ISSUE #88: Sick fANTasies

"It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

-- Murray Rothbard

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING JIHAD

In the dark of night, your city council and the professional city hall bureaucrats have set in motion a land grab not unlike Ordinance 30 of 2008 when they tried (unsuccessfully) to force historical designation upon private property owners. This time, however, it's worse. Far worse. With two sneaky maneuvers to further expand the subsidized housing inventory and diminish (destroy?) all development in the city and county, APCHA (the housing authority) and our city leaders have put forth some draconian new subsidized housing mitigation requirements that reach far beyond anything even contemplated in the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). (The AACP stipulates that our community must maintain a "critical mass" of working residents in local subsidized housing.  What it doesn't do is define that number.) Once again, the city forces the rest of us to adhere to the stipulations of the AACP while doing what they please above and beyond what it states. The new ordinances are onerous, unfair and probably illegal. They are certainly unethical and immoral. But that's never stopped these guys before.

Recall that the city requires the redevelopment ("scrape and replace") of single-family and duplex properties as well as any new development to provide subsidized housing mitigation. Mitigation options include providing an off-site unit, providing an Affordable Housing (AH) certificate, or building an "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU) on the property, separate from the main house, that may only be rented to a local worker.

The first ordinance (#34 of 2012) changes the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) mitigation option from building one unit on site (and potentially leaving it unrented) to a REQUIREMENT that owners BUILD AND SELL the on-site ADU to qualified employees for approximately $150,000. This is worse than eminent domain; it borders on a "taking" because it requires the owner to sell a portion of his private property for governmental purposes in order to personally build on it.

The second ordinance, prepared by APCHA, proposes raising the current cash-in-lieu payment for subsidized housing mitigation to $708/sf, a nearly 10-fold increase. (For example, mitigation for a 900 sf expansion would cost the owner/developer over $630K! This amount is likely far more than the construction cost of adding the 900 sf!) This PREPOSTEROUS amount is based on a new-fangled "market affordability gap" methodology that measures the difference between what a free market unit costs in Aspen and what a Category 3 APCHA qualified resident can afford! Each year, the amount per sf would be adjusted by any (presumably upward) change in the cost of free market housing.

City staff has recently acknowledged that this is quite excessive and proposes initially using a 30% multiplier on the cash-in-lieu figure (or $212/sf) which is almost THREE TIMES HIGHER than what it is today ($76/sf). But regardless of the starting point, it's just a matter of time before the cost rises to $708/sf! This, of course, shows a complete lack of understanding of economic principles; how does charging the owner of a home a fee equal to the "affordability gap" close this "affordability gap"? It doesn't! It DOUBLES the affordability gap! This purely punitive action that artificially increases real estate costs is designed to line the city's coffers and ensure that the majority of locals will NEVER have the opportunity to own housing in the free market.

(Note:  This ordinance has NOTHING to do with housing a "critical mass" of workers per the AACP. Rather, it has EVERYTHING to do with penalizing everyone in the free market.  This ridiculous system has NEVER been discussed in our community!  If council and APCHA's goals are to prevent any new free market residential in the core -- they've already done that.  If their goals are to prevent it in the entire city and likely the county, well, here we go.  Next we'll see citizens' PROPERTY TAXES raised to a level that bridges the "affordability gap" between the value of their home and what the city deems affordable for a local employee.  It's not mitigation -- it's class warfare!)

Remember, "mitigation" kicks in whenever you build something new or expand your floor area ratio (FAR). So, who does this affect? A lot of people. Do you own property that has expansion potential? This definitely affects you if you ever plan to expand. This also affects the buyer to whom you will sell someday, negatively affecting your sale if said buyer is interested in expanding. And if you own vacant land in the city or county, bummer. This will clobber you. (Yes, while the city is voting on this in 2 weeks, the county is not far behind - APCHA is a city/county organization.)

The Bolsheviks on council just approved these ordinances on first reading (second reading and final vote is in two weeks -- on January 28). This will be your ONLY opportunity to speak out in opposition!

These guys are bad, really bad. If you have floor area ratio (FAR) for expansion or a vacant lot, I strongly urge you to share this information with everyone you know and get yourself to the city council meeting on January 28. Please speak out against this punitive idea before it's too late.

NEWS: BURLINGAME BREAKING BAD

The Red Ant has learned that Phase I of the Burlingame subsidized housing project, just 5 years old, is already falling into terrible disrepair. According to my sources, it's so bad out there that the homeowner's association (HOA) has recently filed suit against the city, APCHA, Shaw Construction and Certainteed, the siding manufacturer, through a Denver-based construction defect law firm. (Shaw has subsequently filed a third-party complaint against five additional subcontractors.) Once all of the parties are in the case, the matter will be set for trial and discovery will begin. It's gonna get ugly, folks. It seems that there are THOUSANDS of cracks in the subsidized housing project's siding, on every building. All parties (city staff of all levels included) have viewed the problems, and the bids for removing all the siding, fascia and soffits, and replacing it, range from $3 million to $7 million. (Guess that fancy "green" construction wasn't so good after all....)

Notably, city hall has not shared this lawsuit with council or the public. I asked a councilman about the suit and all he had been told was that Shaw was suing its subs over the matter. Good old city attorney Jim True/False is being none too forthcoming with the truth.... once again!

The problems are so bad that those who are looking to sell are likely trapped. They can't. Mortgage companies for potential qualified buyers are threatening to refuse financing the purchase of existing units at Burlingame due to the shoddy construction and issues with the siding. To date, the city has left the HOA high and dry; it sold the units to local workers and then left them. Now the workers can't sell.

Why are you reading this in The Red Ant and not in the papers? Who knows. But I suspect that the city's desperate desire to finagle $17 million out of council to begin to build and sell units in Phase 2 of Burlingame has something to do with it!

I will elaborate on this issue and the lawsuit in a future issue (and yes, I have photos), but in the meantime, do let your employees and others know about this problem. The city is trying to keep it under wraps. Buyer beware. Pass it on.

CHANGING THE RULES TO BOOST SALES OF UNITS AT B'GAME 2

Despite the lack of demand for additional subsidized housing (and the problems above), the city plows forward with the construction of Burlingame Phase 2. On tap for 2013 are 48 new subsidized housing units and 6 "resident occupied" (RO) 1600 s.f. 3-bedroom homes. The RO category of housing is traditionally restricted to qualified APCHA applicants who are required to work in Aspen/Pitkin County for 1500 hours a year and do not own other property in the valley. Most deed restrictions on RO properties cap the assets of the owners at $900K. In earlier discussions to prop up the market for RO re-sales, council lifted the requirement that RO owners live in the County for 4 years before buying*. Even so, in this market, RO units languish on the market for months and months, sometimes years. (*This 4-year residency requirement is actually a "preference" foisted on applicants by APCHA as a "guideline" that most likely violates the Federal Fair Housing Law as it applies a tenure requirement to government subsidized housing applications. But I digress....)

The RO units at Burlingame are expected to cost $1 million each. Yes, you are reading that right. $1 million for a deed restricted piece of the dream! (Who in their right mind and in this economy, with $1 million to spend, would purchase deed-restricted housing of any kind? But that's another story.) Unique to the RO category is that these units are not subsidized; they are sold at cost. But let's be honest here; as part of a subsidized housing project, the RO units benefit greatly from the heavily subsidized project infrastructure!

A whopping 3 or 4 people have "expressed interest" in RO units at Burlingame 2 to-date, so council is again relaxing the requirements for purchase. The idea is for the RO units in APCHA inventory to go to families. But to "move" units, it looks like we'll see some new rules in coming weeks. But don't worry, the city says they won't build all 6 RO unit until at least 2 are sold! How's THAT for rationale?!

Additionally, buyers in Phase I were prevented from owning dogs because the property was adjacent to a working ranch and conservation easement zone. Now, to enhance the attractiveness of Phase 2, the city wants to allow dogs for this group. How quickly they forget. (Or break their own rules!) They'll stop at nothing to push these units, never mind we need more subsidized housing like a hole in the head. How about jobs for those ALREADY in subsidized housing who aren't working??

RE-ARRANGING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC

It should come as no surprise that my email box was full and my phone rang off the hook last week upon the Daily News story that Mayor Mick, term-limited out as mayor this May, is considering a run for city council because he fears a different majority could emerge on council in his absence. Imagine that!? Needless to say, citizens are outraged, as they well should be! (This, on the heels of late December's news that all 4 "echoes" on council are thinking of running for mayor!)

His platform? To revive the hydro plant, despite its loss at the polls in November. His rationale? If we don't complete the project, we will "waste a lot of money." Huh? Isn't that what Mick does best? (He also wants to ensure that the USA Pro Challenge bike race continues to come through Aspen, never mind the questionable economic impacts and massive community and government subsidies.) Can you just imagine Aspen's Putin, side-stepping his former role, only to "rule" through a puppet Medvedev (Torre? Skadron? Yikes.) in the mayoral position!?

There are questionable legalities involved; Mick is operating on the opinion of recently-departed, crooked and compromised former city attorney John Worcester who said in 1998 that a council run in this case would be a-ok. Equally compromised city attorney Jim True echoes this opinion in a convoluted interpretation of the state constitution and Aspen's laws. But this is just True's OPINION. It is his job to defend the actions of council, not to counsel them on right and wrong. If Mick wants to run again, True gives him an opinion that it's legal - in effect, daring the citizens to sue the city if they disagree. (An honest legal opinion would conclude that the matter is somewhat unclear and that legally, a 6-year mayor might be term-limited from running for a 4-year council seat.)

The key legal question is whether the role of mayor is considered a role on council, and if so, this would mean that he would be out after a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year terms - and that would be this May. (Council positions are limited to 2 consecutive 4-year terms.) Lo and behold, a quick look at the Aspen City Charter language shows that the mayor is indeed "a member of council." The charter addresses the term of the official, not the term of the office. Additionally, the purpose language of the charter indicates that the term limit is to "broaden," not restrict, "the opportunities for public service." In other words, recycling the same people does not broaden opportunities for public service unless one takes the language to mean "broaden opportunities for public service by the same people." (One COULD argue that as a member of council, the mayor should not be allowed to serve more than 8 consecutive years, on par with councilmen, but since he has already served 6, an additional 4-year council term would exceed this limit.) Mick, you're out. (And True, you're false.)

Furthermore, just imagine the worst case scenario: Mick runs for council and is elected, and then someone challenges the validity of that election. Then the challenge is upheld. What then? Would the votes of council in which Mick's vote was decisive be valid? Would many council decisions be subject to legal action because they occurred illegally? In other words, should the city subject itself to this risk just so one person can indulge his personal agenda? Mick, get a life.

Even the Aspen Times weighed in with an editorial notably titled, "Local government needs new blood." Following a lukewarm (at best) review of the current group, the Times "put out a call for qualified Aspenites to consider throwing their hats into the various rings." They continued, "Fresh faces might disrupt the system of continuity and like-thinking in city hall, but they also can bring about innovative solutions to time-worn problems." Bravo to the Times. Their suggestion that "people with little or no experience in local government, but with the necessary brains and a feel for what's best for the community, consider a stint in local government" is a welcome message. The Red Ant just wants to know when "necessary brains" became a requirement! Don't get me wrong, I like it, especially given what we've got!

My favorite reaction to this news was a letter to the editor from civic leader Ward Hauenstein. Read it in its entirety HERE. In short, "The culture has to change. The era of suppression of expression of divergent views through tactics of belittlement and scorn must end. The era of imagining what the law is and demanding that everyone follow those fictitious laws must end. Laws are made to apply to all. A desperate and pathetic attempt to circumvent term-limit laws should be seen for what it is. If Mick's version of what Aspen should be is shared by so many, there will be others to come forward and legally run for office on a platform upholding those views. There comes a time when people in power need to step aside and let the process proceed. Now is that time for Mick."

Hauenstein went on to present the concept of a charter amendment that would cap consecutive years of service (either as mayor or council) at council on Monday night. Frisch was open to it, noting that "small-town character is about turnover of fresh faces and new ideas," but Torre and Mick vehemently opposed the idea. (Imagine that!) According to the Daily News, Torre, who will likely run for mayor in May when his term on council is up, found the idea "interesting, but wondered why anyone would be in support of preventing the public from having the option to vote for candidates they think represent them well." Swell, another career politician wanna be! And Mick went nuts. Citing state term limit laws that were passed in the 1990s "by a pre-Tea Party movement," Mick complained that "weak office holders" would weaken government. (Presumably, new faces in government are inherently "weak" in the mayor's mind.) "I'm just not buying in to the idea that inexperience is somehow an asset," he added.   Jeez - just look where Mick's "experience" has gotten us!!

And yes, I still do have a number of "Sick of Mick" bumper stickers and a few yard signs. Please let me know if you want one! (It looks like we may need them again!)

EAT IN THE STREET?

Mick's war on cars looks to be fought on yet another front: Hopkins Avenue!   Seems the city has proposed "parklets," tiny and temporary "parks" that can be created by reclaiming downtown parking spaces. They say this will enhance the pedestrian experience. Really? It will certainly frustrate the driving experience! (I suppose that's the idea.) And imagine such a mess on Aspen's restaurant row! Mick, in his effusive glee over the stupid idea, equated the "parklets" to the original experiment that led to the Hyman Ave and Cooper St malls. Kiss more downtown parking goodbye....

HYDRO HIPROCRISY

A recent guest opinion by Glenn Beaton in the Aspen Times stated, "Here in Aspen, we voted whether to spend more (and more) to squeeze electricity out of a streamlet so small that you can wade across without getting your shins wet (or, some days, even the tops of your feet). We voted 'no.' Our vote not to spend more, however, has not stopped city council from planning to do just that. We know the council DID notice our vote because it scolded us for voting wrongly.   If we keep voting this way, then I suppose the council won't let us vote at all." And that about sums up what's going on with the hydro plant.

The city has acknowledged that voters rejected the hydro plant at the polls, but since Mick made sure that the vote was merely "advisory," they CAN (and likely will) ignore this result. As a meaningless nod to the opposition to the hydro plant, the city has asked for "completely baked" ideas that will: generate 5.5 million kw hours/year of average production, have a $3.1 million price tag (the city's estimate of what it will cost to complete the hydro plant), provide a local and direct tie to the distribution grid with no electric transmission services required, offer a 75-year lifespan, and utilize city infrastructure. In other words, according to hydro plant opponent Ken Neubecker, "The invitation is fraught with caveats, limitations and strings attached. The 'criteria' pretty well leads to only one possible conclusion: the Castle Creek Hydro Plant." The timeframe for this assignment? Less than 2 weeks. The conclusion is foregone. Obviously. Watch and see. Council has scheduled a work session on January 22 to discuss and potentially vote on all of this.

And did you know that the city is aggressively pursuing the construction of two dams - one each on Castle and Maroon creeks? Apparently the city's 20-year-old water management plan doesn't comprehensively incorporate the city's current views on the emerging threat of climate change so they will be updating it with a focus on the potential need to build large dams on the local creeks. According to an investigative piece by Aspen Journalism, the 1990-era plan cites conditional decrees for the reservoirs (circa 1971), but nothing was ever approved by council and the plan remains in draft form to this day. The 1990 plan notably suggested a $24 million expenditure on a 155-foot high Castle Creek dam in 2000 and another $15 million expenditure on a 170-foot high Maroon Creek dam in 2005. Thankfully those dates came and went, but council obviously did pursue the plan's suggestion to seek out and determine a location for a hydro plant.

The good news is that the Maroon Creek dam would be located on White River National Forest Service land, and this currently conflicts with forest service regulations regarding wetlands and scenic values. The Castle Creek dam would primarily be on private land, and besides, tests drills on that site in the 1970s found poor soil conditions for a reservoir there. But forewarned is forearmed. The water police are coming!

THE RED ANT IN THE NEWS

When Mick and the 4 echoes listed their greatest accomplishments for 2012 (read it HERE), I couldn't resist. HERE is a letter I wrote to the editor in response.

And, in early December, I sat down with Jerry Bovino on "The Jerry Bovino Show" on GRTV. (Get your popcorn and watch it HERE.) We spent an hour discussing local and national politics. I am pleased to have learned just how many people watch GrassRoots TV! Let's do it again, Jerry!

WASTE WATCH

Imagine, after an infusion of $46.4 million to "revolutionize" the bus-riding experience in the valley (you've seen the new bus stations, replete with faux fireplaces), RFTA ridership is DOWN 4.12% through November.

DID YOU KNOW?

City staff is operating on "assumptions" that as a community, we will need 657 new subsidized housing units for our workforce in the next decade but we only have land to make 377 units a reality. Apparently this is a city hall "consensus." No data, of course. And specifically no information on where all those jobs are going to come from!

THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

Many of you often ask about the status of Marilyn's legal case against the city and the court-mandated reimbursement of her legal expenses, stemming from her 2009 open records lawsuit. As you recall, last June, the state Supreme Court declined to take on the city's appeal so the Court of Appeals' 2011 ruling in Marilyn's favor was upheld. This meant that voted ballots are indeed public records (a new state law), and the city must show the 2009 ballots and reimburse Marilyn. But not so fast. Judge Boyd, whose 2009 summary judgment was overturned by the Court of Appeals, has yet to even act on the Appellate Court's orders. And, recently, Judge Gail Nichols ruled in another ballot-related matter that a recently adopted city ordinance prohibiting ballot review trumps the new state law! Yes, the judge has ruled that municipal governments can take away our state constitutional rights by simply passing an ordinance at the council table. So the saga continues. Only in Aspen. Can't make it up.

ISSUE #87: Here Comes sANTa

"Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it."

-- Richard Lamm

'Twas the start of the season and where was the snow?

Blame it on Council -- such hot air they blow!

But the snow has arrived and not a minute too soon

(For a while there it looked much like it was June!)

Have you been on the mountain? I'll tell you what

The snow is terrific, just don't fall on your butt!

SkiCo, they're at it with all the man-made stuff

Another dump this weekend and we'll have enough (to open for the holidays, that is).

We're turning a corner, '13 is here

An election in May, change is coming, it's near!

Calling good candidates, please make a run

The nightmare is over; dictatorship done.

Just 5 more months 'til we're rid of Mick

But where he'll go next just might make you sick.

I hate to predict where he's likely to work

(Just think about it - who'd hire that jerk?)

City Manager Barwick - he owes Mick a favor

Recall the contract Barwick continues to savor?

You know there's a payback, Mick still wants to fight

Against Marilyn's lawsuit and for the city's hydro plant right.

Watch Barwick hire him and give him a role

He'll get salary, benefits and stay on the dole.

The thought of him staying makes me want to scream

Hopefully this idea is just a bad dream! (A really really bad one!)

We've had quite a year: some bad and some good

Class warfare, big spending, oh if I could --

I'd send them to school, teach them a thing

About balance sheets, spending, and Mick is not king!

The year in review, a chore to recount

But not when buffoonery continues to mount!

I keep a long list as the year ambles on

To sit down and read it is hardly a yawn....

No lodge at 1A, the boys simply blew it

They asked for too much and builders said screw it.

Housing on-site, the boys don't give a hoot

Profitability? Huh? They're not that astute!

No new condos downtown; not free market, no way

They don't like "cold beds" - or that's what they say.

And third floor additions? Those are likely gone too

(But in all likelihood owners will sue.)

We did well at the polls and won some big issues

No concessions from Mick -- he cries in his tissues.

The "machine" took a hit when the hydro plant lost

But the city may continue, ignoring the cost.

In the meantime the city has a custom turbine to sell

They bought it for the hydro plant when no one could tell

That the project was doomed and would never be built

Some city may buy it, maybe somewhere - like Silt.

Library expansion? It went down in flames.

Despite the loud support from popular names.

But schools get to raise taxes on items we buy

For a change this tax hits the regular guy!

Do you care much about the skateboarding park?

Council's spending more money on this cement lark.

When we built it 12 years ago, it wasn't cheap

Doesn't matter to city hall - those pockets are deep!

A bike-sharing program sounds good to begin

But look at the numbers - the costs are sin!

200K plus from private donations

And 200K more from the feds - yes, our nation!

They need 200K more, are they for real?

At 650K it'd be quite a good deal

To buy bikes at Walmart and leave them around

(At that price 4300 free bikes could be found!)

The Open Space Fund has $4 million to spend

Big additions and projects - where does it end?

The group wants to finish paving the Rio Grande Trail

With a $2mil bridge -- please let the plan fail!

The airport expansion, big news - it's approved

A new terminal, big parking; mountains'll be moved.

But nothing starts soon, it's just a place-holder

For projects later on, when we're all a bit older.

And subsidized housing, it's out of control

Fewer jobs but more building - just what is the goal?

APCHA requested audits to see just who could stay

Only one resident responded; what does that say?

We don't know who lives there or if they comply

Am I the only one who wonders just why?

The promised "housing summit" ended with a sigh

More meetings are needed. Really? (Nice try.)

And now they propose "Caribbean Rotations"

(That's what they call it when retirees take vacations!)

They can rent out their places to those who will work

And leave 6 months of each year - that's quite a perk!

But imagine APCHA with so much more to do -

The scofflaws and rule-breakers, they run the zoo.

It's sad when you see what the program's become

Due to actions of leaders; not smart, more like dumb.

Burlingame raises its big ugly head

More units on tap for the project we dread.

Millions more in construction - you know how THAT goes

The costs, don't believe them, think: Pinocchio's nose!

Sales projections aren't great, the numbers are low

Seems those with more money have elsewhere to go!

So the subsidies go up, you and I kick in more

At least this mess isn't downtown in the core!

More money for the Wheeler despite its account

(From transfer tax money: 30 mil at last count)

Hitting up the city for 3 million more

A new balcony's needed - up on the 3^rd floor!

Despite all the nonsense, we all carry on

It's Aspen, my friends (we don't like being gone).

We deal with the BS, we grin and we bear it

This place is a winner! Heck yeah, it's got merit!

Many great things cheer us up through the year

Just a few new ones - I'm delighted to list here:

Popcorn's back at the Wagon, the Creperie (and cold beer)

Try the new Thai place! It's delicious, and near!

And this week brings the best news of all

The Jerome, she reopens, from a remodel (not small).

Our crown jewel is back, in all of her glory

The staff there can't wait to tell you her story!

Please stay in touch, let me know what you think

Say hello on the street, or give me a wink.

The Red Ant's on the case, the fun never ends

Holiday blessings to you, your family and friends.

ISSUE # 86: Will They Be RecalcitrANT?

"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

-- Thomas Jefferson

HYDRO VOTED DOWN, AT LAST

We won. Narrowly, but in politics, it's not about the score. City of Aspen voters said no to the city's incredibly leading and biased question:

"Shall the City of Aspen complete the hydroelectric facility on Castle Creek, subject to local stream health monitoring and applicable governmental regulations, in order to replace coal-fired energy with renewable energy?"

The unofficial tally was 2044 (51.38%) against the project and 1934 (48.62%) for it. Of course, mayor Mick immediately began whining that the election was "bought" by project opponents, rudely insinuating that Aspen voters were unduly influenced by mailers and a large grassroots campaign. Shame on him. Aspen voters rejected the advisory question because they have lost trust in the city, its processes, its management of yet another capital project and its squirrelly misuse of public funds. And that's not to mention the projected environmental impacts of the project that caused such esteemed organizations as the Sierra Club, Western Rivers Institute, American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, the Hydropower Reform Coalition, Aspen Trout Guides and Aspen Flyfishing to publicly stand united in opposition. Frankly, it's amazing to me that so many Aspen voters actually voted for the hydro plant. But don't we just know it: when the "Mick machine" rolls, there are plenty of our friends and neighbors who are still scared to oppose the guy.

Sadly and frighteningly, this was only an "advisory" question (did you really think city council would give the people a binding vote?), and it is now up to council whether or not to abide by the will of the people and shut the project down. Councilman (and rumored mayoral candidate) Steve Skadron came out before the election and stated that he would still consider forging ahead regardless of the outcome of the vote. He told the Aspen Daily News that to abandon the project now because of short-term financial concerns about cost over-runs would be "irrational." Besides, he sees the project as "well-conceived" and "financially sustainable." Sounds like Skadron wants the full power of the Mick machine behind him come election season in May! Good grief.

We all know how Mick, whose legacy the hydro plant (if built) will represent, would vote. And get scared -- here's the third council vote to continue should it come to that: mental giant Derek Johnson wrote to the papers, "This project has had cost over-runs, and this sucks!" But he still advocated for the project. Scary. If it "sucks" so much to squander taxpayer money, why do you continually do it, Derek? (Memo: He is up for re-election in May.)

Thankfully, Torre (another rumored mayoral candidate) has said that he would respect the will of the voters, and it seems that Adam Frisch feels the same, but Frisch recently told The Red Ant that he viewed the advisory question not as an up/down vote on whether to continue building the hydro plant, rather the no vote signaled that the city needed a "cooling off" period before continuing to build. (I told him to go back and re-read the ballot question.) Puh-lease!

So, to summarize, the fight ain't over. Not even close. And likely won't be for some time. We should know in short order whether or not council decides to defy the will of the voters and press on. Beyond that, there is still a lawsuit against the city that challenges the city's water rights for a hydro plant on Castle Creek. And the federal approvals for a hydro plant are several years away.

At press time, both papers report that lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick has kicked the can down the road til at least January before any hydro plant decisions will be made. Whether or not this means that council will vote on what to do next is anyone's guess. In the meantime, apparently the city will be looking at other renewable energy options and their costs. The costs that Barwick refers to are not just limited to the costs of other options; utility rate hikes are likely coming down the pike. Think about it: the "enterprise fund" (read: slush fund) of the water department has been largely depleted by the cost-overruns to-date on the hydro plant. They're gonna have to refill those buckets of money with something to indulge their next goose chase! And should they continue building the hydro plant despite the outcome of the vote, they will certainly need more money to throw at the project to further goose the preposterous financials!  Barwick insists that no money will be spent on the hydro plant in the meantime.  Wait and see...

The Red Ant had some fun during election season and submitted the following letters to the editor: Fifty shades of green (Daily News 10/6/12), God's gift to green grandiosity (Daily News 10/23/12) and Hydro advocates mislead the voters (Aspen Times 10/26/12). Click to read them. I'm happy with the win for now. It feels good to hand Mick and his machine a loss in his last election as mayor, and on a misguided environmental issue no less.

A SALES TAX INCREASE FOR THE SCHOOLS

Don't be surprised when you see the sales tax in Aspen increase to 9.4% come January 1. The regressive tax to raise about $1.75M annually for the schools with a 0.3% sales tax increase passed 53.16% to 46.84%. I didn't vote for it, but am not surprised at the result. The Aspen Education Foundation ran a solid campaign and Aspen voters rarely question tax hikes for our schools. We recently raised our property taxes for the schools (2010) and now our sales tax. I just wonder what awaits in 2014.

On a lighter note, these emotional "it's about the kids" campaigns always manage to bring out the buffoons among us. A pro-sales tax increase letter to the Aspen Times really made me laugh. A mother of two Aspen elementary students who lives (outside of Aspen) in Woody Creek had a fit when she learned that she couldn't vote to raise taxes in Aspen! Really. It is her belief that she should have a say about sales taxes somewhere she doesn't live just because her kids benefit from this largesse. "Every family that has kids in our school district should be allowed to vote toward any decision that concerns them and their families." In other words, anyone who benefits from Aspen's (forced) generosity should get to vote on raising other people's taxes so she and her family can get more. Can't make it up!

LIBRARY TAX SHELVED

The library's request for a $5.4M bond ($10.2M payback) to expand the 1991-era facility and an additional $141K annual tax increase for the operational expenses of the expansion got shellacked. Creamed. 4986 (63.78%) against, 2831 (36.22%) for. We all love the library and it is a tremendous community asset. But all you have to do is go there and take a look around. The computer terminals are full, and as for the rest of the 32,000 square feet - you could shoot a canon through it. Reconfigure, remodel, reinvent. No problem. Especially with $5M endowment already in the bank. That should certainly cover it! I think the electorate (the same one that rarely votes down a property tax increase) recognized that an entity with that kind of cash on hand was overstepping its bounds by asking for significantly more. Furthermore, the reports that the library had already spent $500K on designs and planning made a lot of people sick. This was a good decision. We still have a world class library and it still has a bucket full of cash to make improvements should these actually be necessary.

REMEMBER THE HOUSING SUMMIT?

What a joke. Nothing was determined. Nothing was resolved. In short, the net outcome of the two-day meeting about our beleaguered subsidized housing program was that the governing agencies (the Board of County Commissioners and city council) need to meet more. Yep. More meetings. And the housing authority wants more resources. Apparently the 13 employees on staff can't keep up with all of the authority's business. Pathetic.

But, post-summit, four "housing" tidbits did emerge:

1. Homeless housing at the Marolt Ranch complex has run its course, thank goodness
2. Rental housing is in high demand (told ya so)
3. Council is in the process of DOUBLING the housing fees developers usually pay to provide "cash-in-lieu" for off-site housing for 60% of the employees generated by commercial projects (this could effectively shut down all development in Aspen and result in ZERO cash-in-lieu money). Look for this ordinance in December!*

*What is wrong with this picture? In this economy, why are we punishing developers and job creators, demanding that they build more and more subsidized housing? We have more housing than we have jobs for those who live there! Shouldn't job creators (who ostensibly employ our subsidized housing residents) be rewarded? Or perhaps just left alone?

RESURRECTION OF A LODGE AT 1-A

As the developers of a potential lodge/condo project at the top of Aspen Street negotiate with the city, the true colors and lack of mental bandwidth of our council members shines bright. As much as they REALLY want a lodge up there, the boys just don't get it that a development project needs to make money. Instead, they fight the developers at every turn, restricting height limits yet demanding on-site above-ground subsidized housing, demanding more hotel rooms yet criticizing the need for money-making condominiums. You get the picture.

But my favorite? Genius councilman Derek Johnson, who recused himself from the negotiations because his subsidized housing is nearby, sent his wife to speak out against the project. Apparently, the Johnsons object to the potential loss of on-street parking and don't like it that the hotel's service entrance would be close to their property line. Can there really be subsidized housing NIMBYs? (I think you have your answer.) Can't make it up.

A $48.7M BUDGET FOR RFTA

Yes, you read that right. RFTA has a $48.7M budget for 2013. And no it won't cover their costs. Costs are expected to exceed the budget by $1.2M next year. They do not plan to raise fares. Funds to cover the difference will come from "dipping into two pools of money" according to the RFTA CEO. One "pool" of other people's money comes from the 0.4% sales tax increase approved by voters in 2008. Additionally, RFTA has a $15M general fund balance.

RFTA will also continue with its $46M Bus Rapid Transit ("BRT") expansion, adding $680K in operating expenses to this year's tally. When complete in 2014, BRT will add another $2M to operating expenses. Never mind that RFTA ridership was down 4.1% in 2012 through September. That's 180K fewer riders. As Aspen's economy slowly recovers, the regional transportation authority reports that this hasn't produced an increase in bus ridership. Nope. Through July, daily vehicle trips into and out of Aspen are up 2%. Strange times indeed. Must be nice to have so much taxpayer money to monkey around with!

But lookee -- 22 compressed natural gas-powered buses are on the way, complete with a new fuel procurement policy! It reads, "RFTA expects the gas and oil industry to adhere to industry best practices when exploring for, extracting, and delivering the energy resources upon which RFTA relies and, to the best of its ability, RFTA will attempt to do business with only those that do." Here we go again. The policy continues, "RFTA will consider both price and the policies and practices that suppliers have in place." In other words, green at any cost.  Where does the nonsense end?

DOWNTOWN HEIGHT LIMITS - WIGGLE ROOM?

How quickly they capitulate when they see the error of their ways. It sure didn't take long. Council will soon be deciding whether or not to re-visit their decision to cap downtown development at 2 stories (28 feet). Seems without possibility of a 3^rd story "penthouse" addition, city staff has recognized that there will be more than a few old buildings torn down rather than redeveloped. Funny what happens when the economic engine is taken away! Seems the new ordinance might allow 38-40' high buildings in the core, but council would still have the ultimate discretion to approve. That would certainly be scary, but at least there might be negotiation room.

City planners see the "vitality" and "lights on" plus side to such development, but council is adamant against it, favoring solely subsidized housing. It may get heated. Mayor Mick will not support the construction of ANY free market units downtown, and MIGHT look at height exceptions for a hotel - "I don't mean a time-share, a fractional, a condominium. I mean a hotel." Looking at staff's proposal, Torre echoed the mayor, "On my memo , I've got a bunch of different options. I think I've got a bunch of 'nos' and one 'hell no.'" Skadron noted that penthouse additions to historic buildings "creates exclusivity that is detrimental to small town character." And subsidized housing projects don't? No surprise that Derek Johnson still doesn't think he has enough information, never mind he recently voted to reduce the height limit to 28 feet. (Council obviously still doesn't understand that subsidized housing is not an economic driver of redevelopment, and without one, redevelopment simply won't happen.)

A MAYORAL MELTDOWN

As expected, mayor Mick lost his cool during Monday night's council meeting. He simply cannot and will not acknowledge that the vote on the hydro plant didn't go his way. And please don't expect him to concede! In a typical tirade, the mayor proclaimed, "When you write letters to the editor and you call this council "despicable," and you call me "hate-filled," I will defend to the death your right to do so. You can call us, under the United States Constitution, any name you want short of a death threat, and you have that constitutional right, and I would fight to uphold that. I will not, of course, remain your friend. That's just the way it is." Puh-lease! He has simply lost it. (The campaign for the hydro plant AND his mind!)

LOOKING FORWARD

6 months until we elect a new mayor!

ISSUE # 85: SignificANT Endorsements

"Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong."

                                 -- Richard Armour

Yes, it's election time again. (Isn't it always around here?!) The following are some important voting tips, regardless of your party affiliation or preferred ideology.  Save this issue and use it as a resource as you prepare to vote, by mail-in ballot or at the polls!!

 Remember, election fraud is REAL, and as a community, we will never forget the city of Aspen's gross mismanagement of the 2009 municipal election. You can never be too careful. But, this November's general election is being coordinated by the Pitkin County Clerk, Janice Vos Caudill, and her election manager, Dwight Shellman. In other words, your vote will be both secret and anonymous! How refreshing!

• Confirm your voter registration and precinct HERE
• Use black or blue ink on your ballot
• DO NOT vote by mail-in ballot. Whenever possible, go to your precinct polling place and vote in person, on a paper ballot if given the option. Mail-in ballots always cause a disproportionate number of problems. The farther these ballots travel and the longer they wait around to be counted, the higher the chance of mischief or accident.
• Re Judges: see below. It is VERY important not to leave these "retention" questions blank!

VOTE EARLY

Early voting begins on October 22 in the County Clerk's office. From M-F, October 22-26 and 29-November 2, you can early vote between 8:30a - 4:30p. There is no early voting on Monday, November 5. The County Clerk's office is located at 530 E. Main Street, in the square building just to the east of the Court House. For more information on the November 6 election, visit www.PitkinVotes.org

THE POLLS

The polls are open 7a - 7p on Election Day, Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Bring your photo ID.

PRECINCTS

• Precinct 1    Rio Grande Meeting Room (455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen)
• Precinct 2    Red Brick Center for the Arts (110 E. Hallam St, Aspen)
• Precinct 3    Rio Grande Meeting Room (455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen)
• Precinct 4    Red Brick Center for the Arts (110 E. Hallam St, Aspen)
• Precinct 5    Shultz Health & Human Services Building (0405 Castle Creek Road)
• Precinct 6    Snowmass Village Town Hall (130 Kearns Road)
• Precinct 7    CMC - Airport Business Center Campus (225 Sage Way)
• Precinct 8    Old Snowmass Fire Station (1909 Snowmass Creek Road)
• Precinct 9    St Peter's Episcopal Church (0200 Elk Run Drive, Basalt)
• Precinct 10  The Church at Redstone (213 Redstone Blvd, Redstone)

THE RED ANT ENDORSEMENTS

This is the opportunity to once again remind readers that The Red Ant is commentary. The opinions are mine and solely mine. But as you have come to expect from The Red Ant, I have given the issues and candidates considerable research and thought. I do not cover every issue on the November ballot, however, HERE is a link to a sample ballot of the candidates and issues, marked with ALL of my endorsements. (You can print this ballot and take it with you to the polls.)

LOCAL ISSUES & OFFICES

• City of Aspen Ballot Issue 2B: 0.3% sales tax for the schools  NO

If you think you might have already voted for a tax increase for the schools and did so recently, that's because you did. You personally may not have voted for the $1.35 million property tax increase in 2010, but it passed. That tax increase was to compensate for state-mandated budget cuts and to offset anticipated reductions in property tax revenue due to falling property values. It's now 2012 and the schools are back with the tin cup. This time it's a 0.3% sales tax increase in Aspen. Expected to raise $1.75 million annually for the schools, the tax collection will begin in 2013 and sunset in 2016. The school district cites 6 areas of need that will be addressed by the new revenues: budget shortfall, technology, qualified staff, special education and support, and professional development. All noble. My beef with this issue is many-fold:

•  
  • I suggested/pushed/cajoled the schools to pursue funding from already existing sources at the city. One idea was from the real estate transfer tax (RETT). Imagine taking RETT monies from the beneficiaries (either the Wheeler or subsidized housing) from 2013 - 2016 and giving this to the schools. My guess is that the revenues to the schools would be far more than $1.75 million/year, and frankly, neither RETT recipient needs a nickel, especially during the upcoming 4 years!
  • But no. The schools simply asked Mick and Torre about putting this "re-allocation" of RETT money idea on the ballot, and guess what the two nimrods said?? Of course they wouldn't put something so sensible on the ballot! They said no way! So the schools went with Mick and Torre's preferred funding mechanism, taking the "easy" way out and opting for yet another tax! (You ask, would it have been possible to put the RETT re-allocation question on the ballot without council's blessing? Of course it would. It would have taken some boots on the ground to collect signatures, but citizens CAN petition to place an issue on the ballot. Sadly and frustratingly, the schools just chose not to do that work. THAT really disappoints me - I know firsthand how easy it is to collect petition signatures when it's for a good cause!)
  • Furthermore, half of the school district's kids live outside of Aspen proper. I see this Aspen sales tax increase as placing an unfair burden on the citizens of Aspen, not to mention, our visitors.
  • P.S. The Pitkin County Commissioners wouldn't touch a county-wide sales tax increase for the schools with a 10-foot pole. Michael Owsley emphatically stated, "The commissioners did not support this at all. It was not a split vote. It was no support at all." 

Isn't it interesting - the city could not find existing funds for the schools somewhere in its $88 million 2013 budget! But they can throw $10.5 million (and counting) at an irresponsible hydro plant. And another $17 million at Burlingame phase 2. And don't forget $3 million for a new balcony at the Wheeler (never mind its $30 million endowment and revenue stream from the RETT). And another $2 million for the redevelopment of Galena Plaza. It goes on and on, but nary a nickel for the schools! New taxes are all the city (and city council) understands.

And, no, I am not "against the schools." Not at all.  Nor am I against the AEF (Aspen Education Foundation). This organization has proven itself as a vital cog in our education funding wheel and a very professional organization at that. I'm just sorry to see the AEF so easily manipulated by city officials into pressing for a tax increase instead of looking at the untold millions in the city coffers that could be accessed and utilized with a little imagination. I'm also sick and tired of new taxes and increased taxes every two years to benefit the schools. Clearly our schools need help. But I see these taxes as treating the symptoms and doing NOTHING about the inherent problems. When voters continue to approve new and increased taxes, they'll just keep coming back for more and the problem(s) will not go away.

• City of Aspen Ballot Issue 2C: Castle Creek Hydro Plant NO

This one is my favorite. It's finally on the ballot. And it's a straightforward and rational issue. Let's shut the beleaguered Hydro Plant down once and for all. The city is scared. Never in their wildest Hydro Plant dreams did they see it coming to this. As a result, we're seeing mayor Mick spinning a web of deceit and carrying on endlessly about how much coal consumption will be reduced if only we build his folly. For anyone who has run the numbers (read a letter from Robert Auld that explains the specific number HERE), the Castle Creek Hydro Plant is "a tradeoff between a purely symbolic benefit to reduce global warming vs. potential real risks to our streams and actual millions of taxpayer money."

Notably, several high profile local environmentalists and outdoorsmen serve as advisors to the "NO on 2C" campaign to defeat the Hydro Plant. They include Connie Harvey, Ken Neubecker, Delia Malone, Mike Maple and Terry Paulson. And the following organizations have additionally signed on with their support of this effort: American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Western Rivers Institute, Aspen Flyfishing and Aspen Trout Guides. Endorsers and endorsing organizations are signing on every day.

Additionally, Matt Rice of American Rivers recently summarized the city's faulty process in its construction of the Hydro Plant infrastructure to-date: "There is a practical reason why federal law prohibits project construction prior to regulatory approval. By buying the turbine and constructing the project, the city has locked itself into cost and design constraints that make it impossible to meaningfully collaborate with the public on operational and design alternatives. It will also make it difficult if not impossible to operate the project in a manner that is both economically and environmentally sound." 

The FACTS of the hydro plant are simply:

•  
  • In 2007, Aspen voters approved a $6.2 million project; the expected actual costs are at least $10.5 million, and counting
  • $4 million will have to be paid on the debt (this is not included in the $10.5 million)
  • When Aspen's energy needs are highest, in the winter, the Hydro Plant will not be operational because the creeks will be running at their lowest
  • The project requires and depends on conventional energy (coal) in winter months
  • Energy from the Castle Creek Hydro Plant won't materialize for years; other cheaper forms of renewable energy are available today (solar, wind, micro hydro, etc.)
  • The Hydro Plant will dewater and destroy miles of stream ecosystems along Castle and Maroon Creeks.
  • It's not green to kill a stream! 

For more information or to donate, please contact Citizens for Responsible Projects at www.2CvoteNo.org 

• City of Aspen Ballot Issue 2D: SourceGas franchise agreement  NO

The city charter requires us to have a contract with a natural gas provider, but since 2007 we've been operating on a year-to-year basis with SourceGas.  A franchise agreement requires a public vote.  The scant information on the matter has city attorney Jim True (of whom I'm no fan) negotiating a tricky pricing deal with the utility, even citing that natural gas prices are really low right now so the city was reluctant to  lock into a new fixed rate at this level.  I don't trust True, I don't like the minimal discussion of the matter, I don't like that the city makes over $250K a year on the deal (which WE all pay) and I certainly don't like that it was Mick and Torre who approved and seconded the matter.   

• Pitkin County Ballot Issue 5A & 5B: Tax increase for Library expansion NO & NO

This one's easy:

•  
  • Our library is already 32,000 sq. ft. and is the largest library per capita in Colorado. It is ranked as a "Star Blue Library" in the top 3.5% of the libraries in the U.S.
  • Our library wants a new children's library and teen area, but we already have these
  • Our current library already complies with the American's with Disabilities Act
  • Our current library's staff of 27 employees is as large as our Sheriff's department, and has a budget of $3.5 million
  • Our head librarian makes a $121,000 annual salary, the third highest salary in the county, more than the Sheriff and Airport Director
  • Our library has a $5 million endowment to expand/reconfigure without any need for further taxation of the public
  • Our current library (circa 1991) beautifully complements our historic courthouse and historic Hotel Jerome, in scale, design and materials
  • The proposed 28 foot high concrete canopy will take up one third of the plaza's green space
  • Our library desires additional tech facilities and energy efficiency. These can be addressed and accomplished with the $5 million they already have on-hand
  • Our library desires additional meeting rooms on site, but there is an existing public meeting room in the Rio Grande Commons, just a few feet away. And note: there will be a lot more public space available in the soon-to-be-vacated art museum across the park.
  • This is a boondoggle. There is no need for a tax increase to expand our library!

I will go on the record here.  Fundraising for library upgrades should be through a private capital campaign.  I am ALL FOR a superior community asset such as the library, but I don't think tax dollars are the way to go, especially in this case.  Initiate a capital campaign for the library and I will donate. 

For more information or to donate, please contact "Save our Library and Civic Plaza" at junee.kirk@comcast.net

• County Commissioner - District 3   LEAVE BLANK

Incumbent Michael Owsley is running unopposed for his third term. The Red Ant doesn't like career politicians, regardless of their records. In a continuing effort to encourage local citizens to run for elective office, The Red Ant says, send the message that nobody is unbeatable! Leave the bubble blank!

• County Commissioner - District 4   JOHN B. YOUNG 

I advocated for John Young in the BOCC primary and stand by this endorsement. Young's priorities for Pitkin County include: 

•  
  • Land Use and Water: Protect our lands and waters from outside pressures. This is a full-time job. Nowhere in Pitkin County is drilling appropriate.
  • Airport and Tourism: Tourism drives our economy and the airport is our gateway. Our terminal needs an upgrade fitted for our size, but not as large as the 80,000 sq. ft. proposed.
  • Energy Independence: Energy efficiency is essential to our way of life, but this does not mean "green energy at any cost."
  • Small Project Stimulus: Energy efficient and small scale remodeling projects should be granted immediate priority in the planning and building offices in order to spur employment of our local construction workforce.
  • Subsidized Housing: The system needs to be revisited so that our inventory matches our needs. The program needs to be tweaked before we build more.

While we do not absolutely agree on all of the issues, I find John Young to be extremely thoughtful in his ideas and positions. I particularly like his near-term vision for a mid-valley public/private solar farm that could make an immediate impact and have regional significance. Plus, unlike several of my earlier endorsements (such as Derek Johnson for city council), I am confident that John Young will always make time to knowledgably discuss the issues with his constituents.

For more information or to donate, please contact jyoung@sopris.net 

• County Commissioner - District 5   LEAVE BLANK

Recall that incumbent George Newman so desperately did not want an opponent or to mount a campaign for re-election that he called the county clerk's office just ONE MINUTE after the filing deadline to make sure nobody was challenging him! Pathetic. Again, send a message. Leave the bubble blank!

• District Attorney - 9^th Judicial District MARTIN BEESON

Re-elect Martin Beeson as DA. This one is simple. But for an entertaining letter to the editor in support of Beeson, check out THIS ONE from Jerry Bovino. You can't make it up!

For more information www.martinbeeson.com

JUDGES

DO NOT avoid voting on the retention of judges, even if you neither know nor care about who they are or how they dispense justice. By not explicitly voting NO on each "Shall [judge] be retained" question, you are implicitly voting YES to keeping him/her on the bench! Unless you personally know a given judge to be honest and fair (ie. non-activist), then vote NO on retention!

• Supreme Court: Nathan B. Coats NO
• Court of Appeals: Laurie A. Booras NO
• Court of Appeals: James S. Casebolt NO
• Court of Appeals: Dennis A. Graham NO
• Court of Appeals: Gale T. Miller NO
• Court of Appeals: Daniel Mark Taubman NO
• Court of Appeals: John R. Webb NO
• District Judge - 9^th Judicial District: James Berkeley Boyd NO!

(Boyd is the scoundrel who tossed Marilyn Marks' lawsuit against the city out before hearing a word, but was later slapped with a unanimous reversal on appeal. Apparently the issue was indeed with merit! Boyd has long been in the tank for the city and has a history of making political rulings despite the facts of a case.)

• District Judge - 9^th Judicial District: James B. Petre NO

STATE ISSUES & OFFICES

• CU Regent - At large: BRIAN DAVIDSON
• CU Regent - District 3: GLENN GALLEGOS

• State Representative - District 61: KATHLEEN CURRY

Kathleen Curry was our state representative until 2010, when, fed up with divisive party politics, and to best represent her constituency, she declared her independence. (District 61 is comprised of 47,000 voters; 38% unaffiliated, 32% Democrats and 29% Republicans.) Party control of the election process forced Curry to run in 2010 as a write-in candidate. Even for this hugely popular representative, the challenge was too great and she narrowly lost the contest by 300 votes (of 30,000 cast). She is officially on the ballot now in 2012 as an independent. Curry reminds us, "During my tenure I was successful in promoting the interests of the Western Slope on many fronts. I advocated for the agricultural industry, sought to protect Western Slope water resources, and worked in a non-partisan way to address the budget issues facing our state." Given the issues facing our region, we need Curry's strong background in natural resources issues and policies, including a broad understanding of agriculture, property rights, ranching , oil and gas, water rights and economic development issues. Let's elect Kathleen Curry again.  Learn more at www.kathleencurry.org

• Amendment S - State Personnel System   YES

The current hiring process for state employees limits the pool of eligible candidates and may favor the best test-takers over applicants with practical experience. The measure expands the pool of eligible candidates and allows state agencies to consider other objective methods for evaluating job applicants. Additionally, the measure recognizes the sacrifice of veterans, allowing them to use a hiring preference whenever they apply for a state position, rather than only once.

• Amendment 64 - Use and Regulation of Marijuana  NO

Even if Amendment 64 is adopted, the possession, manufacture and sale of marijuana remain illegal under current federal law. Colorado does not need to be a state that is trying to send a political message to the federal government and other states about legalizing marijuana, nor should marijuana be simply grouped with alcohol and tobacco for greater accessibility and use.Furthermore, since the provisions of Amendment 64 will be in the state constitution and not in the state statutes, there may be serious unintended consequences. For example, by constitutionally permitting marijuana use, the measure, despite its stated intent, could create conflicts with existing employment, housing and other laws and policies that ban the use of illegal drugs. Just say NO to legalizing marijuana in Colorado.

• Amendment 65: Congressional Delegation to Support Campaign Finance Limits  NO

This measure does NOT directly affect current state or federal campaign finance laws, or create campaign spending limits. Instead, it amends state law to ENCOURAGE Congress and the state legislature to take steps toward a U.S. Constitutional amendment to limit the role of money in state and federal elections. BUT, regardless of how you feel about campaign finance limits, a state ballot measure like this CANNOT REQUIRE elected representatives in Congress or the state legislature to support or vote for certain laws and policies. This measure will have ZERO practical effect! Rather than using Colorado law to make a political statement, those who advocate for more restrictive campaign finance laws should instead support congressional candidates who will pursue such changes.

FEDERAL OFFICES

• US Representative - 3^rd District   SCOTT TIPTON

We elected Scott Tipton in 2010 and sent him to Washington where he worked tirelessly to help get government out of the way so free enterprise can flourish and Coloradans can get back to work. Tipton's promises kept include:

•  
  • Introduced legislation to lower the corporate, capital gains and dividend tax rates to help businesses stay competitive in the global market and bring jobs back to Colorado
  • Introduced and passed through committee the Healthy Forest Management Act which focuses on conservation and aims to establish proactive measures by increasing state control over the management decisions of high-risk areas. This would allow local officials to protect their communities and environment with preventative action that limits the spread of future fires by inhibiting contributing factors like bark beetle infestation, severe drought conditions and unmanaged dense forests.
  • Helped put forward legislation to expand access to capital by allowing community banks to increase responsible lending to small businesses; these loans are the lifeblood of a small business.
  • Opened up new markets for agriculture producers and created as many as 500 new jobs for rural Colorado by expanding free trade with Colombia, South Korea and Panama.
  • Introduced the Energy in Education Act of 2011 that will increase funding for our school children, while creating jobs in Colorado and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.
  • Amended the PIONEERS Act to protect our towns and counties from being negatively impacted by the increased exploration of Colorado's natural resources. Increasing our domestic energy supply will create jobs for Colorado and decrease our dependence on foreign oil, however it must be done in a responsible way.

Let's send Scott back to Washington! For more information: www.VoteTipton.com

ISSUE #84: ShANTy Town, Part II

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

                                 -- Ronald Reagan

This issue of The Red Ant is the continuation of "ShANTy Town," my subsidized housing expose, timed to coincide with the first Housing Summit in 5 years.  If you missed the first issue, read it HERE.

 And surprise, surprise.  What was the cover story in the Aspen Daily News the morning after "ShANTy Town" arrived in your inbox?  "Pitkin County needs more lower income housing units, study says."  Read it HERE.  Why on earth do workers who make between $34K and $56,500 need to PURCHASE housing?? You simply can't make this stuff up! 

CENTENNIAL: A CASE STUDY FOR "RENTAL-ONLY" SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

In 1984, 235 subsidized housing units (think: blue roofs) were built at the base of Smuggler Mountain. 93 were sold to qualified buyers while 142 remained in rental inventory. All were built at the same time, by the same contractor, of the same materials. Fast forward to 2012. The owned inventory is a mess. Riddled with moldy and rotten beams and two-by-fours, the homeowners association (HOA) claims faulty design and inadequate flashing at the time of construction for the damage caused by water infiltration. This damage is severe, and various estimates put the costs to fix the damage at $7000 per unit on the low end to nearly $100,000 per unit at the high end. In short, it not an easy fix for the owners of these subsidized units!

But why is the problem only with the owned units? According to Sam Brown, the developer of the entire project and owner to this day of the rental units, the rentals have had regular maintenance since the early 80s, and over $600K has been spent in the past 5 years on siding, waterproof membrane, etc. It's called on-going and preventative maintenance.

The Centennial HOA wants APCHA to use its subsidized housing funds to fix their problem, or, as they put it, "sustain the existing inventory" instead of building new units elsewhere in town. There's a bad precedent looming on the horizon if APCHA (or either local government) steps in with a simple taxpayer bail-out. To begin with, the owners own their units, having bought them at a subsidized price. Together, they are an HOA, and they own the building(s). All along, they should have been collecting dues and maintaining a capital reserves account for preventative maintenance and emergencies. But according to Brown and HOA meeting minutes, in the early 90s, the HOA was informed of preventative measures to employ against water damage, but the HOA didn't follow up. HOA dues were not increased despite knowledge of potential problems. The HOA later dissociated with Brown's management team when the team wanted to put more money into maintenance reserves than owners were willing to pay. The HOA has defended its efforts to maintain its units, but the proof is in the pudding.

In his own words, Sam Brown explains the situation perfectly in his recent letter to the editor on this issue.

Editor:

As the developer of the Centennial property and the current owner of the Centennial apartments I have not commented on the campaign being waged by homeowners for public subsidy for maintenance of the ownership units. However, the recent letter from the homeowners and the article based on it ("Homeowners at Centennial look to government for financial help," Aspen Daily News, July 31) compel me to clarify several issues.

First, the rental units do not have the problems alleged by the homeowners. City staff noted in a memo to the council and BOCC on March 31, 2011, that "The 'sister buildings' at the Centennial rental property were constructed at the same time, using the same designs and the same contractors. They have been dutifully dealing with the same problems over the years with a relentless capital improvement program and do not face the same issues as a result of their diligence at repairing and fixing their water intrusion problems."

Second, the original construction included full vertical-grain redwood siding, the most expensive and durable wood siding then available. The roofs are standing-seam metal roofs. The engineers for the project, Anderson-Hastings, were and are one of the most reputable engineering firms in the entire region and the architects were internationally-known Moise Safdie and Associates. Anyone with any knowledge of construction knows that the siding, roofing, architecture and engineering were not "value engineered" to a low standard but were of the highest quality. There is no evidence of  the "faulty construction" mentioned in the story.

Third, from walking around the ownership units it looks like many of the evident problems relate to decks subsequently built by individual homeowners with no involvement from Centennial, our architects, engineers or contractors. Conversely, on the rental units we added drip protection and additional flashing through the years as we saw ice or water problems develop in some isolated areas where there were particular melting/refreezing problems and where runoff was draining down rather than away from the buildings. To the best of my knowledge these inexpensive common sense maintenance measures were ignored by the homeowners.

Fourth, after more than 25 years without regular maintenance any homeowner should expect that problems may develop. Centennial Community Management, our management company, was replaced by the homeowner's association 17 years ago. The principle issue for the HOA board at the time was that we were proposing a larger maintenance reserve than the homeowner's wanted. The same city staff report referenced above points out that "Capital reserve recommendations have been ignored - indeed a rebate was provided to owners in one year, even though the need to save for repairs was well understood." I would point out that, if the city's estimate of $7000 per unit for deferred maintenance and repairs is right - and based on our experience that seems about right -  that would have required a maintenance reserve of only an additional $25 per unit per month since the project was built.

Finally, on the south-facing side of the buildings there is undoubtedly damage to the wood siding from sun exposure. This is particularly true if there has not been regular maintenance to stain, in some cases renail where boards have cupped, and to generally catch problems before they develop. And, in that circumstance, water intrusion is possible. But, even if there is regular maintenance, over time the replacement of wood siding may be required. That is why more than 80 percent of the south-facing side of rental units have been resided in the last five years and we anticipate completing the balance in the next two years even though we have no evident damage requiring such repairs. It has given us the chance to improve insulation, and replace wood siding with fire- and weather-resistant fiber-cement siding.

If there had been a prudently-managed HOA this would be routine, not catastrophic. We are proud that the rental units, with no public assistance and no drama, are among the finest employee units in Aspen.

Sam Brown
Centennial-Aspen II
Aspen

Clearly, if this isn't a case and point that rental units are the ONLY way to go, I don't know what is!

A FAILED EXPERIMENT

How many communities do you know of where even the lowest level service workers, often just out of college and in town for a winter or two of skiing by day and waiting tables by night, are encouraged to purchase housing, albeit below market value yet with a limited upside, in "the most expensive town in America" (WSJ 3/4/11)? These are the folks who should be footloose and fancy free, paying rent and not worrying about a thing; certainly not being goaded into a deed-restricted subsidized housing purchase because they're told that ownership of Aspen's subsidized housing is somehow a great investment and a cheap way to own a piece of the dream.

The argument is always that "pride of ownership" is really what people need. But if Centennial is a reasonable example, the unique ownership opportunity afforded by the current housing program does not appear to be sufficient to raise the level of pride of many of Aspen's working homeowners to maintain their properties. The working hypothesis appears to be, "The government subsidized me once, so they will surely subsidize me again."

Our local workforce needs housing, especially housing it can afford. Given the state of much of our housing inventory (see Centennial above), ownership IS the problem. To heck with the "pride of ownership" argument. Best I can tell, there is very little "pride" in the ownership of subsidized housing in Aspen. It is largely viewed as a right. And that's flat-out wrong!

In the end, the sales of subsidized housing to young service workers and others like them who were far better suited to simply rent did one thing and one thing only: it kept them here. Inertia. And like an epidemic, it spread. A.D.D. Ambition Deficit Disorder. In 2008, an APCHA survey determined that subsidized housing OWNERS were on average 48 years old. That makes them 52 today! RENTERS are not much different; they were 40 in 2008, 44 today. And you wondered where all the ski bums went! Nowhere. They're all still here, decades later. And the younger ones who were to have come to take their places? Some still come, but by and large, a majority goes elsewhere.

Welcome to the cul-de-sac of broken dreams. Instead of serving as a step-up to the free market, Aspen's subsidized housing program has enabled and encouraged many to stay who are now paying those last payments on their 30-year mortgages. They've been here all along, trading ambition for a certain lifestyle in "A-town" and living off the public largesse. (Think mayor Mick.) As retirement approaches, their options are severely limited. Sure, one can argue that anyone can leave at any time (assuming they can sell their unit), but where would they go? And what would they do when they got there?

HOUSING SUMMIT: SOLUTION(S)

I call the invitation-only "Housing Summit" to address many of the aforementioned issues the "Barry Crook Invitational," because the aptly-named assistant city manager and housing guru Barry Crook will lead the program.

Here are my thoughts and recommendations for "Aptly-Named" and the invited folk on several key issues:

1. Taxpayers deserve a seat at the table

2. Retirees: No one wants to boot our retirees out of their housing, but we do have a problem. A tidal wave is a comin'. Surely there are better answers than to simply continuing to build and build. Dust off the Citizen Budget Task Force recommendations and use those as a place to start.

3. Evictions/Scofflaws/Rules: Enforce the rules! Life is hard! No felons, no delinquents, no pity. There are rules for a reason. Ignoring the rules makes them meaningless. Subsidized housing is a privilege, not a right.

4. Homeless: This is not the way to address homelessness in Aspen. If the community is indeed in need of homeless housing, this is a social services issue that deserves its own mission and its own attention, and should compete for funding alongside every other general government program. Don't muddy the waters or add to the mission creep of the housing program.

And, if I had my way, I would implement two straightforward solutions, as well as a game-changing idea that would forever change our housing program:

RENTAL ONLY: BUY-BACK

To begin with, we need to stay far far away from what the bureaucrats call "free market buy-down." This is where APCHA housing funds are used to purchase free market inventory (at free market prices) to be resold at lower subsidized prices. Instead, how about "deed restricted buy-back." Use money in the housing fund not to build more housing, but to purchase "for sale" subsidized housing units and rent them out. This is the easy and best solution for the long run. With "rental only" inventory, the maintenance issues of individual homeowners associations goes away. The units are maintained by a management company and capital reserves are established through the simple payment of rent. And when rent is not paid, evictions ensue. Qualification is determined and reassessed each year when the lease is renewed. When someone moves out, the unit is restored as necessary, using funds from the previous occupant's security deposit.

Public vs private ownership of our subsidized housing inventory (read: rental-only of the individual units) would enable the community to retain ownership of and leverage these assets as appropriate to address major maintenance issues, etc. when necessary. Think "home equity loan." No more subsidizing up front only to be asked years later for a bail-out because the inmates trashed the asylum. The issue at Centennial is a vivid case and point, and believe me, there are others, many others.

RESTRUCTURE APCHA

APCHA as it currently exists needs to be completely disbanded. It served a role of sorts (deed restricted real estate sales), but neglected the most important aspects of the job: oversight, maintenance and compliance. Without these, our subsidized housing program has become a corrupt and lawless system, governed with indifference. Times have changed. No longer can we as a community simply build and sell subsidized housing and walk away. These ENORMOUS public assets (approaching hundreds of millions of dollars in value) cannot simply be turned over to residents to manage. It hasn't worked. The necessary level of care, concern and responsibility is not there. It's been proven. It's time for the "housing authority" to assert some. The housing authority MUST redefine its role and work to protect and maintain these community assets. It may seem a little "big brother-y" to some, but the status quo is not working. The whole argument that subsidized housing ownership should come with a profit mechanism is nothing short of ludicrous. Nobody should be ensured a profit! The whole focus of APCHA needs to change to one specifically on rental housing; putting an affordable roof over a worker's head. APCHA should not be in the development nor the "sales" business. It's a dangerous game where the community is at risk. (Specifically note: during each sales transaction, APCHA holds chain-of-title for that quick second between seller and new buyer. As such, with the escalating deterioration of our housing stock, this can mean just one thing: enormous public liability in the long run.)

THE GAME CHANGER: PRIVATIZE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

One truly radical idea (and my favorite) would be privatization; a free market purist's argument for "worker housing," unfettered by any government intervention. The privatization of the current deed-restricted housing inventory would basically eliminate all of the income and qualification restrictions, and leave just three rules to be enforced by a FAR smaller APCHA staff:

• Pitkin County employment (1500 hours/year, or TBD)
• Asset limit ($900K, or TBD)
• Workers only, no retirees

So, in a sense, it is a middle ground between what we currently have and a total free market system. The new privatized program would preserve the units for workers only, and would allow for the market to determine the sale prices. These price would be based on normal market considerations: budget (based on buyer's salary), location, size, condition, and overall desirability compared to other available units. The new owners, unencumbered by deed-restrictions and without economic limit to the upside of their investments, would continually and legally improve their units. The laws of supply and demand would operate efficiently, and purchase and sale pricing would fluctuate accordingly with the market. Best of all, the housing inventory quality would actually improve, and housing residents would have the opportunity to build real equity...... Wow, the fair market at work!

(For kicks, just imagine the rush to sell if subsidized housing were suddenly privatized? And you thought west-bound rush hour was bad on Main Street on weekdays!?! The best analogy I can find is rats leaving a sinking ship!)

And imagine again if this went to a vote! Are you kidding me? A countywide ballot initiative would pass in a landslide!

IN CONCLUSION

I have three thematic concerns about subsidized housing in Aspen.

• What is the local government's role in the provision of workforce housing? To begin with, I object to this at its fundamental core. The Red Ant would seek private incentives to make "affordable" housing available to the workforce in Aspen and presumably other high-cost, highly desirable locales. The local government has proven that it should have no role whatsoever. (But this decision has been made, so it begs the next question......)
• Are there economic incentives that can improve the program? What incentives can be provided to those who have accepted the golden handcuffs to continue to be productive members of the community and improve themselves beyond the need for publicly subsidized housing? Can the program be improved incrementally? No, The Red Ant says it cannot be changed in small parts. We need to start over from the top, otherwise we are just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
• Are there social or policy changes that can be made to improve the housing program? Not likely. The subsidized housing program is the intersection of "one's home as one's castle" and the dependence of the homeowner on the government for this very basic component of the American Dream, home ownership. Housing programs like Aspen's turn this relationship between owner and home on its head. All of the incentives are reversed. It's more than economic - it's the great compromise of the Aspen Zeitgeist; a class-defining, societally-disrupting wealth transfer program. It teaches people to depend on others for the most basic of needs - a roof over one's head.   Aspen's subsidized housing community is not a community in the sense that people came together, worked hard and built it from scratch. Instead, they came here, won the housing lottery and now have to work ridiculously hard to stay in homes that will never appreciate much in value. This keeps them from investing in things that might improve their individual economic and long-term security.

The current subsidized housing program and APCHA need to be disbanded and re-started under entirely new policies. The unintended consequences have long over taken the intended benefits. Period.

Want to share your thoughts on Aspen's subsidized housing program with the bureaucrats at city hall?  They have an online survey.  HERE it is.

ISSUE # 83: shANTy Town

"All 'public interest' legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials. The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle."

               -- Ayn Rand

I've been promising (threatening?) to follow up on Issue #71's subsidized housing expose for ages, and with the first "Housing Summit" in 5 years upon us (beginning this Thursday, September 27, and concluding on October 11), it's high time to let 'er rip.

It's such a HUGE mess, there will be two issues of The Red Ant devoted to Aspen's beleaguered subsidized housing program, so look for "ShANTy Town, Part II" later this week!

"COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING"

Originally deemed "employee housing" and later "affordable housing," our community's deed-restricted housing program turns out to be neither. Far from housing just employees (who are required to work a minimum of 1,500 hours/year in Pitkin County) and even farther from being "affordable," our local bureaucrats introduced the new nomenclature ("community workforce housing") in the latest rendition of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Ostensibly to infer that the subsidized housing units are intended for the working people of Pitkin County as opposed to just anyone in the valley, the term "community workforce housing" is as misrepresentative as its predecessors. Simply put, the community's "housing" units are riddled with scofflaws, felons, the unemployed, the homeless and an increasing number of retirees. In short, we should start (and finish) the discussion by calling our politically christened "employee-affordable-community-workforce housing" exactly what it is: simply "subsidized housing."

It's not the people. It is the system. No one should question that Aspen needs a source of safe, affordable, quality housing for its workforce. Everyone should question whether the city and county governments are best suited to provide it. Over the past generation, gradually, a well-intended idea has become a nightmare, and the unintended consequences of those good intentions (the "golden handcuffs" of deed-restricted ownership, the impact on the cost of free market housing, the class-based divide between workers and free market property owners whose properties are often more than five times the value) are exploited for political gain, and threaten the very fabric of Aspen's fragile mountain town tapestry.

What is needed is a an intervention of sorts by of those who make the program possible, the private property owners who finance this ridiculous extravaganza with their RETT payments to the City and their impact fee payments to Pitkin County, but who have no actual power because they do not represent a voting majority. Will the private property owners have a seat at the table at the upcoming housing summit? No. It would just make too much rational sense.

To understand why this issue is so important and why some type of rational intervention is needed, let's start with the basic economic tenets of Aspen's subsidized housing program:

Funded by 2/3 of the City of Aspen's 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) on Pitkin County property sales of $100,000 and above, the housing authority, formed in 1974 and coined APCHA in 1988, has about 2800 units in its portfolio, roughly half owned (on a deed-restricted basis) and half rented. According to its website, APCHA was formed to "foster public and private development of affordable housing for resident workers by making housing available to full-time employees who could not otherwise afford to own a home and build a life as part of the community they support." The intention of the program was to provide a step up to the free market. So much for that goal. With the aspiration of free market ownership no longer part of the equation, should the other elements of the original concept be revisted? Must employees "own a home??" Do the employees support the community or does the community support them?? In its 38 years of existence has the program effectively lost its way?

APCHA lists four primary qualifications for its ownership units:

Prospective owners must:

• work 1500 hours per year in Pitkin County            
• not own other property in the Roaring Fork Valley
• maintain the unit as one's sole residence
• have lived and worked in Pitkin County for a minimum of four years in order to automatically quality for the opportunity to participate in unit selection lotteries

Deed restricted rental units carry these first three requirements but not the fourth.

Beyond these, there exists a complicated matrix of one-time qualification requirements and associated "categories," as well as priority levels for both rental and ownership units. The eight tiered categories, for example, are established according to income and asset levels (at time of application only) as well as the number of household members. The rule of thumb, loosely applied, however, is that there must be as many workers in a unit as there are bedrooms. For example, for a couple or 2-person household to qualify for a two-bedroom housing unit, both must be qualified employees. Children of course affect the equation as well, but it is such a convoluted assimilation of mind-numbing and overlapping regulatory requirements that stories of conflicting "interpretations" are numerous and most people are unwilling to challenge administrative rulings out of fear that such engagement may prejudice their future opportunities. (I leave it to your discretion to dig further at aspenpitkin.com.) The byzantine regulations are merely symptomatic contrivances of the overarching problem. The contrivances continue with the manner in which unit the value of unit ownership is calculated, or should I say fabricated. There is no comprehensive database of deed restriction provisions, and standard deed restrictions have changed over time. But with the "owned" units, the deed restrictions typically include a built-in opportunity for appreciation. So, units that are subsidized by the government and that also provide for an interest deduction against a mortgage also provide an opportunity for capital gain appreciation to the individual owners, even though the units were heavily subsidized in the first place!

Here's how, in general terms, the maximum sales price of a unit is calculated:

• Purchase price
• PLUS 3% simple appreciation for each year owned, or a multiple of the CPI between the date of purchase and the date of sale, whichever is LESS
• PLUS the cost of APPROVED capital improvements, not to exceed 10% of the purchase price, less depreciation
• PLUS the cost of EXEMPT capital improvements (health, safety, energy efficiency, water conservation, "green" building materials, etc.)
• MINUS discounts for the condition of the home, determined through inspection

When demand is high and many qualified applicants enter the lottery for a specific unit, that maximum price is most often assured. But, because "ownership units" are just deed-restricted publicly-subsidized homes that are owned by private citizens, these can be subject to the same potential market outcomes as free market units if the owner cannot sell the unit for what he or she owes on the mortgage. In good times, there is very little risk in this kind of home ownership and consequently very little incentive to maintain the properties. However, the opposite holds equally true; when the market is saturated with units available for sale, only the nicer ones will sell at the asking price.

FORECLOSURES: CAN THE BANK GET THE UNIT? THEN WHAT?

You knew it was inevitable, but surprisingly, it's not been as bad as I'd anticipated. Just 5 APCHA units have gone into foreclosure so far this year. When this happens, at the foreclosure sale APCHA will bid $50 above the minimum price for a unit in order to retain it in inventory. This is done with $500,000 APCHA has in its 2012 budget for exactly this purpose. But, if the bank keeps possession, in many cases depending on the language of the deed restriction, the unit could legally be sold as a free market residence, minus the deed restriction that keeps the units affordable to the workforce. APCHA staff seems to think that the banks would never do this, but hello, in this day and age, the banks want to make money too!! So that raises the bigger question: What happens when $500,000 isn't enough and APCHA can't save them all?

THE RETIREE ISSUE

What happens when the resident workforce, housed in our subsidized housing inventory, is no longer working? (Now nobody wants to boot our subsidized housing retirees out of their units, but we do have a problem, and the tidal wave is coming.) Our pal, lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick, notably says about the coming onslaught, "We'll just have to build more units." Really? Ought the community be thinking bigger? Is doubling down on the unfunded liability of publicly-subsidized housing by continuing to grow the inventory really the right approach? Might there be other alternatives that meet everyone's needs?

For example: Are some of our retirees living in units larger than they qualify for, now that the kids are long gone? Are others wishing they could move to warmer climes like their snowbird brethren? Are they "stuck" in Aspen, with all of their assets tied up in a deed-restricted unit in need of repair that has minimally appreciated over all these years? These questions, and others like it, are what we should be looking at. The fact is, by definition, a retiree is no longer a worker. Yes, retirees bring great diversity and contributions to our community, but the key question in the matter of housing is whether they should continue to be able to live in subsidized housing built specifically to meet the housing needs of our local workforce. And if not, then what?

There are alternatives, many recommended by the City's Citizen Budget Task Force (CBTF) -- formed back in 2008 in the wake of the Burlingame fiasco -- but never implemented, including the development of potential optional financial incentive programs to enable existing residents to downsize, sell, or bridge to the free market. (Incidentally, 23 local citizens served on the CBTF, and it is notable how many are now on the mayor's/city's "public enemy #1" list today. Coincidence? Or did their professional backgrounds and rational assessments of the critical issues threaten the city to such a degree that to demagogue them was the only answer?) In the end, most all of the CBTF recommendations were ignored by council.

THE R.O. GLUT

And then there are the middle-class millionaires. The "Resident Occupied" category of housing, relatively new to the housing program, is specifically for working professionals who could not previously qualify with APCHA yet could not afford free market housing, specifically in the real estate boom years. Residents of R.O. housing have no income limits, but cannot have net assets above $900K. There are certainly some fabulous R.O. places out there that have sold for $1M+. And this category offering has definitely kept many working professionals in our community. But with the recent market downturn, the resale market for R.O. has all but dried up. Many of these places cannot be sold because savvy buyers with a budget of $1M+ would rather spend their money in the free market vs on a deed-restricted place with limited economic upside. Remember, the deed restriction stipulates a maximum sales price but doesn't guarantee it! I foresee R.O. unit prices continuing to fall as supply increases. (There will always be people who want to and have to move away. And pity those who'd like to get "out" of R.O. now so as to be able to wisely invest in the free market!) I see inevitable short sales in this category; I believe it has been over-built with the belief that the good times would never end.

And at press time, recent events are proving me right. Subsidized housing owners at the W/J Ranch are hoping that APCHA will remove the $900,000 asset cap from their R.O. deed restriction. They believe that this asset cap is preventing them from being able to sell their units. Well, well, well. Who'd have guessed? As you recall, the qualification for R.O. housing stipulates no income limits but caps assets at $900K. I hate to tell the W/J folks, but it's not the asset cap that's the problem. It's that they bought the most expensive deed restricted housing in the first place. Nobody on earth who can afford the $1.2M unit on the market at W/J today would be foolish enough to buy a deed restricted place in this economy! It's just a bad investment. Unfortunately for the owner who is trying to sell, the risk taken in his subsidized investment is not paying the huge upside he had naively counted on in better times, and for now he's stuck. But that's a risk that everyone takes in all investments. Hopefully APCHA won't be so near-sighted as to remove the cap. It's a bad precedent for the days when the economy and housing market bounces back. But should they be so stupid, my bet is that the seller will have to take a HUGE hit in order to move that unit, perhaps even a loss depending on what he owes. Simply put: there are no guaranteed outcomes in investing. Nor should there be in the sale of subsidized housing!

THE SCOFFLAWS: EVICTIONS & CALLS FOR COMPASSION

Swell. This winter, security cameras were installed at the City-owned Marolt Ranch rental property. Fights, loud behavior, vandalism and violence seem to have escalated at the subsidized housing project, home to seasonal workers and homeless locals. Imagine that. (And riddle me this... Just how does one define a "homeless local"???)

Next, meet Terry Decker. She lives in APCHA rental housing at Truscott. Most of us know her from the string of malfeasances reported in the weekly police blotter. It seems she and her ex, Marc Altman, characterized as "homeless" and "a transient," have quite the ongoing feud. In April, she whacked him in the head with a hammer and was charged with domestic violence and second-degree assault, a felony. She will be arraigned soon, but lives at Truscott awaiting trial. Not to be outdone, Altman returned in early August and stabbed Decker. He was charged with a number of felony offenses, including second degree attempted murder. The latter incident also threatens Decker with a bond violation charge; she was prohibited from contact with Altman and from consuming alcohol, but cops at the August incident say she smelled of alcohol. These two are known in law enforcement circles for, among other things, trashing a free market rental unit they shared on Bonita Avenue several years ago and then neglecting the court-ordered restitution to the owner required by the judge (see Issue #71), claiming that they are unemployed. That she was allowed to rent an APCHA unit in the first place illustrates just how far the program has fallen.

It was an exciting winter with two high profile APCHA eviction actions. One woman was evicted from Truscott because she had been unemployed for 22 months. Laid off in April 2010, Susan Johnson was drawing unemployment and paying $756/month for her Truscott studio. Should anyone who is collecting unemployment be living in subsidized housing for workers??? Should anyone who is collecting unemployment be paying $756/month in rent in ASPEN??? Times have certainly been tougher than they've been in years, but Johnson's primary rationale that she's lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for about 30 years and raised her children here just doesn't cut the mustard as far as "deserving" subsidized housing in my book. Although it shouldn't be, enforcing the rules is a difficult thing to do. APCHA, you did the right thing. Now another qualified worker can live at Truscott.

Then there's Heidi Mines. Unemployed for the past 4 years, she owns her deed-restricted home. Diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007, she was in treatment for two years, but once healthy enough to work, could not find a job. Outed via an anonymous tip, APCHA gave her a short reprieve. A sympathetic figure, Mines had until July 31 to find a job, otherwise she'd have to sell. Expressing a seeming indifference to the APCHA rules as they applied to her, Mines admitted, "I do realize I dropped the ball." At press time, APCHA director Tom McCabe assures The Red Ant that she has found local employment. Congratulations, Heidi.

Cries for compassion abound! The Aspen Times, while on one hand noting that "if not for certain guidelines, affordable housing units might be filled with retirees and people of independent means," begs for more compassion on the other. After all, they say, both women were making their payments on time, as if that alone should supercede any rules. The Times also played the "this is selective enforcement of the rules" card. They wrote, "If the housing authority wants to start investigating under every rock, there's plenty to turn up." Exactly. Let's start investigating. Even one of Mines' advocates cried out, "Why those two when we know there are other people with violations that are much worse, where they may own two or three other houses and are using public housing for a vacation home?" It's widely acknowledged that the abuses are widespread. I'm sure we'd never have to build another unit if we had proper enforcement. And while my points may seem terribly harsh to some, we cannot break rules just because we like people, or because they strike a sympathetic chord. The more rules we actually enforce, the more fair the program will be for everyone. Especially those of us who pay for it.

My recent favorite? It seems that a certain Anita Boda somehow entered a subsidized housing lottery despite owning private property in Basalt (an APCHA no-no). Who is in charge if this can happen?? Besides, why are people going the wrong way on what should be a one way street?? (Remember the old "step up" to the free market intent of the program?) When she won the lottery and acquired a subsidized housing unit in Aspen, good old APCHA gave her 180 days to sell her Basalt unit. When her Basalt residence didn't sell (imagine that in this economy), she rented it out to "employees," figuring that APCHA would break their own rules and let it go. Thankfully, they've finally had it with her pleas for more and more time; she may just have to sell Basalt now at a loss in order to comply with the APCHA rules. Too bad, so sad - but she shouldn't have been sold an APCHA unit in the first place! Call me crazy but isn't the EASY and OBVIOUS answer right before APCHA's eyes? Make her sell the APCHA unit today! Ya think!? She shouldn't be in it to begin with, and by being there, she is keeping a qualified applicant out. Her tearful retort? She is a mom with a kid and simply can't commute from Basalt to her job in Aspen. Really?! Can you believe this nonsense? Cry me a river.

Again, subsidized housing not a right, but a privilege. Why would we ever build more housing until we know EXACTLY who is in each of our units and whether or not they qualify. And if they don't qualify, it's simple. Get them out so someone qualified can get in.

SANFORD & SON

In a robust housing market when the lotteries were huge and demand was at its peak, you would not believe your eyes at the condition(s) of what sold. Some of these places were on par with fraternity houses, replete with stained carpets, broken/missing cabinets, hideous murals. You see, with high demand, there was essentially guaranteed re-sale, and as such, little to no incentive to take care of a unit. The sellers were all but assured of getting their unit's maximum price because so many people wanted "in." It was actually really sad to see the condition of some of these places.

And then there are those do-it-yourself "improvements." And no, I'm not talking about Tibetan flags and sofas on the porch (although both are proliferate). My favorites are places like up in Williams Ranch where the owner simply paved his whole front yard. Yep, paved it. Now he can park 5-6 cars right in front! Don't the Williams Ranch houses have garages, you ask? Yes, they do. It was one of those fabulous amenities of that R.O. development at the base of Smuggler. But take a drive through. Every driveway has a car or two out front. The Red Ant did some very unscientific research and learned that many residents use their garages as additional living space and for storage, not to put their cars away. You can lead a horse to water, folks, but you can't make it drink!

Now that the housing supply seems to outpace demand (see weekly listings on Wednesdays in the Aspen Daily News), the crappy units languish. Now, some might rationally argue that in a bad economy when demand is low, unit owners might be more likely to make improvements to their units so that these will be more attractive to the few prospective buyers out there.   And the city could further encourage this behavior by not flooding the market with shiny new units to bid on. But the argument is flawed. Subsidized housing is not a pure market, and the working owners of these units are even less likely to make improvements during an economic downturn. The end result is a downward spiral of unit conditions throughout the subsidized housing portfolio, exacerbated by the tough economy.

The laws of supply and demand are tortured in their influence over such a heavily subsidized program. Unit owners are just as likely to try and find ways to game the system as they are to spend money they probably don't have fixing up a unit that stands to benefit them very little financially.

HOUSING THE HOMELESS: A SUBSIDIZED HOUSING QUANDRY... OR NOT

A terrible precedent set in early 2011 that enabled the use of city-owned seasonal housing to house the homeless, coupled with two spring 2012 APCHA evictions, has local homeless advocates crying that the housing authority "may be contributing to homelessness in the Aspen area." Puh-lease. Vince Savage, the director of the Aspen Homeless Shelter (you know, the guy who sent a homeless man with pending criminal charges against him to North Dakota on a bus in the middle of the winter) even went so far as to ask, "Is this a community for rich people and people willing to work 29 hours a week to serve them? Or is this a place that people can come to to live?" Well Vince, it's certainly not a sanctuary city offering free housing for all comers, that's for sure!!! According to the Aspen Daily News, Savage compared the housing system to a college campus, where one can't keep housing without staying in school, and characterized it as exploitative 20th century feudalism. "They're treated like chattel," he said of APCHA tenants. Good grief - when was the last time people lined up to be treated like chattel?? What Savage misses is that APCHA housing is EXACTLY like the housing on a college campus. You have to apply, be accepted and stay in school in order to live in the dorms. In Aspen, you have to qualify, apply, win the housing lottery and stay employed in order to keep your housing. Besides, the often-complicated deed restrictions on the units were put in place to ensure that the subsidies to build the projects in the first place were authorized for the express purpose of providing housing for workers. Housing the homeless in deed restricted units is emotionally-based mission creep for a program that already has enough of its own problems.

There are large legal barriers to change the deed restrictions in favor of housing the homeless and unemployed, so I think this well-intended but misguided proposal will probably fizzle. For now. But even former mayor Helen Klanderud weighed in, reminding APCHA and the homeless coalition that the housing program was originally formed to house young workers. "I don't think anyone at that time anticipated that people would spend their entire lives here," she said. The changing nature of our community and its needs has created the current problems with the housing program, such as what to do about retirees living in subsidized housing as well as compliance. And now the "homeless issue" is poised to take advantage of the program as well. That is, if our officials allow it to happen.

To be continued .... Look for The Red Ant, Issue #84 "ShANTy Town, Part 2" later this week!

ISSUE #82: Fall's fANTastic Follies

"We are in the process of creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal."                -- Carl Bernstein

Just who do they really think they are? Election season is upon us yet again and the true colors (and mental band-width) of our elected representatives are as visible as ever ... And it sure ain't pretty! Note: I will of course be sending a pre-election endorsement issue out by mid-October, so look for this before returning your mail-in ballots or voting early!

AT LONG LAST: THE HYDRO PLANT IS GOING TO A VOTE!

Finally! It's not exactly what we wanted, but at least we finally get to weigh in at the polls. Scared of placing a truly binding question on the ballot, the weaklings on council decided merely to ask an "advisory" question on whether or not to continue spending good money after bad on the beleaguered Castle Creek Energy Center a.k.a the Hydro Plant. But instead of asking a simple YES or NO question of the electorate, the boys could not resist lobbying for their YES preference in the actual ballot language:

Shall the City of Aspen complete the hydroelectric facility on Castle Creek, subject to local stream health monitoring and applicable governmental regulations, in order to replace coal-fired energy with renewable energy?

The city is legally forbidden to campaign for an issue so they wrote their propaganda right onto the ballot itself. It's ironic to note that they didn't want the project called by its formal name, the Castle Creek Energy Center because that sounded "so large." And, to justify the ever-increasing costs far beyond the original $6.2M budget, they've once again "green-washed" the lack of fiscal or environmental responsibility and instead advocate for one of the most ill-conceived and even worse-managed projects in local memory under the guise of global warming prevention. Their hope of course is that the electorate will buy their "it's SO green" BS a second time. The Red Ant ran a full-page ad in the local papers last fall on this very subject. View it HERE.

The city also argues that the Hydro Plant is a good investment, and according to mayor Mick, will remove "5 million pounds of coal from the atmosphere annually." Let's see. Hmmm, based on the city's (questionable) numbers, the project won't even begin generating positive cash-flow for at least 25 years, let alone a positive financial return. Some investment! And 5 million pounds of coal (another dubious number that even the energy provider in Nebraska cannot corroborate) will only be removed from the atmosphere if the Hydro Plant runs at its maximum capacity year-round, and if it offsets 100% of coal-generated energy all the time - not likely to ever happen!

The real outcome? The Hydro Plant represents the overpriced use of obsolete technology that will cost far more in the long run than other better clean power alternatives. It will not substantially reduce carbon emissions. And most notably, it threatens our local ecology to a far greater extent than the value of any alleged global warming prevention benefits it will generate!

The good news? The ANTI-hydro plant issue committee and campaign is officially up and running. This group, Citizens for Responsible Projects, is comprised of local fiscal hawks and well-known environmentalists alike, and enjoys the endorsements of national and regional environmental organizations. As you can imagine, The Red Ant is doing everything possible to build support for this effort! You know firsthand that I've been following and writing on this subject for over 2 years.

There are three very important elements that will determine the success of this campaign:

• They must raise and spend several thousand dollars to fund an education campaign and produce campaign materials. They need contributions small and large, please. There is no dollar limit. (All donations will be publicly disclosed.)
• Endorsements by full and part-time citizens of Aspen and the surrounding area are an important way to show community opposition to the Castle Creek Hydro Plant, and will make others feel comfortable voting against it. They need your personal endorsement, please.
• Grass roots activities such as distributing campaign materials and phoning citizens are what make successful campaigns. They need your help! Contact 2CvoteNO@gmail.com

Mick and his "green at any cost" (environmental and economic) ilk are organizing as well, so this one will surely be a battle. Since they can't dispute the rational and proven arguments against the Hydro Plant, they have already resorted to name-calling and demagoguery. And the letters to the editor are highly suspect - while "signed" by local citizens, the vernacular and tone is unmistakable. Our boy Mick is a ghost-writer! Surprise.

We cannot let the Hydro Plant get "approved" by the electorate again. Recall that in 2007, the ballot language made the "vote for a hydro plant because it's GREEN" message sound far too appealing. And no one asked the important questions. We know better now. The costs - environmental AND fiscal - are simply too great. This is not a vote against renewable energy or even responsible hydro power. It's a vote against this Hydro Plant on Castle Creek!

Many of you signed the petition that I, along with about 30 others, circulated last winter. Will you please lend your name once again to the effort? If yes, simply "reply" to this email and tell me! No need to sign anything. If you are one of the 953 citizens who signed petitions which led to this ballot measure finally making it to prime time, or if you simply agree that the Castle Creek Energy Center's environmental/stream health risks and irresponsible fiscal over-runs are simply too great, please "reply" to this email to lend your name to the advertising and endorsement effort. There will also be stickers, yard signs, campaign buttons and other ephemera available soon. Please let me know what you need. I will forward it along. You don't have to be a local voter to oppose the Hydro Plant! The more the merrier! Please send your donation (of ANY amount) to:

 "Citizens for Responsible Projects"     P.O. Box   8916      Aspen, CO 81612

It's high time to cut our losses and shut this nonsense down, once and for all. Remember: IT'S NOT GREEN TO KILL A STREAM.

COUNCIL HATES FREE MARKET HOUSING - ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN

First they pass an ordinance that limits the height of buildings in the downtown core to just 28 feet, ostensibly to eliminate any more 3^rd floor penthouses. We've long known that Mick abhors the "cold beds" that he calls the free market units atop previously aging structures, never mind these same units financially fueled the redevelopment of tired (and often ugly) buildings that so many historic hysterics cling to as part of their love affair with the days of yore. But that was not enough. Now there's a ban on the construction of any new free market housing in the core. Subsidized housing, sure. But free market, no way.  They don't want our kind.

But, the economic geniuses don't realize what they've done with their ill-conceived legislation. They've only made the rich richer. I hardly imagine that was their objective! In fact, we all know that the new laws are designed to be nothing if not punitive. But oops, those pesky laws of supply and demand will only serve to do one thing - make the fixed amount of existing inventory even MORE valuable. And when that inventory (residential and commercial) is more valuable, rents will go up. It's that simple. It's truly irresponsible. Watch and see.

ARBITERS OF GOOD TASTE? PUH-LEASE!

Yes, it's hard to imagine that city council views itself as judge and jury of what constitutes an attractive building, but as a wave of development applications reaches its final stages, the boys are weighing in and speaking out. It seems that Skadron is "outraged" and mayor Mick questions whether there is "a worldwide surplus of glass" as they recently verbalized their disdain for several proposed projects. And Torre doesn't want Aspen to become "the urban center of the Rockies." As if.

Now recall that it was the recent ordinance to limit building height in the downtown core that brought on this flurry of activity. There was a 2 month window in which applications could be submitted under the old rules, and 9 proposed projects are now in the works. No project is safe from this council, even if it's well within the allowable footprint, height or density; council is already exercising its right to "call up" several applications despite prior favorable decisions made by the planning and zoning and/or historic preservation commissions. Indications are that council is going to make these applications as difficult as it possibly can, but not because there is any question of legalities. Rather, it's an issue of taste. And let's face it, council doesn't have much.

A LAWSUIT OVER THE BAG TAX - TOLD YA SO!

It was just a matter of time. Those of us who opposed last October's ordinance that banned plastic bags at local grocery stores knew it all along: the 20-cent "fee" that the city claimed it was charging for the replacement paper bags is actually a tax! And that's exactly what a new lawsuit against the city, mayor Mick and the 4 councilmen alleges. (In Colorado, it's illegal for the government to charge a tax without the voting consent of the taxpayers.) The non-profit Colorado Union of Taxpayers filed the suit in late August.

In the name of "environmental stewardship," the revenues collected by the city are earmarked for "environmental programs" such as educational campaigns about recycling, providing reusable bags to citizens and/or funding recycling and pollution-reduction efforts. (In May and June, the first two months of the program, the haul was nearly $4000 - that's over 300 bags a day!) Never mind, the only plastic bags banned in Aspen are those at the grocery store. All other plastic bags are still a-ok.

As surprising as all this isn't, the bigger issue is how council would make such an arrogant decision to pass this ridiculous ordinance, despite numerous warnings of its violation of the law. Now the taxpayers get to fund yet another avoidable lawsuit, and will likely be on the hook for the plaintiff's legal fees as well when the city loses. How could this have been avoided? Simply: council could have just put the issue on the ballot and allowed citizens to vote. But remember, with this council, they know what's best for us!

The best coverage of the fee vs tax issue was in former city finance director Paul Menter's column in late August. Read it HERE.

MICK'S "TAX FAIRNESS" VIEWS             

If you read The Aspen Times in August, you may have followed it. Columnist Charlie Leonard interviewed the mayor, and primarily focused on his recent public statements about Governor Romney's tax returns and what Mick sees as tax "fariness." What ensued was a classic back-and-forth between the two that vividly illustrated how Mick sees it as perfectly fair for him to live in subsidized housing despite being an able-bodied lawyer who, by choice, is simply not productive in his field. When Leonard suggested that "most responsible adults realize, barring a disability or temporary setback, that they have a moral obligation to themselves and their neighbors to pay their own way while still finding time for self-supported recreation," the mayor responded by listing all of the volunteering he has done in the community. And, classic Mick, he could not help himself and had to brag, "I doubt that all of the progress we made would have happened in my absence." Yes, this is the same buffoon who famously stated that as Aspen's mayor, he's an icon. ("Many of us, like myself, gain stature by going to enough meetings and eventually become recognized as part of history, ... or icons. People write books about us," he said. See it live at www.SickofMick.com) Just 8 more months of this imbecile...

Read Leonard's column HERE. Read Mick's response HERE. And then Leonard's letter to the editor that ended the debate HERE. A classic and telling exchange!

VOTING INFO

For information on voter registration, mail-in ballots and other vital voting info, please visit www.pitkinvotes.org

Several important dates:

October 9                                 Voter Registration Deadline

October 22 - November 2  8:30 am - 4:30 pm, M-F, Pitkin County Clerk's  Office, 530 E. Main Street, Suite 101

November 6                               Election Day. Polls are open 7 am - 7 pm

NEXT ISSUE: A HOUSING SUMMIT PRIMER

The long-awaited (threatened?) subsidized housing summit is on the horizon. What it will entail and what it will decide is anyone's guess. The program's a mess with more questions than answers, but please know that I have a subsidized housing-specific issue ready to roll just as soon as that date is set! Stay tuned!

ISSUE #81: Got My ANTennae Up!

"The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference."

               -- Bess Myerson, former Miss America 

While the local shenanigans never seem to end, The Red Ant has noticed an interesting trend.  I won't call it "promising" just yet, but on a variety of "hot" topics, several news columnists have taken surprising stances against the city and its preposterous behavior(s).  This is vitally important because of the intentional indifference of our community at large.  For readers of The Red Ant, by choice you get the other side of the story.  But for those who blindly (or sporadically) read the local fish-wrappers, what they read is all they know!

 LIBRARY EXPANSION

The Pitkin County Library wants to grow about 25% (from 32,000 sf to 40,000 sf), and in seeking to do this, wants to raise your property taxes this November in order to finance a $5M 30-year bond for the $10M project.  Included in that bond revenue would be operating revenue for utilities, cleaning and a capital replacement schedule for the new addition.  Note: the library already has $5.3M on hand in its endowment.  Do we really need a $10M addition to this relatively new (1991) public facility, especially when the cited rationale includes a new children's library, an expansion of the teen library, community meeting space, reconfiguration of pathways and book stacks (security concerns), renovation to maximize views and an upgrade of technological areas? Really?  

In general, I have one word to say about libraries in 2012: Kindle. The world is moving away from books, books and more books, in the traditional sense.  We are living in an increasingly electronic world and small town libraries stand to gain the most from this trend.  Besides, to spend this kind of money (that the library does not have) for a place for teenagers to hang out is redundant at best.  Less than 100 yards from the library is the same Aspen Youth Center that the electorate fought tooth and nail to keep from being sold to the Aspen Art Museum 4 short years ago!  People, let's take a look at the 32,000 sf of space we have, and with the library's $5.3M in the bank, do some proper refiguring of that space to accommodate the evolving needs of our community and the technology that best enhances the library's offerings.  Just because the library staff says they can't address their "challenges" with a $5.3M investment doesn't mean a thing.  They're just dreaming big and they want you to pay for their dream.  My friend Bill Pope said it best in his recent letter to the editor, "Focus on content, not concrete."

And sometimes the strangest things happen.  Aspen Times columnist Su Lum, with whom I rarely agree, said it best in her June 20 column: "I do not 'hang out' in the library, but I visit it at least once a week, and I've never had the impression that it was over-crowded or that small children were endangered.  Au contraire, it has always been my view that the second story was considerable wasted space and that it would be easier to get around the circular rim if it were a solid floor. I thought that that was the original plan if the library needed more room."  And it's not just about the money, she adds.  "The whole Galena Plaza project has gotten out of hand."  Spot on, Su.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  

Local Jerry Bovino echoed the sentiment with a letter recommending careful consideration of the library's "questionable plans," reiterated immediately thereafter by columnist Steve Skinner who pointed out that "the world wide web is the library now."  

The Library is currently conducting a phone poll to gauge local voters' opinions of placing a $5M bond measure on the November ballot.  Hopefully, for a variety of reasons including those above, the feedback will be outraged at best.  Besides, don't you just hate how they promote these tax increases: it will only be $12.21 per year for each $1M of assessed value.  Puh-lease.  Conduct a capital campaign.  I'll donate.  But the continual raising of property taxes for unneeded pie-in-the-sky projects is nothing short of insulting.  Hopefully it won't happen.  (Alas, at press time, it seems the phone poll of 300 citizens yielded a slim majority in favor of a ballot measure.  Look to vote on the bond in November. Ugh.)

 BURLINGAME BUILD-OUT
 Brace yourselves.  I said it was coming.  At this stage, 40% of Burlingame Phase 2 has been reserved.  Of course most of these are the lowest-priced units.  And the applicants?  All they had to do was qualify with APCHA and have financing, and put down a $500 refundable deposit.  The question of the day is How Much Interest In Burlingame 2 Is Enough?  At what point does city council proceed with the build-out?  $10M has already been committed to install infrastructure.  There is great bureaucratic debate regarding changing the higher-priced units to more in-demand lower priced ones, but that would entail a greater subsidy.  Anything to sell the things, right?  Remember, Burlingame 1 subsidized its units $350K/per.  Mick?  He wants to "build according to need."  Swell.  Look for a HUGE bond measure in the spring.

 MARILYN WINS BUT MICK WON'T CONCEDE - UNTIL HE HAS TO
 In a surprise move late last month, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed its decision to hear the case Marks vs Koch, Marilyn Marks' case against the city over a citizen's right to inspect anonymous voted ballots as open records. As you recall, this all stems from the 2009 mayoral election when Marilyn was narrowly defeated by Mick in an election decided by the controversial and subsequently repealed "Instant Run-Off Voting" method.  Sold to the populace as a cheap and easy way to electronically duplicate a traditional run-off election in a manner easily verified by the public, as soon as the votes were tallied, the city closed ranks and refused to let citizens have access to the ballots to confirm the city's tabulation of the results.  

Marilyn sued for access, and the city-friendly district court dismissed the case.  Marilyn appealed and won in a 3-0 decision.  The ballots were deemed to be public records.  But oh-no, Mick would not could not concede, so he steamrolled council into appealing to the state supreme court that initially said they'd hear the case, but then decided last week to let the appellate ruling stand -- and reward Marilyn reasonable attorney's fees!  In this case, these are in excess of $275K.  The city was contrite, initially accepting the ruling.  "Closure is a good thing," stated city clerk at the center of the brou-ha-ha Kathryn Koch.  But overnight, Mick cajoled city attorney Jim True into asking the supreme court to reconsider in a rare move.

In quick order, the Colorado supremes responded to the city.  They will not reconsider.  But the fight continues, with the city living up to Mick's promise upon learning of Marilyn's suit 3 years ago.  They will "fight to the last taxpayer dollar" to keep her from getting her supreme court mandated legal fees.

The community outrage is palpable, and not just among the community's citizen grown-ups.  Daily News owner Dave Danforth weighed in with his weekly column (7/8/12) that the "Powers That Be" were more interested in "beating Marks than they were in the electoral process."  It seems the "what are they hiding" question is too glaring for the citizens here, finally.  Danforth even asked what City Hall had to gain from refusing to release a flock of ballot images!  The ridiculous expenditure of public funds on Mick's hatred of his political nemesis has finally reached the tipping point.  Such a shame that it had to come this far (and it's not over yet), but when he can spend your money on a personal vendetta, don't you just know it, he will.

My favorite part?  And this should show you the intellectual quality of those we've elected to council.  Yes, that includes Adam (who is STILL more concerned with getting Mick to like him than actually governing).  Council simply couldn't (or wouldn't?) ask for independent counsel.  After the city's highly irregular recent appeal was submitted, despite no council or public meeting on the subject, Mick defended his actions by claiming that the papers were wrong in their coverage of the issue.  He whined that it would be "grossly unfair" to make the city pay ALL of Marilyn's attorney's fees, claiming that she only won at the appellate level.  Some lawyer Mick is -- she prevailed in the ENTIRE case!  But the dummies on council bought his argument.  They trusted both Mick and highly-conflicted city attorney Jim True and bit -- hook, line and sinker.  Then, in the most preposterous move yet, Mick claimed that since the city always "operated in good faith," they really don't owe Marilyn anything.  Hmmm, my copy of Title 24 of the state statute doesn't contain a "good faith of Aspen" safe harbor exemption. Rather, it emphatically states that the prevailing party SHALL be awarded reasonable attorney's fees.  But once again, Mick was successful in getting the council buffoons to buy into his nonsense.

I hate to say "I told ya so," but recall that Chris Bryan and I as election commissioners were publicly fired and vilified in 2009 amidst this very election mess when we asked city council for $7500 for independent counsel to advise us on the complicated and political mess that was rapidly unfolding before us.  We refused to certify the election, and felt that the city attorneys office was conflicted in advising the very body charged with overseeing the municipal elections. (Recall that the attorneys themselves had designed the vote counting methodology and were also the ones who decided not to release the ballots as public records once these were requested.)  To think now that this whole mess could have and should have been avoided for the measly sum of $7500 is appalling.  But you and I as taxpayers are on the hook because Mick, council and the bureaucrats at city hall just wanted to fight Marilyn.

 ASPEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: READY TO RATTLE THE TIN CUP
 It seems that after 540 phone calls, the Aspen Education Foundation is ready to put a sales tax increase on the November ballot.  Supposedly 59.3% of respondents said they would support a 0.35% sales tax hike to support the public school system.  The big question remains, however: will this be a city of Aspen-only sales tax?  Or will it be county wide?  It matters because more than half the district's students live outside the city limits.  To date, the county commissioners have not embraced the tax measure, but you can be sure that mayor Mick's a big fan!

The Aspen Daily News interestingly covered the story with characteristic slant.  This time, however, it was "Proposed Sales Tax Increase For Local Schools Not Yet Fully Vetted."  Indeed it's not.

 MY RIDDICU-LIST: THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE
 He's foul.  And foul-mouthed.  And as Aspen's #1 ambassador, a disgrace. But mayor Mick reached a new low last month when addressing the incoming students of the Aspen Music Festival and School and their parents with what the Daily News called "his sage advice."  He told the students (average age 22) to "Use your marijuana card.  We have four pot shops.  It will be something to remember."  And, in a lame attempt to be even more charming, asked the students to refrain from doing so in the woods given the fire danger, but instead "go be secretive somewhere else."

Kudos to the Daily News for reporting on this act of idiocy.  In their coverage, entitled "Mayor Hits High Notes With Music Students," they also noted that no other speakers at the welcoming event encouraged the kids to do drugs, noting that "they also wore pants and shoes, while Mick stuck to shorts and birkenstocks."

Why do the proud institutions of this community continually give this reckless fool a microphone?  If this doesn't reflect poorly on our community, I don't know what does.  

 HISTORIC PRESERVATION IRONY
 In all of the furor over the new 28' height limit in the downtown core, I found it ironic to learn that HPC recently awarded the Crandall Building for making "an outstanding commitment to historic preservation in Aspen."  I certainly don't disagree.  But here's the rub:  The 1969-era building that houses Sandy's Office Supply (among other local businesses) was sold in 2009.  The new owners voluntarily designated the Tom Benton-designed building as a historic landmark in exchange for a 3rd floor rooftop addition and other upgrades.  With council's new height limit restrictions, this could not have happened.  Instead, the building would be in bits and pieces in the county dump, and a swishy new higher-rent building would stand in its place.  That's the direction we're headed without the room (upward) to negotiate.  Watch and see.

 JOHN YOUNG -- THE BOCC CANDIDATE TO SUPPORT IN NOV
 We did well, folks.  Or, more accurately, he did.  The Red Ant recently endorsed John Young for county commissioner in the June primary and is proud to report that John moves on to the run-off against Steve Child in November.  Thanks to all who voted for John.  You'll be seeing him out and about over the next 3 months  -- please introduce yourselves and get to know him.  You will surely be as impressed as I am!  And if you haven't already, please donate to his campaign.  Contact: jyoung@sopris.net

 A MEMORIAL DAY HILARITY
 According to several sources who were in attendance at the annual Memorial Day ceremonies at the Roaring Fork Veterans Memorial next to the courthouse, mayor Mick once again inserted himself into the solemn program.  At the podium, he began his diatribe with words to the effect of, "This is the last time I will address this group as mayor of Aspen" when he was interrupted by cheers from the audience.  Mick fatigue.  It's contagious.  Like a virus. Just 10 more months, friends!