ISSUE # 64 .... Ant Alert: Hydro Forum This Thursday!

Hydro Forum This Thursday,

June 16, 5:30pm

Paepcke Auditorium

PLEASE ATTEND!  TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

This Thursday, June 16, please plan to attend a public forum on Hydro Power in Aspen, presented by The Western Rivers Institute with the generous support of the New-Land Foundation.  It is being held at Paepcke Auditorium, beginning at 5:30pm.  Admission is free.

The purpose of this forum is to begin a new dialog within the Aspen Community on just how a "gold standard" for hydropower in the 21st Century can be developed, or if that is even a realistic possibility with the proposed project.

This is the "hydro forum" I've written about, originally proposed by neighbors of the city's beleaguered hydro plant project on Castle Creek.  The event has been expertly saved from a classic hijack by the City of Aspen by The Western Rivers Institute.  When the neighbors, the environmentalists and The Red Ant agree on the same thing - this is worth hearing about!

Mayor Mick has stated that Aspen needs to set a new standard for hydroelectric development in the 21^st century as an environmentally responsible part of a carbon-free renewable energy portfolio.  What will that look like?  What does Aspen need to do that goes beyond the established process?  Why is Aspen building the only "old school-style" hydro plant in the US when other municipalities are tearing theirs out?  What other strategies might also be employed that help achieve the goals of a carbon-free renewable energy supply?

Be there, learn the facts from the experts and join the conversation!!  Tell your friends.

The agenda for the evening:

• ·        Welcome and Intro:  Ken Neubecker, Director, The Western Rivers Institute
• ·         How We Got Here:  Owen Olpin, moderator/facilitator
• ·         Session I:  The New Direction and What That Means

o   Dave Hornbacker, City of Aspen Water Dept:  New direction and process

o   Richard Roos-Collins:  FERC and NEPA process, the role of the public

o   Audience questions

• ·        Session II: Water Rights - What are they? Could a Front Range city take them?

o   Cindy Covell:  Water Attorney for City of Aspen

o   Paul Noto:  Aspen-based Water Attorney

o   Audience questions

• ·         Session III:  A New Standard for Hydropower (a panel)

o   John Emerick, PhD:  Hydropower and stream ecology

o   Richard Roos-Collins:  The public's role in the permitting process

o   Matt Rice:  American Rivers

o   Mick Ireland

o   Audience questions and discussion

ISSUE # 63 .... I'm IndignANT: Cocaine & Welfare. Really?

"Always the wrong way first and the right way last.  In every case, the right way, once we find it, is so direct and obvious that to have missed it seems the strangest fact of all."  -- Garet Garrett, A Time is Born

THE SUMMER SERIES

This issue of The Red Ant was to have been the first in a multi-part series on our local subsidized housing program, specifically the bureaucracy's clouded judgment regarding oversight and management of our 2800-unit portfolio, and the failed entity called APCHA (the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority).   

This expose, in the works for over a year, and timed just as the city of Aspen is pushing pre-sales for phase 2 of Burlingame in hopes of floating a bond (likely to be in the $50-100 million range) as early as November 2011, will shock and awe you.  It should galvanize your opposition to the massive general obligation bond money needed for further construction at Burlingame, as well as fuel your opposition to more subsidized housing in general until we get a firm grip on the program:  who's in charge, who currently lives in our units, whether or not they qualify, whether or not they pay (and are current on) their homeowners association dues, whether or not the various HOAs have sufficient capital reserves, etc. etc.  The list goes on. 

But alas, the news of the day delays the launch of the series.  But it's definitely coming!  Stay tuned.

THE BIG DRUG BUST

On May 19, federal DEA agents made a major drug bust in Aspen.  Six Aspen residents were popped in an early-morning raid:  Peggy Schlaugher, Wayne Reid, Jack Fellner, Joseph Burke, Joan Anastasi and Christopher Sheehan.  Who'd have guessed that 5 of the 6 are in their 60's!?  And, according to a list of subsidized housing residents provided to The Red Ant in 2010, suspects Jack Fellner and Joseph Burke live in publicly subsidized housing  (Centennial and Aspen Village, repectively)! 

Here's the real kicker: the feds (including DEA, IRS, US Marshalls, FBI and Homeland Security) admittedly and purposely left local law enforcement out of the loop on this investigation and the bust.  Hmm, you ask.  Why?  As part of its year-long investigation, the feds discovered "some kind of relationship" between our local sheriff's office and the suspects!  Yep.  It seems the feds feared that their investigation would be compromised if our local guys learned of the impending bust!  And they admit that they just don't trust our sheriff's department!

Details are still unfolding, but this is no small case.  The suspects are alleged to be part of an organized drug ring that trafficked over 500 pounds of cocaine from Los Angeles to Aspen over the last 15 years.  Yes, you read that right: 500 pounds! 

Sometimes it's just best to print the quotes.  Most of these are from The Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News interviews with participating DEA agents, however I spoke at length with DEA special agent Jim Schrandt to confirm the details.  I have a great imagination and am a true conspiracy theorist, but I'm not THIS good:

• "Oftentimes we work with other jurisdictions and we've actually integrated them into our investigations because usually there's a local narcotics task force that we're working with hand-in-hand from the inception of the case.  Unfortunately that does not exist in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County."  --  Jim Schrant, DEA special agent  (NOTE:  Agent Schrandt tells me that both Telluride and Vail law enforcement fully cooperate with the DEA.)
• "And the reason we weren't able to do that fuller notification (of local law enforcement) was because of the relationship of (current sheriff) Joe DiSalvo and (former sheriff) Bob Braudis and several targets of this investigation who were being arrested."  -- Agent Schrant
• These "arrests make Aspen and its surrounding communities safer by taking significant amounts of drugs off the street and putting violent criminals behind bars."  --  Kevin Merrill, DEA special agent
• Regarding Merrill's reference to "violence," Agent Schrant stated, "We don't know if they (the Aspen suspects) are (violent) or aren't.  But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the organization in Los Angeles is extremely violent and the kilos being consumed in Aspen - and the kilos being trafficked by this (local) organization - essentially sent money to that (LA) organization committing this egregious violence."
• Regarding Aspen's role, "The consumers funded it.  The traffickers paid for it directly with Aspen dollars in excess of at least 500 pounds of cocaine.  This cocaine appears to be consumed entirely in Aspen.  This was the end of the ramp in Aspen.  So all that dope was coming here, and this cocaine being bought and paid for in Aspen was (financially) going directly to this organization in Los Angeles."  -- Agent Schrant
• "There is a strong appetite for cocaine in Aspen." - Agent Schrant
• "Communities like Aspen are consuming these copious amounts of cocaine and their dollars are fueling violence in places like Los Angeles, places like Mexico."  -- Agent Schrant

HATE TO SAY IT BUT, I TOLD YA SO

Last fall, The Red Ant (Issue #50) endorsed Rick Leonard over Joe DiSalvo for Sheriff.  There were several reasons, not the least of which was, "Twenty-three year sheriff's deputy and current sheriff Bob Braudis' anointed one, Joe DiSalvo, stands by the status quo of the department," well known for its lax enforcement of the war on drugs.  "Leonard is a big advocate of cleaning up the local drug scene, even if this involves undercover investigations in certain circumstances.  When Braudis and DiSalvo agree that our local drug problem is a health issue and not a criminal one, we are nothing but a sanctuary city/county for drug dealers.  It's 2010.  This mentality does not fly with The Red Ant."  Alas, DiSalvo won in a landslide.

      "Frankly, based on our investigation, we had revealed close ties between the current sheriff and several of the targets that were arrested." -- Agent Schrant 

The DEA was so intent on keeping our sheriff in the dark that they stationed a DEA agent outside the sheriff's office during the early-morning raid as a "preventative measure" in case word of the bust leaked out.  The Aspen Daily News reported that this action was to "avoid a potentially violent confrontation between officers."  Good grief.  Just how far did the feds think (know?) our sheriff would go to protect the local drug trade?

While the DEA will not elaborate on the relationship between DiSalvo and the suspects, public records reveal that several of them made generous contributions to DiSalvo's recent campaign and those of former sheriff Bob Braudis.  Coincidence?  You decide.

The DEA is also quick to point out that it has no beef with the Aspen Police Department.  The Red Ant surmises that the close quarters of the APD and the sheriff's office in the basement of the county courthouse was reason to additionally keep the APD in the dark.

Best yet, our friend mayor Mick and his pal county commissioner Rachel Richards have both committed to writing formal letters to the DEA in support of Sheriff Joe DiSalvo and asking that the DEA cooperate with and inform local authorities in future investigations.  They both intend to have these letters signed by city council and the board of county commissioners next week.  This is a representative democracy, folks.  By doing this, they effectively say that the residents of Aspen and Pitkin County agree with them that, under the guise of public safety, the local sheriff's office should be notified in advance of any federal drug operation being conducted here.  The Red Ant wholeheartedly disagrees, especially when the DEA affirms that this case is "very much ongoing" and they "anticipate further arrests."  I, for one, am very anxious to know more about these "relationships" before DiSalvo gets one iota of intel from the feds!

By clicking this LINK, you can send an email to the DEA, thanking them for this major bust, their continuing investigation, their early-morning arrests (that ensured maximum public safety and minimized disruption), and their on-going fight in the war on drugs.  They have just made our community safer, when our local sheriff's office would not.  PLEASE take 2 minutes to do this.  Write "Aspen" on the subject line and share your gratitude!  It's bad enough that the Aspen community is, according to Agent Schrandt, perceived as having a "passive attitude toward cocaine use" and is viewed as a "hotbed of illegal drug activity."  Let's support the feds in their efforts to change this.

And to think we spend so much time debating the environmental impact plastic grocery bags.....

ASPEN: THE WELFARE STATE?

"The Pitkin County commissioners this week approved spending at least $9,500 for a phone poll gauging voters' mood on approving a property tax to support the Healthy Community Fund, which supports public assistance programs and aids local nonprofit organizations," according to the Aspen Daily News.  Yep, they're planning to gauge public opinion on the reauthorization and increase of the current property tax to fund "social services" in the county.  We've had the Healthy Community Fund since 2002 with $800K in annual funding for its first 5 years.  In 2006, voters upped it to $1.25M through 2012.

Now that demand for "social services" has drastically increased over the past 3 years, the Healthy Community Fund is seen as the next great way to provide more free stuff - to the tune of $3.5M annually.  This property tax increase would of course entail approval by voters, perhaps as soon as this fall.  Yes, times are definitely challenging.  But when the Wall Street Journal (3/4/11) names Aspen "The Most Expensive Town in America," at what point do we collectively acknowledge that it's ok if some people leave town when there are not enough jobs and they cannot afford to live here any longer?

Furthermore, this can be viewed as a tax that makes local non-profits into component units of government, eliminating their need to fundraise, and replacing private donations with tax dollars.  This would make the non-profits subservient to the government's political mission rather than their own missions to serve people directly.  VERY dangerous.

I received a note from a former resident of Aspen who wrote me upon his learning of these latest welfare developments.  Again, sometimes it's just best to quote:

"If I were going to create a welfare state I would find a town in the most beautiful place in the world, attract millionaires to live there, offer them services, and then impose property taxes on them at a level that would let me subsidize all my friends in the lifestyle they have seen but cannot afford."

He continued, "Apparently, Aspen and Pitkin County have chosen this road.  First there was the building phase, when lots of people were attracted to town to help construct mansions.  Then, the city imposed a moratorium on building, putting many out of work.  The solution: impose a property tax to support welfare for the out of work." 

Oh, and the $9500 buys just 300 phone calls. 

Again, can't make it up.

HYDRO HIJACKED

Was it just a political ploy during election season when Mick and council switched gears and voted to withdraw their controversial conduit exemption from the FERC in favor of a "minor water power project" that will entail more environmental studies and greater federal oversight?  Probably.  Believe it when you see it.  In a recently released report, it seems that a secret, closed-door "mediation session" that didn't even include all parties, yielded a "unanimous" conclusion that a 3-member board (a rep from the city, PitCo Healthy Rivers and Streams, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife) should make all the decisions regarding stream diversions for Aspen's hydro plant.  This is patently ridiculous -- the government is poised once again to have the final say, despite the egregious bureaucratic mis-management of the project at just about every turn thus far.  Notable is the fact that those invited to participate in the secret meeting could not bring counsel, nor could they share with the public or press any details of the meeting.  (For this reason, a large group of stakeholders - the Castle Creek landowners - declined to participate.) 

If you are interested, please plan to attend a public forum on Thursday, June 16, at Paepcke Auditorium, starting at 5:30p, although sadly, I'm not confident it will be anything more than a city dog-and-pony show.  This event was originally conceived and planned by local citizens (the Castle Creek landowners, or "NIMBY's" as the city calls them) as a "community forum" on the hydro plant and its myriad issues, but in their generosity, the group offered the city a seat at the table.  With that, the city proceeded to hi-jack the event, steam-rolling the agenda by usurping the opening statement and even featuring self-proclaimed water expert and I-want-a-hydro-plant-on-my-resume mayor Mick on the panel.  It will be valuable to get Mick on the record regarding the "Castle Creek Energy Center," the monicker for the larger project in the works under the guise of a hydro-electric plant, as well as other nefarious and dubious decisions he has personally made, but with the city in charge, one thing not to expect is the truth! 

 I'm still investigating the securities fraud aspect of the $5.5M bond and the use of its proceeds.  This story is far from over.

AACP TIDBITS

City council recently voted not to fund an update to an 2007 economic conditions study that would provide factual, realistic and current information for use in the beleagured Aspen Area Community Plan update.  The outlay?  $12,000, but ACRA had offered to pay half.  The rationale?  Again, let's quote.  Mayor Mick stated to the Aspen Times, "I don't think we need to rehash the economics because I don't think the AACP should be driven by economics."  He continued, "I think the AACP should say what we want to have happen, not what the market wants to have happen."  Yep, he said it.  Straight from the mouth of your mayor, someone who knows nothing and respects even less about business.

Here are three letters to the editor that ran in response to this patently stupid decision:

• Semrau:  Eyes wide shut? (5/28/11)
• Maple:  AACP process "hijacked" (5/27/11)
• Milias:  AACP is an advisory document  (5/27/11)

TOO IDIOTIC TO OMIT

While the city denies funds for useful, relevant and critical economic data, check-out their latest foolish $30,000 expenditure: $20,000 for re-usable water bottles and another $9400 on "filling stations" for them.  They plan to try to sell "some" of the bottles to recoup maybe $15,000.  Great ROI, huh?  (Incompetent city manager Steve Barwick must've approved this math!) Ahhh, to eliminate plastic water bottles at any cost!  It pains me to even write about this -- see this LINK for the Aspen Daily News story on the city's latest plan to pour your money down the drain!

A RED ANT REMINDER

The Red Ant is political commentary (read: opinion - mine - it's an editorial), designed to present, interpret and discuss local issues that the papers either ignore outright,  merely toe the line provided them by city hall, or fail to connect the oh-so-important dots.  Often derided as a "conservative blog" by these same papers, The Red Ant always strives to present verifiable facts with my perspective and ideas on subjects that relate primarily to accountability and transparency in our local government.  (Detractors regularly cry for more "transparency" from me.  My personal business is not required to be transparent.  I am a private citizen and The Red Ant is a private LLC.  However, the government IS required to be transparent, and that is my focus.) 

Please note that I say "verifiable facts" above.  I do extensive research and am happy to provide my facts to you upon request.  When I utilize information from the newspaper, I quote and attribute it.  And should you find factual errors in my reporting, please let me know ASAP.  The Red Ant has no problem admitting an error or issuing a correction.  Just ask Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) author and advocate Marcella Larsen.  When contacted to correct a detail of her hypocritical and self-serving land deal in Issue #52, The Red Ant graciously made the change and noted it as a correction in the very next issue.  Again, this is commentary -- my interpretations and opinions -- but I insist on the facts.  I always welcome your feedback and comments.  Just hit "reply" to this email.

ISSUE # 62 .... A TransatlANTic Election Re-Cap

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." 

                 -- Alexander Tytler, 18th Century political theorist 

ANT ABROAD

I'm never one to leave The Red Ant readership alone to ponder and decipher the election outcome, so this issue comes together en route from Aspen to Moscow via London.  (Nope, the irony is not lost on me -- a report on the election in the People's Republic of Aspen while headed to the land of the Bolsheviks!?)

ARRRRGGGHH:  50.6% OF THE VOTES GIVES MICK HIS THIRD TERM

Mick was so certain of his own victory that he took a week-long vacation at the beginning of campaign season.  At the time, he thought he was running unopposed.  Thankfully Ruth Kruger and Andrew Kole stepped up in the 11^th hour to challenge him and make him work for it.  But in the end, Mick got 892 votes, where Ruth got 719.  Andrew brought in 150.  At press time, it appears that his tally NARROWLY eliminates the need for a run-off.  Oh-so narrowly.  So there we have it.  Mick again.  But the community is VERY Sick of Mick just the same.  It was no landslide and therefore no mandate.  869 citizens voted AGAINST him.  Problem is, 892 voted for him.  Two more years and he's term-limited out.  That is, unless he changes the law to abolish term limits..... Good grief.  But I promise, The Red Ant will be on him like "white on rice" every step of the way.  It's the least I can do.

COUNCIL RUN-OFF IS OFF

Incumbent councilman Steve Skadron and challenger Adam Frisch handily won the two available council seats with 925 and 853 votes, respectively.  (The threshold was at 717 votes.)   These two candidates raised the most campaign funds and were the beneficiaries of "bullet voting" endorsements.  (The Red Ant loathes being grouped with Aspen Times columnist Su Lum for anything, but alas we both promoted a bullet-voting strategy that helped get our candidates elected!)  With six challengers for two seats, it was unexpected to have such decisiveness for both seats in the first round, but given the choices, ok, I see where that could happen.  

ANALYSIS

THE PRECINCTS:  The bulk of Mick's support came from precincts dominated by subsidized housing, and 4 of the 5 precincts are:  Precinct 1 (East Aspen, the Midland/Park neighborhood), Precinct 2 (the downtown core), Precinct 3 (Hunter Creek area) and Precinct 5 (Castle Ridge and Burlingame). This confirms what we've long believed: subsidized housing residents vote for their own, despite terrible problems with the well-intended program, including an incumbent mayor who breaks the same housing rules so many honest residents abide by, and a capital reserves scenario that is solely the result of the city and county creating the housing program and then letting it run itself into the ground!  (Remember, Mick was a 3-term county commissioner before becoming mayor, and is effectively the godfather of Aspen's subsidized housing program.)  His anti-business / pro-entitlement stance keeps the local economy in shambles, with an estimated 50% of subsidized housing residents out of compliance with their rental agreements or deed restrictions because they CAN'T find enough work to fulfill their employment obligations.   Voting is a strange animal -- often frighteningly predictable and making no sense whatsoever in the same breath.  But as The Red Ant has said before, there has been great success for a guy like Mick when he can say, "Vote for me, I got you a house."  Incidentally and no surprise, Precinct 4 (the West End and Cemetery Lane) was where Ruth beat him.

TURN-OUT:  Voter turn-out was notably low this year.  In the 2009 race when we employed the controversial Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) vote-counting method, we were thrilled by the fiery Marilyn vs Mick mayoral contest and provoked by the yes/no vote on the Aspen Art Museum's desire to purchase the old Youth Center space.  This season's race has been anemic at best.  Just 1761 voters cast a ballot in the mayoral race.  Certified totals are not available yet for this year, but in 2009 it was 2544.  The Red Ant ponders, was it the snooze-fest of a campaign that kept voters away? Or was it that we finally had accurate vote counts, adult supervision of the clerk, a locked ballot box in her office, reconciliation of mail-in ballots, voter ID mandated at the polls, and tight controls throughout the process to prevent the long-suspected election fraud from occurring yet again!?  Probably a combination of both.

INTEGRITY:  For the first time in recent memory, the city -- as keeper of the election records -- does not know HOW you voted!  This is thanks to the countless hours and tireless behind-the-scenes work of election integrity activist Marilyn Marks, election commissioners Ward Howenstein and Bob Leatherman, and Pitkin County election manager Dwight Shellman III who the city hired to oversee and begin to fix our election process.  There were significant changes to the election code -- steps to ensure voter anonymity and to re-establish voter confidence in our previously sketchy system.  And boy did Dwight have his hands full, cleaning up several decades' worth of sloppy records, questionable practices and erroneous voter rolls, among other messes too numerous to mention!  As you know, until now, Aspen has long played fast and loose with our voting procedures.  No more!  THANK YOU!  And a special thank you to the fine group of citizen election judges who "worked" the election.  It was great to see so many dedicated citizens making the commitment to ensure fair and accurate elections in Aspen!

OUTLOOK:  From the political/legislative perspective, despite Mick's re-election, there is good news. We have guaranteed ourselves at least a political break-even with Adam's election:  when Dwayne left in February, Ruth was appointed to keep his seat warm.  Adam will now sit in that seat for the next 4 years.  Theoretically, we are no worse off than we were before this election.  And we're likely better off, especially if Adam takes a no-nonsense approach with Mick.  (It's Aspen politics - we've gotta take good news, however lame, if, when and where we can get it!) 

FUNDRAISING:  Many of the candidates elected not to fundraise at all during this race or to simply fund their campaigns themselves.  Ok, it's noble, I guess.  But it was also B-O-R-I-N-G and ineffective!  There were very few goofy and self-aggrandizing "I'm great" campaign ads and even fewer hosted "meet & greets" to casually chat with the candidates over wine and cheese.  Most candidates simply relied on the debates to get their messages out.  Bad idea!  The winners raised money, advertised and held various diverse outreach events!  C'mon folks:  Aspen voters like to see their candidates put a little skin in the game and WORK for their votes!   Even the Sick of Mick campaign raised nearly $3000 in mostly $19.99 increments!

ENDORSEMENTS:  Endorsements by the local papers were generally (and boringly) predictable.  While The Aspen Times went waaaaay out on a limb with their endorsement of Adam Frisch (along with Steve Skadron), it was "despite his support from conservatives and the pro-business crowd."  Good grief.  While on one hand laughable, it's both telling and frightening that the Times vilifies those who call for fiscal restraint in government AND the very same business types they rely on for advertising revenue!   They also predictably endorsed Mick yet again. (Have they ever NOT endorsed him?)  Ok, it is their paper, but when they tout "(he) embodies the values that define the town," while admitting "he's stubborn, prickly and occasionally rude," you know just why they are the town joke.  The Red Ant implores you to do your part -- keep The Aspen Times and their strong anti-business stance in mind when YOU buy advertising.  In other words, don't.  The Aspen Daily News also endorsed Mick.  That too was to be expected.  The Daily News' weak endorsement was admittedly based "not on style but substance," telling readers that Mick "brings a strong work ethic to the job."  Folks, that's because he does nothing else.  He has successfully made a less-than-part-time board-type position into a $27,000 a year career!  NOTE:  The Aspen Times hardly sold any campaign ads this election cycle.  It could have been their pricing -- nearly 40% above the Daily News -- but it was probably more a result of their predictable Mick love-fest.  (Aside from Marcia Goshorn, no candidate wanted to be associated with him!)  But it's most likely because the Times condones "anonymous blogging," where the local haters Pete Louras ("We Deserve Better"), Marcella Larsen ("Stop the Greed Now"), Phyllis Bronson ("Animal Safety") and others have a venue to spew their venom from behind the "cloaks of secrecy" of their noms de plume.  Well, not so secret. But I digress....

IN SUMMARY

Yes, I am disappointed.  Very.  I am simply delighted by Adam's victory, but I had really really hoped for a mayoral run-off -- and we nearly got one.  My biggest fear now is the voting power of the electorate as demonstrated by those who voted for Mick in an environment where he was so solidly on the wrong side of many, many issues.  What does that say?  What kind of community-wide litmus test was this?  I fear the looming $50+M ballot measure for a general obligation bond to build Burlingame 2.  Thankfully it wasn't on this ballot.  But given these results and the precinct voting numbers, it will be a BIG FIGHT to defeat it when it does come before us.  (Notice how I didn't say "if.")

HYDRO UPDATE:  THE BIG ISSUES REMAIN

On April 26, council voted 5-0 to yank its controversial, environmentally indifferent and ethically challenged "conduit exemption" application and will now pursue a more environmentally stringent review with greater federal oversight.  The new plan is to pursue a "minor water power project license."  Did the city really think they could sneak the original shenanigans past the neighbors, the environmentalists, The Red Ant?  This turn-about (just prior to the election -- what a coincidence) is a result of ongoing citizen outcry, condemnation by national environmental groups and threats of lawsuits.  (The Red Ant first covered the hydro mess in July 2010, and has subsequently followed up in 4 additional issues.  See www.TheRedAnt.com, issues 45, 47, 49, 54 and 55.)    This decision followed a closed-door executive session with the city attorneys in which council learned about the city's "vulnerabilities" and the "legal exposure" of staying on the "conduit exemption" application path.  

The new license will add time (2+ years), costs (TBD but in the hundreds of thousands) and uncertainty to the beleaguered project.  It will also put much-needed oversight and responsibility in the hands of the feds as opposed to the city.  However, with $4.4M of the $5.5M bond funds already spent (more like wasted), the financial picture is bleak at best.  (Recall that $2.3M has been spent BUILDING an emergency drainage line from Thomas Reservior -- not for emergency purposes, rather to "create" a conduit so the sought-after "exemption" could be applied for using this "existing" infrastructure!)  Dust in the wind now.  And the custom $1.5M turbine has already been purchased.  It's in storage in another state.  Could there be some securities fraud here, given the funds were used for something other than the voter-approved hydro plant for which the bonds were issued?   Hmmmm.  You can darned well bet I'm looking into it!  Regardless, there was definitely some "misrepresentation."  With just $1.1M of the bond money remaining, how will this thing ever get built, even if it gets approved someday? 

It was funny if it wasn't so pathetic to hear mayor Mick, in a 10-minute sermon on the mount, espouse the glories of hydro power while lamenting the city's continued reliance on coal-fired electricity until the hydro plant is built and productive.  Mick felt the need to remind everyone that this hydro plant is "the right thing to do" because it sets "an example for other communities," and besides, "carbon is killing our community in so many ways."  His favorite scare tactic to rally the declining support for the hydro plant is to tell people that if the hydro plant doesn't get built, our water will be sold to Denver or Phoenix in what's called a "trans-mountain diversion."  It's total BS.  The city will always have the rights to our water for municipal uses.  Their problem is that when they decommissioned the old hydro plant in the 1950's, they lost those hydro plant rights in a use-it-or-lose-it situation.  Thus, they are having to re-apply. 

Mick is simply obsessed with the Koch family who owns a large parcel of land at the far upper end of Castle Creek, and constantly vilifies them for some imagined nefarious plot to sell off our water.  Utter nonsense.  I see it as Mick lamenting a lost "claim to fame" on his resume and trying to guilt the community into feeling bad about it -- when in reality it's Mick whining because he and the boys tried to skirt the law but they got caught!  Questions remain about the feasibility of the new license application, but for now we can breathe a sigh of relief.  Thanks to citizen activists Yasmine DePagter, Maureen Hirsch, Connie Harvey and Ken Neubecker (of Trout Unlimited) who have tirelessly worked to expose this issue. Look for information on their community forum on the hydro plant in mid-June!

HE SAID WHAT???  (AND APPARENTLY IT DIDN'T MATTER!)

Did you hear?  On April 25, during the city council meeting, mayor Mick spoke both of "borrowing" a local kid from the Animal Shelter for a family day at the rec center AND of bringing your "circumcision" to the polls as I.D.  I have a hard time even writing about it so I posted the succinct clips on YouTube.  Watch the :30 piece for yourself HERE.   You can't make this stuff up!  This is a very disturbed man.  Given he now has a third term, it's time for Mick to grow up.  He is 61 years old!  Sixteen years in public office have enabled him to completely lose touch with reality and completely disregard the principles of common decency.  What do you think the odds are of his behavior changing?

ISSUE # 61 .... I'm Not ReluctANT to Endorse!

"Government is not the solution to our problem.  Government is the problem."                 -- Ronald Reagan (watch video) "We've gotten shockingly used to incompetent government."        -- Carly Fiorina THE 2011 ELECTION: RED ANT ENDORSEMENTS I always support the fiscal conservatives, especially when they are proven and respectful leaders.  Grown-ups.  In choosing candidates to endorse, it is paramount that they "get it."  And this year, The Red Ant has 4 key and stated issues that are of great community significance: the AACP, hydro plant, the lack of subsidized housing capital reserves, and a plastic bag ban/tax that is effectively a government effort to impose an illegal tax in violation of TABOR (taxpayers' bill of rights).  It's been painful to watch novices on city council vote on critical issues that they very clearly do not comprehend.  This isn't a "he's a nice guy" race - we're not electing the homecoming king/queen or captain of the lacrosse team here.  We're talking about an $85M budget and the responsibility for decisions that directly impact the livelihoods of our friends and neighbors, not to mention the future of Aspen!  On the other hand, never in recent memory has there been such a weak slate of candidates running for office.  I would be lying if I were to say that endorsing candidates in this election was easy or obvious.  Sure, there are very nice people running, some have great hair, some are "great guys."  Others are complete jerks.   When you see the candidate responses to The Red Ant questionnaire (below), I think you'll agree with me!  The Red Ant is proud to endorse:  Ruth Kruger for Mayor:  This political newcomer is a breath of fresh air.  She currently holds Dwayne Romero's seat on council -- a temporary assignment she was appointed to earlier this spring. As a commercial real estate broker and former P&Z member, Ruth knows the ins and outs of a spreadsheet and has experienced first-hand the "goings-on" in city hall.  She has also experienced how bad public policy directly affects our local economy.  Ruth herself said it best, "The city is off the rails and in need of focus on responsible budgetary issues to get back on track." She's an advocate of government transparency, process improvement and that civility and inclusion so notably absent in the Mick Ireland councils these past 4 years. Vote for Ruth for Mayor! For council, I must candidly admit, this was more of a challenge.  I do not agree across the board with ANY of the council candidates.  However, I found through my questionnaire, conversations with many of them, and the track records of the others that, given our choices, the future of Aspen is in the best hands with: Adam Frisch for Council:  A business guy with a strong financial background who is raising a family in Aspen is just what local government needs today.  He's a straight shooter, not afraid to take a stance, but equally accessible to hearing new ideas and viewpoints.  Adam specifically stated, "The city has failed to do its job; it is actually impeding the encouragement of new business and the growth of existing ones." Identifying and getting rid of the obstacles is where he can make a real difference.  And that's not to mention Adam's proven commitment to the community through leadership roles on civic boards and local non-profits too numerous to list.  The Red Ant's greatest political regret to-date was not endorsing Adam for council in 2009.  It was a terrible mistake.  Vote Adam for Council!**  **IMPORTANT:  Now that we are rid of Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), we are likely to have a run-off on June 7.  It is vital that we do what's necessary to get Adam on council NOW, in the first round.  Therefore, I strongly urge you to simply "bullet-vote" for Adam.  This means just vote for Adam despite the opportunity to vote for two candidates.  We'll get him seated in the first round and have time to decide between  whichever two candidates advance to the run-off in June.  (Yes, I will endorse for that race if/when the time comes.)  Question #1: YES  (This small land-swap appears to be a harmless housekeeping matter, although I hope the city gets out of the real estate game ASAP.  Read more here.)  ASPEN IS "SICK OF MICK" -- 96.5 MILLION REASONS WHY People want to know why I'm so SICK OF MICK.  Let me explain and you will be too.  There are 96.5 million reasons.  Taxpayers, environmentalists, non-profits, local businesses, historic preservationists, subsidized housing residents and special event planners should be violently sick, given the public resources Mick has wantonly squandered amidst the worst economic downturn in years.  (Just imagine how the wise and thoughtful deployment of $96.5 million could have impacted our community!)  Mick has been an irresponsible leader, wastefully spending millions and escaping all accountability, and has led staff and council to be perennially on the wrong side of ALL the important issues.  The following is a list of Mick's flops, foibles and self-serving behaviors (and by no means is the list complete) that caused the community to squander at least $96.5M during the leadership of mayor Mick: ·BMC PURCHASE: The city spent $18.25M on the lumberyard in 2007 as part of its ill-fated "land-banking" scheme to acquire property for future subsidized housing development.  The purchase was completed without an appraisal, and today the assessor's office values the property at $3.2M.  (Community is out $15M.)   OTHER LAND SPECULATION: The city shelled out another $16.6M in 2007 on 4 other properties, depleting the housing fund. To date, not one has been developed for subsidized housing, and the rental revenue for the squalid dwellings is negligible at best.  Yes, intrinsically the land still has value, but certainly not $16.6M worth today!  For now, the money is tied up and will be for the foreseeable future unless the city dumps the properties at substantial losses.  (Community/the housing program is currently out $16M.) HYDRO PLANT:  The $5.5M bond (repayment capped at $10.78M) approved by voters in 2007 has already been issued. This beleaguered attempt at local "renewable energy," despite having no permits, has been revealed to have already cost $4.4M for questionable drainage pipe and transition line installation, and equipment purchases. Mick famously defended the continuance of plant construction without permits because "we've already bought the ($1.5M) turbine."  Back-pedaling recently during the campaign over a need to consider the impacts on stream health, Mr. Environment himself has proposed a low-level environmental study that the hydro plant project does not even qualify for!  Misuse of the bond funds could also be considered securities fraud and open up a HUGE can of worms (and legal expenditures) for the city.  Debt service on the bonds was sold to voters as coming from the electric utility fees from the power generated, but the hydro plant will likely only be in operation a couple months a year, at most.  Ad valorem property taxes (without limitation to rate or amount) were approved to be levied to cover the debt, however we will more likely see dramatic increases in utility rates, especially for Aspen businesses who are the largest power customers.  Citizen outcry has grown LOUD, and many are calling for a pause in construction for a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) by the feds.  Others are telling the city to cut its losses and walk away.  None of this will come cheap or quick.  (Community is on the hook for $10+M for the bond debt service, regardless.) BURLINGAME PHASE 1:  Mayor Mick has been a longtime proponent of subsidized housing at Burlingame, at one point promising a $62,500 taxpayer subsidy per unit.  In the end, Burlingame 1 cost $45M more than what he promised ($33M attributed to undocumented "construction inflation" on a fixed-price contract and an additional $11.7M in change orders).  The subsidy was over $32M for 91 units -- $359K per unit.  (Community/housing fund is out $45M.) BURLINGAME PHASE 2:  To date, the city has spent $3M in planning costs for the proposed 167-unit subsidized housing expansion that will require a $50+M general obligation bond for the estimated $100+M project.  This includes a campaign to pre-sell the proposed units, featuring a brochure stating the #1 reason to sign up: "NO LOTTERY - NO DEPOSIT - NO COMMITMENT."  (The "zero accountability" marketing strategy?  Like we need more of THAT!?)  Burlingame 2 planning costs are likely to increase until the bond measure is STEAM-ROLLED by voters whenever it hits the ballot.  (Community is out $3M, and counting. THE GIVEN INSTITUTE In late 2010, the University of Colorado Medical School had a $20M immediate cash sale offer for The Given Institute, a facility no longer feasible to CU (operational deficits were over $200K/year).  Mick led council in threatening an emergency ordinance to prevent the sale, and then asked CU to delay in order to negotiate with the city as a potential buyer.  CU acted in good faith, and after over 6 months of Mick-driven delays, ultimately sold the west end property for $13.8M to a private buyer.  What did Mick accomplish for Coloradans?  A loss of over $6M in funding for medical research and healthcare in the name of protecting Aspen's 1970's architecture.  Aspen leads again!? (Over $6M vanished into thin air.) THE AACP  Conservatively costing over $1M to-date in out-of-pocket and staff time (and it's far from finished), plus thousands of hours of volunteer time, the community plan draft is based on a 2006 economy.  Public input, while collected, has been rejected and ignored to reflect Mick's "no growth" philosophies.  These philosophies stand to make any kind of construction (expansion or new development) financially impossible due to 100% subsidized housing mitigation and mandated increases in development fees, according to community business leaders.  Conservative estimates put the costs-to-complete the AACP at an additional $250K, bringing the total cost to at least $1.25M.  If the document is deemed to be "visionary/aspirational," it easily will have cost $1M more than it should have.  If it's deemed to be regulatory, the costs from lawsuits will be astronomical.  (Community is out at least $1M.) INVOLUNTARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Ordinance 30 of 2007, Mick's legacy from his first month in office, was passed as an "emergency" to control the maintenance and improvement of private homes over 30 years old.  Three years of turmoil, unnecessary demolitions and over $250K in task force funding (not to mention literally thousands of hours of volunteer time) had to be thrown at the problem he created late one night before it was finally resolved earlier this year when "historic preservation" in Aspen was officially determined to be VOLUNTARY.  A needless waste of time and money.   (Community is out $250K.) "MICK'S VACANT LOT"  After threatening to defend the AACP "to the last dollar," mayor Mick settled a lawsuit that granted special exemptions to the Aspen Art Museum for a proposed museum facility on the Wienerstube  property.  This settlement was reached prior to being heard by the appeals court that was (obviously) likely to strike down the AACP's purported power as a regulatory document.   As a result, the savvy Wienerstube property owners negotiated a win/win for themselves, and now own a valuable vacant lot without having to negotiate to tear down the 1970's era Wienerstube building.  Should the Museum actually buy the land and build their museum, Mick's settlement grants them a free pass from spending years in the P&Z and council negotiations process.  In the meantime, Aspen can thank Mick for the quick demolition of several local businesses that can no longer serve the public or generate jobs and tax revenue.  And should the museum never purchase the site, it's unclear but purported that the settlement benefits flow to any new development there.  Yep, unfettered, unregulated development in the form of something other than a new Art Museum, which at least has a public benefit.  The worst possible outcome!  (Community is out TBD!  It's impossible to quantify!) MAIN STREET MEDIAN  Under Mick's leadership, the city proposed a median be built down the middle of Main St.  Never mind its own snowplows could not operate within the new design configuration, local fire engines could not make left turns off Main Street when responding to fires!  (Community is out over $100K for this insipid idea.) QUIZNO'S BIKE RACE Mayor Mick the avid road-biker cajoled his fellow councilmen into providing $140K in city funds to bring a stage of the Quizno's Pro Challenge bike race to Aspen this summer.  (A commitment to this untried event also comes from the lodging community which kicked in $200K in comp rooms over the slow weekend after the Music Festival ends.)  The mayor admits that he can't promise the event will pay will off in its first year, but his love of biking and the fact that he's seen bike races in Europe were enough to empower him to use your money to bring this event here.  Number of participants in the race:  128.  Should the city be spending $140K in tax dollars for this?  I think not.  (The community is out $140K.) And these last two items are just a couple of "self-serving" reasons why I'm especially SICK OF MICK: SPECIAL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING  Mick lives in a subsidized housing project (Common Grounds) that exists outside of the "normal" APCHA portfolio.  When vacancies at his project occur, only those who belong to the small association (anyone can join for $50) are entered into the lottery for housing there, unlike the APCHA lotteries that include all qualified comers.  Few know about this "association" so the lottery pool is tiny.  The idea is called "co-housing" where neighbors share the maintenance work to keep costs down; in reality it's chaos.  The maintenance is a disaster and hardly shared.  Mayor Mick "rents" an office on-site yet neglects to pay said rent.  And his pal Rachel Richards (on the BOCC) is a member of the "association," hoping to be picked next for an open unit in the project.  Of, by, and for the people?  Not Mick!  His housing is in a special CLUB!  And its HOA capital reserves scenario is worse than most all others!  NO VOTER I.D.:  As part of thorough election reforms to reduce voter fraud and improve voter confidence in our municipal elections, the election commission recommended that voters be required to show ID before voting.  The state requires it and so does Pitkin County.  Mick argued vociferously against changing the city's law to require the same, citing a vast right-wing conspiracy to disenfranchise "the old" and "the young" voters with this "cumbersome" requirement.  It would be funny if it wasn't so telling.     So, there you have it - more than 96.5 million reasons.  And you can be sure there are plenty more, but ENOUGH ALREADY! ASPEN CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES I recently sent the candidates a questionnaire, not unlike those sent by the daily papers, but specifically focused on what I see as THE critical issues.  Here are the questions and responses from those who chose to participate. I strongly believe that candidates who are afraid to take a stand on the issues in black & white in The Red Ant signal to me that they will be equally "reluctant" leaders and are therefore undeserving of your vote.  (Ya think?)  I do however feel that the complete responses of all candidates who took the time to respond should absolutely be shared.  (This is a VERY long issue and I apologize, but I encourage you read the candidates' responses.) 1)  Should the AACP be guiding (regulatory) or aspirational (visionary), and why?  Would you vote to approve the AACP as written, yes or no, and why?  (And for Mick and Steve, what is the budget for the AACP and who approved it?) Cliff Weiss: The AACP is both.  The Planning and Zoning commission adjucates applications that are asking to vary from or exceed code.  The land use code cannot foresee every loophole or tactic being used to exceed code and amending the code takes time.  Therefore it is the job of the AACP to be a regulatory tool that ensures a project provides some public benefit, mitigates for its impacts and is appropriate with its neighborhood.  Developers and the community need certainty.  Requiring consistency with the AACP gives everyone the certainty that there are limits to what will be acceptable.  There are also many policies and action items that are recommendations and therefore advisory to county commissioners, council and the departments affected. Marcia Goshorn: The AACP is a visionary document like a master plan that gives a road map.  To consider a document that is only revised every 10 years regulatory could be dangerous.  We can create land use codes that honor the AACP, but need the ability with changing conditions to change our course to better meet our needs and eliminate failed programs.   I would not vote to approve it as it now stands, there are too many sections that still include failed programs that started with good intentions but did not work. Andrew Kole: I think the AACP should be "visionary", and truly a reflection of community values, and NOT used as a political tool or football.  The current AACP is like a buffet without a central theme. At times it is confusing at best. The City says "the AACP shall be used as both a guiding and regulatory document", while the County "recognizes the AACP as an advisory document."  Additionally, with 521 listed Action Items (a rather large number), the AACP tries to do too much without the proper resources to succeed, as City staff can only do so much. To cut to the chase, the key item that needs to be debated is the language taking affordable housing mitigation from 60% to 100%, and the undefined phrase, "critical mass."  Finally, when it takes almost three years to write a document, the result creates assumptions that are not only out of tune with the current economy, but potentially fatal to it. Factor in arbitrary language such as "critical mass" only adds to the confusion and fear associated with the Growth Section of the document.  The AACP is supposed to reflect the Aspen Idea which, when you get down to it, is living in harmony. While this version attempts to achieve that goal, it still needs some retooling.  And no, since the final document is still a moving target, I'd have to vote no in its current form. The time it has taken to write the current AACP, specifically the man-hours, both staff and volunteer, give me cause to step back so we can re-discuss what we, the citizens really want the AACP to be.  Steve:  The AACP should be a guiding document. It should lead us to amend the land use code in a way that satisfy the community vision. No, I would not vote to approve it as it is written. I think it needs to be easier and simplified. And, some issues like 100% AH mitigation I'm not convinced are practical.  Adam: The community has made it clear that the AACP is a very important document, and I agree.  Aspen needs and deserves a guiding document that brings focus to our most important hopes and aspirations.  The document should be advisory, with the possible exception of the land use issues, but only, and this is a very important distinction, only if this section is consistent with the land use code.  As to the current process, I would like to see us take a 'pause' while the Community Development Department has the economic assumptions redone to reflect our current conditions.  The 2007 assumptions were not made during a normal 'boom' cycle, but during a period of economic activity, especially real estate speculation, that none of us will see again in our lifetime (nor do I care to see return).  It is vital for our community to understand the expected repercussions from the AACP prior to voting on it.  Having the original numbers reviewed would be much quicker and less expensive than the first time around. Ruth: The AACP is a guiding document meant to define our mission and vision while defining valley principals.  We have zoning regulations that determine the regulatory statutes.  Perhaps we should redefine them in a simpler way so that everyone knows the rules of the game.  Why not clearly define what a project can be and what an applicant can and cannot do?  This game of setting the rules, like drawing a line in the sand then moving it has created a great loss of income and failed projects that could have meant jobs for our local work force rather than big holes in the ground and wasted opportunity.  Pitkin County has lost 2400 jobs in the last 2 years.  These are our friends and neighbors who have lost their homes and their quality of life.  What is the end game here and why do we continue to play?  Let's be fair and design a program that is definable.  Arbitrary interpretation is no longer acceptable and has resulted in too many lawsuits. 2)  Do you favor a fee (how much), an outright ban or the status quo (that could include incentives) with regard to plastic bags, and why? Cliff:  The goal was to reduce waste.  I don't think taxes are the solution.  Waste carting companies already pick up other recyclables, why not plastic and corrugated as well?  If the city is truly looking to cut waste, then they should work with the state to support a bill against wrongful packaging.  Packaging contributes far more to landfills than plastic bags. Marcia: I have always favored a carrot rather than a stick. City Market already gives you a discount if you bring your own bag, but a lot of people do not know it. The city could also work with the Lodging community and ACRA to find some incentives to encourage them to place reusable bags in the condos or sell inexpensive ones at point of sale. We could also have incentives to the stores to use bio degradable bags like the free dog bags. There are alternatives that can still put us on the cutting edge and accomplish the same goals. Andrew:  No fee!  No ban!  I favor presenting the idea on its merit and feel the public will get on board. I am also in favor of promoting the non-use of individual plastic water bottles through the same process. Steve:  This program needs to be assessed further. I don't feel committed to either option at this time but I am committed to reducing waste. Adam:  Our community should always be striving to be as environmentally responsible as possible.  However, a tax or fee is unlikely to decrease anyone's plastic bag usage -which should be our goal.  One proposal that I would like to see discussed is creating a public-private partnership to help the lodges, condominiums, property management companies, and hotels provide reusable bags for their guests.  While I think we need to be careful on banning widely used products, the reason I remain open to discussing this issue is the banning of the bags by the following countries, none of which are exactly known for the environmental stewardship: Bangladesh, China, Eritrea, Nepal, Somaliland, Taiwan, Tanzania, and Thailand.  If these countries can ban the bags, we should at least discuss the pros and cons.  Regardless of any action per above, my preference is to work with our partners in our community to offer a consistent approach to this problem on a valley wide basis. Ruth:  I believe that it is not within the powers of the City Council to impose a fee on a transaction between parties without a vote of the public (otherwise known as a tax).  I think it is a great discussion that could help change people's behaviors for the better and is worth having.  I think speaking to state officials or looking at a statewide program for returnable bottles is a more effective and more far reaching program to pursue. 3)  Who should pay for common area repairs to subsidized housing projects when the HOA reserve accounts do not have the money?  Explain. Cliff: I think the city will have to share the cost with the homeowners on a project-by-project basis.  While the homeowners a culpable for their lack of planning, so is the city.  I campaigned on this issue in 2003.  Did the city have regular meetings with HOAs?  In hindsight, the city should have provided new HOAs with guidelines and capital reserves requirements and received annual reports a decade ago and now must be a part of the solution for failing to do anything. Marcia: The information that has been leaked about the capital reserve studies is very misleading. The studies are preliminary and are only meant to be a budgeting tool for the Associations.  The affordable housing associations are no different than the free market projects when it comes to repairs and capital reserve funds. Few HOA's fund their capital reserve at a 100% level. I urge you to check your own associations to see where they stand. Major repairs are generally funded through special assessments or bank loans which is the same for free market and affordable housing and has been done that way as long as condominium projects have been in existence. In an issue as serious as Centennial helping the Association create their own special improvement district could be done at no cost to the taxpayers other than the residents of Centennial, but still would need the support of the City Council to make it happen. It would be paid back with their own taxes much like a sewer district. It would save them money and allow them to spread out the payments at a much lower interest rate. We can accomplish anything working together. Andrew:  This is a very tough question that is going to generate a lot of debate.  It is my belief, after serving on the Housing Frontiers Group for the last two years, the existing and future financial problems should be the responsibility of the HOAs and APCHA (City and County). Without going into excessive detail, there is no question in my opinion, all three entities have failed in one way or the other and the costs associated with the solution should be shared. Steve: Home owners. However, I think the city could have done more to prevent and support HOA boards from operating with woefully insufficient capital reserves. Adam: I have been spending the last 18 months working on this exact issue as a member of the Housing Frontiers Group (HFG).  I do think there is a role of the community/government to help the individual HOAs get back on track as far as their reserves are concerned.  Examples will be running education seminars for the individual homeowners and most importantly, help the HOA boards get up to speed on their rights and responsibilities.  I have spoken with a lot of AH residents and HOA board members and no doubt the vast majority of them are trying hard to do the right thing---manage their HOAs to the best of their abilities.  In their defense, I think APCHA has done a poor job in providing the tools to their residents.  This education piece is something HFG is working on.  Money invested in helping the HOAs to 'learn how to fish' as opposed to a 'bail out' is money well invested as far as I am concerned.  From talking to all HOA and individual residents, this is their hope as well.  As to the actual capital reserve shortfalls, I look at the issue like our nation's Social Security problem; while the roof is not falling down anytime soon, we do need to make some changes to get the program on a sustainable path.  When the data does come out, I think it will be very manageable as we need to remember the shortfall is over a 30 year period, not due in the next month. Ruth:  I believe we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend we have no place in the discussion.  It is a long standing problem that has not and is unlikely to be fixed without guidance and funding from the City.  I would like to explore a low interest loan program for the adequate repair and replacement for health and safety issues.  These can be paid back over time and/or upon the sale if the units.  4)  Should the city continue to spend money on plans for Burlingame Phase 2, yes or no, and why? Cliff: No.  When plans for Burlingame were first introduced, I was against the development.  I was concerned the project would set a precedent for sprawl throughout the upper valley.  Worse, there were no mass transit plans that made any sense.  The development would exacerbate traffic on Hwy 82.  Now that there are 89 or so units, I would still like to know how the development would be serviced by mass transit before I could support expansion. Marcia: I believe that we need to complete the plans currently underway so that when the time is right to start construction we are ready to do it with no additional costs or delays. We have come so far with the plans already it would be a complete waste of money to stop them mid-completion and a complete waste of taxpayer's money that has already been spent and increase the final cost.  Andrew: No.  Before we spend another dime we need to find out what our workforce housing needs really are (category, size), and if we even need more.  We also have to look at the costs associated with repairing what is already built.  It is very easy to say we need more workforce/affordable housing during an election, but the facts as they stand now do not justify building for the sake of building.  I believe in workforce/affordable housing. But, I am not a fan of certain pieces of Aspen's current program or process when it comes to determining what Aspen's needs are today, and in the future.  I promise you there are a lot of ways to go, and the public is not hearing all of them. Instead we are spending money like the proverbial "drunken sailor." Steve: Yes, but pay close attention to the pre-sales process. If there's not enough demand, we shouldn't build it. Adam: While the process of Burlingame-phase 1 left a lot to be desired, I think the end result of a family oriented affordable housing project close to town is a huge community asset.  I have a lot of friends who are thrilled to be there.  City Hall has learned a lot from the BG-1 process and I know they are working on some industry best practices that were not in place prior.  Assuming BG-2 follows the "qualified" demand issue I discuss below, I think it is fine to go through the pre-sale process to see if there is enough 'qualified' demand for any stages to be built.  It is imperative that we study the demand issue; something this community has never had to do. Ruth: In the current economy this is a frivolous use of taxpayer money and staff time on additional units at Burlingame.  We do not need to be building new units to compete with the units we have now that are not selling.  We need to focus on what we have and financing options for the current stock. 5)  Should we continue to build more subsidized housing, yes or no, and why? Cliff: Yes.  But not by the city.  I support public/private projects and Peter Fornell's concept of smaller easily assimilated projects.  If lottery applications are high for a particular category unit, it indicates we need more units to meet demand. Marcia: There are several public private partnerships currently underway and they need to be completed. To stop them now would be irresponsible. To only look at the here and now instead of the future does no one any favors. We need to look at what will be in the pipeline from development projects and current construction as a whole. The need for housing for teachers, policemen, and the everyday people that make up the foundation of this community is as important as it ever was. I do not know about you, but if my house starts to burn down I want my volunteer fireman to be living closer that Basalt. Andrew: Yes, No, Maybe? Could I be more non-committal?  First, we need to take care of what we have. Next we need to determine what we really need. I know the lines for the lower categories are long. I also know that our population is getting older and we have no plan to assist retirees.  Finally, I know we talk a good game, but we now need to get our hands dirty and do the right thing, the smart thing for all citizens. Steve: We should build to satisfy community goals, not build AH simply for the sake of building.  Adam:  While we still have a long-term affordable housing shortage, we need to take a few breaths and make sure we realize that the world has changed and Aspen's AH program is not immune.  On the supply side, the City will need to borrow for any new project.  This requires a vote of the community, not just the City Council.  While not necessarily a bad outcome, it does make a higher hurdle to clear for adding housing units.  Also on the supply side is the issue of where to place any additional units.  Our community has high and admirable goals for density and protecting open space.  We do not have an unlimited amount of land, even for affordable housing.  On the demand side, the concerns are even deeper.  While the economy has had a dampening effect on affordable housing, current lending standards have really placed a stifling effect on demand.  The question now is not who would like/needs affordable housing, but who is finically qualified to obtain it given the current lending practices.  With needs of 10-20% down, this is really the challenge for perspective new AH homeowners.  While the details are always important, the first step to building more units is do we have a critical mass of people who can qualify?  The second level of the demand question is not so much on the new projects possibly going up, but with a lot of that demand coming from existing AH units, we need to make sure we can fill the older inventory as well. Ruth: With the loss of 2400 jobs from 2008 and 2009, the law of supply and demand begs the question why?  We have land-banked enough properties for the next century if we are determined to hold our growth rate to a minimum.  I say we take a pause and look at the facts of what we need and what we want.  With the current requirements of the City and the AACP, the City will certainly be the largest developer and perhaps the only developer left in town. 6)  Should the city continue to pursue a federal exemption from conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on Castle and Maroon Creeks in order to move forward with the Hydro Plant, yes or no, and why? Cliff: Yes, but this issue should never have become so contentious. The conduit exemption is not really relevant to a solution.  There was nearly a solution for a higher minimum level CFS (cubic feet per second) flow.  The solution would have preserved the health of the creeks at the expense of a small amount of power generation for two months.  When P&Z discussed the solution, we were told it couldn't be done.  I'm frequently told it can't be done.  But the more I pursue it, the more I prove it can be done. Marcia: This issue has two people that I greatly respect, Mark Udall and Connie Harvey, who usually stand shoulder to shoulder on environmental issues on opposite sides. The City would require an environmental assessment for any developer and I believe that the city needs to hold itself to the same standards not a lower one. We need the best information available to create an informed decision for a healthy sustainable environment. Andrew: No. The city needs to STOP and take a really good look at the history of the project, the bond, and listen to the citizens that have become more informed than the officials making decisions.  The Hydro Plant was an idea not properly researched (due diligence anyone), that became an obsession that might actually do significant damage to our streams.  To date we have spent $2.3M on a pipe to nowhere, $1.5M on a turbine, and $600T for a transmission line.  In total, we have spent over $4.4M of the $5.5M bond authorized by the citizens. And, I understand, spent the $2.3M under the guise of an emergency drainage line (another emergency?) not needed, but to generate an exemption needed for the Hydro Plant.  As I see it, spending bond money on something other than what is intended in the bond sale, is problematic at best, and could have more far reaching consequences. Steve:  No. We need to be responsible in our pursuit of hydro-power, and I don't believe pursuit of the exemption is satisfactorily responsible. Adam: No.  Aspen should instead apply for a "Minor License Application," which is a more stringent application process.  While a formal environmental assessment will be required, it is the right thing to do for our community.  I have a hard time understanding why, as an environmentally committed community, we would avoid conducting an environmental assessment.  The City of Aspen places stringent environmental requirements on all building projects, and it should do the same on its own projects.  Hypocrisy does not bode well with me, nor do I think for the community. Ruth:  It appears that the hydro plant has been moving forward in a bit of a rush to achieve a worthy goal.  It is my understanding, after several conversations with those more knowledgeable in this complicated system, that the rule of the project is that the ends justify the means.  It is odd that a project that aspires to an environmentally sustainable goal would not be more sensitive regarding the environment.  It is my understanding that the study performed was only over a 2 month period in the summertime with the rest of the information extrapolated from a very old study.  This project needs a pause to perform the proper due diligence and to play by the rules required by the state and the proper authorities. 7)  How would YOU have handled negotiations between the city and Jonathan Lewis, purchaser-to-be of The Given property?  (NOTE:  At press time, The Given Institute has met its maker and was torn down on Monday and Tuesday, April 18 & 19.) Cliff: Negotiations usually result in compromises where no one gets everything they want.  I didn't see what was on the table so I can't tell you where the settlement could have been.  But I understand the process and believe there might have been a different outcome. Marcia: I have always believed that you should go into any negotiation with no preconceived notions and listen to all of the proposals. I am hoping that something can still be worked out. The reported proposal by Mr. Lewis could be in someways the best of all worlds. To build one house for his family member without cutting down any of the beautiful trees and renovating the existing building with the modernization it has needed for a long time could preserve a beautiful property. We are not coming from a position of strength, so we need to be humble and listen with an open mind and heart. Andrew: Better than they were handled. I say this because I have been negotiating for most of my life in one form or another.  As a city we have not been the best of negotiators.  Two recent examples being the BMC land purchase and the Art Museum.  Why we do not bring in professionals specific to the item being negotiated has never made sense to me. Steve:  More or less the same way it was handled.  Adam: Honestly I do not know.  I do know that it is sad we very well might lose an important part of Aspen's history.  But I hope and expect the next owners to treat the site and trees with the care it deserves as that special piece of property begins a new stage.  It is hard to comment when there are a lot of closed door sessions as the public does not know all the facts.   I hope the situation was unique enough that the process can turn out differently next time a very important building faces the same fate. Ruth: I would have loved to enter a negotiation to pay the stated subsidy of $200,000 and partner with CU as a leaseholder to make The Given a revenue generator and a venue for programs developed to bring more tourism to town.  We could have used the facility as an environmentally-oriented educational facility making this a win/win for all. 8)  Please comment on the situation at the southwest corner of Spring St and Hyman Ave (the now-vacant lot that was previously the Wienerstube) now that it's become public that the Aspen Art Museum has not yet purchased the property and they do not have the funding on-hand to build the museum. Cliff: I'm frustrated that P&Z didn't get to comment on this project before it was decided.  I think it's too big for a transition zone to a residential neighborhood.  I would have been in favor of one less story and some setback on at least one side.  Personally, I didn't like the design.  Bill Wiener had it right - it would have been a pigeon roost.  But I do not have a problem with that location for an art museum.  I also think Infill code that allows tall buildings in the core should be rolled back as well.  Infill was another idea with good intentions that has done more harm than good. Marcia: The news reports did not say that they did not have the money to build, but they wanted the endowment to support it in place before construction begins which is actually a financially prudent thing to do. The original agreement was to avoid a lawsuit, but I do not believe that threats of lawsuits should never be a deciding factor, sometimes you need to call their bluff and be willing to walk away. Andrew: Simply put, I was surprised, disappointed, dumbfounded! Why a demolition permit was approved before the city was dead certain the Museum had their financial house in order is beyond me.  Does anybody remember the Stage 3 deal that resulted in an open construction site for years?  As a matter of fact, how many empty construction sites do we need until somebody says enough!  The AAM might build the museum - but why tear the Wienerstube down until construction was imminent? I'm sure the owners of Bad Billy's or some other establishment could have used the place until the AAM was ready to start construction. Steve: I believe they will complete their transaction. Until then, I think the Museum should support an effort to utilize the space as a public garden. Adam:  I think the vacant lot is indicative a very disappointing and frustrating process for the community.  I was not in the "inside" when most of this process happened, but I think it is a shame for the sake of the community that the Museum received such a fast track approval process.  Even very worthy community projects like the Hospital need to go through the 'normal' land use code.  While it is frustrating for many, and there is no doubt room for improvement, the normal process has done this community well.  The expressway lane for the AAM has rightly frustrated a lot of people and emphasized that the playing field is not always equal for all applicants.  While the Council was forced at the end to choose between two 'bad choices,' they easily could of avoiding getting to that stage if they would have handled the original Wienerstube redevelopment better. Ruth: It appears that the proper due diligence and requirements imposed on the public such as performance bonds were not in place.  The inadequate public process that could have resulted in perhaps a better project resulted in a lost opportunity for the Community to have a truly special project.  Although it was designed by a famous architect, I am not sure the high altitude elements and the heat effect on the glass block ceiling and the wooden lattice exterior were considered.  How can it not be an HVAC nightmare?  And what is to happen to the lattice framework after a few extreme hot summer and cold winter months?   VOTE ON MAY 3 - AND BRING PHOTO I.D. Early/Absentee voting has begun in the clerk's office in City Hall.  You may come in to vote between 9a - 5p M-F through Friday, April 29.  Absentee ballots must be in the clerk's hands by 7p on May 3.  Postmarks don't count. The polls are open 7a - 7p on May 3. Precincts 1-3 vote at Rio Grande Plaza.  Precincts 4-5 and 7 vote at Schultz Health & Human Services (by the hospital).  To find your precinct, go to www.GoVoteColorado.com In order to have a winner on May 3, a mayoral candidate must have 50% of the total votes cast + 1 vote.  If none achieve this threshold, the two top vote-getters enter into a run-off.  Council candidates can avoid a run-off if they individually pull in 45% of the total votes cast + 1 vote.  (Yes, it's possible for one council candidate to win a seat in the first round, in which case the candidates with the two next highest vote counts will advance to the June 7 run-off.)  THE REVOLUTION In an effort to encourage challengers to mayor Mick, The Red Ant and co-conspirators launched the 2011 "SICK OF MICK" campaign on March 21.  (Visit www.SickOfMick.com ) At the time, mayor Mick was running unopposed!  Thankfully, there are now 3 candidates for mayor.  We've got ourselves a REAL RACE!   I'm ecstatic!  This is already a HUGE victory -- to be sure -- but now we need to prevent Mick's re-election!  Thanks to all who have supported the SICK OF MICK campaign.    Fundraising for this effort has been incredibly successful.  Look for several SICK OF MICK ads in the papers in the days leading up to the election.  Thank you for enabling this effort with your generosity!  For now, fundraising must cease (per election laws) but remember, we'll know on May 3rd if we have a run-off on June 7!   If necessary, and let's hope not, I'll be back in touch to replenish the coffers!   If you want yard signs or bumper stickers, please contact The Red Ant at TheRedAntEM@comcast.net and we will make arrangements to get these to you!  CORRECTION Regarding the Aspen Art Museum, Issue #59 reported that they "really don't have the money needed to build the in-town museum on the site they purchased under controversial conditions late last year."  In fact, the Aspen Art Museum has yet to purchase the property at the southwest corner of Spring St and Hyman Ave where the Wienerstube once stood.  The Red Ant regrets the error, and will think of Mick each time I walk past the needlessly vacant lot.

ISSUE # 60....Ant Byte: SycophANTs Unite to Protect Mick

"Nobody thought about it... That this program (subsidized housing in Aspen) would last 30 years and that these buildings would need to be maintained." 

-- Jackie Kasabach, Housing Frontiers Group member and former member of City Council, 4/18/11.

"APCHA doesn't have the time to do this stuff." 

-- Marcia Goshorn, APCHA board member, Housing Frontiers Group member and current candidate for City Council, 4/18/11.

HOUSING FRONTIERS: A LEADERLESS GROUP THAT MEETS IN SECRET, KEEPS NO NOTES

The Red Ant recently attended a meeting of the Housing Frontiers Group (HFG), an obscure extension of the housing authority (APCHA) according to some, a group working for the city manager through assistant city manager Barry Crook according to others, a group recognized and funded by city council according to council minutes, and an "independent advisory body" and "off-shoot of the (now-defunct) Citizen's Budget Task Force with no subservience to APCHA," according to two HFG members.  Go figure.  "Most of the group's time (over the past 2.5+ years) has been spent on developing a program that helps affordable housing homeowners associations complete studies on capital reserves needs," according to HFG member Andrew Kole, in a May 2010 interview with the Aspen Daily News.  The need to study the capital reserves scenarios (or lack thereof) at the subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio stems presumably from the dire situation at Centennial that is estimated to cost in the $10-$20M range to repair, and the revelation that the HOA there has an abysmal capital reserves collection record and a grossly inadequate reserves balance. 

All current candidates for office were invited to the same meeting I attended to learn about what the HFG has been doing, as "subsidized housing capital reserves" stands to become a hot campaign issue.

A PUBLIC BODY, OR NOT?  SHOW US YOUR RECORDS!

Despite allocating $130K in public funds for the capital reserves studies (in a 70/30 split with the various housing projects), APCHA director Tom McCabe and members of the HFG do not and will not  voluntarily make their records publicly available, nor do they keep minutes of their meetings.  When the records (specifically, the draft results of capital reserve studies conducted to date at 22 of 35 subsidized housing projects) were requested using the Colorado Open Records Act, MAJOR deflection and dissention on the HFG began.  Colorado Revised Statutes define a "local public body" as "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of a political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body."   

In other words, McCabe's unwillingness to take minutes aside, it's pretty obvious:  the HFG is a public body, given that its members were appointed at the city manager's recommendation during the summer of 2008 and the group has made many major decisions and recommendations on public policy matters.

And notably, 3 members of the HFG are running for office (Andrew Kole, Adam Frisch and Marcia Goshorn).  Now's the time that this get resolved!  Information has been leaked that the 22 studies to-date show frighteningly deficient capital reserves scenarios.  We're talking tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate. The subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio are "community assets" and the public has a right to know what's going on, where the candidates stand on the issue, and especially what we might be on the hook for!

DENIALS ABOUND

There is great denial that the HFG is a "public body" that must make its records public.  HFG member Pete Louras insists that city attorney John Worcester, acting in his self-ascribed role as the city's supreme court justice equivalent, "issued a ruling" that the HFG is not a public body therefore they do not need to keep minutes or adhere to open meetings laws.  When pressed, Louras could not produce said ruling.  McCabe even went so far as to state, "Because we do not take minutes and do not make public notices of our meetings, then we are not a public body."  Nice circular logic between the two, huh!?  As reported by the Aspen Daily News in January 2010, Worcester has stated in the past, based on his reading of the above quoted law, that unless a body has a "governmental decision-making function," it is not subject to open meetings laws.  The groups either are public and therefore must follow all open meetings regulations - such as noticing meetings, taking minutes and providing e-mails if asked - or they are not.  There is no gray area in the law that would allow a public body to meet in the open but not require it to take minutes or disclose their documents, for example, according to Worcester. 

But Worcester has gotten himself into a pickle before on the public meetings/open records front with his thinking.  Attorney Steven Zansberg, who specializes in Colorado open meeting laws, disagrees with Worcester.  Using another "secret meeting" that Worcester approved as an example, Zansberg told the Aspen Daily News that both formally constituted advisory bodies and delegated governmental decision-making authorities must adhere to open meetings laws.  "When they are meeting to discuss public business, the public has a right to attend."  In the case of the HFG, the public can attend (if they happen to learn of the meeting), but no records are kept or shared with the public in clear violation of open meetings laws.

Does anyone - particularly candidates Goshorn, Frisch and Kole - actually believe that information about significant deferred maintenance exposure in APCHA complexes is NOT public businesses??  Even the HOAs were told up front that the reports would go to APCHA, a public entity.

WHY THE SECRECY?

Some on the HFG argue that people's feelings might be hurt by public discussion and dissemination of the information they have compiled.  Attorney Zansberg points out that almost any topic can receive a "more frank discussion" in private, but that's not an option.  "It's not up to the board, committee or city attorney to make the decision" about what can and cannot be discussed in private.  "You don't get to say that because we discuss sensitive things that we are not subject to open meeting laws," he said.

Incidentally, Louras and Goshorn have a track record on anti-transparency.  Both served on the Citizen's Budget Task Force when the $75M Burlingame "discrepancy" was uncovered.  Louras went so far as to demand that the committee vote on whether or not to have open meetings as the debacle was unfolding, as if that was a legal choice.  He was of course voted down and the Burlingame bomb went off.  He's simply using the same playbook here.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

The HFG's Pete Louras, Jackie Kasabach and Marcia Goshorn are all servile flatterers and long-time campaigners for our dear leader Mick.  And as you know, Mick is running for re-election.  These three awkwardly hijacked the April 18 meeting with ridiculous filibustering (the first 20 minutes were spent debating everything from meeting calendars to the genesis of the HFG - a problem easily solved had someone/anyone taken the minutes) and in doing so, prevented the normal weekly distribution of an updated spreadsheet on the status of the capital reserves studies at the 35 targeted housing projects. (It's likely that because "others" -- the public AND The Red Ant -- came to the meeting the "sensitive" records were kept under wraps!)   Jackie even went so far as to tell her colleagues Andrew, Adam and Marcia that they "shouldn't talk during the meeting since they are running for office."  (Do ya think she'll go to council and ask Mick, Steve and Ruth to zip it?)  And Louras even moved to suspend all HFG meetings until after the elections are over -- in order to keep the secrets safe (that could be June 7 if there is a run-off)!

Here's what's REALLY going on:

• Goshorn (a candidate herself and APCHA board member) is a  neighbor of mayor Mick's in the Common Grounds subsidized housing project.
• It has been leaked to The Red Ant that Common Grounds has one of THE WORST housing  capital reserves scenarios on a per-unit basis among the 22 draft studies thus far. 
• In other words, mayor Mick does not in any way lead by example, but rather, lives in a subsidized housing project that operates by and advocates for MINIMAL/NO collection of reserve assessments in favor of "special assessments" when needed.  (Yeah, right:  a $100+K cash call for a new roof in subsidized housing!?)
• The dissemination of the capital reserves study results (albeit in draft form) will reveal Aspen's "man of the people" as a subsidized housing hypocrite amongst his key demographic:  with Mick as mayor, the city has garnered a citizen's group (the HFG) to educate/convince/induce the various APCHA properties to step up their capital reserves commitments while his HOA does nothing of the sort.
• The study results will expose the long-hidden liabilities and structural problems in the housing program, and this will frighten residents, especially owners.
• The realities of the city and county governments' turning a blind eye to critical housing program shortcomings, oversights and mismanagement from the start will negatively impact plans for more subsidized housing development, particularly Burlingame 2.
• When housing is sold by one owner to the next, APCHA oh-so-briefly assumes ownership in the chain of title.  This inherently puts the local government at great financial risk when they do not disclose problems and deficiencies (financial or otherwise) to the buyer.
• As if getting financing (which now requires 10-20% down) isn't difficult enough for aspiring subsidized housing buyers, deficient HOA capital reserves scenarios will make it even more so, and may likely make it impossible.

The Red Ant believes the big effort to keep this mum by Pete, Jackie and fellow candidate Marcia is two-fold:  first, to keep Mick's hypocrisy from becoming a personal campaign issue for him.   And secondly, it's to avoid the ugly truth about the long-ticking time bomb of the housing program's Achilles heel that Mick and other creators of the program have kept secret for years.  Sorry, it didn't work.  And now the cat's out of the bag.

CITY ATTORNEY'S PUBLIC OFFICE HOURS?

John Worcester.  So, Aspen's overpaid ($161,720 in 2010), and in the eyes of The Red Ant, dishonest and corrupt Aspen city attorney allegedly "issues rulings" for entities that purportedly aren't public??  Does he additionally hold court for the purpose of dispensing legal advice to other non-public local entities?  Really??  Is THAT in his job description?  When are these office hours?  This should be advertised because local attorneys charge upwards of $250/hour! (NOTE:  The Red Ant personally wouldn't take Worcester's legal advice - nor pay a nickel for it - even to get my dog out of the pound.)  

NOW THAT IT'S KNOWN OUR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROJECTS HAVE NO MONEY, WHO PAYS?

That's the $20M question.  For the owned units at the Centennial subsidized housing project at least.  The Red Ant has asked all of the candidates to address this question and will share their answers in the next issue of The Red Ant -- the endorsement issue.

But in the meantime, remember, subsidized housing has been a voting tool in Aspen for over 30 years:  "Vote for me, I got you a house."  While the housing we've paid for as a community is not yet in shambles, their financial resources certainly are.

Make this an issue this week at the candidate forums and debates!  Ask the candidates questions about their views on solutions to this major financial issue and on adherence to open meetings laws and principles of transparency.  And look for the endorsement issue of The Red Ant - coming soon!

If you need my preliminary endorsements in the meantime, please reply to this email and give me your phone number.  I will call you with my most current thoughts.

ISSUE # 59 .... A New SLANT on Aspen Politics

"Those who are too afraid to voice their conscience and make it felt politically, by any means, are already slaves; they simply have not yet heard the rattling of their chains."    --John Murphy    dissidentvoice.com 2010

DEFLECTION FROM THE ISSUES!

Ahh, political season in Aspen.  (Simply put, The Red Ant loves it!)  But again this year, like in years past, and especially two years ago when our friend Marilyn Marks ran for mayor, the "entrenched political class" is all spun up.  Anyone with a different voice, a new viewpoint or the guts to launch a "campaign" based on widespread sentiment that doesn't even say whether or not to vote for the incumbent (just that we're all SICK OF MICK), is a destroyer, a hater, evil, unethical, mean-spirited, a jobless dilettante.  The Marcella Larsens, Pete Louras', Tim Cooneys, Su Lums and Carl Hecks of the community carry most of the water for the vapid Ba'ath Party hatemongers, spewing their venom both publicly in letters to the editor and "anonymously" using psuedonyms in the blogs.  But all I see is FEAR:  fear of the possible, fear of positive change, fear of other voices making an impact and especially, fear of addressing the real issues, all of which the incumbents (especially Mick) will have a hard time explaining!

Sticks and stones.  Go ahead, keep trying to shoot the messenger.  But this messenger will never quit.  And the message is real.  The tactic of obfuscation has grown old (and predictable):  vilify the opposition in order to avoid addressing the issues.  So tired, so vicious, so desperate and so fearful.  Optimism rules the day at this end!  And hope springs eternal.  The only direction we can move is UP!!!

Therefore, The Red Ant will focus, as you've always come to expect, on the ISSUES -- like a laser, and hopes that you will research, call, email and ask each and every candidate (contact info below) where they stand and how they would vote on these critical issues.  DO NOT support a candidate who is wishy-washy and does not commit! 

THE CRITICAL ISSUES

1)   THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN (AACP)

The latest news:  A revision of the AACP was released last week.  The tone has been dramatically toned down, but don't be fooled, the content is still draconian: replenish the lodging base with economy/moderate lodges, ensure the sustainability of (read: subsidize) local-serving retail businesses,  offset job generation by mandating the provision of subsidized housing for 100% of the new employees (preferably on-site), encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a zero waste community, ensure the availability of affordable high-quality childcare, ensure the existence of a comprehensive healthcare system, ensure access to primary care and mental health/substance abuse systems, ensure access to a comprehensive dental program --- just to name a few gems!   And the Daily News reports that AACP costs-to-date exceed $500K, not including 9700 hours of staff time the city values at $45/hour (an additional $436,000).  That puts the embroiled document at nearly $1 million, that is, if you really think that staff time is $45/hour.  I'd say it's more than double that!  Who is in charge over there?  Was there no budget for this endeavor either?!  The vote on AACP approval is not expected until the fall.  How much more will we ring up?

The specific questions:  1) Should the AACP be a guiding (aspirational) or regulatory (legally binding) document?  2) Would you vote to approve the AACP as written?  And 3) for the incumbents - Mick and Steve Skadron -- Who approved what will be a nearly $2 million budget for this project?

Look for:  1) The "guiding" answer, period.  (We have zoning and building codes for a reason.)  That is, unless a candidate says they'd scrap the whole thing!  This thing is DANGEROUS.  And, 2), look for a NO to the approval as is.  There is still plenty to work out.  (Please plan to attend the April 13 Aspen Business Luncheon at the Hotel Jerome to learn more about the industry-by-industry specific impacts of this document!  Contact Todd Shaver at toddshaver@aspenbusinessluncheon.com)   3) I'm very interested in who the incumbents (Mick and Steve Skadron) say approved this budget?  If you get an answer, please let me know!  (My guess is city manager Steve Barwick - once again spending taxpayer dollars like it's monopoly money!)

2)   PLASTIC BAGS

The latest news:  The ordinance to place a $.15 fee on plastic bags in the city of Aspen has been put off until after the election.  It will likely be brought up with the new council when they take office in June.  The delay makes this a pertinent campaign issue as the plastic bag ordinance will likely be the first matter of official business for whoever we elect.

The specific question:  Do you favor a fee, an outright ban, or the status quo that could include incentives for using re-usable bags? 

Look for:  The Red Ant prefers a carrot to the stick.  Surely there's a way to reduce plastic bag use through an incentive vs a punishment......

3)   SUBSIDIZED HOUSING & THE UNFUNDED RESERVES

The latest news (on the Unfunded Reserves):  According to an as-yet-incomplete study by the Housing Frontiers Group, capital reserves at our local subsidized housing projects is in the RED big time - in excess of $10 million.  In most cases, the money is not needed tomorrow per se, but after a number of years of neglect, roofs, parking lots and other exterior items do need attention.  The root of the problem?  No oversight of homeowner's associations by the housing authority, irregular (if any) collection of dues, little-to-no understanding of the responsibilities of home ownership.

The specific question:  Who should pay for the repairs when there is no money in the individual reserve accounts?

Look for:  If someone says "the public" or "a tax," remember that we paid 1.5% of our free market real estate purchases toward the real estate transfer tax (RETT), of which 1% went to the housing fund.  As far as I am concerned, we've already paid.  I'm not sure what the right answer is here, so listen carefully to the ideas the candidates have!  I will be doing the same thing because doing nothing is not an option!

The latest news (on Subsidized Housing):  City geniuses presented a $140K plan to council that would serve as the "initial step" of a pre-sales program for the Burlingame subsidized housing project Phase 2, including $50K for "graphics."  (The city has already spent $2.5M on planning for Phase 2, a 167-unit addition to Phase 1 that is estimated to cost between $90-$103M.)  The "pre-sale" concept was presented with a November 2011 general obligation bond measure in mind.  Council thinks the timeline might be too aggressive.  (Ya think?)  A week later, the housing authority (APCHA) went on record with the Aspen Daily News, stating that more Resident Occupied (RO) category housing, which makes up 34% of its inventory, isn't needed.  Numerous RO owners are having difficulty selling these homes. In fact, APCHA went on to say that demand for the lower-income worker (Catoegories 2, 3 and 4) has also waned.  And recall that the excess housing inventory at the Marolt subsidized housing project is currently being used to house the local homeless.

The specific questions:  1) Continue spending money on plans for Burlingame Phase 2 when there is ample housing inventory currently available, yes or no?  2) In the current environment, build more subsidized housing, yes or no?

Look for:  TWO BIG NOs.  APCHA needs to be reworked in its entirety.  Before we build another unit anywhere, we need an assessment of who actually lives in our subsidized housing, whether or not they qualify, rules to closely and more comprehensively monitor and enforce compliance, a plan for HOA management to maintain what we already have, etc, etc.

4)   HYDRO

The latest news:  The city convened several (but not all) parties involved in the hydro plant "issue" for a closed mediation session last week.  Participants could not bring their attorneys nor could they speak to the press about what transpired.  Landowners along Castle Creek and Maroon Creek for the most part decided not to participate because of the secrecy behind the mediation and because all parties agreed that the existing science is inadequate and faulty, making the mediation premature. (To call a process a "mediation" without the most affected parties at the table is not accurate.)  As a result, it is highly likely that nothing of any substance was resolved.

The specific question:  Should the city continue to pursue a federal exemption from conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on Castle and Maroon Creeks in order to complete the hydro plant, yes or no? 

Look for:   The obvious answer - NO!!  Of course Aspen should do right by the environment and conduct an EIS!!!!  The health of our rivers and streams is FAR more important than some silly hydro plant, sold to the voters under false pretenses, that will only operate a couple of months a year at best!

THE CANDIDATES - THE LIST IS IN, THE GAME IS ON

Remember, these are NOT full-time jobs.  (Some make them into full-time roles because they do nothing else.  It's called "mission creep.")   Please contact the candidates, learn where they stand on the issues and be sure to donate to your favorites!

Mayor:  This office is a two-year term, for which the elected official receives $2,325/month plus a stipend equal to the cost of health insurance benefits for full-time city employees (as long as that stipend is used to purchase health insurance).  This office is limited to three consecutive terms.

Mick Ireland              Mick@sopris.net  (Running for 3rd consec term)

Andrew Kole              AndrewKole@mac.com

Ruth Kruger               Ruth@KrugerAndCompany.com

City Council:  Two council seats are up for election every two years.  These four-year terms earn the office holders $1700/month plus the same health care stipend as the mayor.  This office is limited to two consecutive terms.

L J Erspamer             Walkabout@sopris.net

Adam Frisch              Adam@AdamForAspen.com

Marcia Goshorn         MarciaGoshorn@hotmail.com

Steve Skadron           RunSkadRun@gmail.com  (Running for re-election)

Cliff Weiss                CliffWeiss49@gmail.com

Scott Writer             Writer@sopris.net

The next issue of The Red Ant will have my endorsements and rationale.   (If you need these earlier for your absentee ballot, please be in touch with me directly by hitting "reply" to this email.)

ASPEN ART MUSEUM - A SURPRISE ISSUE THIS CAMPAIGN SEASON

Political season always brings a few surprises.  It's still early, but the Aspen Art Museum has provided this year's surprise.  It seems that until the Wienerstube was torn down last week, the folks at the AAM kept it under wraps that, oops - they really don't have the money needed to build the in-town museum on the site they purchased under controversial conditions late last year.  "We're not going to put a shovel in the ground until (an additional $15 million) is raised," according to AAM director Heidi Zuckerman Jacobson in an interview with the Aspen Daily News.  In fact, a MAJOR fundraising campaign is now underway to make up the difference. 

This is an BIG issue during campaign season because mayor Mick and the boys decided in a closed-door executive session to settle a lawsuit with the prior owners of the Wiernerstube property owners by granting a bypass of P&Z review to The Aspen Art Museum, which claimed they had the funding on-hand to buy the land and begin construction this summer. 

Can anyone say "due diligence?"  Why did council not require proof of the AAM's ability to finance their construction as a condition of this special agreement?  The public had a right to know that AAM's funding situation had changed, but city council prioritized settling a lawsuit over the long-term interests of the community they serve.  So, here's a little inventory:

• The Art Museum gets its in-town land.
• The Wienerstube property owners get their sale.
• The city gets to settle a lawsuit they could never hope to win outside of the friendly judicial confines of the Roaring Fork Valley.
• The community gets a demolished landmark, a vacant lot, and a promise without accountability of a new art museum that is incidentally about the same mass and scale as the building council denied that led to the lawsuit in the first place.
• Can anyone say "unprincipled leadership?"  Add this to the long and expensive list of horrible "cart before the horse" public policy decisions by our city "clowncil" under the leadership of mayor Mick!

How, pray tell, did The Red Ant come to learn of this "funding" issue?  I was contacted last week by an AAM board member, telling me of the financial shortfall ("it is not insignificant") and requesting my resignation from the AAM's Community Advisory Committee, a small "group of unique individuals from throughout the Roaring Fork Valley (who) add their voices to an open and ongoing dialog about museum programming and practices and the role of the museum within the community," as defined on the AAM website.  (I was asked to participate upon the group's inception in early 2010.)

I was told the AAM does not approve of my political activism in Aspen (The Red Ant, the Sick of Mick campaign) and they believe an "association" - however small -- with me stands to negatively influence their critical fundraising prospects.  Yes, our local arbiters of freedom of expression (dead cats as art?) wish to silence a citizen's first amendment right to the same.  Could this be a payback to Mick for his vote on the beneficial settlement?  Or mere hypocrisy?  You decide. 

MICK vs BUSINESS

You can't make this up!  When mayor Mick made his "I'm running again" announcement last week, he elected to do so on the patio of Peach's, across from City Hall.  Touting Peach's success as a thriving new business as an example of his mayoral success revitalizing the local economy (huh??), he characteristically failed to notice that his little gathering (attended by about 25 diehard fans) completely blocked the front door to the popular café and coffee shop, thwarting its business for the duration of his event. Only Mick could be so oblivious to the tempo of capitalism and wreckless about decisions that directly and negatively affect small local businesses!  (At least he promised that if elected for a third term, he would never seek the Aspen mayor's post again!)

THE "SICK OF MICK" CAMPAIGN - IN FULL SWING!

In an effort to encourage challengers, The Red Ant and co-conspirators launched the 2011 "Sick of Mick" campaign on March 21.  Visit www.SickOfMick.com  At the time, mayor Mick was running unopposed!  Thankfully, just 2 weeks later, there are now 3 candidates for mayor.  We've got ourselves a REAL RACE!   I'm ecstatic!  This is a HUGE victory -- to be sure.  Thanks to all who have already supported the SICK OF MICK campaign.  We've only just begun.

 Please join us. Fundraising for this effort is underway and progressing nicely.  Donors are limited to donations of $250, however, The Red Ant encourages donations of just $19.99.  This keeps your name off any and all official donation lists because the Secretary of State's campaign finance laws require the "itemization of all contributions and expenditures of $20 or more."  And yes, we know too well that here in Aspen, reprisals are real.  Please make checks payable to SICK OF MICK and send these to THE RED ANT, PO Box 4662, Aspen, CO 81612.  Or just stop me on the street with a $20 - I've made it a point to carry a roll of pennies!

If you want yard signs or bumper stickers, please contact The Red Ant at TheRedAntEM@comcast.net and we will make arrangements to get these to you!  Again, donations are encouraged but certainly not mandatory.

ISSUE # 58 .... These Stories WarrANT Telling

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."    

            -- Machiavelli                 

THE "SICK OF MICK" CAMPAIGN -- GAME ON!

In an effort to encourage challengers, The Red Ant and co-conspirators launched the 2011 "Sick of Mick" campaign this morning.  Here is the cover story on it in today's Aspen Daily News.

Fundraising for this effort is additionally underway.  You are limited to donations of $250, however, The Red Ant encourages donations of just $19.99.  This keeps your name off any and all official donation lists.  (Donations above $20 must be reported to the city clerk and become part of the public record.) Please make checks payable to SICK OF MICK and send these to THE RED ANT,  PO Box 4662, Aspen, CO 81612.  Or just stop me on the street with a $20 - I'll be carrying a roll of pennies!

If you want yard signs or bumper stickers, please contact The Red Ant at TheRedAntEM@comcast.net and we will make arrangements to get these to you!  Again, donations are encouraged but certainly not mandatory.

(UPDATE on my PAC:  I am currently navigating the complex campaign finance rules and laws, and intend to have a legally established and registered Political Action Committee up and running in time for the November county elections.)

SAVE THE DATE - THE AACP STANDS TO AFFECT YOU AND YOUR BUSINESS!

Please join these local community leaders in a dialog at the Wednesday, April 13, Aspen Business Luncheon at the Hotel Jerome as they discuss "The Practical Ramifications of the AACP" on an industry-by-industry basis.  Come learn how the AACP will directly affect you!  At press time:

   Real Estate:                                      Penney Evans Carruth

    Lodging & Tourism:                           Warren Klug

   Building & Development:                    Tim Semrau

   Financial Impact:                               Paul Menter

   Entitlements:                                    TBD

For information, please contact ToddShaver@AspenBusinessLuncheon.com

DWAYNE'S SEAT -- IT'S NOW RUTH'S 

The interviews of the eight applicants for Dwayne Romero's recently vacated council seat were conducted in an informal group format.  And we did garner several poignant responses, notably:

On the subject of "The Most Important Thing the City Should Be Working On," the AACP was at the top of nearly every applicant's list.  Howie Mallory felt that the AACP should be approved PRIOR to the elections so as not to let it be politicized!?!  (Huh??)  He also pulled what The Red Ant calls "a Pelosi" by stating that the document should be approved although it is "admittedly flawed."  (Good thing he subsequently withdrew his application in order to retain his position on the Open Space and Trails board!)  Applicant Cliff Weiss questioned the intent of the AACP, calling it an "honorable but misunderstood" document, and feels that as such it should be adopted as "guiding" (vs regulatory).  Marsha Goshorn deviated from the AACP priority and suggested that the city should make its #1 focus working with the Forest Service and Snowmass on developing eco-tourism, presumably stemming from the discovery of prehistoric bones in the area last fall.

Regarding "The Wienerstube Lawsuit Settlement," applicant Adam Frisch pointed out that the current building code is a "goalpost" that the city, under the AACP, continually moves around. Howie Mallory stated that the city was defensible in over-riding its own building code because council should have subjective judgment beyond what's in the code.

When questioned about "The Future of The Given Institute," Marsha Goshorn felt that finding a "non-profit use" for the facility would be best.  She didn't elaborate on the financing for such use (nor was she asked), but stated that she saw added density on the site as far worse than losing the building itself.  Cliff Weiss succinctly told the boys, "Find a compromise you can live with.  You will have to give up something."  Ya think?

Mayor Mick took time from each interview session to lament the declining population of working-age residents and asked the applicants about their thoughts on "How the City Would Provide A Workforce When Our Population Is Stagnant."  Jag Pagnucco didn't share the mayor's woes, stating "Aspen is a draw.  There will always be people who come here to work."  Ever to the point, Cliff Weiss stated, "Make the commute better."

The most despicable aspect of the interview process was experiencing mayor Mick's lack of self-control as exhibited by his constant and undying need to argue with each applicant when their answers didn't jive with his personal politics.  The worst was his beyond-the-pale attack on Patti Clapper when she noted that the city's "process" of settling the Wienerstube lawsuit behind closed doors was one city decision she would rethink.  Mick literally came unglued, and berated Clapper for "misleading the public" with her answer.  It was truly shameful, especially since the other 3 buffoons just sat there.

Speaking of the other buffoons, Derek and Skadron predictably proffered lame, softball, open-ended, non-policy, unimportant questions.  And in my humble opinion, Torre behaved as though he'd just completed a city-wide quality-control tour of our four medical marijuana dispensaries -- only asking the applicants whether or not they'd be running for office in May -- as if that mattered.  Both Torre and Derek then said they couldn't support applicants who would be running just 6 weeks from now, seemingly oblivious to the fact that both Mick and Skadron would be doing just that as they seek re-election for their current seats.  (This idiotic stance prompted my LETTER to the editor of the Aspen Daily News.)

In the end, the applicants' written statements and interviews had ZERO bearing on the outcome. The selection process was as much of a joke as anything I've witnessed in recent years by these clowns.  They all but drew straws for the winner in order to avoid a discussion of the candidates in front of the public!

Thankfully, Ruth Kruger emerged the victor.  Her 5 years as a city P&Z member and current ownership of a commercial real estate brokerage won the day.  Sadly, Ruth has stated that she will not be running in May, as she would be a very strong candidate with a good head on her shoulders.  We can only hope that her business sense and maturity will help prevent chaos and corruption in the weeks to come.  Congratulations, Ruth!

A BAD DAY FOR THE "BUILDING HUGGERS"

In an "I told ya so" moment last week, The Red Ant was less than surprised to learn that The Given Institute is indeed scheduled for its demise.  It seems that demolition will occur in late April per the terms of a $13.8 million sale to Given neighbor Jonathan Lewis, a longtime resident and steward of the bluff overlooking Hallam Lake.   Murmurs of last minute compromises continue, but for $13.8 million, if I were Lewis, I'd just tear the thing down and be done with it!

On the same day, we read news of the sales of the 1930's era Deep Powder cabins, which begs a key question:  Why were city historic preservation czarina Amy Guthrie and her merry band of "building huggers" terrorizing and tormenting private property owners via Ordinance 30 for the past 4 years (failing in the end) when the owners of these cabins were all for historic preservation and donated them to the city?  The city missed a great opportunity to lead by example now that historic preservation is voluntary, but instead quickly sold off these historic resources (for just $600 each).  Does the city not want the voluntary program to succeed?  My guess is that now the historic cabins are gone, this episode will be used as an example of "voluntary" designation's failure.  Don't buy THAT argument for a minute!

Besides, speaking of Historic Preservation and Guthrie -- she was recently given public recognition and a cash award for her work on Ordinances 30 & 48, presumably for doing such a great job on a "shoe-string" budget.  What!?  The multi-year Historic Preservation Task Force process cost taxpayers approximately $250K, and in the end, the draconian "involuntary designation" objectives of the Ordinances were shot down.  A tax-payer-funded reward for failure.  Only in the city of Aspen.

MICK'S FOLLY? THE QUIZNOS RACE

Woulda, coulda, shoulda?  We booed, hissed and laughed out loud at mayor Mick's proposed man-crush event to honor Lance Armstrong in 2009.  But paybacks are indeed hell.  The city is now kicking in $190K to "bring" a stage of the Quiznos Pro Challenge professional cycling race to Aspen this summer, despite the requirement of 700 complimentary rooms for racers, support staff, sponsors and whatnot. (Technically, the chamber is kicking in $50K, leaving the city to cover $140K, unless they can offset this cost through private sources!)  Thank goodness SkiCo is on-board to co-manage the live televised event!  

The idea is to bring summer business to Aspen in a typically quiet period:  this event falls August 23-24, just after the Music Festival ends and before Labor Day.  The lodging community's willingess to "play ball" to this degree was surprising, but they know their own year-to-date numbers and obviously see the potential for business despite the large inventory donation.

In support of the expenditure, mayor Mick stated that the event will "project an image to the world as a place that people want to come and visit - not necessarily come and buy a piece of and leave empty behind,"  taking his predictable stab at second-homeowners, who he regularly vilifies.  Overall, The Red Ant is cringing, but trying to be cautiously optimistic. 

HYDRO: FLOATED DOWNRIVER

When in doubt, procrastinate.  At least that's what the city of Aspen does.  Presumably to keep the Castle Creek Hydro "mess" out of the political realm this election season (yeah, right), council has tabled the hearing on how to deal with its controversial (and I would say corrupt) application for a "conduit exemption" from the feds until July 11.  Yep, 4 months from now.  The stated reason is to allow the two sides to "mediate" and arrive at a mutually acceptable solution.  But that ain't gonna happen.  When environmentalists, neighbors, government watchdogs and national organizations are all on one side against the city, there's simply not much to mediate!  (Why the city can't see this is yet another example of their collective incompetence!)

As the debate heats up, we've seen a flurry of excellent hydro-related editorials lately.  Connie Harvey started the rally with a piece in the Aspen Daily News (HERE) claiming that the city used "twice-recycled information that never covered all the bases to begin with and hasn't been current since the original study many years ago" to justify the hydro plant, equating the destruction of the streams as "logic on par with the Vietnam War-era statement made by an American major about Vietnamese villages: 'We have to destroy them in order to save them.'"

Harvey then went toe-to-toe with SkiCo's VP of Sustainability Auden Schendler and energy analyst Randy Udall the next day in the Aspen Times (HERE), continuing her assertion that the hydro plant "is actually a devastating attack on Castle and Maroon creeks."  Furthermore, "The city now admits that its projections overestimated the amount of water by 30 percent, hardly a trivial error." 

In a joint effort (HERE), Schendler and Udall presented a rationale for the hydro plant based on global warming warnings and a directive that "the only way forward, now, is for communities like Aspen to lead....We've been blessed with a great natural opportunity, one we ought to seize." Alluding to the not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) neighbors of the creeks as the primary threat to the project ("if the citizens of Aspen can't take the lead on climate action, it's not clear exactly who will"), the authors opine that "responsible energy production in our backyards and on our rooftops and local streams is not something to oppose but something to celebrate." 

A week later, Matt Rice of American Rivers wrote (HERE) to the Aspen Times, reminding readers that this "is not a debate about the merits of hydro power," rather it's a case where the city is attempting to "avert the law and avoid meaningful public review of the project forever."  He continues, "It is a mistake to assume that because hydropower does not produce carbon emissions, it is unequivocally green."  Warning the city to work toward "a responsible plan," Rice makes it clear that American Rivers will "vigorously oppose any plan that limits public review and further degrades the creeks."

The following day, former city finance director Paul Menter likely put the nail in Hydro's coffin.  His submission to the Aspen Times (HERE) outlines a half-century of US hydropower history and its unintended consequences, and questions Aspen's "leadership" in building a hydro plant while others are tearing them out.  He minces no words by stating, "The Castle Creek project, for which much of the voter-approved funds have already been spent, is likely a $5-$6 million mistake."  His solution?  "Scrapping this project is the only way to limit financial and environmental damage.  It may be a hard pill for some to swallow, but it's never the wrong time to do the right thing."  The Red Ant is inclined to agree.

Clearly, this must become a MAJOR campaign issue!

DEVELOPMENT FEES

The city of Aspen was hell-bent on raising its planning and development fees as early as this summer.  It became abundantly obvious to me that the proposed increases are solely a result of the building department not covering its overhead costs (office rental, employees, etc.) that have not been reduced despite the enormous reduction in permit valuations (down $100 million between 2008-2010).  THIS is the statement that I read to council on February 28 in objection to the fee increases.  It was quite a shock to have been the only citizen in attendance to speak out against the proposed fee increases!!  Not a builder or developer was in sight. 

At the end of that meeting, decisions on the "fee" ordinances (#3 and #4) were continued until March 14, when council decided to indeed raise development fees beginning this summer.  Their rationale:  classic.  They believe that 2010 represented a "normal" year in which the city "subsidized" the local building and development industry to the tune of $1.8M.  Yep.  They see their current heavy overhead and its resulting costs to the city's general fund as a "subsidy" of the construction business.  The new higher fees will "reduce that subsidy."  Puh-lease!

Don't like that outcome?  Neither do I.  But The Red Ant can't do this alone, folks!  I tried.

MAY 3 ELECTION INFO

So who's running?  There is hot speculation out there and rumors are swirling, but we won't know for certain until the petitions (currently available from the city clerk) are turned in.  The deadline is Friday, April 1.  (Is it just me or is that date somehow fitting?)  Mayor Mick has indicated that he will run for his third term.  Councilman Skadron will run to keep his council seat.  And at press time, Adam Frisch has submitted his petition to run for a council post. 

Voter registration ends on April 4.  Register or update your address at www.PitkinVotes.org.  Need an ABSENTEE BALLOT?  You MUST request one by April 29 and the application is available HERE.  Ballots will be mailed out the week of April 18.  (Please take care of this TODAY and be done with it.)  Absentee ballots must be received by the city clerk by May 3 at 7p.

As we gear up for the election, be thinking about the following issues.  We actually have several to specifically ask the candidates about.  Please prioritize these issues and ask each candidate where they stand.  For background on these topics, visit www.TheRedAnt.com and research the pertinent issues archived there:

• ·         The AACP (Issues #52, #54, #55)
• ·         The Castle Creek Hydro Project (Issues #45, #47, #49, #54, #55)
• ·         A Plastic Bag/Bottle Tax (Issues #54, #55, #56)
• ·         And, add the subject of Subsidized Housing and Lack of Reserve Funds

The Red Ant will provide endorsements the week of April 25.  Please feel free to contact me if you must fill out your Absentee Ballot before then.

FREE MONEY - DEADLINE IS APRIL 15

Don't forget your $50 food sales tax refund!  The refund is $50 per person per year.  If you are over 65, you will receive an additional $50 plus another $50 senior citizen allowance.  Yes, these amounts are cumulative!!  Anyone who can prove they were a resident of the City of Aspen for the entire 2010 year is qualified.  And it's simple.  Just print and fill out this form and submit it to the city finance department - they must receive it by 5pm on April 15, 2011.  If you were registered to vote with a qualifying city address in 2010, simply complete the application.  If you are not registered to vote here, you may prove your residency using one of the criteria on the back of the application: lease agreement, utility bills, etc.  For questions, the city finance dept can be reached at 970-920-5040.

ISSUE # 57 .... ContestANTs for Office: Elected and Appointed

YES, IT'S ELECTION SEASON AGAIN... ALMOST

The Red Ant LOVES election season!!  And here it comes.  On Tuesday, May 3, city voters will elect a mayor and two city councilmen.  Mayor Mick has indicated that he will run for his third 2-year term (he is term-limited to 3 terms), and both Steve Skadron's and Dwayne Romero's city council seats are up for grabs.   There's a lot of time yet for the politicking, and I promise there'll be plenty, but for now, just a couple of important dates and house-keeping matters:

·         Need an ABSENTEE BALLOT?  The application is available HERE.  Ballots will be mailed out the week of April 18.  Please take care of this TODAY and be done with it.

·         INTERESTED IN RUNNING for mayor or city council?  Petitions will be available on March 14 (you will need to get the signatures of 25 registered city voters) and are due to the city clerk on April 1.  HERE is the info.

·         As you know, we got rid of Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) in November, so we'll be holding a traditional run-off election, thank goodness.  Should a mayoral candidate not receive 50% + 1 vote, and/or should two council candidates not receive 45% of the votes cast + 1 each on May 3, there will be a run-off election on Tuesday, June 7.

·         The city clerk will have a grown-up supervisor for the election!  Dwight Shellman III, election manager for Pitkin County, has been hired as a consultant for our municipal election!  This is a great victory and a step toward proper and fair election management in Aspen. 

·         If there is a Run-Off election in June, absentee ballots will additionally be available.  You may request one HERE.

DWAYNE'S DEPARTURE

Recently appointed to be the new Executive Director of the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) in Colorado democratic Governor Hickenlooper's administration, city councilman Dwayne Romero has already left the council table -- this, before his official term is up.  As a result, council will be appointing a councilman to fill Dwayne's seat by mid-March as dictated by city charter.  The seat, however, is up for re-election on May 3 so it will be a short tenure for Dwayne's replacement.  (But don't be fooled, every council meeting presents the opportunity for legislative action, so it's very important that we don't get an idiot in there, even for a matter of weeks!)

The Red Ant had a mostly positive relationship with Dwayne over the past 2.5 years of its existence.  Dwayne took a strong stance - often unpopular with his fellow councilmen - on several high-profile issues during his tenure:

·         He threw the brakes on a Burlingame Phase 2 bond in 2008 and insisted on an audit of the spending on Burlingame Phase 1.  (He was the first to call for a halt to the plan until there was some/any accounting of what had been spent.   This was the beginning of the uncovering of the ridiculous expenditures and subsidies on a project that had no budget and resulted in per unit subsidies of approximately $400,000 each.)

·         He was the only councilman to vote NO on emergency ordinance 30 of 2007 that placed countless Aspen properties on a "historic" list, preventing owners from changing so much as a door knob.  Dwayne tried to persuade the others not to go through with this disastrous plan, but lost the battle.  In the end, however, the war was won in early 2011 when council finally voted to make "historic designation" a voluntary program.

·         He was the first to call for a repeal of Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV).

·         He insisted on budget cuts in 2009 when Mick and Jack were refusing to lay off government workers.

While being fair, honest and open in his dealings, Dwayne was sadly reticent to regularly engage mayor Mick when the latter got out of hand.  (Which is often!)  We had really hoped to see more of that "Army Strong" from our elected West Point grad.  The Red Ant's favorite exceptions were when Dwayne schooled mayor Mick on "civility" (watch the video below):

Incidentally, Dwayne had several regrettable votes:

·         He voted to grant our inept city manager Steve Barwick a $170,000 annual contract.

·         He voted in favor of IRV when it was originally brought forth by then-councilman Jack Johnson as a new-fangled voting mechanism for Aspen.

·         He voted in executive session to settle the Wienerstube lawsuit, controversially exempting the property from P&Z review for the new building to be built on the site.

The Red Ant was particularly disappointed that during the past two years (likely because of his professional role as president of troubled Related-WestPac and the mess with the Snowmass Base Village development), Dwayne seemed distracted and less than engaged in city matters, sadly not serving as the mentor we'd all hoped he would be to councilman Derek Johnson, who instead seems to have become yet another lemming of mayor Mick.

But all that being said, Dwayne was ALWAYS THE MOST POLITE AND RESPECTFUL to all who came before council.  For that, he had widely been the hope to challenge (and beat) Mick in the 2011 mayoral race.  Alas, it is not to be.

Dwayne will now go from being a popular local political figure to one of "puzzlement" in our state's capitol.  In the Denver version of the examiner.com, a January 19^th editorial said of Dwayne, "A man respected, a member of the Aspen City Council and the president of a business, however his selection to lead the State of Colorado in economic development is a puzzle:

·         Mr. Romero appears never to have started a small business

·         His international experience is limited to serving in the Persian Gulf War

·         His current business is building residences for the wealthy as a division of a New York company

·         He appears to have no training in economic development

·         He appears to have never held a job as an economic developer"

The Red Ant thanks Dwayne for his service, and wishes him great success in his new role, including a safe commute back and forth to Denver for the position.  (His wife Margaret and three school-age daughters will remain in Aspen.)

WHO WILL THEY APPOINT TO FILL DWAYNE'S SEAT?

The following Aspen citizens have officially applied for the appointment to fill Dwayne's vacated seat on council, including the tidbits and opinions you've come to expect from The Red Ant:

·         Adam Frisch, who narrowly missed winning a council seat in 2009 (he had 33 more first place votes than Torre, but through the mystery magic of IRV, lost the seat), has distinguished himself in the past two years on the Housing Frontiers Group, responsible for assessing the financial situations at local subsidized housing projects and working to develop solutions to the lack of financial reserves amassed by the various HOAs.   Will run in May.

·         Cliff Weiss, a resort marketing consultant and ski instructor, has served on the city's P&Z board.  An independent thinker, Cliff is no rubber stamp for mayor Mick and likely sees the AACP as a guiding (rather than regulatory) document for Aspen.  Likely to run in May. 

·         Patty Kay-Clapper - Recently term-limited off the BOCC (Rob Ittner was elected to fill her seat), the former nurse is looking for employment.  (Her full-time BOCC role paid $70K a year.)  Patti was a dedicated public servant, but The Red Ant seeks to end the practice whereby city and county voters enable the same people to bounce back and forth between BOCC and council.  Likely to run in May.

·         Marcia Goshorn - Mayor Mick's neighbor and a long-standing Ba'ath Party stalwart, this housing authority (APCHA) board member is famously known for her advocacy of rent reductions for subsidized housing tenants in projects where they must now pay for their own electricity.  She also supports using our excess subsidized housing inventory for the homeless. Planning to run in May. 

·         Jag Pagnucco, a  current SkiCo ambassador, has served 6 years on the city's board of adjustment.  Likely to run in May.

·         Dan Kitchen - Outspoken activist and protector of wildlife, this self-proclaimed "master window-washer" advocates for a big-box store in Aspen.  It's hard to take this one seriously, besides, we already have a tennis teacher on council.  Undecided about running in May. (At press time, Kitchen had just withdrawn his application.)

·         Howie Mallory - A retired local banker who likely sees the AACP as a regulatory document.  This long-time supporter of mayor Mick has a well-known reputation for not doing his preparatory reading while serving on local boards (Citizens Budget Task Force, Open Space and Trails), slowing the meetings to near stand-stills while he is briefed.  Undecided about running in May.

·         Cathy Markle - This self-employed landscape architect and planner has distinguished herself on the Wheeler Board and is known as a quick study.  Cathy is not planning to run for council in May, but wants to serve in order to bridge the gap created by Dwayne's departure. 

·         Ruth Kruger, local commercial real estate broker and former city P&Z member, knows the retailers, knows the landlords, knows the restaurateurs.  Her practical business experience, especially in this climate, is perhaps her greatest attribute.  Does not plan to run in May.

Is this "appointment" an election advantage for whoever is appointed?  Perhaps, but only a small one.  (Note that several applicants have already said they do not plan to run.  And there are likely others who plan to run who did not apply.)  The replacement will certainly get to run as an "incumbent," however, with just 2 or 3 council meetings under his/her belt before the election, the advantage is really OURS.  Could there possibly be a better way to learn just how a candidate will be -- politically, personally and ethically -- than to actually witness and experience their behavior, leadership and voting record?  And how fortunate for us that the "test drive" period is brief!  Unlike other buffoons we've elected to 4-year council terms, this temporary councilman will be gone if we don't like what we see.

The Red Ant encourages and appreciates council's serious consideration of these applications.  The legislative responsibility of council is paramount to the functioning of our local government.  But in the same vein, The Red Ant was appalled by the information sheet provided to applicants by the city clerk's office.  For such a critical leadership position in a local government that controls an $84M annual budget (2011), was it really necessary to list the following as "requirements" for the role?  Sounds like something mayor Mick would find funny:

·         Speed Reader

·         Adventurous

·         Sense of Humor

·         Ability to See the Big Picture

·         Love Late Nights and Long Hours

Let's face it, a negligent (and dangerous) precedent has recently developed:  appointing and electing representatives who have little fiscal acumen, leadership experience and, all too frequently, no outside employment.   This inherently brings terrible time managers to the table and enables the largely unnecessary long hours and late night meetings.  Joking around about the requirements for the serious role only serves to attract less-than-qualified candidates who want to serve on council for all the wrong reasons.

Council will be conducting candidate interviews in the very near future, and a decision is expected shortly thereafter with swearing-in on March 14.  (Salary for the part-time-at-best city council seat is $20,000 annually, and those seated can opt-in to purchase health insurance on the city's plan.)

We can only hope that the four remaining members of council will ask the applicants about their position on pressing local issues such as the AACP draft, the plastic bag tax, subsidized housing being used for the homeless, etc.

ASPEN TIMES POLL

The Aspen Times is currently conducting an on-line poll. At press time, the results were:

Which applicant do you support for appointment to the Aspen City Council?

Adam Frisch		31.76% (74)
Howie Mallory		22.32% (52)
Cathy Markle		15.45% (36)
Patti Kay-Clapper		11.59% (27)
Ruth Kruger		8.58% (20)
Marcia Goshorn		3.43% (8)
Dan Kitchen		2.58% (6)
Cliff Weiss		2.58% (6)
Jag Pagnucco		1.72% (4)
233 votes

SO MANY GOVERNMENT BOARDS & COMMISSIONS, WHY ALWAYS THE SAME FACES?

I've often asked the same question.  But the answer is simple:  you have to know where to look to find out where the vacancies are.  The city citizen board openings are listed on the city clerk's page, and the county's are listed on the Board of County Commissioner's page.

At the February 14 council meeting, council appointed and re-appointed 10 citizen volunteers to city boards.  There were 22 applications for these positions - darned good odds for those who applied.  Why aren't YOU on this list?

• ·         Howie Mallory - Reappointed regular member of Open Space and Trails board
• ·         Joyce Alger - Regular member of Open Space and Trails board
• ·         Guiles Thornley - Alternate member of Open Space and Trails board
• ·        Brian McNellis - Reappointed regular member of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
• ·        Willis Pember - Alternate member of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) 
• ·         Bill Dinsmoor - Reappointed regular member of Commercial Core and Lodging Commission
• ·        Siam Castillo - Regular member of Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC)
• ·        Jim Pomeroy - Alternate member of Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC)
• Tom Curt - Regular member of Wheeler Opera House board

There remain several city board vacancies, specifically on the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority board, Planning & Zoning, and the Wheeler Opera House board.

The county has several very interesting positions available on the following boards:   

·         Animal shelter

·         Board of Adjustment

·         Board of Appeals

·         Conflict of Interest

·         Financial Advisory Board

·         Planning & Zoning

·         Redstone Historical Preservation

·         Senior Services Council

·         Weed Advisory Board

The Red Ant encourages you to apply today to serve as a citizen volunteer on a board that interests you.  The time commitments and terms vary by board, and the application is basic and straightforward.  Please think about getting more involved in 2011!

JACK WATCH

Local letter-to-the-editor writer (and antagonist of The Red Ant) Carl Heck recently wrote to the Aspen Times, "Maybe Aspen City Council could appoint Jack Johnson to the seat being vacated by Mr. Romero?  That way, Elizabeth Red Ant would have another target to bitch about."  I laughed, but knew it would never happen.  Remember, Mick and Steve must run for re-election in May.  (Jack would have been WAAAY too big a political liability for them.)  And in the end, Jack didn't throw his knit hat into the ring to briefly fill Dwayne's seat.

But it seems Jack has found himself a new gig.  He is now a columnist for the Aspen Daily News, writing weekly on the subject of -- you guessed it -- local public policy issues.  A recent installment was to smack the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) for criticizing his prized Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) draft.  He followed that up with a rant about the lack of subsidized housing and need for more worker entitlements in Aspen.  I was compelled to respond with a letter to the editor.  Read it HERE.