphatically conflates with other versions in her published lies. The Split Shot most certainly affects Cemetery Lane traffic and was piublicly debunked as a failure by Jacobs Engineering on 8/5/31. THE 3-LANE SHIFTED BRIDGE: A 3-lane shifted bridge in the exact location of the existing Castle Creek Bridge is the ONLY way to increase traffic capacity and speed cars out of town in the afternoon.  It’s the only plan that gives the West End some relief from The Sneak.  By building one lane at a time, we  can keep two lanes open during all phases of construction.  NO detours and “minimal traffic impact,”  according to Jacobs Engineering on 7/31/24.  This option does not require any open space and would be constructed in the existing right of way.  No public vote is required. Rachel is desperately trying to take the power from the people. Does it get any more un-democratic? There are several other notable considerations when thinking about any new bridge configuration that necessitates access across Marolt: ·      There WILL be a new stoplight at 7th and Main, backing up traffic on Main Street and sending more cars into the West End. ·      This stoplight is clearly not a fix for “idling traffic” concerns. ·      The bus lanes MAY save seconds, but only if they hit the new light right. ·      The Castle Creek Bridge will have to be replaced IN ANY CASE to accommodate Cemetery Lane traffic. ·      The City will forever be responsible for maintaining the Castle Creek Bridge. ·      The City no longer claims “the straight shot” or “preferred alternative” will be a traffic solution. Now it’s an “infrastructure solution” without a traffic fix. ·      CDOT will never approve more cars entering town. Their goal is and always has been to push people onto RFTA.  And where would more cars go once they make it into town? ·      There is a long local voting history on the topic.  Read it HERE.  What is Rachel thinking? If you know Rachel, you know exactly why she refuses contemporary solutions and new technologies, preferring a 20th century asphalt road in a modern era of innovation to solve a 21stcentury problem:  RACHEL. SIMPLY. HATES. RICH. PEOPLE. It’s class warfare, pure and simple. Rachel’s biggest nightmare is a RFTA bus idling behind a construction vehicle, her metaphor for “the rich” slowing down “the people.”  Never mind that the Straight Shot /Preferred Alternative dump on the West End, Cemetery Lane and the vibrant neighborhood of locals at the West end of Main Street (including more than 40 APCHA units).   It flips off Marolt lovers, history buffs, community gardeners and on and on, misappropriating the crown jewel of Aspen’s parks system.  The greatest good for the greatest number of people?  Not Rachel’s goal.  A traffic solution to help commuters?  Nope. The report was written in 1998 and Rachel’s hell-bent on seeing it built before she dies. Despite her collaboration with respected long-time locals who we all wonder what they are thinking, Rachel’s CDOT petition is undemocratic and propaganda-filled, and portends a frightening legal quagmire that will only further slow the process.  She and the others circulating this undemocratic petition can believe whatever they want, but when they send emails and publish letters to the editor with known falsehoods, this is LYING.  DO NOT SIGN THE PETITION.

ISSUE #278: Aspen Voters, Sign This Petition (10/29/24)

"The activist is not the man who says 

the river is dirty. The activist is the man who 

cleans up the river."

-- Ross Perot

FIrst off, have you dropped off your November 5 ballot yet? Please do this ASAP. And if you need ballot advice, see my picks HERE.

Now, keep in mind that we have an Aspen municipal election on March 4, merely 18 weeks away! We'll be electing a new mayor (at last - Torre is term-limited), a new councilman (thank goodness Ward is term-limited) and possibly a second new councilman should John Doyle (wisely) decide not to run for re-election. There will be much more to come as these races shape up! You can bet I will have strong opinions!! 

In the meantime, there is a citizens petition effort underway that pertains to city council's abject failure to replace the failing Castle Creek Bridge and protect our open spaces.

In short, despite the bridge needing replacement REGARDLESS of what ends up happening with a straight-shot, split shot or any other iteration, today nothing is set to happen in the near term unless you count the real possibility of the bridge being downgraded by CDOT so as to set weight requirements for its continued usage. (Or it could simply fail.)

Friends of Castle Creek is a group of dedicated locals who have created a petition that stands to let city of Aspen voters decide whether to increase the level of support necessary to sell or change the use of our parks and open spaces. 

Read about it HERE and sign up for their newsletter!

Today, the city can sell or change these uses with 50% + 1 vote. A March ballot measure will seek to amend the city's Home Rule Charter to require a "super majority" of 60% + 1 vote, more in line with our community values. 

Parks and open space are vital to Aspen and our small town character. This potential change will NOT affect the city's ability to build recreation-related amenities nor how the parks are managed. It would just keep them from being radically repurposed by a narrow majority.

Let's protect our parks and open spaces while the Castle Creek Bridge replacement debate continues. A new approval threshold for the potential desecration of the Marolt Open Space is vital to the process.

Want to sign the petition? Call, text or email Sue Atkinson at 970-948-6798 sue.atkinson@comcast.net She will coordinate a time to collect your signature. IF YOU ARE A CITY OF ASPEN VOTER, please sign the petition today!

It’s time to set aside the debate about the 1998 straight-shot plan and focus on the most pressing problem facing Aspen in 2024: rebuilding Castle Creek Bridge as soon as possible.

• With or without the straight shot, there is no getting around Castle Creek Bridge. The bridge is essential to Aspen traffic flows whether  or not the straight shot ever wins voter approval, secures state-funding, survives multiple lawsuits and is ultimately built.

• Aspen simply cannot wait eight to 15 years for that process to play out while our singular access point into and out of town is at increasing risk of failure. 

• The U.S. Highway 50 bridge over Blue Mesa Reservoir is a cautionary tale. Blue Mesa Bridge was rated “fair” until just a few months ago when a 3-inch crack appeared in a steel support beam, shutting down the bridge in both directions and cutting off the town of Gunnison from the west. Car traffic from Montrose is detoured for months on a temporary gravel road, with trucks rerouted an additional six to eight hours via I-70.

• Blue Mesa Bridge was built in 1962-63, while Castle Creek Bridge was built in 1961. City engineers have been sending up flares about our bridge for years. We should believe them. 

• A March 2024 report by Jacobs Engineering, hired by the city to examine Castle Creek Bridge, rates the bridge “fair” and concludes in no uncertain terms that it must be replaced or repaired, and soon.

• Jacobs’ “three-lane-shifted” bridge replacement option is a no-brainer. It rebuilds the bridge within the current right-of-way with a third lane that keeps two lanes open at all phases of construction. Jacobs concludes there would be no significant traffic disruptions while the bridge is being rebuilt. 

• We applaud the mayor and the Aspen City Council for hiring Jacobs and confirming the feasibility of replacing the bridge. Keeping two lanes open during construction is the main advantage of the three-lane-shifted concept, but when construction is complete, we will have a three-lane bridge with 50% additional capacity to speed traffic out of town in the afternoon. A three-lane bridge is the only plan on the table that gives the West End any relief from the unbearable congestion they suffer every weekday afternoon.

• A legal opinion presented recently to Mayor Torre, commissioned by the nonprofit Friends of Marolt Park, concludes that replacing the bridge in the current right-of-way qualifies for a categorical exclusion from a lengthy NEPA review process. Sidestepping a costly Environmental Impact Study allows engineering design and grant requests to begin in time for the next federal grant cycle in March 2025. The Jacobs’ plan has a near-term price tag of just $84 million, a fraction of the burgeoning cost of the supersized straight shot that will only rise in the years before construction could begin.

• The three-lane-shifted option would be a boon to the Castle Creek — actually removing the giant concrete pier that now disrupts creek flows. And it keeps intact Marolt Open Space — Aspen’s cherished in-town meadow, community garden, Holden-Marolt Historic Site and scenic front yard. 

• The legal opinion also confirms that the 1998 Record of Decision does not have to be reopened to replace the existing bridge. That leaves the straight shot on the table for the future if all the stars align with a public vote, highway funding and a new EIS process. We give up nothing by acting now to rebuild the 1961 bridge and head off the risks of a bridge failure. 

• City staff repeatedly says that the straight shot is “an infrastructure solution, not a traffic solution.” Despite its six-lane asphalt girth, the straight shot offers no significant traffic improvement, and will likely make traffic worse for a number of reasons. A new stoplight at 7th and Main would become a new pinch point to rival the S-curves. Closing Highway 82 between Cemetery Lane and the roundabout would cut off downvalley access to and from Cemetery Lane and funnel all that traffic into town. 

• But we must kick the can on the straight-shot debate and focus on first things first: replacing Castle Creek Bridge and proactively addressing the possibility of a sudden bridge failure that would cripple our town.

FAQ & A PATH FORWARD FOR THE CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE

ISSUE #277: Your Local Ballot (10/15/24)

"Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls."

-- Nanette L. Avery

Your November 5 ballot should be arriving momentarily. In addition to the federal races, there are numerous issues of great importance locally. Turn your ballot in early! (Ballot questions? www.Pitkinvotes.com) Here is how I'm voting:

PITKIN COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES

Pitkin County Issue 1A – NO

This new county-wide property tax would “be used for affordable and attainable housing purposes,” estimated to bring in $8.5 million/year for the next 25 years. This dedicated revenue stream COULD be used for building senior and transitional housing, supporting partnerships, buying down free market properties and preserving and restoring current subsidized housing, however, actual use of this revenue is undetermined and unspecified. Weren’t your property taxes high enough this year? And has Pitkin County conveniently forgotten its role in APCHA – the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority? Or is it starting its own program to distance itself from APCHA since this failed one is completely managed by the city? This measure merely creates a revenue stream for the county to throw at unproven housing solutions with no goals, metrics and most notably, no finish line. It’s preposterous. Vote NO.

Pitkin County Issue 1B – YES

This bond measure seeks to raise $22 million to expand the Pitkin County landfill. The landfill is expected to exceed its boundaries in the next 5 years. This is not a new tax.

Pitkin County Question 1C – YES

This amendment to the home rule charter reaffirms the Board of County Commissioner’s existing authority to approve and implement a plan for the Pitkin County Airport that meets federal and local legal requirements. We elected the county commissioners to make such decisions on our behalf. They are having to pose this question because of a citizen’s petition Question 200 below.

Pitkin County Question 200 – NO

This amendment would strip the powers of the Board of County Commissioners to expand or relocate any runway at the Pitkin County Airport unless approved by a public vote. To risk losing federal funding for the airport is a foolhardy and anti-tourist “stick it to the man” attempt to bring back Aspen’s quiet years, dramatically risking the future of our airport and jeopardizing our economy. 

Aspen Issue 2A - NO

Aspen’s 1% Real Estate Transfer Tax is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2040 but this seeks to extend it for 20 years until December 31, 2060.  This extension is to collateralize a revenue stream for the city to use to develop the Lumberyard.  I am no fan of The Lumberyard, but professional development is the ONLY way this project should progress, if it must be built. Until a partnership is finalized, I find this RETT extension to be premature, not to mention vague, and it gives the city too much leeway to still finance and build the project itself which would be a disaster waiting to happen. 

** AND in late-breaking news, at last night's work session on the 2025 budget, the cost estimate for Phase 0 of The Lumberyard (horizontal infrastructure) was raised from $14.2 million to $45 million!!!! DO NOT AUTHORIZE THESE FOOLS TO HAVE ANY MORE FINANCIAL LEVERAGE TO THROW HALF A BILLION DOLLARS + AT THE LUMBERYARD!!

Aspen Issue 2B - NO

Aspen’s 0.45% sales tax for affordable housing and day care is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2040 but this seeks to extend it for 20 years until December 31, 2060.  This extension is to collateralize a revenue stream for the city to use to develop the Lumberyard.  I am no fan of The Lumberyard, but professional development is the ONLY way this project should progress, if it must be built. Until a partnership is finalized, I find this RETT extension to be premature, not to mention vague, and it gives the city too much leeway to still finance and build the project itself which would be a disaster waiting to happen.

** See above 2A

Aspen Issue 2C – YES

Aspen is one of the only remaining municipalities in Colorado that collects sales vs. use taxes on vehicle sales. This is a housekeeping measure that reduces the vehicle sales tax in line with the rest of the state.

PITKIN COUNTY OFFICES

Pitkin County Commissioner – District 3       Greg Poschman

Pitkin County Commissioner – District 4       Jeffrey Woodruff

Pitkin County Commissioner – District 5       Toni Kronberg

I am supporting Toni Kronberg in the only competitive seat for BOCC. Toni has been a tireless local activist with deep knowledge of local issues (land use, environment, recreation, transportation, transit and highway safety, housing and the Aspen Airport), having met many of these head on.  

Her wise objection to the new property tax for housing (1A) reflects her stance on subsidized housing development that preserves the county’s rural character vs a blank check for vague ideas and potential “partnerships.”

Toni is focused on the Highway 82 corridor as Priority #1.  She has established herself as an advocate of novel and innovative solutions, as opposed to piecemeal, quick fixes that have long proven to be anything but. We desperately need new vision!

You’re already aware of Toni’s work on the community’s behalf. She has thanklessly brought the following issues to Referendum votes – no small feat:

·      Save Galena Plaza Open Space

·      Aspen and Snowmass Rec Centers

·      Aspen Visitors Center

·      Aspen Recycling Center

·      Aspen’s City Hall

·      Burlingame Housing

In contrast, her opponent Francie Jacober vociferously supports the new property tax for housing,  despite there being no plan associated with it. Francie acknowledges that wages and housing costs are completely out of whack, rental housing is unattainable and the valley commute is bad for quality of life. But when even the schools found the current environment unripe for a property tax hike given our recent tax bills, Francis admits the specific plans for the tax are still TBD but wants to raise them anyway. 

Furthermore, as a member of the APCHA board, Francie has done absolutely nothing to advance transparency at the housing authority, and consistently agrees with city staff not to audit the program to determine what it is we actually need.

Let’s put a do-er on the BOCC. Toni Kronberg.

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

Amendment G – YES

This homestead exemption would expand the existing property tax exemption for veterans with disabilities to include vets with individual unemployability status, estimated to affect 3400 veterans.

Amendment H – YES

This would establish a new way to handle judges accused of wrongdoing, independent of the state supreme court through an independent judicial discipline board made up of judges, attorneys and members of the public.

Amendment I – YES

This housekeeping measure addresses an unintended consequence of Colorado’s 2020 repeal of the death penalty. Currently only capital offenses can be denied bail so this would make first degree murder suspects ineligible for bail as long as prosecutors can show they have a strong enough case.

Amendment J – YES

Another housekeeping measure. The Colorado constitution still contains obsolete language that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, even though the US Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage in 2015.

Amendment K – NO

This would move up the deadlines for citizen initiatives to file petition signatures, judge’s declarations of intent to run and ballot measures, in order to give clerks more time to finalize ballots.

Amendment 79 - NO

This would protect access to legal abortion, lift a ban on public funding allowing the state to cover more abortions under Medicaid, and enable state and local governments to add abortion coverage to their insurance plans.

Amendment 80 – YES

This would establish the right to school choice.

Proposition JJ – NO

This allows the state to keep and spend all tax revenue from sports betting, approved in 2019. The original revenue estimates ($29 million/year) are now expected to be much higher, but under TABOR, voters must approve the state keeping the excess which would go toward water conservation and protection projects.

Proposition KK – NO

This is a 6.5% excise tax on gun and ammunition sales that would generate $39 million annually to fund behavioral health support, school safety, gun violence prevention and services for domestic violence and other violent crimes.

Proposition 127 – YES

This would end hunting season for mountain lions and bobcats, and bars the state from ever allowing lynx (a Colorado endangered species) hunting. It still provides for federal employees to conduct population management efforts and ranchers to prevent livestock depredation (with state permission).

Proposition 128 – YES

This would require people who are convicted of murder, sexual assault, aggravated robbery and serious cases of assault, kidnapping, arson and burglary to serve at least 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole or early release.  This is an increase from the current law that allows inmates to apply for discretionary parole after serving 75% of their sentence or even sooner if they’ve earned time off for good behavior.  Plus, there would be no chance of early release if convicted of such offenses 3+ times.

Proposition 129 – YES

This would create a new mid-level position between vet tech (2 years associate degree) and veterinarian (8+ years) called vet professional associate (masters degree). VPAs would work under a licensed veterinarian to address a shortage of veterinary care.

Proposition 130 – YES

This would require the state government to set aside $350 million in a dedicated fund for law enforcement that would pay a new, million dollar death benefit to the survivors of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty and for funding grants to boost hiring and retention. The funds would come from the existing budget, not new taxes.

Proposition 131 – NO

This would overhaul the state election system by creating both a jungle primary (all qualified contenders are on the same ballot and the top 4 vote getters advance, regardless of party affiliation) and institutes ranked choice voting, also known as instant run-off voting (IRV), affecting elections for all state offices, board of education, University of Colorado regents, US Senators and Representatives and state legislators.

Representative to US Congress - District 3 - Jeff Hurd

Despite former Aspen city councilman Adam Frisch's massive fundraising advantage, Grand Junction attorney Jeff Hurd is a mainstream "chamber of commerce Republican" who has focused his campaign in our largely rural district on energy policy. Frisch, who narrowly lost in 2022 to polarizing MAGA figure Lauren Boebert, no longer has that foil, while Hurd vows to fight to secure the border, unleash western Colorado's energy production and fight back against Washington's failed economic policies.

ISSUE #276: "More Housing" - The Flawed Argument Writes Itself (7/15/24)

"The government solution to a problem is usually 

as bad as the problem."

-- Milton Friedman

The “more housing” drumbeat continues, and it’s only getting louder. We’re moving toward starting construction of The Lumberyard, so get your “I told ya so’s” ready.  Staff recently warned that its Phase 0 budget for “horizontal development” is already outdated and too low, although they don’t say how much they think it will cost now.  For some unknown reason, the project’s budget estimates and (more importantly) funding details are being kept tightly under wraps. City Manager Sara Ott seems to prefer the “start building and we’ll figure out how to pay for it later” method. Do you? I didn’t think so.

We’re literally about to spend nearly $1 BILLION to build 277 subsidized housing units. We haven’t determined who they’re for or what need they’ll specifically address.  The LY is outside the roundabout and requires a new stoplight on Highway 82, precisely at the chokepoint of the untenable Entrance to Aspen. It will not even put a dent in what has been deemed in Aspen popular culture as “our housing crisis.”  Neither will $2 million cobbled together from regional governments for a mere regional 6-12 buy-downs. 

Here’s why:

Aspen (and the area) is a highly desirable place to live.  Who wouldn’t want to live here? We have unfortunately (yet arguably intentionally) lost our focus on providing housing for workers who do the community’s and resort’s essential jobs, and instead endeavor to “build community” by housing anyone and everyone who merely wants to live here affordably and is willing to play the game to get in. This has exacerbated the perception of a housing crisis when it’s really as simple as the fact that we’ve ceased prioritizing housing the workers who matter. By subsidizing non-essential workers, it’s no longer just the visitors and second homeowners who place increasing demands on the actual already-burdened workforce who are increasingly driven further and further out of town. Do we really owe housing to everyone? The demand is infinite. We must prioritize which jobs get housing, even if this hurts people’s feelings.

Aspen’s workforce has changed.  In the 1970s-1980s “ski bum” era, workers held multiple seasonal resort-related jobs and often inhabited free market rentals of varying quality. Sure, there were professionals here, but these were more the exception than the rule. And anecdotally, many folks didn’t plan for the future, yet alone contemplate it. Contrast that with today’s workers who see the housing system entirely differently. It’s all about the future. Today in Aspen, you can be an upwardly mobile professional who makes six figures and that’s BEFORE you get an even better paying local job or a remote one that you do from your living room in Aspen. (This allowed loophole is an unguarded opportunity for lottery winners at the expense of essential community and resort workers.) The key is getting into (ownership) subsidized housing and then you’re set for life. (You can even buy a vineyard in France or a house in St. Barth’s – it’s allowed too.)

Pitkin County now wants its own housing fund. Their nascent plan is to place a property tax measure on the November ballot that will raise about $8.5 million annually for regional housing partnerships, buy-downs, homelessness support and capital reserves support for HOAs (read: bailouts).  In an environment where home values have increased 70% and assessed values are up 54%, Pitkin County residents should just say no. Loudly. The county already has a housing program. It’s called APCHA. Just because APCHA operates as a city department, the county can’t just wash its hands of the APCHA mess and levy new property taxes to foolishly go it alone. Commissioner Patti Clapper says lots of small businesses would love to partner to buy units even outside the county. How about allowing local businesses to play the APCHA lottery? At least we’d know the units would be used by local workers!

We have an enormous housing program and no idea what jobs we’re housing.  City council refuses to demand an audit of APCHA. They don’t want to know the facts because these would surely destroy their singular focus on “more.” As a result, we know we have 3102 units (1733 ownership/1369 rental) in the APCHA portfolio, but we have no idea where these residents work. Wouldn’t it make sense to find out which jobs we’re housing and which we’re not? It doesn’t take much to make an intelligent assumption that the local jobs we can’t fill are at the lower end of the wage scale. If these jobs truly need to be filled, we should obviously prioritize housing the necessary workers. Instead, we’re just building “more” housing without regard for who will live there. 

Our housing portfolio is a maintenance time bomb.  And a storm is brewing. No one can compel the various APCHA HOAs to collect reserve funds and maintain their buildings since they are independent LLCs. Most do the bare minimum, if that. One can only guess the state of the HOA insurance coverages in the current insurance environment! APCHA, which serves as buyer and seller agent in every transaction, even taking momentary ownership in the chain of title as well as collecting a 2% fee, says that unit maintenance is the owner’s responsibility. But given the high demand for units, sellers are getting the maximum sales price as a matter of course while also collecting appreciation (3% annually or CPI, whichever is less) for units in dubious condition. This appreciation was originally designed to reimburse sellers for maintenance and upgrades over time. Not anymore. It’s take the money and run, and some units are barely habitable. Some are worse than that. And it finally happened: a subsidized Hunter Creek unit came available recently but the bank demanded 25% down because of its poor condition. Look for more of this to come. 

What bank in their right mind would write a mortgage for Centennial? And how soon until entire complexes are condemned?

And buyer beware. The city just triumphed in the Burlingame 2 HOA’s construction defect lawsuit at the Colorado Supreme Court. When the city is developer they officially have governmental immunity, so homeowners have no recourse with the city for their proven shoddy construction, however egregious.

The regional housing buy-down program is a joke. Well intended, the non-profit Western Mountain Regional Housing Coalition (WMRHC) is seeking $2 million from regional governments to fund the buy-down of 6-12 homes for people employed between Aspen and PARACHUTE. In exchange for a subsidy, new owners will place deed restrictions on their properties. With a mission to “increase the availability and accessibility of affordable community housing,” they’ve completely missed the mark.  The local housing goal should not be to try to make a couple of housing units in the valley affordable. It should be to house the workforce we need, which is entirely different. Alas, Pitkin County has already committed $1 million and the city is looking at a $450,000 grant, despite no discussion of how WMRHC will manage their portfolio. Will buyers have to maintain their units, or will they come back needing further subsidies for upkeep or to fix the neglect of previous owners?  And what about compliance? What’s to stop these homeowners from exiting the local workforce once they too are set for life? Sounds like APCHA 2.0 to me.

Pitkin County currently has 17,407 jobs.  So APCHA’s 3102 lottery winners and renters, if they all are working (and we know they’re not), represent just 18% of the local workforce.  This number is ostensibly why so many believe we need “more” housing. But this does not include employer-owned units (think: hospital, schools, etc.) so the percentage is actually a lot higher, and growing. Yet with infinite demand, we are never going to be able to deliver subsidized housing in such quantities that the complaining will stop. Everyone wants to be set for life like the lottery winners! A far better use of our resources would be to spend it on the other 82% by increasing unit utilization and improving the efficacy and efficiency of commuter transit options.

We have succeeded in building ski country’s largest subsidized housing program. And it’s become an abject lesson in what not to do.  We’ve also socially engineered a middle class in Aspen at the expense of the essential workers the community and resort rely on to operate. Whether it’s $450,000, $2 million or $1 billion, whatever we spend on “more housing” without first determining which jobs we are currently housing and which we need to, the result will simply be “more” of the same. Or worse.

As we approach build-out in the upper valley, the ridiculous scramble to bend zoning rules and chase every shiny new idea is just avoiding properly examining the utilization of what we already have. Local politicos love consultant reports like the debunked regional housing study because building “more” is politically popular. But neither the city, the county or the WMRHC give a flip about the “carrying capacity” of our existing inventory. THIS is what we ought to be optimizing. “More” is limitless. It’s become the lazy answer that fuels these uncoordinated efforts at the margins to eek out a few units here and there.

 The actual solution is right under our nose: optimize what we already have and accept that Aspen and most of the upper valley is never going to be affordable for everyone who wants to live here. And for those already in the system, living (subsidized) requires sacrifice, and should not come with the promise or expectation of upward mobility or the flawed notion of wealth creation through subsidized real estate.

ISSUE #275: Is Subsidized Housing the New Aspen Idea? (6/21/24)

"One of the epidemics in our industry is 

the abuse of power."

-- Nancy Dubuc

Is there anywhere where “more” subsidized housing in Aspen is not appropriate?  Apparently not. With the recent proposal to add subsidized housing at the historic Red Butte Cemetery after failed attempts to do so in 2008 and 2014, we have crossed into truly disturbing territory. (See below to take CRITICAL action on the First Reading of an Ordinance - p. 58 - that will enable such development at TUESDAY's council meeting.) First it was in low-density neighborhoods, but now as we contemplate desecrating our parks and sacrosanct burial grounds, it’s time to ask ourselves whether every “green field” of town is fair game. “More” is limitless. But is “more” actually what’s best for the community?  At the rate we’re going – cramming subsidized housing into every possible nook and cranny in order to “solve” a problem we refuse to define and quantify, we are actually making things worse. Think about our community values as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. “We have a long-standing history and ethic of growth management” to “preserve open space and rural character,” acknowledging since the 1970s that “the time is fast approaching where we will be at the maximum in economy, physical space and quality of life.” Consider for a moment a 80’ x 60’ footprint. This could fit well within the dead-space tragedy known as Galena Plaza, adjacent to the Taj Mahal city hall atop the parking garage. This is coincidentally the footprint of the 84-story, 1400’ tall, 572,000 sf Steinway Tower in NYC. Imagine a tower of that size: enough space to house all 3 phases of Burlingame AND The Lumberyard. Why wouldn’t we break ALL the rules, and break them just once?  And then never talk about “more” housing again. I’m kidding. Kinda. Just think of the great views for the beleaguered masses who WANT to live in Aspen affordably in the very best location. No parking would be needed and there’d be just one HOA to manage. Best of all? No sprawl and no infill of neighborhoods, parks and cemeteries. Maybe THEN the community might stop its perpetual whining about a constant and ongoing need for “more” housing. LOL. I digress.  But recently reading about the lengths local employers are willing (forced?) to go in order to house their own employees, it’s quite remarkable. The Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival & School and Aspen Center for Physics are soon to submit a land use application for proprietary housing on the Aspen Meadows campus, intended for full and part-time staff, interns, students, musicians and visiting physicists. The little historic Victorian at 205 W. Main was (sadly) approved for conversion into 8000 sf of nine 2- and 3-bedroom units (22 total bedrooms) on the 7500 sf lot where the residing ~44 souls employed by the nearby Mollie hotel will fight over not only living space but the 7 on-site parking spaces. We’re clearly now more than willing to compromise our strict design standards to cram in “more” housing just about anywhere.  Then there are the hospital and the school districts, both well on their ways to self-reliance on their own housing inventory. Hospital workers and teachers, hmmmm. Good for them.  And good for us.  So who exactly is living in APCHA housing then?  Oh, that’s right. The elephant. As in “the elephant in the room.”  In other words, we don’t know. We don’t know because we deliberately choose not to. It’s willful ignorance of the highest order; a decision in bad faith to avoid being actually informed about something for fear of the facts that might reveal some surprises and require some unpopular decisions. Aspen’s old guard (the Mick Ireland/Rachel Richards cabal) has always ranted against housing that is tied to employment for fear of becoming “a company town,” yet in the same breath they demand employers pay their own way by providing housing for their own workers. So which is it? Who then exactly is APCHA for?  Beware of the answer because it’s certainly not workers.  We know we’re not housing “essential” hospital and school workers, which completely undermines and renders obsolete the whole point of what we’ve been told APCHA is supposed to be providing for the community! The new term is “community housing.” Think: retirees and others who WANT to live affordably in Aspen! Workers be damned. Meanwhile, Pitkin County is looking to partner with Basalt to build more subsidized housing. The municipality has land but not the necessary funding. The county has money but no land. It’s not yet a match made in heaven, but consider: priority will likely be given to Basalt workers. Fine, but why then is any kind of “priority” for APCHA housing shamed as being “anti-community-housing”?  Why is the APCHA portfolio beyond any reasonable oversight, direction or control?  The entire regional housing debate has dramatically morphed into a progressive “building community through housing ownership” diktat, ignoring the harsh economic realities of the exceedingly high cost of real estate and living here. Housing security (which has become synonymous with “ownership”) is now a local social justice goal.  Apparently you can't be part of a community anymore if you rent! The Carbondale chapter of Habitat for Humanity strives to build homes for $305/sf and sell them for $200/sf, targeting these units for “teachers, nurses and other essential workers,” according to Aspen Journalism. Where have we heard THAT before?  H4H also boldly cites a “2019 housing study” that cites a 5700 unit housing shortfall between Aspen and Parachute by 2027. B***S***.  There’s no question that the region (Aspen to Parachute) generates more DEMAND for housing than it has, but is demand the same thing as need? Not in my book. (The region is awesome – who wouldn’t WANT to live here? That is not economic demand, that’s desire.) I have debunked the 2019 Regional Housing Study numerous times, including by actually reading it and then by calling the principal of EPS, the consultancy that wrote the report to inquire about the methodology employed to generate the ESTIMATES that are widely circulated (see above) as scientific fact by local subsidized housing zealots. I was told in no uncertain terms that “there was no methodology,” just educated guesses, and as luck would have it, the low-level staffer who generated this work product is no longer with the firm. This same report is the source of the widely reiterated current “housing shortfall” estimate of 4000 units for Aspen-Snowmass. These numbers are clumsy, liberal and non-scientific. (LMK if you'd like to see it and I'll email it to you.) Furthermore, without a truly scientific “census” of what we currently have and how it’s utilized, there is no basis upon which to base ANY measurement of current or future “need.” Do not be fooled. I am sick of the scare tactics and false reporting. You should be too, especially when the City of Aspen is seriously contemplating a ballot measure for this November that would extend the 1% real estate transfer tax (RETT) for housing until 2060 in order to issue bonds for the estimated $500 million+ construction of The Lumberyard. (As it stands, the current RETT does not sunset until 2040, and the collection balance through May 2024 is just over $10 million.) It seems mighty premature to extend this tax without far more housing-specific due diligence!! Specifically, why isn’t there more and louder outcry about the utilization of our existing APCHA inventory? Housing at any cost has somehow become widely accepted. It makes me sick, but it continues. If that no longer scares you, housing ANYWHERE really ought to. Former county commissioner and current Open Space and Trails board member Michael Kinsley (one of the proud fathers of APCHA) shared his admittedly heretical view that half of Aspen’s municipal golf course and a portion of the Marolt Open Space are ideal for “more” subsidized housing. His radical solutions espouse deliberately ignoring “governmental, jurisdictional boundaries to solve regional problems.” Predictably, he too all but contradicts himself when he admits that Aspen proper is no longer suitable – despite its original intent – for integrating its diverse social strata, implying that some workers prefer to live outside of Aspen for various reasons. Therefore, he sees the glaring need for a viable way for working people to get to work in Aspen. I can get onboard with that. And then there’s the June 2024 Northwest Council of Governments (NWCOG) regional economic update report which outlines the Q4 2023 jobs and wage data for the six counties: Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit. It’s interesting info if you have the stomach for it. Thanks to the willing assistance of a fabulous data-mining expert co-conspirator, here are the highlights, which really ought to inform local decisions. (Wouldn’t that be something?!) ** See table below - my tech inabilities prevent me from inserting it here!! ·      Look at the ratio of Total Employment to Total Labor Force in Pitkin County relative to the other counties. We have FAR fewer people in our labor force relative to total jobs, which means we inherently have to import more workers than most counties. ·      Look at the ratio of Housing Units to Total Employment. We’re one of the few counties with fewer housing units than jobs, which means we inherently have to import more workers than most counties. ·      Notably, Pitkin County is fortunate NOT to show up among the counties with the highest population growth. ·      And, we’re more than fortunate to have the highest wages for resort jobs, which make up 38% of our economy. Notably: ·      If we try to build our way out of our worker housing shortage (increase the labor force by increasing subsidized/deed restricted housing), then we would certainly show up with high population growth, a result that creates its own challenges and negative impacts to our quality of life. ·      Better utilization of the existing housing inventory we already have is the obvious low-hanging fruit. ·      To echo Michael Kinsley, a shift in focus toward wholesale improvement of transportation for commuting workers to Pitkin County would dramatically improve our ability to fill the jobs that we cannot mathematically fill with our existing labor force. Food for thought. And data to back it up. But it’s nothing new: it simply doesn’t make sense to exert all of our bonding authority and put these and other tax revenues into the proposed Lumberyard basket when this most certainly won’t move the needle under the current APCHA mismanagement and poor inventory allocation. Any potential funding is far better being spent on transportation improvements for the actual workers who commute to service our local economy. And one last consideration for the Bolsheviks who still see government-subsidized housing as the panacea, the answer to being able to live where one grew up and something that one should be able to pass on to one’s kids. Take a look at Vienna, the fastest growing capital in Europe where the city builds 6000-7000 new units of subsidized housing a year to keep up with rising demand. (Population has increased 25% since 1989. That’s serious growth!) Vienna supports its housing program with a 1% tax on ALL salaries, creating a permanent funding mechanism that originated at the end of the first world war. Notably, social welfare systems like this require very high taxation in general, and in Vienna, everyone pays the 1% income tax specifically for housing. If people want to live in a small government apartment for life and even leave it to their kids, great, but they pay for the privilege on an ongoing basis with income taxes. While a wise person might wish to amass wealth privately, away from the grasping hand of government, Vienna’s system does offer a unique option. Never mind that it more closely resembles social welfare than actual workforce housing. Could this be the direction we’re headed? I know, I know, it’s been a minute. Don’t despair. I have several future issues in the works! EM Re: Housing at Red Butte Cemetery: What part of "cemetery" does the City of Aspen not understand in terms of appropriateness for subsidized housing? I don't care if it's one unit or 100, a cemetery is a sacred space for the burial of the dead. This ill-conceived idea has been considered and denied before, and resulted in the proper zoning of Red Butte Cemetery as a "Park," granting it protection from development on par with Wagner, Paepcke and all of our other city "Parks." Housing at the cemetery is a perverse use of this sacred land. Please write council TODAY to voice your strong objections. This is insane.

ISSUE #274: APCHA's Property Tax Hustle (5/21/24)

"To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury."

-- Benjamin Tucker

Amid the furor over dramatically increased property valuations and taxes for 2023, it was brought to my attention that a simple search of the Pitkin County (PitCo) Assessor’s website by local political apparatchik of one’s choosing demonstrates notable DECREASES in their (deed restricted housing) property tax bills for the same period. Here’s a subset of the sample that was shared with me: 1.             City manager Sara Ott owns a Water Place home. 2022 actual value was $249,000, and that decreased 22% to $194,000 for 2023. Her taxes for 2022 were $634.60, and that decreased 38% to $391.40 for 2023. 2.             Aspen community development director Ben Anderson owns a 550 Employee Housing Fund Condominium. 2022 actual value was $196,800 and that decreased 28% to $141,800 for 2023. His taxes for 2022 were $501.52, and these decreased 43% to $286.00 for 2023. 3.             APCHA assistant director Cindy Christensen owns a Juan Street unit. 2022 actual value was $320,800 and that decreased 10% to 288,800 for 2023. Her taxes for 2022 were $817.56, and these decreased 29% to $582.56 for 2023. 4.             APCHA board member and ACRA exec Alycin Bektesh owns a Benedict Commons unit. 2022 actual value was $171,500, and that decreased 27% to $125,900 for 2023. Her taxes for 2022 were $437.00, and these decreased 42% to $254.12 for 2023. 5.             Former mayor and county commissioner Rachel Richards owns a Hunter Creek unit. 2022 actual valuation was $187,800 and that decreased 26% to $139,200 for 2023. Her taxes for 2022 were $478.44, and these decreased 41% to $280.88 for 2023. 6.             Former mayor and county commissioner Mick Ireland owns a Common Ground unit. 2022 actual valuation was $152,400 and that decreased 27% to $111,100 for 2023. His taxes for 2022 were $194.12, and these decreased 42% to $112.00 for 2023. It turns out that the Colorado legislature passed SB 23B-1 in November that reduced residential assessment rates for 2023 from 6.765% to 6.7%, and exempted Colorado homeowners from the first $55K of their home’s value for taxation. Still, with APCHA’s numbers all over the board, it’s diffficult to determine how the 2023 valuations were determined.   When queried about this unusual scenario, APCHA pointed to “appreciation” (3% or CPI, whichever is less, annually) for what created the differentials, until another example was presented that does not appear to have taken appreciation into account. In short, it’s simply impossible to verify APCHA’s math: “(County commissioner) Kelly McNicholas-Kury owns a Burlingame II unit. Its 2022 actual valuation was $254,000 and that decreased 14% to $217,600 for 2023.  She bought this unit on 8/23/2021 for $266,619, so this unit has lost about 20% of its value since closing. Her taxes for 2022 were $647.08, and these decreased 32% to $438.96 for 2023. Where is the appreciation?” Same with Sara Ott’s above. To the knowledge of The Red Ant, this inquiry was never addressed.  This entire curious revelation illustrates a legally problematic reality and systemic deficiency for how the county allocates the local property tax burden. For assessment purposes, free market property valuation is determined by what a new owner would pay in the current market, in other words, “the market approach.” APCHA and other deed restricted properties, on the other hand, are valued based on an owner’s basis in his/her unit – what they originally paid for it. Using this methodology, since deed restricted properties infrequently change hands, in addition to the original public subsidy, the property taxes on deed restricted properties are further subsidized forever, even as property taxes on free market properties soar.  This ongoing shift of the local property tax burden from the deed restricted sector to the free market sector is not only unfair, it is also illegal. It’s important to understand just how PitCo’s deed restricted properties are actually valued today. It’s simply mind-boggling. While the county assessor is required by law to value all real properties every two years (CRS 39-5-101), for deed restricted accounts, her office is merely “given” property valuations by third parties: Snowmass Village, Basalt, City of Aspen, APCHA and Habitat for Humanity!  And no, the assessor’s office does not verify any of this info; it just takes the submitted data and uploads it into the system.  This current system for deed restricted properties relies on a “savings account” approach to valuation where each individual deed restricted property has its own accrued valuation account that reflects its individual cost basis and appreciation over the period of ownership. The complexities of this approach are surely where many errors originate as the examples above show how the methodology is unevenly applied. Plus, this approach is inconsistent with the law (CRS 39-1-103.5) which states, “The actual valuation of residential property shall be determined solely by consideration of the market approach to appraisal.” The market approach reflects what a willing buyer would pay. And in APCHA’s case, such prices are set. It’s very straightforward and there would be zero additional burden to the assessor’s office to use these figures. The assessor cites APCHA’s position that its Intergovernmental Agency (IGA) status gives it the authority to value deed restricted properties, but in reviewing this IGA as well as Colorado law (CRS 29-1-204.5) that enables housing authorities, there is NOTHING that takes statutory valuation authority away from the duly elected county assessor and gives it to APCHA! (Furthermore, how can it be legal to delegate such responsibility to a non-governmental entity such as Habitat for Humanity?) A fellow co-conspirator obtained the property valuation data submitted by APCHA for the current billing cycle and dug in, discovering many, many errors, including errors of omission. The APCHA data showed 1654 units when the assessor’s website cites 2132 units, a difference of 478. (Once this was brought to the attention of the assessor, most were identified but there are still some units that are accounted for.) According to an email exchange shared with The Red Ant, the assistant county attorney defends Pitco’s practice, despite its clear illegalities, despite refuting APCHA’s assertion of authority that it doesn’t have, stating that the system has been used “for many years,” as if that makes it okay. He also says accepting third party data is purely at the assessor’s discretion. The assessor, Deb Bamesberger, on the other hand, feels that her hands are tied – a clear reflection of the power APCHA wields not only over those in its program, but also over various city and county departments. It’s time to sort this out. Deed restricted property valuations are NOT being conducted by the elected PitCo assessor as required by law! It is entirely unfair for the assessor to have to accept third-party work product and use it to determine property tax billings. She currently has to sign off of these assessments and represent to voters that she did her job, despite not verifying any of the information she has been given. Just say no! Pitco assessor Deb Bamesberger, stand up for yourself and for the voters who elected you! Do not let APCHA bully you and dictate anything pertaining to property values!  As you might imagine, the state requires an audit of property valuations, however, the assessor clarifies that the state only reviews select free market accounts. There is zero quality control because the deed restricted data is not audited by anyone. So it’s true, there are indeed two systems for property valuation: one for the free market and another for deed restricted properties. Are you actually surprised? Today with PitCo deed restricted property valuations, we are effectively operating within a “garbage in, garbage out” structure, where the system is only as good as the data received from third parties. It’s time to make some fundamental changes that are far simpler than one might imagine. And legal!  To begin with, the assessor needs to assert herself. If the county attorney says the current system is in place at her discretion, well then, demand a change. Refuse to accept third party data. And c’mon BOCC, how about standing up for your fellow elected official in the name of following the law and demonstrating transparency to your constituents! Next, change the methodology and adhere to the law. The market approach to property valuation is the only acceptable and legal method of property valuation. Period. Two identical 2-bedroom units at Burlingame 2 of the same category under a market approach would have identical valuations based on the current set price for these units. But the savings account approach would yield different valuations that reflect the individual owners’ purchase price and accrued appreciation. This is wrong on too many levels to list, and serves to artificially keep property tax bills low (and often decreasing) while shifting more and more of the tax burden onto the free market. It’s time to put APCHA on notice that its rogue ways must end. The chronic lack of transparency and toxic “it’s always been done this way” mentality only further serve to discredit the corrupt entity, not that its reputation could get much worse! And I’m talking to you, city manager Sara Ott. Making APCHA into a city department and managing the APCHA executive director as a direct report is proving to be a fatally failed model that will be the housing program’s undoing. On a positive note, Assessor Deb Bamesberger is no APCHA apologist. She was elected to her position in 2018 and re-elected in 2022. Keep in mind that she defeated Mick Ireland (62% - 38%), whose potential reign of terror and the havoc he would have created in this role cannot be understated. It’s imperative that we support Deb as she too uncovers and addresses more “it’s always been done this way” BS in her own office and works to make the necessary improvements. In this case, there are 18 months before the next property valuations are due. Again, it’s an easy fix and it’s incumbent on all of us to encourage and support Deb in her efforts to clean up this mess. Encourage her via email HERE(assessormail@pitkincounty.com). One more related thing for Deb to clean up regarding APCHA over-stepping its authority: amid the revelatory “Torre-and-APCHA-cheated-to-give-him-housing” saga, I learned that the assessor’s office only records the sale price of APHCA transactions, not the purchase price. For example, since APCHA takes momentary ownership in the chain of title when units trade, the price APCHA pays the seller is always left blank in official records, yet the buyer’s purchase price is listed. When I asked why, guess what I was told? Yep. “It’s always been done this way.”   What is APCHA hiding? I can imagine that, with simple annual appreciation of 3% or CPI – whichever is less, it’s entirely possible that APCHA is buying units for one price and then re-selling them at the unit set price which could actually be less. This “gap” is not currently visible to the public due to the lack of full and proper disclosure, making it impossible to know how APCHA is hiding or manipulating its finances, and might just be yet another public subsidy we were not previously aware of.  Clean this up! In the name of transparency, the assessor must cease accepting incomplete property transaction data from APCHA immediately and transition to a cleaner, simpler and more transparent “market approach” to deed restricted property valuation that is easily accessed and verified.

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