ISSUE # 10 ... CIVIL COMMOTION, CONDO-STYLE

Ants Un-Nerved The Red Ant regrets that her instincts (and facts) were right on proposed Ordinance #22 - next Monday night's big discussion at City Council that will update a long-standing land use code section concerning the combination, redevelopment and demolition of "multi-family unit dwellings" (condos, townhouses, etc.) and tighten the exemptions that owners have liberally enjoyed for years. You may click through to send a message to Council to voice your concern before the Monday meeting,  (Click through to email message) , or read the following for the details and click the message link near the end of the letter.  (You may edit the letter to share your personal views.) It seems that the City is pressing for unprecedented control of what they see as the destruction of POTENTIAL housing for local workers, regardless of whether or not it's YOUR free-market owned unit. Community Development Director Chris Bendon read The Red Ant Issue #9 (link here) and told us that he "saw nothing off base" in our interpretation. Consider these realistic examples if the formerly loosely-interpreted list of exemptions is formalized into law, and now enforced: -Identical units in the same building can have wildly different market values depending on who has lived in each unit in the past. (If a locally employed person --even a well paid executive-- ever lived there, those units would be poisoned, and trigger the "mitigation" rule, others would not.) -The due diligence process for a condo buyer will be nearly impossible. Imagine having to prove whether or not a local worker (never mind this "local worker" is undefined) EVER lived in a specific unit! -Lenders, as if they are not nervous enough already in the current market, will be ESPECIALLY wary of this due diligence process and valuation issue. -And realtors, how do you plan to disclose the ramifications of Ordinance #22 to your condo and townhome buyers and sellers? Will contractual materials mandate a lifetime history (rental and ownership) that indicates whether or not residents were "local workers?" -This regulation likely will have the perverse result of causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements.

Civil Commotion as a Commodity?

The list of exemptions to Ordinance #22 graciously exempts from the punitive measure "non-willful demolition" due to flood, fire or other natural catastrophe. Then there's the curious exemption due to "civil commotion." Civilcommotion? (We're serious.) Of course there's no definition, but apparently if this is the cause of demolition," well, then, exemption is granted. Yippee!! There goes the neighborhood! We can see it now. Invitations to the Tupperware parties of tomorrow, a.k.a "A Condo Commotion Posse for-hire." Invite 'em over and they'll show up with their blow-torches and tire irons, have a few beers, and next thing you know, your condo is demolished, and, what a coincidence, so is the one next door. Oh no! OH YES! A "Condo Civil Commotion" just occurred! And now you get to re-build your condo and the one you own next door, as one, thankfully without having to build four bedrooms of affordable housing next to the HOA's swimming pool or in your 2-car garage. " But officer, I swear, I just invited a few buddies over for beers. Yep, they were a little hacked at City Council telling them how many ounces they could drink, and it started a little commotion." The Gant Ants' House Party!

Yes, There ARE Options

Thankfully, there are several "Options" open for discussion on Ordinance 22. City Council requested that Staff develop additional options for consideration. The Red Ant encourages you to re-read Issue #9 and the proposed Ordinance 22, which includes these options in Exhibit A (click here to read). We feel strongly that there is only one choice: Option 8. The elimination of the program in its entirety. The Red Ant is an ardent supporter of affordable housing in Aspen, however, this highly questionable land use code section within Ordinance #22 is not the answer. Many experts we have talked with even question its legality.

The Ant has made it easy to make your voice heard.

To send your recommendation for Option 8 to the Mayor and City Council members, CLICK HERE . You will be asked for your name, local address, and an email will automatically be sent to each of them expressing your view. You may edit or make additions to the email text. Experts Agree Our mailbox was full with all of your feedback and advice on our questions about Ordinance 22. A local real estate attorney states: "The ordinance will create uncertainty in the marketplace. In this shaky economic environment buyers need assurance that their investment is safe. But this ordinance will force buyers to consider whether the future value is going to be appropriated by the local government. And every realtor in town will have to disclose this ordinance to potential buyers." And local realtor Charley Podolak adds: "One of the many unintended consequences of this ordinance is that many buildings fall into total disrepair. If owners must replace 100% of the units on site with affordable housing first, they will likely utilize all of the allotted FAR, density and height before they can build any free-market units to pay for the development."

Be There! Council Needs To See Your Concern

The Red Ant will be at Monday's City Council meeting to promote Option 8. But this measure needs a large chorus of voices to make an impact on Council. Please join us in Council Chambers to speak to this issue. The meeting starts at 5 p.m. However, this item is well into the meeting agenda. http://aspenpitkin.com/uploads/sept22.pdf.htm Public comment will take place when the agenda item is discussed. Your email AND your presence is important to make a difference. If passed, the measure will become law in 30 days.

Comments

[Aspen Land Planner]

Ordinance 22 does not propose anything new at all with respect to the 50% and 100% replacement options --- these have been on the books for several years now. I am not saying anyone’s opinions on this are incorrect, invalid, or even partially wrong, but my only problem (and it’s a big problem) with Ordinance 22 is the reinstated of language to the definition of “demolition” as this language is potentially devastating for many property owners and is fully unnecessary in light of the new (in the last few years) language already included in the multi-family replacement provisions, namely, the language that states there shall be no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development. With this provision having been added a few years back, there is simply no reason to bring back the definition language that says, “Demolition shall also include…any action which penetrates demising walls or floors between Multi-Family Housing units, independent of whether or not such action is undertaken to combine or rebuild the units or for any other purpose.”

Putting this language back into the Code while any net loss in density is already prohibited simply makes it nearly impossible to renovate, remodel or expand any existing multi-family housing unit beyond anything more than simple cosmetic upgrades. Heck, some would argue this language would require 50% or 100% mitigation options being triggered by any plumbing work that involves getting inside of walls, or even placing a nail in a wall to hang a picture as either of these actions would involve the penetration of a demising wall or floor particularly in light of the “independent of …” language.