ISSUE # 56.... The Bag Tax: ANTi-Business & ANTi-Tourist

"The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people - and especially of government - always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.  Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it."    

            -- Rob Norton 

This single-subject Ant Byte is specifically focused on the well-intended but patently anti-business and anti-tourist policy proposed by city council to tax shopping bags (both paper and plastic) in Aspen.  It's a quick read, and I hope you'll respond with your thoughts and recommendations to council and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) using the link at the end.

B.Y.O.B.E. - BRING YOUR OWN BAG EVERYWHERE

Aspen's plastic bag tax idea is growing legs.  It seems that the city's environmental health department is now seriously looking into a local tax on paper and plastic bags, and working with other local municipalities on later implementing a valley-wide BAN ON ALL PLASTIC AND PAPER bags!  (The city department had only intended the tax at grocery and hardware stores, but council wanted to follow the valley-wide preference for taxing ALL usage.)  As locals, we've all gotten pretty good about bringing our own reusable bags when we deliberately grocery shop, but how often do you bring these same bags when you shop at the bookstore, the drugstore or the liquor store?  And that's not to mention that last minute stop for take-out Chinese! 

But there are certainly solutions.  For some.  The Aspen Daily News reports that Tripp Adams, a guy on the "Green Team" in Basalt, recommends carrying a "man bag" bunched up in your pocket.  "No one sees it until I need it," he says.  Okay....

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Who is better at over-looking (ignoring?) unintended consequences than the city of Aspen?  Looking at this purely from an environmental perspective, you can see where Mick and the boys got the well-intended idea that taxing/banning bags could be "socially responsible."  But let's face it, retail outlets will ALWAYS provide their customers with bags.  Only now, they will be faced with paying a "bag tax" to the city for the privilege of doing so, or they will pass the fees along to their customers.  The practical ramifications are nothing short of ridiculous:

• ·         The bureaucracy will grow: think of how many city staffers it will take to "police" the retail community, counting bags and collecting fees
• ·         Retailers will have added accounting aggravations, not to mention the philosophical decision of whether or not to charge customers or incur the fee themselves
• ·         Ever seen how high a milk carton bounces? 
• ·         The city will get a new source of revenue
• ·         In the end, there will still be bags: people will just have to pay for them
• ·         Dog owners will now have to buy plastic bags specifically for dog poop

GOVERNMENT INTRUSION AD INFINITUM

It's about the bags, but then again it's not.  Look at the big picture: if the city of Aspen has the power and authority to impose bans and levy fees on a product or service of their choosing without a public vote, then what's to stop them from taxing goods deemed not financially accessible to "locals." They already tax our real estate purchases. Why not wine?  Down jackets?  Gasoline?   It could be anything.

The Aspen Times recently printed a letter to the editor from Basalt resident Jeffrey Evans (read it HERE) that echoes this exact issue.  He states, "It is nice to know that cities won't need to slash their budgets in the face of economic downturns given a vast source of revenue from fees which can be imposed without voter approval."  Evans goes on to contemplate whether sodium and sugar are next, albeit for "a different set of equally altruistic rationalizations."  And, "there is no practical difference between paper and plastic bags or any other product which consumes resources and landfill space, so a 'fee' on any product sold in non-recyclable packaging is an obvious and probably inevitable extension of our scenario."  Orwellian for sure, but this is Aspen and we've seen what these guys are capable of.

The Red Ant checked with Aspen's city attorneys who, in their hallmark manner, rudely responded to an official Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request for "the charter provision (or other applicable law) whereby the city has the power and authority to impose bans and levy fees on a determined product or service of their choosing without a public vote." 

Here's attorney John Worcester's response: "The city attorney's office does not feel that it is appropriate to provide legal opinions to private individuals, particularly in a case such as this where it is unclear as to whether the city will proceed with a particular action."  WHAT?  A legal opinion?  Nobody wants Worcester's legal opinion, just the facts.  Just show me where it says the city can proceed down this path! Worcester did go on to quickly warn, "We would note that fees charged by a municipality have been upheld in Colorado."  Why so defensive, John?  Nobody is threatening litigation, just inquiring about where it says in our local laws that actions of this type are legal.  (Yep, you and I both pay the high six-figure salary of this dishonest buffoon!)

The "bag tax," while well-intended, is rife with problems and sets a dangerous precedent for future government over-reach.  We need to fight this.   

A BURDEN TO TOURISTS AND RETAILERS ALIKE

Even the draconian Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) concedes that we are a tourism-based economy.  As such, isn't it anti-tourist to blindside our economic base by nickel-ing and dime-ing them at every turn with a bag tax?  Of course, some will just pay the fee. (What's their choice when they're checking out at the grocery store and the fee comes once the whole cart has been rung up?)  Others may argue, and the retailer will incur the cost.  But in both cases, we'll look like a bunch of jerks.  

This bag tax is both anti-business and anti-tourist.   ACRA President Debbie Braun tells The Red Ant that the organization will be immediately conducting a survey of its membership, similar to the survey they did in 2009 when the bag tax issue was previously discussed.  (In that survey, 56% of respondents felt that charging consumers for the use of plastic bags at grocery stores was okay, but at other retail establishments, only 36% supported the idea.  As for paper bags, just 45% supported a charge at grocery stores and only 25% did so at other retail.)  According to Braun, "I'd have to think it will be similar this time around." 

She went on to say, "Our greatest concern is a ban on bags in retail establishments.  Many of the retailers have said they would not charge/pass-through (the tax) to the consumer therefore it would appear to be an additional tax on them.  Furthermore, many of the retailers use the bags as 'walking' advertisements for their stores."

PICK YOUR ICK

You knew it was bound to happen.  One more unintended consequence of requiring the use of reusable shopping bags is that these are likely to "bring dangerous bacteria like E. coli in contact with your food."  This, according to J. Justin Wilson of the Center for Consumer Freedom in D.C. in a recent letter to the Aspen Times editor.  It seems that a new survey shows that "more than half of the people who do their grocery shopping with reusable bags have never washed them."  Unsafe levels of coliform and lead have also been found in these bags.   Wilson concludes, "What we're seeing are the unintended consequences of ill-thought-out government regulations.  Often when the government rushes to push through feel-good regulations designed to shape public behavior, they usually introduce new problems.  In this case, they might introduce new and potentially dangerous problems."  Ya think? 

LOCAL POLL

The Aspen Times has been conducting an online poll this week, inquiring of readers: "Should businesses in Aspen be forced to charge a fee for plastic or paper bags in order to promote the use of reusable bags?" At press time, the results were:

• ·         Yes                  28%
• ·         No                   68%
• ·         Not Sure           4%

WRITE COUNCIL AND ACRA NOW

Please send an email TODAY to city council (public_comment@ci.aspen.co.us) with a cc to ACRA (mmiller@aspenchamber.org) on this issue, with "Bag Tax" on the subject line.  Especially cite how such an ordinance would affect you and your business. 

And, a memo to SkiCo brass from The Red Ant:  It seems councilman (and SkiCo employee) Derek Johnson is a little confused as to what business he's in.  Stating his unequivocal support for the bag tax, Johnson quipped, "I like sending the statement.  It is who we are."  Who we are??  Who are you, Derek??  (Last I checked, Johnson is the retail manager for the largest tourism-driven company in the valley.)

THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN WORK

The Red Ant prefers the carrot to the stick.  In a similar but unrelated action, this week the city's environmental health department provided free reusable coffee mugs to local coffee drinkers in an effort to raise awareness about the recycling challenges associated with the white paper cups used by most coffee shops.  I learned that most coffee cups are made with 100% virgin white paper vs recycled paper because the recycled material cannot withstand the high coffee temperatures.  Furthermore, the cups are coated with a thin plastic resin for insulation which prevents the cups from being recycled or composted. 

Thanks to the participating coffee shops who generously offered special pricing when filling the reusable mugs AND for the awareness. (It certainly made me think, and I will do my best to bring my reusable mug into town every morning!)

• ·         Café Ink
• ·         Peach's
• ·         Starbucks
• ·         Boden's Butter
• ·         The Aspen Corner Store
• ·         French Pastry Café
• ·         Parallel 15
• ·         Paradise Bakery

ISSUE # 55....A Favorable Trend: AdvANTage Aspen

"The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving."  -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

It's never over 'til it's over, but there have been several noteworthy decisions, leanings and endorsements that reinforce The Red Ant's position(s) on high profile local issues in the past few weeks.  Some are done deals, others are still works in progress, but they're trending in a positive direction.  I share them with you as indications that citizen involvement in the issues CAN and DOES make a difference.  Thank you to all who took the time to take surveys, write to elected representatives and government agencies, and spread the word. Together, we ARE making a big difference! 

SHARE THE RED ANT WITH YOUR FRIENDS 

Do you forward your issues of The Red Ant to friends?  Know someone who would enjoy receiving The Red Ant?  Simply reply to this email and let me know whose addresses to add to the list!

VOLUNTARY HISTORIC DESIGNATION - A HUGE VICTORY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

The following is a letter that I received from local residents Marsha Cook and Mike Maple who, along with 19 other citizen volunteers, worked for 3.5 years to resolve "the historic designation issue" in Aspen:

"In July 2007, the newly seated City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance #30 that required all properties 30 years old or older to make an application to the City to determine if their property was a "Potential Historic Resource" and subject to involuntary historic designation and control before making any exterior alterations or demolition.  After considerable outrage from the community, the informal group of citizens referred to as The Aspen Citizens Group (led by Mike Maple and Marilyn Marks) persuaded City Council to replace Ordinance #30 with Ordinance #48.  Ordinance #48 reduced the number to 53 potential properties affected and provided them with what has been called a "Catch & Release Program."  The ordinance allowed property owners to proceed with changes after filing for a building permit and participating in a 90-120 day negotiation period with the City of Aspen.

"A Task Force of 21 citizens was formed to review the Historic Preservation Program.  They met for 19 months and delivered a report with numerous recommendations to City Council in October 2009.  The Task Force was narrowly split on issues such as Voluntary vs Involuntary designation of Post-WWII properties.  Nine of the Task Force members were concerned that, because of the split in support on the most critical issues, the overall report did not yield a workable program.  These nine worked together to create a Proactive Voluntary Recommendation for Historic Designation of Post-WWII Properties in Aspen, dated 19 October 2009.  This report was submitted to the other Task Force members and City Council by Michael Behrendt, Penney Evans Carruth, Marsha Cook, Pam Cunningham, Yasmine dePagter, John Kelly, Mike Maple, Tom Todd and Jack Wilke.  (Read the report here.)

"During this past year, many meetings with Council and staff have taken place in order to create a new ordinance.  A VOLUNTARY ONLY Historic Preservation Program for Post-WWII properties, identifying only those properties listed in Ordinance 48, was approved on 10 January 2011 by all five City Council members.  The ordinance asks future Councils to honor the new code's commitment and not alter the program or target additional Post-WWII properties for at least 10 years.

"We believe that Historic Preservation is important.  The City's new ordinance provides a program that allows for good preservation balanced with property rights. Without your support during the last 3.5 years, we would not have the program that was approved last week."

The Red Ant says THANK YOU to all who served on this committee, especially to Marsha, Mike, Michael, Penney, Pam, Yasmine, John, Tom and Jack for their dedication to historic preservation within the critical realm of private property rights.  (Please thank these dedicated citizens when you see them.)  This was quite a battle, given that there were staffers at city hall and nearly half the committee who preferred subjective judgment and the power to historically designate private property against owners' knowledge, will and control.  But in the end, rational minds prevailed. 

THE AACP DRAFT: DISSED BY SKICO AND THE CHAMBER!

Speaking of rational minds prevailing, The Red Ant was nothing short of elated to learn that the board of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) excoriated the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) draft earlier this week "for turning a blind eye to Aspen's status as a resort, and pilloried the two-year-long process of writing it as rushed," according to the Aspen Daily News.  Board member and Aspen Skiing Company SVP David Perry went as far as to say that the company (SkiCo) "opposes the current draft of the plan and believes it should be stopped."  The board's critical sentiment can be summed up as too much focus on the prevention of development and growth (reactions to the past) as opposed to a guiding document that addresses issues of the present and future, especially given that we are a resort community.

As expected, mayor Mick (who is on the ACRA board) didn't like this a bit.  According to The Aspen Times, Mick fiercely defended the AACP draft and the two-year process that it's taken to get to this stage.  Ignoring the fact that there are still surveys being conducted on AACP issues and the draft is far from complete, in his hallmark style Mick berated the board by saying, "It really is the Aspen way to let the process get near the end and then get around to it."  The Red Ant ascertains that Mick doesn't want community feedback after all.  Neither does his county commissioner pal Michael Owsley (who is also on the ACRA board), who told ACRA that if they want to get involved now, "You're going to have to slap on your clothes, find your shoes and start running." Lovely.  How's THAT for representation?

The Aspen Times reports that more than 9700 staff hours and half a million dollars have been spent on this version of the AACP so far.  Why wasn't it just an update?  Seems the AACP authors, led by Marcella Larsen and our pal Jack Johnson on the county planning and zoning commission, "felt it would be irresponsible to do a simple update.  So they decided to forge a more thorough, all-encompassing plan, one that even includes recommended 'action items' and statements on societal issues."  Good grief! This is a classic case of a citizen volunteer committee running amok, with what appears to be zero supervision and an unlimited expense account!

I've read the cumbersome document, and I thank the ACRA board for doing the same, having the vision to see where this manifesto stands to take us, and speaking out against it.  THIS is local leadership.

What's next?  There is really just one critical question:  Will the AACP be a "guiding" document or a "regulatory" one?  This needs to be immediately determined by council and the BOCC.  If it is deemed to be "guiding," we can all relax.  If it is to be "regulatory," it's time to take the gloves off and put the big kibosh on this once and for all.  Stay tuned.  (The Red Ant is very encouraged by the recent trend.)

HYDRO - ALL WASHED UP?

Don't I wish.  But we're making headway.  And we're far from alone.  The Western Rivers Institute's (www.WesternRiversInstitute.org) recent call for public comment on the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project yielded numerous letters to the city of Aspen and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  Thank you to the many readers of The Red Ant who submitted comments.  Apparently comments were 3:1 in opposition. 

There were also several institutional contributions to the effort, including a particularly damning letter from American Rivers (www.AmericanRivers.org), a DC-based non-profit corporation dedicated to healthy rivers (read it here).  Of note, the organization's Colorado conservation director Matt Rice wrote, "Our review of the record suggests that Aspen is engaged in a deliberate and disingenuous effort to disguise the fact that the Castle Creek project's primary intended purpose is to develop hydropower.  By seeking a conduit exemption, Aspen is trying to avoid the Commission's licensing requirements, including recommendations and conditions from state and federal natural resources agencies and more detailed independent environmental review of the project."  Rice continued, "The city's proposed operations would severely alter streamflows in Castle and Maroon Creeks, and the cursory flow study used by the city to justify its proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposed project will adequately protect the health of those streams."  He added, "We are disappointed by Aspen's lackluster analysis of alternatives to the project... The 582-230 vote in support of the referendum (2C in November 2007) proved by a large margin that the community supports alternative means of energy.  It did not prove, however, that citizens of Aspen would support obtaining non-carbon based energy through hydropower generation at the expense of the health of Castle and Maroon Creeks....The City's consideration of alternatives is deplorably inadequate."  And in conclusion, "If Aspen insists on pursuing this course of action, American Rivers will fully oppose it."

As we wait to learn whether or not FERC grants the city's application for a conduit exemption and waives the environmental impact study amidst all of the extremely negative feedback, there is a big lesson to be learned:  As citizens, we must become increasingly vigilant in overseeing council when measures are added to the ballot.  The language of these measures and how the questions are specifically worded make an enormous difference!  They sure hoodwinked us on this one!

GIVEN TAKE - OR GIVEN GONE!?

In one of the more shameful chapters of city council meetings in recent memory, amidst the most recent "negotiation" with the potential buyer/developer of The Given Institute property, city council came across as five naughty boys who cut Economics 101 class (if they were ever signed up in the first place).  Where in baseball, the tie goes to the runner, in Ordinance 48 negotiations, an impasse with the city favors the property owner.  And CU as the owner holds all the cards.  (They own the land, they already have the demolition permit, but are doing what they can to work with the city to "save" The Given facility within the economic constraints that keep them whole.)  But the boys either ignored this, simply forgot, or just don't get it.  Either way, their behavior was reprehensible and made Aspen look foolish for electing them.

If the city wants to keep The Given facility, then it will have to make some compromises.  The most current "deal" on the table is increased density on the site in the form of two home sites, but this assumes the city (or an angel donor??) will buy the facility and donate a third home site as public open space. 

Please note a couple of irrefutable facts:

• The Given Institute, as it exists today, is NOT public space.  It is not a public park.  It is a private facility that is gated when not in use, so any construction/development activity on this property does NOT take anything away from the public's current ability to use it.
• If The Given is demolished, the developers can legally build a 7000 sf house there

The Red Ant is no fan of the "compromise" development idea.  It's not so much the density concerns, although I much prefer a single house on this treasured property so close to Hallam Lake.  It's the fact that those who hope to "save" The Given have so little (if any) clue about economics and even less respect for property rights.  Apparently the local "save" group, after nearly 9 months of organization, have all of 178 "friends" on Facebook who want to save the old place at any cost.  And at a $10+M price tag, just who is going to pay this and then GIVE it to the city??  But that issue doesn't daunt mayor Mick.  He used the term "public funds" numerous times throughout the most recent negotiation. 

Even councilman Dwayne Romero, allegedly our "smart guy" on council, requested that the developer find a suitable purchaser of The Given and "Lot 2" so that the city doesn't have to deal with it.  (No joke.) That was after mayor Mick introduced an inane idea that the other boys thought would be just ducky: Couldn't the CU's sale of The Given and "Lot 2" be structured somehow favorably tax-wise so that CU would GIVE (yes, give) these parcels (or a large portion of them) to the city!?  What!?  The reason CU is selling this property is because the facility is a tired old money loser and the university needs the CASH -- $15M worth!

While negotiations are obviously winding down, we are not through.  But we are VERY close.  The lack of council's economic acumen and even less understanding of negotiation tactics have illustrated that the buffoons we have elected are far more comfortable basking in their own legislative power and spending public funds than they are making sound decisions.  Mick went as far as to doubt whether the eventual proceeds from sale of the CU-owned property would ever "find its way into the CU programs."  Huh??

A reader of The Red Ant wrote me recently, "I'm reminded of a quote from LeCorbusier, the French architect.  Goes something like this:  "Old buildings like old people have a life span, and when it's over, it's over.  They die or are torn down."  Ya think?

I see this one coming to a conclusion in the very near future.

ADULT SUPERVISION OF THE MAY 2011 ELECTION??

There's a wonderful rumor that a highly-respected and ethical "election professional" will be "overseeing" the city clerk and her conduct of the upcoming municipal election on May 3.  Could this mean that the ballot box will be locked this time?  Could the city's record-keeping of how its citizens vote be a thing of the past?  (At press time, The Red Ant could not get confirmation of this hopeful development.)

OUR RECYCLING VISIONARY

Merely days after proposing a "plastic water bottle ban" in Aspen, Torre, our one-named, tennis-teaching, uber-tan, man-about-town councilman is back, this time targeting disposable plastic bags.  According to the Aspen Daily News, Torre asserts "Legislation is inevitable... One thing I am not in favor of is simply taxing plastic bags.  I'd like to see them eliminated."

The Red Ant could certainly opine on this issue, but I read a recent letter to the Aspen Daily News editor that captured my thoughts exactly.  Tom Kwiatkowski of Lake Geneva, WI, wrote, "I have a condo in Snowmass.  I loved Curtis Wackerle's story on the banning of plastic bags.  Only in Aspen can elected officials ignore dealing with the S-curves (entrance to Aspen) for 50 years but solve our plastic bag problem.  I love our visionaries."

QUOTES I SIMPLY MUST SHARE

Here are a couple of gems from the January 24 city council meeting, pertaining to The Given Institute negotiations:

• Former Mayor Bill Stirling: "Keeping The Given (building on the site) makes the land more valuable."  Huh?
• Dwayne:  "I'd like to see a clean, straightforward deal, without the variances, waivers, reductions and offsets.  Sterilize the deal."  (I think that's the same as killing it!)
• Torre:  "I take what I can get."
• And my favorite, from Mick:  "Our reach ALWAYS exceeds our grasp.  It's The Aspen Idea.  We like having it all.  We want all the good stuff and we want it now."    

JACK WATCH: HE HAS YET TO HIT THE ROAD

In between issues of The Red Ant, I have been known to write in to the local papers.  This was published in the January 20, 2011, Aspen Daily News:

"Reading wanna-be politician Jack Johnson's lengthy diatribe on The Given and Aspen public policy made me laugh, particularly his admission, 'Make no mistake, in its desire to maximize the value of the property, the school (CU) is acting wisely and on behalf of all Coloradans. But it isn't acting in Aspen's best interest.' This singular statement takes all the huff and puff out of the strange and convoluted argument he puts forth. (Best I can tell, it's an admonishment of nonprofits that exercise their fiduciary responsibilities by maximizing the 'underlying free market residential value of the institution's property.')

Who died and made Jack the arbiter of 'Aspen's best interest?' And what does his undefined concept of 'Aspen's best interest' have to do with anything that CU is considering as long as it is within its legal rights? 

High density development on that unique site certainly is not ideal, but it's my guess that CU is calling Aspen's bluff and illustrating that the city can't have it both ways. As I wrote in the recent issue of The Red Ant, 'If you want to 'keep' The Given (i.e. buy it with taxpayer funds despite not having a need for a city-owned and managed conference space), you are going to have to make some concessions that will obviously entail increased density on the site. If you want to maintain minimal density there, then let the old building go so that one private residence can be built.'

Jack and his nemesis, private property, are clearly not through with their multi-year, multi-project feud. Aspen's emotional ties to The Given must be weighed.  Remember, CU holds the cards in the form of a demolition permit. They can very easily scrape the place tomorrow.  But an even greater question mark relates to Jack's directive to May 2011 council and mayoral candidates to see the big picture and take a clear stand on these zoning issues. Could Jack be going for the trifecta and throwing his knit hat into the ring again? Really? How fun."

The latest:  Jack is allegedly still couch-surfing and unemployed, and continues to be a nuisance on the local and state political scene.  He is currently meddling in the city's process of choosing a "local-serving" tenant for the highly subsidized Bentley's restaurant space in the city-owned Wheeler Opera House by submitting a formal "suggestion" amidst formal proposals from local restaurateurs.  Recall that as a city councilman (before being ousted in 2009), Johnson single-handedly drove the then-owners of the Hotel Jerome to sell the property when he pushed them too far in his attempt to micro-manage their plans to upgrade the interior of the historic property.  The Red Ant can't wait to learn what he has in mind to hamstring the new tenants of Bentley's!  But he is clearly lobbying for yet another appointed position on a citizen committee to do just that! 

Additionally, Jack has been lobbying Colorado's Secretary of State (responsible for elections) to implement his baby, Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV), statewide, despite the mess it caused in Aspen (and was thankfully repealed in November 2010 after just one election).  Puh-lease.

ISSUE # 54.... Things to ANTicipate in 2011

"If pleasures are greatest in anticipation, just remember that this is also true of trouble."

       -- Elbert Hubbard           

"Wisdom consists of the anticipation of consequences."

       -- Norman Cousins           

There is a lot on our local plate this coming year.  The following is an update on several ongoing issues that promise to come to a head in 2011.  Looking forward, this spring The Red Ant will be presenting a multi-issue expose on subsidized housing in anticipation of a major government push for a nine-figure general obligation bond to complete the Burlingame subsidized housing project, likely to be on the November 2011 ballot. 

But for now, here's what we've got cooking:

THE AACP:  SEEKING ANSWERS

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  A good mantra for sure, but perhaps it's a little sketchy when you're mayor Mick and what you're trying to do is goose the community feedback data for the soon-to-be-updated Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).  It seems that all of last year's feedback didn't quite provide the anti-development, pro-subsidized housing, slow-the-pace-of-construction data that the mayor and his Ba'ath Party sought.  Ancillary public feedback sessions (with instant vote tabulation) were held in December, but the desired results STILL weren't obtained.  So what do the mayor and the buffoons on city council do?  They commissioned YET ANOTHER survey! For another $15,000 in public funds, 2000 local voters in the city and county will be receiving one.  (It's actually, a form-like letter from city hall that directs the chosen ones to take an online survey.) The AACP team hopes THIS round of surveys will bolster support for their new hard-line controls.  According to the Aspen Daily News, mayor Mick decided that "some recently received feedback may not be representative of the entire community," referring to the December sessions.  "Many community members are too busy to attend city meetings," Mick added.  The Red Ant, who often attends city meetings, ponders -- since when does one's attendance at a city meeting become grounds for having one's opinions taken into account?

Will wonders never cease?  I received my AACP survey in the mail last week.  The 21-question online survey only takes a couple of minutes to answer.  If you receive one, please take the time to go online and fill it out.  As expected, there is great focus on subsidized housing (quantity, mitigation, on-site, off-site, etc) and construction quotas.  And as also expected, the questions are worded so that the answers can be broadly interpreted.  With 2000 surveys "randomly" out there, this round of questioning may just give Mick what he's looking for.  (Remember the May 2009 election??  These guys know what they're doing.  They know how to get the results they seek!) 

Meanwhile, the AACP team met recently to "sharpen goals" for the AACP, according to The Aspen Times, with the intent to adopt the plan by April.  Never mind the latest survey is out there amongst the populace this week!  These guys (and gals) will never let the facts get in the way of a good communist manifesto!

Notably, there are long-term economic impacts from the recent downturn in local construction and development.  With the stringent new restrictions on construction and development proposed by the new AACP, these impacts will only get worse.  For example, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, a quasi-governmental agency, raised its rates 10% this fall.  Their rationale?  As told to The Aspen Times by Bruce Matherly, manager of the ACSD, "The downturn in the economy over the last few years has led to a construction slowdown.  New construction means new business for the sanitation district, and pumps money into the entity's capital fund."  The restrictive revisions to the AACP will only make THIS situation worse, not to mention impact many other taxing authorities.  Clearly, the AACP is a punitive document, designed to continually raise taxes and restrict business rather than improve our community.

The future of the AACP?  Ideally, it would be great if it would just go away.  We have land use codes and building codes for a reason.  All of these other "controls" seem far too subjective and, in my humble opinion, are the hypocritical and angry opinions of the authors of the document rather than the input of the community.  As a refresher on the AACP, see The Red Ant Issue # 52 here. If the AACP must exist, it would be far better as an "aspirational" document for our community rather than a regulatory one.  Even county commissioner Jack Hatfield asked in the recent AACP team meeting, "How is this plan going to be used in the city and the county when we all look at these things differently?"  Good question.

THE CASTLE CREEK ENERGY CENTER, A.K.A. THE HYDRO PLANT

It's still a big mess over there.  (For a hydro refresher, see The Red Ant Issue # 45 here and an update in Issue # 49 here.) The latest is that the city is trying to bypass the regular licensing process for a hydroelectric facility.  They've applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a "conduit exemption" so as to get around a vital and comprehensive environmental impact analysis.   Additionally, the "conduit" that the city cites as rationale for this exemption is a drain pipe from Thomas Reservior that was installed under false pretenses.  Ken Neubecker of The Western Rivers Institute recently wrote a telling editorial in the Aspen Daily News (read it here).  In short, Neubecker states, "The city doesn't have adequate information to operate either a green or a financially sound hydroelectric operation.  They shouldn't try until they do."  And he adds, "Generating electricity for the city's utility operations from hydro power is a legitimate idea.  But it is being done too quickly, with too little thought, too many unbelievable claims and too little understanding of the consequences.  Solving one form of environmental damage by creating another is not green."  And my favorite statement from Neubecker illustrates just how we find ourselves in this pickle -- "Mayor Ireland points out that over 70% of voters approved the hydro plant.  But the 2007 referendum asked the wrong question.  It only asked about bonds and debt, with nothing about potential damage to Maroon and Castle creeks.  The outcome may have been very different if the referendum had stated the situation more forthrightly."  Ya think?  (For more information on Neubecker and The Western Rivers Institute, visit www.westernriversinstitute.org)

Longtime local Connie Harvey, in a recent Aspen Daily News editorial, is in full agreement with The Red Ant.  With regard to the hydro plant, she writes, "The city is breaking faith with residents who are doing their very best to find a good solution to a project that could have a good outcome if done well, or horribly damaging effects if done wrong."  While Connie and others worked to host a panel of water experts at a mediation session to look in-depth at the issues, "the mayor and city manager (Barwick) agreed to this plan, but meanwhile went on constructing the hydro project."  Regarding the FERC application, Connie states, "(The application) completely distorts what the city is up to," it "is deceitful throughout" and "utterly fraudulent." Read her thoughtful piece in its entirety here. 

And local Lucy R. Hibberd weighed in with a letter to FERC stating, "I am writing to ask you to reject the city's application for exemption from an environmental impact statement for the Castle Creek Hydro Plant.  The project has been hastily conceived, poorly planned and deviously presented."

This project is a shameful chapter in a long list of bad ways the city does business.  What can be done?  The city is soliciting public comment on its application to FERC for the exemption from an Environmental Impact Statement.  PLEASE take a minute and send an email today to FERC at THIS address and reference Docket # P-13254 on the subject line.  In addition, please cc David.Hornbacher@ci.aspen.co.us with 1) the message that you do not approve of this distorted and fraudulent application to FERC, and, importantly, 2) that you want your letter added to the public record.  (If you don't ask that they do this, the city of Aspen might just "lose" your letter!)  For more information, see the full application at www.aspenpitkin.com - click on the Castle Creek Hydro link under "City Spotlight."  Thank you for weighing in against this wreckless and deceitful project.  The deadline for comments is January 18, 2011.

THE GIVEN INSTITUTE:  TRASH OR TREASURE?

When Elizabeth Paepcke donated 2.25 acres of land in Aspen's  west end to the University of Colorado in the early 1970s, the university constructed The Given Institute, a 12,000 s.f. building used by its School of Medicine as a facility for medical research conferences.  In recent years, state support for the medical school has drastically declined; at the same time, The Given requires $200,000 in annual operating subsidies.  CU's desire to demolish the facility and sell the vacant lot to a buyer has Aspen in a full-blown tizzy.  Is The Given historic?  The Red Ant hardly thinks so, but those who do have been fighting hard to throw a wrench in the university's desire to sell the property in order to support the medical school's endowment and get out from under the annual subsidy.  Recent negotiations include CU's offer to designate the aging facility as historic (therefore not tearing it down) and subdividing the remaining land for a developer to purchase and build three 5500 s.f. homes.  The city would then have one year to buy The Given facility for $3.75 million. 

Local economic geniuses are screaming for CU to lower the $13.8 million price tag (yes, they have a buyer) so that the developer won't have to build such density on the notable property overlooking Hallam Lake.  The Red Ant says, you can't have it both ways:  if you want to "keep" (i.e. buy it with taxpayer funds despite not having a need for a city-owned and managed conference space) The Given, you are going to have to make some concessions that will obviously entail increased density on the site.  If you want to maintain minimal density there, then let the old building go so that one private residence can be built.  The building is a dump.  But because it came to be as a result of Elizabeth Paepcke's generosity, this has become a local brou-ha-ha.

As former county commissioner Shellie Roy wrote in a recent letter to the editor, "It is lovely that we protect our community, but sometimes, the cause is bigger than 'about us.'  Mrs. Paepcke gave this land to the state's university and the thousands of Colorado residents it educates.  My guess is she is pleased a nest egg is available when CU and its student body needs it most."  The Red Ant wholeheartedly agrees.

Thankfully CU holds the demolition permit and can act on it whenever they desire.  The Red Ant sees the patience of CU administrators wearing thin.  My bet -- a vacant lot by spring.  This is yet another example of the city overstepping its bounds in an attempt to diminish the value of private property.  Evoking the "Paepcke legacy" as rationale for spending public funds on an emotional purchase is irresponsible and insulting.

THERE'S A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN -- A KISS FOR LUCK AND WE'RE ON OUR WAY??

Joe DiSalvo was sworn in as Pitkin County's sheriff on January 11. As protégé and heir apparent to outgoing 6-term Sheriff Bob Braudis, DiSalvo becomes the third local sheriff to champion Aspen's progressive brand of community policing.  Beginning with Dick Kienast in the 1970s ("Dick Dove and the Deputies of Love"), "compassionate law enforcement" and preserving Aspen's peaceful spirit have been the local law of the land.  Braudis, known for providing "extra-legal solutions" to avoid court and avoid jail, has, according to The Aspen Daily News, "long preached legalizing marijuana and other drugs, while championing treatment for addiction rather than legal penalties for possession; he has not conducted undercover investigations because he says they erode public trust of his department; and he has drawn public criticism from officials with the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), who say he impedes their ability to operate in Pitkin County."

The big question for DiSalvo:  Will you continue with the same laissez faire attitude toward illegal drugs in Pitkin County?  Or will you break with the past (it is 2011 after all) and your forefathers to lead our community in a better, healthier and safer manner?  Only time will tell....

ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL (AVH) IS EXPANDING, BUT JUST HOW FAR?

With great fanfare on December 14, AVH board members, administrators and representatives of Haselden Construction donned hard hats and broke ground on Phase 2 of the hospital expansion.  The funding for this project comes from a $50 million general obligation bond approved by taxpayers in November.   Phase 2 will include the expansion of all outpatient areas, including improvements to zoning, segregation of internal traffic flow, privacy and space for upgraded patient care (from 25 to 36 private rooms), cardiac/pulmonary rehab and physical therapy relocated to a second floor, same-day surgery moved to a contiguous space with other surgery, relocation of food service and dining, 12,000 s.f. of medical office space, a basement receiving dock, a 220-space parking garage, 18 subsidized housing units, and site work.

AVH board member John Sarpa assures The Red Ant that "AVH will only build what it can afford."  This means that the planned $80 million, 4-phase expansion will only be completed with what the $50 million from the bonds can deliver, that is, unless AVH is able to augment this funding with a capital campaign or issue revenue bonds.  If no ancillary funds are raised for the expansion project, AVH will stop its expansion when the money runs out.  This could adversely affect Phases 3 and 4 which are designed to provide a new emergency department, expanded surgical operations, 15,000 more s.f. of office space, an elevated helicopter pad above the ER, a new ambulance entrance, and garage and basement space for storage and non-clinical operations (Phase 3), a new front entrance, new registration/admitting areas, better-located outpatient services and completion of garage and external traffic operations (Phase 4).

Thankfully, each expansion phase has been designed to offer self-contained threshold improvements and can stand alone should the money run out.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.  (But when you voted YES on the $50 million bond for AVH, you thought the whole expansion was a done deal, didn't you?!)

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS?

It all began in early December when city council and the Pitkin county board of county commissioners learned that the seasonal rental housing at Marolt Ranch (a 95-unit complex) was only 35% full.  Built to house seasonal resort workers in the winter and music students in the summer, Marolt's vacancies led our elected leadership to consider using the excess capacity as "a short term solution for homeless persons."  Good grief. 

As a parishioner of St. Mary's Catholic Church, I am very aware of the partnership the church has with the Aspen Homeless Shelter whereby the church provides an overnight shelter for the homeless from December through March, housing about 20 people per night.  Of all things, the city should stay out of the homeless shelter business, especially on a short term basis.  It's just one more "business" that the city stands to take on and screw up.

On one hand, it is notable that we have excess subsidized housing inventory.  But on the other, we are spending millions upon millions on the planning and development for 167 additional subsidized housing units at Burlingame that will cost in the neighborhood of $100 million.  I am all for compassion for the homeless, but disagree whole-heartedly with councilman Steve Skadron who stated, "It's unconscionable to have resources sitting there when neighbors are in need."  No Steve, it's unconscionable to build more and more subsidized housing when there is no need.  It's unconscionable to give to some while charging others for the same.  It's unconscionable to think that Aspen can accommodate a growing number of homeless on a long term basis with subsidized housing that is intended to house our local workforce.

Thankfully, Marolt Ranch filled up with seasonal renters throughout December.  But the issue did not go away.  The latest is that city-owned, seasonal, subsidized housing such as Marolt may be used for "transitional housing for the homeless" as early as this spring.  According to The Aspen Daily News, homeless advocates want to "launch a 'pilot program' through which pre-screened homeless people could qualify for transitional housing at Marolt after ski season employees move out in April.  They would only be permitted to stay until June, when temporary summer tenants move in."

Mission creep by the city of Aspen once again.  They have zero sense of unintended consequences.  Clearly.  This will be interesting....

A BOTTLED WATER BAN IN ASPEN?

Earlier this month, Torre, our one-named, uber-tan, tennis-teaching, man-about-town councilman proposed a ban on the sale of single-use plastic water bottles in Aspen.  (City staff is currently researching the issue.)  Torre's intent is for the "plastic bottle industry" to change what it does based on the surety of a "conversation" that will begin with Aspen's actions.  One quick stop at the Aspen Store at local's corner will illustrate how misguided poor Torre is.  This photo clearly illustrates how "bottled water" is just one of many single-use plastic bottle products available.  Banning the sale of water in such containers in the city of Aspen is supposed to change the world?  Torre, Torre, Torre, please.  What about soda, juice and energy drinks?  Wouldn't it be better to look to the professionals and see what they're doing?  (For example, the environmentally conscious Aspen Skiing Company has recently stopped including bottled water in its nightly turn-down service at The Little Nell, instead providing guests with a carafe of Aspen tap water.  Now THIS is a reasonable and responsible action that actually reduces the use of bottled water!)

Torre, your intentions are good, but this is just poorly thought out. The Red Ant suggests that you research a similarly misguided "ban" promoted by then-mayor Bill Stirling in the late 1980's.  Stirling moved to ban the sale of fur in Aspen!  This made national news, but not the favorable kind.  It actually made Aspen look foolish.  And visitors were concerned about wearing fur here amidst the controversy.  We ARE a tourism-based economy, so this was not good.  A bottled water ban would be equally bad.  Sorry, Torre, I just can't see an Aspen visitor grabbing a V-8 for that hike up the Ute Trail.  Besides, those bottles are plastic too.

FREE STUFF!

$100 Landfill Credit:  Pitkin County is now offering county households a $100 credit at the county landfill.  This is an incentive for residents to properly dispose of waste, including hazardous materials, electronics, metal, leaves and grass, as well as household trash.  For pricing and more information, see www.aspenpitkin.com/resourcerecovery or call 970-429-2884.

Residents must bring a driver's license to the landfill along with one of the following documents: car registration, utility bill or property tax bill.

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.

SHARE THE RED ANT WITH YOUR FRIENDS 

Know someone who would enjoy receiving The Red Ant?  Simply reply to this email and let me know whose addresses to add to the list!

ISSUE # 53.... sANTa's Coming!

'Twas the start of the season, when all through the town The skiers were happy, with nary a frown. So much early snow, we revel in the stuff Opening Day gave us a foot of good fluff! But the year has been trying, as one would expect It's Aspen, where taxpayers get no respect! Mick runs the city as if he were king He tries to keep us from knowing a thing. But The Red Ant is here to shine a bright light On hypocrites, secrecy and budgets not tight. The games, they continue, but it's really quite fun To unearth the stories, sparing no one! Burlingame housing, good grief -- here it comes You won't believe the estimated sums! They're spending a fortune with costs sure to soar If they ask for a dime, Aspen voters will ROAR! A young Times reporter covered the tale Of Instant Run-Off Voting: how it was destined to fail. He truthfully covered the saga and foes Of the '09 election: problems everyone knows! The city didn't like how they were portrayed, Times editors were berated in a Mick-Worcester raid. They tried to make amends with propaganda and lies, But the reporter said "Later, I'm through with you guys!" The Hydro Plant was exposed as lots of green hype They're spending a fortune on unneeded pipe! It's all a big plan to bypass the Feds Inviting the lawsuits everyone dreads. The hospital bond passed in a very close vote So they're rushing to issue the $50 million note. But this will not cover it, the funding's not through They'll be back for more soon - this is only Phase 2! Is "The Given" historic, or is it just old? CU wanted to sell it but then they were told It can't be torn down, it's part of our past. I say hurry, bring in the bulldozers -- fast! The "blue roofs" are rotting; all moldy and wet Those subsidized wonder how much they'll get. But the taxpayers paid for the place to be built And won't pay the repairs - won't do it, no guilt! $84 million to spend and to waste They passed the budget with little talk and much haste. Council assumptions, based on who knows just what But according to Mick, not a thing can be cut. Daily News owner Danforth got popped at the store He says he won't shop THERE anymore! (They charged tax for a newspaper, the New York Times He argued and got busted for trespassing crimes.) The community plan is a joke and a sham If it is to pass, we're all in a jam. We are not commies, we want to stay free Let's get rid of this thing - the AACP! Aspen's cultural programming sets us apart And now we can celebrate contemporary art. The building design is a sight to be seen Looking to open in 2013. City Manager Barwick, the incompetent bore With his new contract, he does less for more. But raises for employees, what's council thinking? The boys can't think clearly - Mick's kool-aid they're drinking! The city can't account for nearly half a mil But they're throwing more cash at the recycling center still. Seems the "off the books" deal with a developer failed And as a result, the taxpayers got nailed! The Wheeler is one of our best local jewels With the city in charge, it's a big house of fools. The shows, they are costly and subsidized each year Earned income to expenses, declining - oh dear! $2 mil for the basement, it's leaky and wet What about the millions it gets from the RETT? The endowment is cushy: millions, what for? But the city likes taxing property owners more! Aspen's parking department admitted a goof Seems parking tickets here are really a spoof. 4500 tickets have never been paid That's a quarter-mil in revenue disregarded  -- not made! Where is George Aldrich, he's been missing for weeks?! This isn't the season a snowboarder seeks! Please let me know if you see him around His family really wants George to be found! Historic Preservation:  it's still a big fight It's up to council to make this thing right! Those 60's houses -- it sure could be scary  If the city makes "HP" involuntary! Local paraplegic Amanda Boxtel walked With the help of "eLegs," 12 hours she clocked. The technology provides  a wonderful chance At the rate she is going, Amanda will dance! Construction in Snowmass became an architectural dig They found mammoths and mastodon - we're talking big! The bones, they are ancient, and there might be more there The museum in Denver will remove them with care. CPR saved the life of a tennis playing ace Ed Zasacky was gone but his friend knew the pace. A skill for us all to practice and show Ask "Un-dead Ed" --  I'll betcha he'll know! A record number of voters went to the polls 7500 from our voter rolls. Tommy Clapper deserves a raise of the glass His endorsement of Ittner was nothing but class! There's another election coming up in the spring Good changes for Aspen, let's hope these will bring! They ask me who's running but I haven't a clue But you can sure bet I have a theory or two! Mick, Dwayne and Steve, it's their turn to run If all three run for mayor, it will really be fun! It's easy to show not one has a clue And with only one winner, we'd get rid of two! I hope that the field will be filled with new faces Giving Aspen a slew of good candidates and races! I'm starting a PAC sometime early next year So look for the Ant to shift into high gear! Let's stick together and continue our quest We all love it in Aspen - it's simply the best! We have much to celebrate as 2010 ends, Holiday blessings to you, your family and friends.

Subscribe to The Red Ant!  It's Free!! Please share your thoughts and comments!  I want to hear from you! Elizabeth Milias  TheRedAntEM@comcast.net Correction: The Red Ant strives to be accurate in all facts contained in its commentary, and conducts extensive research and interviews to do so.  However, unintentional and inadvertent mistakes do occur.  In Issue #52, it was noted that county P&Z member Marcella Larsen "owns a number of TDRs that, under the new AACP stipulations, stand to become more valuable than ever."  In fact, she does not own any transferrable development rights.  Rather, her family negotiated perpetual vested rights for other real estate holdings, specifically, property on Richmond Hill.  On the unique deal, according to Marcella, "This land use approval served as a model for what the county does now through its TDR program."  The Red Ant regrets the error.

ISSUE # 52.... An ArrogANT Use of Power: Aspen's Communist Manifesto

An ArrogANT Use of Power: Aspen's Communist Manifesto

Visit the ANThology...   www.TheRedAnt.com    Do you have local stories, information, insight or ideas for  The Red Ant? Please share them!   "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence:  Abolition of private property."             -- Karl Marx

THE AACP You've probably read a bit about this of late - the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) - which, since it's origination in 1993, is going through its once-a-decade facelift.  The AACP, jointly adopted by the city of Aspen and Pitkin County, is, according to its most recent draft, a "character-based plan that guides our land use decisions" while "setting forth our philosophy, establishing policies and providing and action plan to implement our shared vision." The 2010 installment is approaching its final approval phase and stands to change more than you can imagine about Aspen.  The word "draconian" comes to mind, but even that doesn't rightly describe what several members of the city's and county's Planning & Zoning commissions have in store for us if Chairman Mao's Directive passes without vociferous community outcry. A LITTLE BACKGROUND Since 2008, the two Planning & Zoning commissions (with the help of Design Workshop, a local firm that provides landscape architecture, urban design, sustainable environments and strategic services) have been gathering and disseminating info on all that's changed in the Aspen area since 2000.  Then, a public feedback phase ensued - perhaps you participated in the large "clicker sessions" at the St. Regis and/or other related surveys?  It's reported that over 1000 citizens have weighed in.  Allegedly, with the raw feedback data, the P&Zs have drafted the updated AACP. And that is where we are today - looking at a draft that would severely alter our very way of life though unbelievable government intrusion and unforeseen regulations. Squeezed into two short weeks amidst the off-season (October 2010), the local governments wedged "small meetings," organized by topic, into lunch hours to garner feedback on their draft, in the hope that all would progress smoothly and the Great Leap Forward would sail through approvals by city council and the board of county commissioners.  The Red Ant attended the very first "small meeting," only to quickly learn that they didn't want feedback at all.  Rather, city and county employees drove the sessions, writing nonsense on whiteboards while other government colleagues argued with attending citizens in defense of their draft.  (Thus my one visit.  However, I heard that the series did not improve as time went on.) Most shocking was the conversation I had with a young associate of Design Workshop when I asked, "Why are we not reconciling the feedback data from 2008-2010 with the text of this AACP draft?"  She responded, "That's not how the city and county want the draft evaluated and we have a contract with the city and county."  Bureaucrats - they never let the facts get in the way of a good communist manifesto! A FEW TIDBITS ON WHAT "THEY" ARE THINKING While I prefer to write the prose of The Red Ant, sometimes I cannot make this stuff up and simply have to quote directly.  The following provides a little insight into the AACP and the mindset of its authors.  Are you sitting down? Recognize that free-market development cannot continue to be publicly subsidized and must pay its own way.  (Yes, you read that correctly.) Our most important community goal is ensuring that our town is accessible and affordable to a diversity of people. Provide services, such as education, public safety and a range of health services for people in all phases of life. Pace all development to ensure a high quality of life.  There is enormous disdain in the AACP for construction in general, and the document singles out "development" as the consummate evil in our community.  "This plan identifies the resort economy as the only sustainable economy" it says.  Furthermore, "during the last 20 years, development-related economic activity has degraded the natural environment and changed the built environment to the detriment of our community and the resort economy" (emphasis added).    THE KEY ISSUES As a "philosophical" or "aspirational" or "guiding" document, the AACP would be a touchy-feely, "wouldn't it be nice if" wish list.  However, as a "regulatory" document that dictates land use code changes and mandates quotas, restrictions, inclusions, exclusions, phases and other regulatory elements, this is where it really gets scary.  (City staff cannot clearly answer which it is.)  And given that the city settled a recent lawsuit rather than facing the judge on appeal, it would appear that the city is afraid that the current AACP will not stand up as a regulatory document when challenged in court.  The 2010 AACP will certainly be taking steps to prevent such a situation in the future!  The new version is certain to be iron clad. In addition, it is abundantly clear to anyone who has participated in the survey/feedback process that what's in the AACP draft IS NOT what was determined in the public sessions.  If you'd like to see earlier data that was supposed to be interpreted the draft, here it is. AT FIRST BLUSH The AACP's ideas and concepts at first may seem appealing.  But when you look into the details, the many objectives of the AACP are likely to increase our cost of living, diminish free market property values and rights, and severely aggravate our local economy.  Proponents of the new AACP intend to further expand its legislative authority in order to over-rule the existing codes and put the subjective decision-making squarely in the hands of the high priests on city council and the BOCC.  With over 500 specific "action items," the assignment of implementation responsibility and a call for annual tracking/measurements, the AACP clearly strives to expand regulatory control in general, with a specific focus on land use.  From the perspective of The Red Ant, the AACP will bring a new level of government control, which will of course require extensive hiring to create and police the new regulations.  THE SUBJECT OF GROWTH - HEADS UP BUILDERS AND REALTORS! The AACP calls for reductions in allowable house size throughout the Aspen Area and seeks other limitations in commercial and lodging development, including subsidies and quotas.  These will be accomplished through comprehensive management and strict "pacing" of all construction-related activity.  Noting that residential redevelopment "typically means the demolition and replacement of currently existing homes with expanded structures that are almost always built to the maximum square footage allowed," the AACP calls for reducing allowable house sizes and creating "more rigorous regulations."  A justification for this is to "reduce employment generation."  Yes, you are reading that correctly.  Let's do what we can to kill jobs.  The lodging sector is worse.  The recent trend toward deluxe, high-end and fractional lodge projects has resulted in "excessive job generation." Isn't that awful - we've created an excessive number of jobs!? In addition, look for mandates that stipulate a diversity of lodging choices through the preservation of existing lodges and a "re-balancing" of our lodging inventory.  The AACP calls for "methods to maintain the inventory of smaller lodges" and "incentives" for "small room sizes," not to mention the elimination of "the ability to convert lodging to other uses."  The AACP calls for the "formulation of a strategy that favors economy/moderate-priced lodges."  What ever happened to the free market?? In the commercial sector, the AACP's solution to the perceived loss of businesses providing basic necessities is to "pursue more aggressive measures," that "facilitate and assist" businesses that "increase retail diversity" and "establish measures to keep them viable."  Can you say "subsidy"? The AACP also suggests changing the code to "allow restaurants and bars on the pedestrian malls by right, while requiring retail to gain conditional use approval."  Another Great Leap Forward is to "require that a portion of development be restricted to a limited list of commercial uses, which would be charged lower rent."  Of course this is all an effort to "manage imbalances" through the establishment of "quotas."  The Red Ant is likely being too democratic, too capitalistic and too free-market oriented, but this is INSANE!  (See Issue # 4:  Welcome, Chairman Mao's Diner - it CAN happen here because it already has!) With regard to development in general - the AACP wants to "discourage" projects that "provide minimal public benefit."  This would not apply to subsidized housing of course, but I suppose Dr. Zhivago's house could get a special exemption.... And did I mention, in an effort to "encourage permanent residents to remain in existing free market homes," the AACP suggests reduced property taxes, city/county fee abatements and prioritized processing of land use applications and zoning permits.  Presumably this is an incentive to prevent the sale of free market property to the evil part-time second homeowners, but just how will they decide who qualifies?  (And you doubted that the city knows and keeps track of how you voted.....) Are you scared yet??? COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING Ahh, my favorite topic.  But wait, you ask, just what is Community Workforce Housing (CWH)?  Good question.  It's the local government's new name for employee housing or deed-restricted housing or affordable housing or whatever you choose to call it.  I call it "subsidized housing" because that's the only truthful definition - it's not employee housing because many retirees (and other scofflaws who do not work) live there, and it sure as heck ain't affordable!  With this new CWH monicker, the AACP promises that our subsidized housing will "support a healthy year-round community and a healthy workforce."  What subsidized housing has to do with "health" is beyond me, but if the nasty mold problem at the Centennial subsidized housing project is taken into account, the housing program needs an immediate visit from Erin Brockovich and the EPA. While the AACP notably points out that "living in Community Workforce Housing is not a right or a guarantee, but a privilege," The Red Ant is dismayed (yet not surprised) to read on and learn that such "housing should emphasize quality construction and design even if that emphasis increases costs and lessens production."  Good grief.  Did we learn NOTHING from the financial debacle at Burlingame??  And what ever happened to being grateful for a community-subsidized roof over one's head??  Subsidized housing is hardly the place for granite countertops and bamboo flooring. My two favorite points on subsidized housing in the AACP draft:   Amend the housing guidelines to require people to sell their free-market home before they are able to move into Community Workforce Housing.  (Ya think?? How and why do people who own free market housing even get considered for CWH??  And if this is an issue, the housing program is clearly a joke.) Explore APCHA's taxing authority as an option to fund Community Workforce Housing.  (Never mind that the city collects 1% on every real estate purchase as part of the Real Estate Transfer Tax - RETT - for the subsidized housing fund, the housing authority also has its own state-specific powers to raise revenue through sales taxes, use taxes, an ad valorem property tax and/or development impact fees.) OTHER AACP TOPICS: (remember, these could become REGULATIONS) Reinvigorating the Aspen Idea Is it really the city's/county's job to "educate the community about the Aspen Idea," or "encourage recreational and cultural programs that support personal growth, enhance family relationships and encourage civic involvement"???  Puh-lease! Caring for the Lifelong Aspenite "Conduct a Community Health Assessment for the Aspen Area every 5 years." "Establish a comprehensive network of in-home services to support seniors and people with disabilities." "Ensure everyone has local access to quality food; promote organic and sustainable local and regional food production; coordinate efforts to educate the community about local food production, including programs that teach gardening." "Promote conflict resolution skills amongst neighbors and homeowners' associations." "Explore the creation of year-round homeless shelters and half-way houses." "Ensure that residents have access to primary care including prevention, palliative care, long-term care and health-management services, regardless of payer source." "Ensure that all residents have access to a comprehensive dental program." Traffic and Transportation "Incorporate public art at BRT stations." "Extend and improve trails that can be used for commuting purposes." "Gather relevant data needed to define the impacts of (city) resident vehicle travel; identify and implement strategies to reduce resident vehicle travel." "Explore the benefits of separating on-site parking spaces from their respective residential and commercial units; these could be rented or purchased separately." Gateway to Aspen - West of Castle Creek Corridor "Explore the creation of a transportation district in the West of Castle Creek Area to ensure that development pays for transportation improvements in the corridor." "Amend city and county zoning in the area to discourage additional development of new free-market single family and duplex homes."  Environmental Sustainability "Explore amending the land use codes to require all development to go through an environmental review that ensures it will meet established sliding scale thresholds for air pollution." "Incorporate programs to promote and implement 'zero waste' for events, businesses and residents." Here's the AACP draft.  Don't print it unless you have a strong stomach and enough paper and ink for 92 pages of hell.  If you can only stand to look through a little of it, at least check out the Introduction and the section on Managing Growth & Economic Sustainability.  Read it and weep. SO, JUST WHO WROTE THIS DRIVEL?  AND WHAT'S THEIR BEEF? The 14 members of the city and county P&Z boards are responsible for the AACP draft.  Appointed by city council and the BOCC, these citizen volunteers serve staggered 4-year terms. When you see them, please ask these folks, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?  Tell them, DO NOT SEND THIS DRAFT TO COUNCIL AND THE BOCC FOR APPROVAL!  IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY'S VALUES!  AND IT DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE A REGULATORY DOCUMENT! City P&Z:  Stan Gibbs, chair; LJ Erspamer, vice chair; Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Mike Wampler, Jim DeFrancia and Cliff Weiss County P&Z:  Joe Krabacher, chair; Marcella Larsen, vice chair, Ben Genschaft, John Howard, Jack Johnson, Mirte Mallory and Jay Murphy As with any volunteer board, some members do more than others.  This is especially true of the AACP draft.  Notably, a big contributor to the AACP draft is our friend Jack Johnson.  Recently defeated in his quest for a board of county commissioner's seat, Johnson has indeed worked tirelessly in this P&Z role as well as in his former city council role to minimize free market property values and destroy private property rights.  Given his recent defeat, keep your eye on Johnson.  He's mad.  And hell hath no fury like an unemployed, homeless wanna-be politician twice scorned by the electorate. MARCELLA'S STORY Additionally, it is widely acknowledged that Marcella Larsen has had a heavy hand in the creation of the AACP draft.  It is interesting to note that Marcella was the assistant county attorney when many of the existing land use regulations were originally drawn up.  But even hotter is the story behind Marcella's personal disdain for and desire to clamp down on all development in the Aspen Area. You see, her grandfather was a fellow named Charles Urschel, who at one point owned a major parcel of land in the Maroon Creek valley.   In the mid-1990's, the family wanted to re-zone and subdivide some of their land and sell off 5 lots for development.  Somehow the Larsens/Urschel heirs acquired a unique "1041 hazard review" and "subdivision exemption" approval, enabling "Urschel Tract D" to be developed. The approval evasively states on page 2, sub-paragraph 11, that "The Board (of county commissioners) finds that conditions have changed in a manner which justifies the development proposed."  No specific "changes" are described, but apparently something "changed" and the deal got done! (Mayor Mick - then a county commissioner - personally signed this special land use approval -- see it here.)  The county rezoned the Urschel land specifically for this deal. You can darned well bet THAT doesn't typically happen. Likewise, there were notably minimal exactions for on-site, off-site or cash-in-lieu payments for employee housing, park contributions or trail easements. The real kicker is subparagraph 1(r) on page 4.  At the time, the county was giving vested rights for only 3 years, and after that the applicant had to come back into the system and be bound by any new land use rules.  But Marcella's family got vested rights that are perpetual - they never expire! This was a well-known sweetheart deal: the Larsens got permission to develop (and/or sell) five approximate 3.8-acre, 9600 s.f. approved, free market homesites, each with separate caretaker units, in an area that abuts the Maroon Creek Club, with primo mountain views, and vested rights forever. In full disclosure, the Larsens did agree that the property owners would pay the housing authority $138,000 when the first two houses were built.  And the county cites that the "unique" nature of this "deal" is based upon the Larsen's agreement to subject over 100 acres to a covenant or deed restriction prohibiting future development.  That is, unless the Little Annie/Richmond Hill "rural and remote" area is modified for development in the future, at which time the deed restriction will revert and they too will be able to develop. But here's the best part.  No sooner do the Skyview Subdivision's covenants (see them here) finally get approved in February 2001 (by Mick again) does the BOCC downsize the county FAR to 5750 square feet.  Who drafted these new restrictive rules? Hmmm, could it have been Marcella, who was then the assistant attorney for Pitkin County?!   The Urschel heirs did indeed sell the 5 lots to developers for many millions in 2000-2001 (see sales records in the county assessor's office for parcels 18411-18415).  These lots/homes can be seen today at 1500, 1520, 1540, 1560 and 1580 Tiehack Road.  And, Marcella currently lives in a 4800 s.f., 4 bedroom/4.5 bath house on 10.5 acres of the original Urschel homestead on Maroon Creek Road.  According to the county assessor, her home is currently valued at $5.7 million, with $9500 in 2010 property taxes, down from $14,300 in 2009. On the condition of anonymity, one P&Z member tells The Red Ant that each and every time he received a new version of the AACP draft, the changes were more and more severe, restrictive, and farther and farther from the starting point that was allegedly based on actual community feedback data.  This is attributed to Marcella's liberal interpretation of "community feedback" and her iron-fisted control of the project.  (Perhaps it's a thank you / IOU to Mick?)  Marcella's family made millions.  Then, like the princess in a castle, she pulled the draw-bridge shut.  She's now doing all she can to prevent anyone from doing anything remotely similar!  Ironically, Marcella is widely believed to blog on The Aspen Times website using the screen name "Stop The Greed Now."  Classic.  You just can't make this stuff up! EVEN P&Z FOLKS ARE HORRIFIED A member of the city P&Z board recently blogged, "The AACP has some very unfortunate language in it; concepts that would completely stifle change in our community.  To a great extent the document has been taken over by people opposed to any development in the community except for affordable housing.  For example, do you believe that a non-profit institution (such as the Aspen Country Day School) can only be located within the urban growth boundary?  It's a policy statement in the proposed document.  Or 'as one matures, growth must slow and finally stop.'  That's in there as well." There is clearly much internal strife with regard to the AACP draft.  But we cannot rely on these internal disagreements to yield democratic solutions.  As earlier mentioned, the intent of the off-season draft approval meetings was to rush the formal approvals.  The original intent was to skip the public feedback process and get the draft in front of council and the BOCC before anyone noticed the contents didn't match the research data!  Many thanks to the citizens who cried foul and forced the recent draft feedback meetings! MICK WEIGHS IN As reported in The Aspen Times, the mayor said the P&Zs must weigh a number of public criticisms of the AACP draft, but he is of course already discounting the input of the people who attended the small meetings as "not representative of the entire community."  In an effort to gain clarity on several controversial issues that arose during the October "small meetings," larger clicker sessions part 2 were held on November 15, 16, and 17 at the Wheeler.  With approximately 160 people participating in the 4 sessions, the feedback on 20 specific questions was revealing.  It seems that the community is not as anti-growth, anti-development, or in favor of preserving 1970's structures as Marcella, Jack, Mick, some on P&Z and government staff would have us believe!  For example, when asked what type of development do we want paced, mitigated or limited (pick only one), the overwhelming choice was "Affordable Housing."  In session 3, Mick was so upset by this answer that he stormed out!  (It will be interesting what THEY do with THIS feedback!)  One attendee noted, "The session sent a resounding 'Get lost' message that I'm sure they won't hear."  The results of the recent "large meeting" clicker sessions are very much the same as the clicker sessions of 2009.  It is obvious that our "leaders" have ignored the community's input and have written the AACP draft to reflect what they want. Quick to once again minimize the validity of the most recent feedback, city special project manager Ben Gagnon told The Aspen Times, "The AACP (large meeting) clicker sessions did not yield scientific polling data because the people who decided to attend were a self-selected group."  Puh-lease. And a not-so-surprising tidbit: Despite the explicit instructions to participate in just one clicker session, mayor Mick was confirmed in attendance WITH a clicker voting device at three of the four sessions.  (Vote early and vote often -- at least he's consistent.) Clearly THEY don't like the feedback they've received so far because the city quickly posted an online survey that will be used to augment the results they've collected so far.  Please take the quick survey and have your opinion counted! WHAT CAN BE DONE? As written, the AACP draft is simply NOT what the community wants.  At the very least, regardless of its contents, we must also keep it from becoming a regulatory document.  It's an arrogant over-reach of power by the local government.  In a time when all of America is saying NO to increasing levels of government intrusion into our lives, this is no time to allow the AACP to have any kind of regulatory control. Even city councilman Dwayne Romero gave a "dark" overview of the AACP draft to his homeowner's association recently, and predicted that the 2010 AACP with all of its new restrictions will likely become a 2011 campaign issue.  Let's hope so!  This thing is far from ready for prime time, and its role (if any) in our community is of paramount importance. Touchy-feely and aspirational, fine.  Regulatory, NO WAY! It is imperative that you check out the AACP draft and contact our elected representatives immediately.  Let them know that you have reviewed the AACP draft and IT IS NOT OK WITH YOU! TELL THEM THAT THE AACP DRAFT DOES NOT REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY'S VALUES AND IT SHOULD NEVER BECOME A REGULATORY DOCUMENT. TELL THEM HOW THE AACP WILL AFFECT YOU. Here are the links to email city council and the county commissioners.  I suggest you draft a letter and cut/paste it into the following emails.  (Apologies for not having the technical ability to make it easier!)  Write City Council: micki@ci.aspen.co.us dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us torre@ci.aspen.co.us stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us derek.johnson@ci.aspen.co.us public_comment@ci.aspen.co.us Write the Board of County Commissioners: george.newman@co.pitkin.co.us jackh@co.pitkin.co.us michaelo@co.pitkin.co.us pattic@co.pitkin.co.us rittner@aol.com rachelrichards@comcast.net A friend of The Red Ant offered:  "The thing that disturbs me the most about this process is that the planners are like generals fighting the last war, not the next one.  The 2005-2006 construction boom colors almost everything in this new plan.  But that boom was caused by unique conditions in the capital markets that we are unlikely to see again in our lifetime.   As you know, real estate development is an activity that inherently needs credit in order to take place.  The credit markets during 2005-2006 were extremely loose and credit was readily available.  Those days are gone.  Real estate lending is kaput for the foreseeable future. To put the matter another way, the plan is supposed to guide us for the next 10 years.  What are the odds that in the next 10 years the credit markets will return to 2005-2006 conditions?  Remote!  Yet this plan is drafted as if those kinds of credit markets are the norm.  So, the whole premise upon which this plan is based is severely flawed." There will be public hearings, presumably early next year, when council and the BOCC are in receipt of the final draft.  But what goes into that draft must be addressed today. Your silence signals your approval.  Speak now, or forever hold your peace, comrades.  ON A MORE POSITIVE NOTE Despite what may be in store with the updated AACP, local realtors report significant improvements, notably in commercial leasing in Aspen.  Karen Setterfield submits news of a wave of new retail stores and innovative restaurants: Courage B (at the corner of Mill and Hopkins) and Jet Set (corner of Hyman and Galena), two new jewelry stores - The Golden Bough (next to Mezzaluna) and Arianne Zurcher (in the Judith Ripka space), CP Burgers at the ice rink in front of the Hyatt, Bruce Berger's restaurant on Cooper Street upstairs amidst the art galleries, and Oy Vey Cafe next to the Ute on Hopkins.  The Red Ant additionally looks forward to Casa Tua in the former Guido's building.  Seems we've come full circle; this restaurant will create the feel of a chalet in the Italian Alps, featuring Italian fare with French and Swiss influences.

ISSUE # 51 .... TriumphANT: Success at the Aspen Polls

"What a field day for the heat, A thousand people in the street, singing songs, and they're carrying signs, mostly say 'Hurray for our side.'  It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound, Everybody look what's going down."           -- Buffalo Springfield, 1967

WELCOME NEW ANT FANS Thank you for the overwhelming support for The Red Ant!  So many of you recently signed on during the 2010 election season that it's only appropriate to say THANK YOU for your interest.  And to my cherished long-term readers, THANK YOU for all you've done to further the effort of bringing fiscal responsibility, accountability and election transparency to our local government.  The Red Ant strives to deliver coverage and commentary on Aspen political issues that you won't find anywhere else, especially in the local newspapers.  The road is long, but we're definitely on a roll.    IT'S ITTNER!  AND THE DAWN OF A NEW DAY IN LOCAL POLITICS   Hurray!  Local restaurateur Rob Ittner solidly defeated former one-term city councilman Jack Johnson for the District 1 Board of County Commissioner seat by a margin of 3620-3086 (54%-46%).  This is clearly a referendum on the election of "pawns of the regime" to political office, and marks the starting line for future races where regular citizens can run against and, more importantly, BEAT the entrenched political class, affectionately referred to as "The Ba'ath Party" by The Red Ant and others who are sick and tired of the long-standing status quo.  No longer are the unemployed and unemployable "shoe-ins" for local elected office! Despite the wacky emotional pleadings of local letter-writers who long for the return of "The Quiet Years" -- Frank Peters, Allyn Harvey, Junee Kirk, Betty Farson, Tim Cooney -- all of whom felt that The Red Ant's facts-only presentation of Jack's boorish behavior, irresponsible legislation and arrogant attitude (a.k.a. "The Truth") while serving as a city councilman were just "too mean" for prime time, Jack Johnson is thankfully OUT.  Again.  My favorite preposterous endorsement of Jack was by former mayor Bill Stirling who went so far as to state, "Jack is the embodiment of the Aspen Idea."  Good grief.  Poor Walter Paepcke -- rolling over in his grave yet again.  The days of "the Mick machine" and its iron-fisted control over local politics are numbered.  Calling all interested candidates!  There's a race for mayor and two city council seats in May 2011.  Congratulations Rob!  Game on!  Hit the road, Jack.  And don't ya come back. REF 5A & 5B:  HOSPITAL EXPANSION NARROWLY SURVIVES A closer contest was waged between the Aspen Valley Hospital and local property tax owners who did not want to buck up for a $50 million bond to finance an extensive expansion of our local hospital.  The measure narrowly passed 3219-2951 (52% - 48%).  While the aging facility does indeed need a facelift and some internal upgrades, this could still have been accomplished with the $40 million nut that AVH has access to ($15 million in cash-on-hand, plus the potential to raise nearly $26 million through revenue bonds).  Nearly half of the voters simply didn't buy in to the need for a huge facility, given the massive amount of public funding needed, the 27,000 s.f. of on-site office space, the 3-story parking garage, the lack of a capital campaign for the $30 million philanthropic piece of the financial pie, not to mention the plethora of world-class healthcare nearby.  Watch and see - will AVH be able to raise $30 million through a capital campaign, or will they be back with another big bond in the near future? REF 2B: INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING -- SENT BACK TO THE UNIONS  Exhausted by the ongoing controversies surrounding the May 2009 election when city of Aspen officials botched the progressive voting gimmick called Instant Run-Off Voting, local voters overwhelmingly said "no thanks" to its retention as Aspen's official voting method.  The measure was solidly shot down 1654-880.  Imagine that -- local voters want their election ballots counted correctly!?    And wouldn't you just know it, mayor Mick even bailed on IRV in the 11th hour. I'd be willing to guess that Mick saw the Titanic sinking and knew that he needed a win somewhere on the ballot.  He jumped ship, right into the lifeboats designed for women and children.  This last minute flip-flop had nothing to do with his feelings about IRV.  Rather, it was a lame attempt to save his political hide.  Nice try Mick.  We see right through you. (Next step now that the gimmick is gone -- focus on the city employees who do the ballot counting.  The long-entrenched game of playing fast and loose with municipal elections and conducting them without citizen oversight is soon to end.)  REF 3A:  $1.35 MILLION TAX INCREASE FOR THE SCHOOLS Nobody likes to say no to the schools.  And once again, the schools got the YES they were looking for 3325-1859 -- which now ups property taxes so that they get another $1.35 million per year.  Worse legislation has passed, however, the blind YES to the schools is a fool-hardy habit. The Red Ant, in the Election Issue (# 50), stated that the average expenditure per pupil in Colorado is $9000 and in Aspen it's $12,000.  I've since learned that this is incorrect information.  The REAL numbers have Colorado total expenditures per pupil at $12,000 and Aspen's total expenditures per pupil at $21,000.  Yes, $21,000.  That's 171% more than the state average.  In other words, I tried to illustrate how little our schools need the money.  But the truth is, they need it even less than I said. Is it too much to ask our local schools to show some fiscal restraint?!  This is a $1.35 million annual boondoggle at local property owners' expense.  Don't come a-knockin' again for a LONG, LONG, LONG time! REF 2A: THE LODGING TAX It is no surprise that the 1% lodging tax passed 1734-1034.  Let's just hope that ACRA has the wherewithal to keep city officials, city council and other unethical and unqualified sticky mitts out of the million dollar pot that has now been created for marketing purposes.  The Red Ant will be watching this one closely and promises to report back.   AND THE RESULTS OF OTHER CONTESTS, AS OF 1AM PRESS TIME: ·         COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 2:  RACHEL RICHARDS   Rachel, who ran unopposed, of course retains her seat.  She garnered 4809 votes, but the nearly 2000 "blank" ballots clearly demonstrate that nobody is unbeatable.  For a position with a $70,000+ salary, all incumbents should have to defend their record to remain in office. ·         PITKIN COUNTY SHERIFF:  JOE DI SALVO Joe DiSalvo handily defeated his opponent Rick Leonard 5182-1358.  This is no surprise, just a disappointment that it wasn't a closer race.  Given that Leonard hardly campaigned, it is notable that he received 21% of the votes.  The status quo in the Sheriff's office lives on.....this round. ·         AMENDMENTS 60, 61 & PROPOSITION 101  NO, NO, NO ·         AMENDMENT 62  NO ·         AMENDMENT 63  NO ·         PROPOSITION 102  NO ·         SECRETARY OF STATE   SCOTT GESSLER (R) ·         STATE TREASURER  WALKER STAPLETON (R) ·         ATTORNEY GENERAL  JOHN SUTHERS (R) ·         STATE SENATE,DISTRICT 5   RANKIN vs SCHWARTZ - TBD ·         STATE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 61  TBD ·         GOVERNOR  JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D) ·         US SENATOR  KEN BUCK vs MICHAEL BENNET - TBD ·         CONGRESS, DISTRICT 3  SCOTT TIPTON (R) ·         AMENDMENT P  NO ·         AMENDMENT Q  YES ·         AMENDMENT R  NO WE'RE ON A ROLL!  AND WE'RE MAKING A DIFFERENCE! The 2010 election is only the beginning!  Subscribe to www.TheRedAnt.com and tell your friends.  Join the revolution! THE ASPEN BUSINESS LUNCHEON The weekly tradition continues.... Events to look forward to: Nov 24:  Auden Schendler, VP of Sustainability, Aspen Skiing Co December 8:  Chris Klug, Olympic Snowboarder and Author, To The Edge and Back For reservations, email AspenBusinessLuncheon@gmail.com ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NOTE:  DINNER AT PEACH'S?! YES!! The Red Ant has it on good authority that Peach's Café will soon be offering dinner!  Stop by, sign up, and get on the list to receive daily emails/texts of nightly dinner specials, eat-in or to go.

ISSUE # 50: Be A ParticipANT - Vote November 2

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote."             -- George Jean Nathan    "The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter."                -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

VOTING TIPS FOR ALL VOTERS The following are some important voting tips, regardless of your party affiliation or preferred ideology.  Election fraud is real, and especially after experiencing the gross mismanagement of the city of Aspen's May 2009 municipal election, you can never be too careful.  (Thankfully, this November's election is being coordinated by the Pitkin County Clerk, Janice Vos Caudill, in her elected role. She and her professional staff meticulously and tirelessly work to adhere to the specific rules and regulations of the Colorado Secretary of State.  How refreshing!)  Confirm your voter registration and precinct HERE. Use blue or black ink. DO NOT vote by Mail-In ballot.  Whenever possible, go to your precinct polling place and vote in person, and on a paper ballot if given the option.  Mail-In ballots always cause a disproportionate number of problems.  The farther Mail-In ballots travel and the longer they wait around to be counted, the higher the chance of mischief or accident. DO NOT avoid voting on the retention of judges, even if you neither know nor care about who they are or how they dispense "justice."  By not explicitly voting NO on each "Shall [judge] be retained" question, you are implicitly voting YES to keeping him/her on the bench.  Unless you personally know a given judge to be honest and fair (ie. non-activist), then vote NO on retention. Inform yourself about the Candidates and Issues before November 2.  This issue of The Red Ant is intended to give you MY opinions.  I encourage you to gather other input as well. Take a cheat-sheet into the voting booth.  I have included a ballot (below) for you to print and take with you to the polls. (The Red Ant acknowledges election integrity advocate Daniel Martin of Longmont, candidate for Boulder County Clerk, for these important voting tips.) VOTE EARLY Early voting begins next week on October 18 in the County Clerk's office.  From M-F, October 18-22 and 25-29, you can vote early between 8:30a - 4:30p.  There is no early voting on Monday, November 1.  The County Clerk's office is located at 530 E. Main Street, in the square building just to the east of the Court House.  For more information on the November 2 election visit www.PitkinVotes.org THE POLLS The polls open at 7am on Election Day, Tuesday, November 2, 2010.  Bring your photo identification!! YOUR PRECINCT Precincts 1, 2, & 3      Rio Grande Room - 455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen Precinct 4                 Crossroads Church of Aspen - 726 W. Francis Street Precinct 5                 Health & Human Services Bldg - 0405 Castle Creek Rd Precinct 6                 Snowmass Village Town Hall, 130 Kearns Road Precinct 7                 Colorado Mountain College - 225 Sage Way, AABC Precinct 8                Old Snowmass Fire Station - 1909 Snowmass Creek Rd Precinct 9                St. Peter's of the Valley - 0200 Elk Run Drive, Basalt Precinct 10               Church of Redstone - 213 Redstone Blvd., Redstone THE RED ANT ENDORSEMENTS In full disclosure, I am a registered Republican.  In this election, however, it is my fierce Libertarian streak and fiscal conservatism that drive me.  I do not believe "the fundamental transformation of America" that has occurred over the past 21 months has been good for anyone.  And contrary to popular pre-2008 local belief, Aspen is NOT immune to economic downturns.  In most cases, my inclinations are to throw the incumbent bums out.  This is also the right opportunity for me to once again remind readers that The Red Ant is an editorial piece.  The opinions are mine, and solely mine.  But, as expected from The Red Ant, I have given them considerable research and thought. I do not cover every issue on the November ballot, however, HERE is the link for a sample ballot of the candidates and the issues, marked with ALL of my endorsements.  You can print this and take it with you to the polls. Readers, if you have never clicked on a link in The Red Ant, today is THE DAY to do just that!  Take a minute to visit the revealing website www.HitTheRoadJackJ.com and witness BOCC candidate Jack Johnson in action and in his own words.  You won't believe what you see!  Announced just 5 days ago, the site has already received over 1600 hits.  (A public service, proudly underwritten by The Red Ant.) THE LOCAL ISSUES Referendum 2A:  1% Lodging Tax   NO ~ YES? This proposed tax of an additional 1% on lodging rentals within the city of Aspen is expected to generate $1 million annually and the funds will be exclusively dedicated to the promotion of tourism.  Proponents continually state that this is a tax that locals won't pay.  The Red Ant thinks this is a lousy rationale for encouraging voters to support the measure.  Sticking it to the very people without whom we wouldn't be the world-class resort destination we are is simply not good campaign rhetoric.  A better way to promote the measure would be to explain that our current combined 10% lodging and sales tax would become 11% if the measure passes, and, in these rough economic times, the power of additional marketing dollars could make a measurable difference in our local economy.   The Red Ant additionally worries that the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) will be the stewards of this marketing windfall. They are contracted by the city to market this destination for the spring, summer and fall. (Aspen Skiing Company primarily handles the winter marketing.)  A million bucks is a big chunk of change to be under ANY purview of the city, especially given their lousy record of financial responsibility.  I worry about the degree of influence the city will have over ACRA on spending decisions, primarily because the Aspen Daily News reports that "city council would make the decision on how to spend the additional money."  THAT scares the heck out of me!!  I have been leaning NO for these reasons. But my one sticking point in being absolute is that SkiCo's Senior VP David Perry is on the ACRA board.  SkiCo totally gets marketing, does it extremely well and has shown impressive and measurable results from its efforts.  With Perry's involvement (and potential oversight? Please?), $1 million could be a great boost for our local tourism economy.  But clearly, this responsibility cannot be placed solely on his shoulders.  Today I am leaning YES, but I am still thinking this one through.  The city's and council's involvement is definitely a HUGE drawback.  I'll be calling an audible on this one! Referendum 2B:  Replace IRV with June Run-Off  YES Are you kidding?  If you missed The Aspen Times' recent Sunday edition that exposed the city's horrific mismanagement of Aspen's first try at IRV, "Unlocking IRV:  How Instant Run-Off Voting turned the May 2009 election into a 17-month fight," HERE it is.  In short, the progressive voting experiment was a disaster from the get-go, and the legal wrangling will continue for the foreseeable future.  Repeal it.  And repeal it now.  We should definitely "switch back to the run-off which produces an accurate count."  (The Aspen Times 10/10/10.)  Ya think? Referendum 3A: $1.35 million annual tax increase for schools  NO The Red Ant hates new taxes, especially new taxes where the justification for such taxes is stated as something like "This is a referendum on education in Aspen - what is best for our kids."  No, this isn't a referendum on education in Aspen.  It's to "compensate for state-mandated budget cuts and to offset anticipated reductions in property tax revenue due to falling property values," as reported by The Aspen Times.  Period.  So just say so!  Tax increases for the schools generally pass in Aspen, but when board members use such ridiculous and dramatic rhetoric to justify putting a tax increase measure before voters in the current economic climate, I am going to vote NO.  Besides, if our schools need money, why don't we use the money that the city already has (before a new tax increase) that they've been wasting on granting themselves selfish raises, losing $475,000 earmarked for the recycling center, building emergency drainage ($2.3 million) for a reservoir that doesn't need it, and spending countless millions on planning and design for future phases of the Burlingame subsidized housing project that, if The Red Ant has anything to do with it, will NEVER come to fruition.  I fully recognize that the city and school district are separate entities, but the leaders of each need to work together to find solutions across jurisdictional boundaries.  Let's take the existing collaboration between the city and schools to a new level.  There is already plenty of taxpayer money for our schools.   And another note:  Aspen schools spend approximately $12,000 per student per year.  The state average is $9,000.  Vote NO on the tax increase. Referendums 5A & 5B: $50 million debt for Aspen Valley Hospital expansion  NO AND NO 5A:  This question, if approved, would make it possible for the hospital, as a special taxing district, to exceed its current revenue limits (as determined by Colorado's TABOR Amendment).  5B:  I have written extensively on Aspen Valley Hospital's proposed expansion plans.  For in-depth information and so as not to repeat myself, see Issue #44 and Issue #49.  In short, a $50 million general obligation bond is a BAD IDEA at a BAD TIME for Aspen.  And I personally believe that AVH leadership has been arrogant and aggressive by pushing these measures onto November's ballot.  They're so confident, they haven't even bothered to campaign for this huge bond!  Between cash on-hand and revenue bond potential, AVH currently has $40 million to play with.  The grand 4-phase expansion will cost (in today's best estimates) $120 million.  AVH CEO David Ressler has gone on record stating that the remaining $80 million would be split evenly between philanthropic donations and general obligation debt financing.  Last I checked, half of 80 is 40, but we have a $50 million bond question before us.  Does this indicate that expected costs have risen $20 million to $140 million?  Or does this imply that it is not possible now to raise $40 million through philanthropy (ya think?) and $30 million is the new (yet still overly ambitious) target?  AVH isn't saying.  A $50 million bond it is.  This time. The Red Ant says AVH could have better presented its expansion proposal to the voters by demonstrating the community's support (??) through impressive results of a robust and successful capital campaign.  With money in hand, a general obligation bond to "complete" the project would have been a far more palatable consideration.  Now, I fear that taxpayers are expected to front the first $50 million, and when (not if) the donations don't come in, we'll be hit up again and again until the 214,000 s.f. folly is done.  To date, there is no capital campaign in place.  (This is not a good election to be flying under the radar when asking the voters for $50 million.)  Donations requests for the $30-40 million "philanthropic giving" component of the proposed expansion don't even make the Aspen Medical Foundation's "wish list," nor are they listed on the hospital fundraising organization's website under "community initiatives" or "how can I help."  AVH knows where the easy free money comes from - You!!  It would seem that early reports of the AVH expansion had the number of patient beds increasing from 25 today to 36.  But this number has recently been wiggling downward.  (A recent press report now has the number at 27.)  A mystery! And who loves a mystery more than The Red Ant?   Investigative research shows that AVH is qualified (by federal standards) as a "rural access" hospital.  The Medicare Rural Hospital Flex Program enables small hospitals to be licesnsed as "Critical Access Hospitals (CAH)" and offers grants to states to strengthen the rural healthcare infrastructure.  AVH is indeed 1 of 29 CAHs in Colorado.  To qualify, AVH must be located in a rural area (yes), be more than 35 miles from another hospital (yes, barely -Valley View Hospital in Glenwood is 40 miles away), offer 24-hour emergency care (yes), have a maximum of 25 acute care and swing beds (yes today, but no if the number increases).  ("Swing bed" is a Medicare term for a bed that provides additional inpatient care for patients in transition from acute care to rehabilitation.)  There are big financial benefits for CAHs: unlike urban and other rural hospitals, CAH's are notably reimbursed by Medicare on a cost+1% basis -- a remarkable boon for revenues!!  Hmmm, that CAH cash might just be the incentive to quietly knock the $120 million expansion down by 11 beds!!  But I digress.... Back to NO on 5A and 5B.... 27,000 s.f. of doctor's office space, a three-story 236-space parking garage and 18 subsidized housing units are far far far more than we need.  Who do you know who schedules elective procedures at AVH?  Shouldn't we be the best community hospital we can be, have the best triage and airlift capacities, and take advantage of the wealth of medical centers on the western slope and in Denver? And that's not to mention that we have a fabulous new regional medical center down the road in Glenwood.  With the $40 million already available, AVH should be able to nicely upgrade its aging facility.  Say NO to the AVH expansion and the $50 million bond. PITKIN COUNTY OFFICES Commissioner:  District 1  ROB ITTNER This is an easy one.  This local restaurateur (Rustique Bistro) with a business/accounting degree employs over 25 people.  He was a founding member of the Aspen Young Professionals Association and is a past president of the local chapter of the Colorado Restaurant Association.  Rob is a member of Rotary, the ACRA marketing board and the Aspen Art Museum's Contemporaries group.  In his spare time, this avid outdoorsman volunteers as a Big Buddy for The Buddy Program when he's not skiing, hiking or biking.  With actionable ideas such as a property tax rebate for business owners who pay a triple net lease and who don't lay-off workers during these challenging economic times, here's a businessman who gets it.  When his opponent Jack Johnson learned of this novel concept, he responded, "I don't particularly think it's the government's business to create jobs."  Johnson favors a different tact.  "We could very well return this community to agriculture," he said at a summer candidates forum.  Puh-lease. The Red Ant is no fan of Jack Johnson, stemming from his days as a one-term councilman on Aspen's City Council.  Known for his petulant demeanor toward the public, Johnson proudly touts his record, including leadership of the highly controversial overnight emergency Ordinance 30 for the involuntary preservation of all structures over 30 years old, and for bringing the misguided and hopefully soon-to-be-repealed Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) method to Aspen.  These were both big-time losing propositions for Aspen.  The shocking real estate devaluations from Ordinance 30 are still unresolved and continue to affect property owners to this day. Johnson says, "Let us vote and then let us shut up." On the other hand, Ittner says, "I make a living listening to people's concerns and acting on them.  Having a transparent government and getting input from the people who the government represents is at the top of my list."  Ittner is the right man with the right experience at the right time, hands down.   Key local endorsements for Ittner:  Tommy Clapper, Helen Klanderud, Brian Speck, Michael Behrendt.  www.VoteRobIttner.com Commissioner:  District 2  LEAVE BLANK Incumbent Rachel Richards is running unopposed.  The Red Ant doesn't like career politicians, regardless of their records.  This will be Rachel's 2nd 4-year term on the Board of County Commissioners, following roles on city council and one term as mayor of the city of Aspen.  She has been in local elected office for nearly 17 years since first being elected to the city council in 1991.  In an effort to encourage local citizens to run for elective office, The Red Ant says, send the message that nobody is unbeatable.  Leave the bubble blank.  Sheriff:  PATRICK "RICK" LEONARD The Red Ant is sick and tired of the "old boy network" in local law enforcement. Twenty-three year sheriff's deputy and current Sheriff Bob Braudis' anointed one, Joe DiSalvo stands by the status quo of the department.  Career lawman Rick Leonard, who retired to Basalt two years ago, has more than two decades of law enforcement experience in Florida and New York, where he specialized in investigative work in homicide and rape cases.  Leonard knows law enforcement. 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. Besides, the Pitkin County Sheriff's office is NOT a monarchy; there is NO heir apparent.  It's time to clean house and clean up.  Leonard for Sheriff.  www.Leonard4Sheriff.com COLORADO ISSUES AND OFFICES Amendments 60 & 61 and Prop 101: YES, YES AND YES            These measures are definitely extreme, and mayor Mick says "the three" will never pass.  But that is certainly not how I make my voting decisions.  Win or lose, I want to be part of the electorate who sends a loud message to the state legislature that the public's tolerance for big government and wasteful spending has reached its limit.  The focus of that message is that the government needs to adapt to the desires of the people rather than the other way around.  These three highly controversial ballot issues can be summarized as follows: Amendment 60 deals with Property Taxes ·        Restores fair, honest tax elections ·        Stops taxation by unelected boards ·        Replaces some school taxes with state aid ·        Ends illegal tax hikes lacking voter approval ->  Property tax relief without reducing K-12 education funding; citizen control over government taxes; removal of the competitive advantage that publicly owned enterprises have over private businesses since they do not pay property taxes. Amendment 61 deals with Government Borrowing ·        Revives 1876 ban on state borrowing ·        Requires voter approval before local borrowing ·        Limits form, term and amount of borrowing ·        Requires that tax rates be reduced after borrowing is repaid ->  Borrowing limits help ensure that borrowing costs do not reduce funds for future public services; fiscal restraint through a pay-as-you-go approach. Proposition 101 deals with Tax Relief ·        Cuts or eliminates taxes and fees on vehicle purchases, leases, rentals and registrations over the next 4 years ·        Trims income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% in 2011, and to 3.5% gradually over time ·        Ends taxes and fees (except for 911) on phone, pager, cable bills ·        Requires voter approval to create or increase fees on vehicles or telecommunication services ->  Allows citizens and businesses to keep more of their own money; requires state and local governments to eliminate unnecessary spending; gives citizens a voice in decisions about fees on phones and vehicles by requiring the government to seek voter approval for additional funding rather than adding more fees. These measures obviously drastically affect government revenues.  The government will feel far more than a pinch in many cases. The savings to taxpayers will be phased in over 4-12 years or more.  Opponents speculate that if all three measures pass, $5 billion will be cut from the total state/local spending budget over 10 years.  Well, current state/local spending is $45.9 billion.  If, in the opposition's worst case scenario, $5 billion was cut today from total spending, this still allows the SAME spending Colorado had in 2007 ($40.5 billion)!!  I think we can handle this.  Opponents squeal that decreased government revenues will result in "8,000 teachers lost" and "huge class sizes."  This is blatant nonsense and a horrible scare tactic.  Any reduction to local school revenues as a result of the measures would be replaced by state revenues as required by law.  Period.  The measures will NOT affect the schools, just the source of funding. "73,000 jobs will be lost and this will trigger a second recession," they cry.  Yes, the measures would very likely reduce the number of jobs funded by taxes (this means government jobs -- this is a GOOD thing), but the money would remain with the private sector and could be used for private sector production and job growth.  NOTE:  The state budget is NOT the economy!  There will indeed be drastic reductions in discretionary spending budgets.  This will force the government to make very hard decisions and will make it very difficult (if not impossible) for them to recklessly spend taxpayer dollars.  For too long, our local government in Aspen/Pitkin County has gotten away with tax-and-spend programs because a large number of taxpayers cannot vote here.  The passage of these measures will force the job-secure, over-paid, under-performing government workers to make sacrifices similar to those faced by ordinary citizens.  The government will have to re-think its operations, become more productive and accept the pain that has been inflicted on us all. Furthermore, contrary to opponents' fear-mongering, there WILL still be bonding for roads, schools and water projects.  It's just that governments will need voter approval to borrow money.  These measures are extreme for sure.  But extreme times require extreme measures.  Besides, when has government ever reigned itself in?? Amendment 63:  YES This proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution deals with health care choice.   It's probably no surprise to learn that The Red Ant is no fan of ObamaCare, so when a measure that stands to amend the Colorado Constitution to include health care choice as a constitutional right, prohibit the state from requiring or enforcing any requirement that a person participate in a public or private health care plan, and restricts the state from limiting a person's ability to make or receive direct payments for lawful health care services, I am all in.  YES on 63. Secretary of State:  SCOTT GESSLER This race pits Gessler, an election law expert, against the incumbent who is known for his aggressive efforts to thwart transparency and election integrity reforms.  Gessler, a former federal prosecutor and Army reservist, has a proven track record of fighting for fair and open elections.  He successfully fought to ensure open access to Colorado's ballot for Republicans, Democrats and third-party candidates.  He has led the fight in striking down unconstitutional campaign finance laws.  He has defended First Amendment cases against attempts to restrict free speech.   He also fought efforts by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission to politically gerrymander state Senate and House districts in 2002.   I know Scott Gessler personally and have for years.  He is an honest broker if there ever was one.  Election integrity is vital for the credibility of our democracy.  The Secretary of State's decisions have very real consequences for our lives and prosperity.  Vote for Scott Gessler.  www.ScottGessler.com State Senate:  District 5  BOB RANKIN As a small business leader, Bob Rankin actually knows how to run a business.  He believes Colorado's biggest challenge is creating jobs and expanding our economy. Now Bob Rankin is ready to bring his expertise to the Colorado State Senate.  Bob knows you don't expand the economy by growing the size of government.  And he understands that we're not going to create jobs by increasing taxes on Coloradans or tying up small businesses with red tape.  An advocate for competent government (better, not bigger), protection of individual rights, support of business success, constitutional restraint and fiscal sanity (lower taxes and balanced budgets), Bob Rankin is THE choice for State Senate.  www.RankinForSenate.com State Representative: District 61    WRITE IN "KATHLEEN CURRY" Currently our incumbent, Kathleen Curry, fed up with divisive party politics, decided last year that in order to best represent her constituency, she should formally declare her independence.  (District 61 is comprised of 53,000 voters: 42% unaffiliated, 31% Democrats and 26% Republicans.)  Party control of the election process has forced Curry to run for re-election as a write-in candidate -- incredibly challenging, even for this hugely popular representative.  I respect and value Kathleen Curry's belief in putting principle above party politics.  She clearly cares more about the interests of her constituents than being a star in the Democratic Party.  Few politicians would voluntarily be stripped of powerful positions on committees to be relegated to the back row of House chambers.  We need more public servants with this kind of courage of their convictions. The critical element of this particular race is to remember to WRITE IN "Kathleen Curry" AND color in the bubble beside that line. Key local endorsements for Curry:  Patti & Tommy Clapper, Rachel Richards, Jack Hatfield.   www.KathleenCurry.org FEDERAL OFFICES United States Senator:  KEN BUCK This 2-time Weld County district attorney is running for the US Senate because of his "growing concern about the direction the administration and congress are taking our country."  And who can argue with that?  Buck's incumbent opponent, appointed by soon-to-be-former Governor Ritter in 2009, has been a rubber-stamp for big spending and big government, notably voting FOR the $800 billion stimulus bill although he admits he hadn't read it, voting FOR Obamacare and pledging his support for the public option, and admitting that he "wants to be for" cap and trade.  Ken Buck promises NO MORE RUBBER STAMPS!  The Buck stops here.  www.BuckForColorado.com Congress:  District 3  SCOTT TIPTON Scott Tipton is a successful small businessman from Cortez, Colorado. Managing 22 people who he calls co-workers, Tipton attributes his success to his commitment to people, quality and customer service.  Elected to the Colorado House of Representatives (58th district) in 2008 on a platform of creating jobs, ensuring the safety of Coloradans and improving the quality of life in the state, Tipton was named to the Agriculture, Livestock, Natural Resources and Local Government committees.  Notably, Tipton sponsored legislation to protect our children from the worst criminal offenders by mandating harsher penalties for child sex offenders and allowing law enforcement to collect DNA evidence from suspects through Jessica's Law and Katie's Law.  A fiscal conservative, Tipton disagrees with the reckless spending of our federal government.  Tipton has vowed to bring common sense to Congress.  www.VoteTipton.com COLORADO JUDICIAL OFFICES Supreme Court:  Michael Bender  NO Supreme Court:  Alex Martinez  NO Supreme Court: Nancy Rice  NO Court of Appeals:  John Dailey  NO Court of Appeals:  Richard Gabriel  NO Court of Appeals:  Nancy Lichtenstein  NO Court of Appeals:  David Richman  NO District Court - 9th Judicial District:  Gail Nichols  YES County Court - Pitkin County:  Erin Fernandez-Ely  YES A DEBATE ON AMENDMENTS 60 & 61, AND PROPOSITION 101 The Aspen Business Luncheon will feature Debbie Schrum, Proponent, and Mathew Gray, Opponent, on Wednesday, October 27.  This is a great opportunity to learn more about these ballot proposals.  12:15 at the St. Regis.  Buffet lunch for $22.  You must RSVP to AspenBusinessLunch@gmail.com to reserve your place.  COMMUNITY VOICES This installment features the community voices of several government officials and their thoughts on Instant Run-off Voting. City Councilman Torre:  "I hate IRV!"  (9/13/10) City Councilman Dwayne Romero:  "I initially voted for IRV.  Now that we have gone through that little experiment, I no longer desire it as our voting procedure."  (9/23/10) City Clerk Kathryn Koch:  "I cannot recommend ranked choice (IRV) voting in a race with two seats up for election."  (1/22/07) Former City Councilman and current BOCC candidate Jack Johnson:  "I really don't care.  I've told Rob Richie (IRV advocate from Fair Vote) for months that Aspen doesn't deserve IRV.  It's too good a system for us.  It's too intelligent and we really want to fight like the mean nasty selfish people we are."  (11/24/09)

ISSUE # 49 .... In The MeANTime: An Update

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."                    -- Thomas Jefferson

This issue of The Red Ant circles back on several hot local topics that made headlines this past summer, and includes the latest updates and my thoughts.  Please be sure to forward this Ant to your friends and neighbors who are particularly interested in these important issues! AVH - BIG BONDS AND CONSTRUCTION AHEAD June 2010's Issue #44 presented a comprehensive overview of Aspen Valley Hospital's proposed expansion plans (to read this issue, click here).  Currently, they are looking to build Phase 2 of a 4-phase development with an estimated $120 million price tag.  (The $6.5 million Phase 1 - the new obstetrics center - was completed in 2008, using cash on hand and money left over from a 2003 bond.)   Earlier this year, touting a 4-pronged financing plan, AVH leadership cited "cash on hand + revenue bonds + philanthropy + general obligation bonds" as the sources for their proposed expansion.    Between available cash-on-hand and revenue bond potential, there should be approximately $40 million dollars available for the project.  In June, upon receiving final approval from council for Phase 2, AVH CEO David Ressler acknowledged that roughly two-thirds (or $80 million) would need to come from fundraising and new property taxes.  He said he would like to see the $80 million shared equally between philanthropic giving and new property taxes, but that AVH needed to get farther along in its design process before the final price tag could be determined.  Obviously, the environment is no good for rattling the tin cup at donors, especially to the tune of $40 million.  There isn't a capital campaign in sight.  But a referendum on the November ballot to approve $50 million in general obligation debt - now that's the quick and easy way to fast money!  (An extra $10 million?  Chump change in the "free money" game!)  Never mind that Phases 3 and 4 have yet to be approved! This November, the Aspen Valley Hospital District presents Referendum 5B to the voters:  "Shall Aspen Valley Hospital District, Pitkin County, Colorado, debt be increased $50,000,000 (fifty million dollars), with a repayment cost of not more than $86,850,000 (eighty-six million, eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars) and shall district taxes be increased not more than $4,363,000 (four million, three hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars) annually to pay such debt; such debt to be issued for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, equipping and furnishing hospital facilities ....?"  (Click here to read the full ballot language.) Yes, of course it's wonderful to have a good community hospital right down the street. And Phase 2 will bring us improvements to hospital zoning, segregation of internal traffic flow, privacy and space for operations such as upgraded patient care (from 25 to 36 refurbished private rooms), cardiac/pulmonary rehab and physical therapy relocated to a second floor, same day surgery moved to contiguous space with other surgery, relocation of food service and dining, 12,000 s.f. of medical office space (the remaining 15,000 s.f. will be added in Phase 3), a basement receiving dock, a 236-space 3-story parking garage, 18 units of subsidized housing and site work (loop road and storm water retention ponds).  But $50 million, when only Phase 2 has been approved and there's nothing to show in the philanthropic-giving bucket?  The Red Ant predicts that AVH will be back next fall and the fall after that (tax measures can only be on the November ballot) to hit us up for more general obligation debt financing if/when Phases 3 and 4 come online.  They said that each phase would result in threshold improvements that can stand alone, but I anticipate a "there's no turning back now" scenario that will be used to justify issuing further debt to "complete" the project.  And short of a windfall in the philanthropic giving account, they're $30 million short today.  Wonder what that number will be next year? The arrogance of rushing this bond measure onto the November ballot is unbelievable.  In these economic times and with the great uncertainty in the healthcare environment, Aspen Valley Hospital would have been well-served to have demonstrated the community's actual and proven support of the massive expansion by producing remarkable results from a capital campaign. Instead, AVH relied on a survey of 306 local voters to gauge interest in funding the hospital expansion.  Support was favorable but not overwhelming with a 5-3 margin.    The Red Ant is told that saying NO to the hospital is like being mean to puppies and babies.  Perhaps a "NO" vote should be sent as a "SLOW DOWN" message.  Even though council approved the plans for Phase 2, this is clearly not the time for this scope of expansion.  Why the rush?  And do we really need all that they want to build? (And, as predicted, after being told by city planners to ignore financial-related concerns, council never did once ask "how the hospital plans to pay for its expansion" and about "its policies related to treatment of patients with Medicaid and Medicare," never mind 22% of its patients are covered by the programs and this number is, of course, expected to grow.) And that's not to mention the competitive medical services environment in the region. Valley View Hospital in Glenwood Springs is nearing the completion of its 10-year,  145,000 s.f. expansion (including a 29,600 s.f. cancer center) and regularly advertises its comprehensive services on tv and in the local papers.  In addition, St. Mary's in Grand Junction cites its status as the only level 2 trauma center between Denver and Salt Lake. We are long on high-quality healthcare on the western slope.  And, most Aspen residents leave town in any case for their medical procedures when they have the option.  INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING (IRV) - VOTE YES AND IT'S GONE! The good news is that IRV, the ill-conceived and controversial voting method that confused Aspen voters and created an ongoing legal mess for city hall, is up for repeal on the November ballot.   Thank goodness!  (Vote YES and repeal it!) Referendum 2B asks Aspen voters if they want to replace IRV with June run-off voting procedures: "Shall Ordinance 20, series of 2010, be approved?  Ordinance 20, series of 2010, if approved, amends sections 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate instant run-off voting procedures and re-instate previously used run-off procedures in June for the election of mayor and members of council ...."  (Click here to read the full ballot language.) The question of "If not IRV, then what?" became the great debate in getting this measure on the ballot.  Despite living through the horror of the 2009 election when Aspen learned that there are many ways to skin the IRV cat (different tabulation methodologies produce different results - with the same ballots), council refused to define what IRV would look like should it be retained.  They simply refused to specify a methodology.  (In the unfortunate case that IRV is retained, council will, once again, define it after the fact.  They never learn.) The obvious choice was to return to what we had before, a traditional run-off election.  But Mayor Mick and others who champion progressive voting gimmicks argued vehemently to add a third choice, "winner take all."  Largely favoring the incumbent candidate because of name recognition, the "winner take all" method could determine a winner with just 34% of the vote in a 3-way contest.  Hardly a mandate!  Thankfully, rational minds prevailed and this third option was tabled, but not before a most-telling disagreement between the mayor and the city attorney: At a council meeting in September, Mick was adamant that IRV, if retained, won't change.  City Attorney John Worcester had to then school the boys on the fact that the Election Commission was planning to recommend changes to improve IRV if it is retained.  The Red Ant had to laugh -- so much for the "Mick says so" answer to public comments! THE HYDRO PLANT - SINKING LIKE A STONE The Red Ant #45 delivered a report on the Castle Creek Hydro-electric Plant, for which a $5.5 million bond issue was approved by voters in 2007 (to read this issue, click here).  Public outcry over the misguided and seemingly mis-represented project has gained momentum over the summer, resulting in continual letters to the editor challenging the wisdom and the legality of this folly. It recently came to a head on September 13 when citizens came before council, many of whom implored council to deny the necessary land use approval for the project to move forward.  Despite the lack of land use approval and proper permits, the city has been moving forward all year, installing elaborate pipelines (called "penstock") -- $2.3 million worth -- throughout the area, citing an "emergency drainage" system for Thomas Reservior.  But really, this current penstock installation is an ill-disguised attempt to gain a "conduit exemption" from the feds in order to avoid an environmental impact study and bypass obtaining a federal permit.  A "conduit exemption" can be granted when there is an existing waterway -- a flume, a ditch, a tunnel, a pipe -- with water currently running through it for other purposes.  The city is messily creating an "emergency drainage" system -- it's "conduit" -- for a reservoir that has no threat of danger (per state officials) so as to create a means to avoid the critical, costly and time-consuming EIS and the elaborate and bureaucratic process of obtaining a federal permit.  Shameful. The Red Ant is particularly interested in the new name for the Castle Creek hydro plant.  The city is now calling it the "Castle Creek Energy Center."   What's this all about?  Local resident Maureen Lipkin addressed this name and purpose change at the public hearing.  At Aspen's "Energy Center, there will be multiple uses for this building and site, not just hydro: hydrogen extraction, hydrogen storage, a fuel station for cars and buses, geo-thermal and solar.  All that at the same location.  As well as a museum."  This, in a residential neighborhood??  Is this wise??  Necessary??  And who approved the changes?? Perhaps the most poignant question of the night came from Connie Harvey who simply asked, "Here's this construction project underway .... Are you going to stop it while you wait for the citizen process or are you going to just keep going?"  Crickets.  Nobody said a word, that is, until mayor Mick arrogantly stated, "We're not putting the turbines in yet."  Despicable. Following the meeting, mayor Mick told the Aspen Daily News that he was "somewhat concerned" about the city being stuck with the already-purchased (for $1.4 million) generator if the project is not approved.  Yes, things like generators must be ordered in advance, but surely not so far in advance that they precede the necessary permits and approvals!  He went on to say, "The delay is about figuring out how to best protect the stream, not kill the project."  Oh, really?    Council continued the meeting and its final decision until October 12.  **Late breaking news:  The Aspen Daily News reports on "a behind-the-scenes planning process" whereby an independent mediator will be working with Castle Creek residents over the next 30 days to hear both sides of the issue in a mediation context.  Details are still unfolding, but council has continued (again) its land use review until at least October 18.  Stay tuned. The bonds for the hydro plant were issued in 2008, even though there is no guarantee that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will grant final approval for the project. If council or FERC does not approve the current proposal, or it is held up for several years in the regulatory process or in court, the funds would have to be allocated elsewhere (and because the bonds were originally approved by the voters, this may entail the need for another public vote).    Presumably issued with the full faith and credit of the city, the bondholders (think of them as lenders to the city) don't care where the money is spent as long as the city makes the annual principal and interest payments for the next 20 or so years.  Then again, the proceeds are required (IRC section 103) to be spent on appropriate tax exempt purposes within specific time limits or the city will owe penalties plus interest to the feds that, based upon the issue size, could reach into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.  And the clock is ticking.  This is what happens when you issue debt before you actually know for certain that you have a project.   And there is one other issue.  Since the hydro project is supposed to generate income to repay the already-issued debt, should it not be built, the city will have to find another way to pay that debt back.  Can you say RATE INCREASES???   The Red Ant will look into this issue and report back, should the hydro plant be scrapped.  A reallocation ought to be interesting given that much of the money has already been spent. The Red Ant is reminded of the old adage, "If you have to eat sh**, don't nibble." THE GIVEN INSTITUTE: DESPERATE TIMES, EMERGENCY MEASURES? Built in 1973 on land donated by philanthropist Elizabeth Paepcke, The Given Institute in Aspen's west end has been on the city's list of "potential historic resources" because it was designed by modernist Harry Weese, who famously designed the Metro in Washington DC. Owned and operated as a conference center dedicated to medical research by The University of Colorado's School of Medicine, The Given has been operating at a $200,000+ annual loss for several years.  The city learned in June of the university's plans to raze the structure and sell the spacious 2.25-acre lot overlooking Hallam Lake to a private buyer for up to $20 million. As the Aspen Daily News reported, "As a state educational institution, CU does not have to follow local land use regulations, meaning it can tear down the Given Institute without fear or interference from the city, which otherwise might attempt to designate the property as historic against the owner's will."  Local outcry at the potential loss of this 1970's-era structure called on council to have the city buy The Given outright from CU (With what? For what?), float a bond on the November ballot so that local taxpayers would foot the bill to buy it (debt financing is "free money" in Aspen, right?), or even "force" the Aspen Art Museum to buy The Given instead of a parcel of its choosing.  Thankfully, none of this nonsense moved forward, likely because of the price tag, but the din has not diminished. As time was running out on its "negotiations" with the university, the city apparently saw that The Given was as good as gone.  That was, until the city attorney's office came up with a nefarious plan for council: pass an Emergency Ordinance that would re-zone the property from residential to academic, thereby preventing a potential buyer from building a single-family home there.  (And, incidentally, greatly reducing the value.) The controversial caper to "save" The Given took the mayor and councilmen Skadron and Johnson all of 15 minutes to approve on first reading.  (Once final, an emergency ordinance goes into effect in just 24 hours.)  Never mind that Aspen's city charter calls for emergency ordinances ONLY in the case of "preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety."  Our city attorneys claimed that preservation of The Given through this Emergency Ordinance "is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare and should be implemented immediately to preserve the health, peace, safety, and general well-being of the residents and visitors of Aspen," however, "welfare" and "general well-being" are NOT permitted criteria for an emergency ordinance! Nor is CU's property the city's property, even though CU is a state entity.  (Councilmen Torre and Romero were absent from the special meeting, so it's no surprise that the mayor was quickly able to steamroll these shenanigans past his two disciples without intelligent debate.)  The second and final reading as well as the public hearing were then scheduled for September 20. CU spokesman Dan Meyers acknowledged the downside of the city's action.  "Should the decision become the law of the land, it will make it very difficult to sell the property.  It's very disappointing and we're not happy the city is considering this step."  Meyers went on to say that "school officials are concerned that the city is giving more weight to local residents who care about the historic value of the property than to taxpayers around the state who support the university in its educational and health care endeavors."  Ya think? A bevy of council executive sessions (closed to the public) ensued during the week following the advent of the Emergency Ordinance.  It would seem that the "emergency" turned out to be more of a prank call to 9-1-1.  That, or a skinned knee.  The latest is that council has "continued indefinitely" its decision on whether to implement the emergency ordinance.  Nice back-pedal.  (Perhaps CU looked at the city's laws -- as The Red Ant did -- and pointed these out?) When neophyte politicians listen to the recommendations of sneaky lawyers who work at the behest of mayor Mick -- and don't do their own due diligence on things like the legal requirements for emergency ordinances as clearly spelled out in the city charter -- city council stands to further embarrass itself by enacting petulant laws that say "If we can't have it, we'll make your wishes impossible and destroy your property value."  The saga continues.... But city officials don't know if/when the measure will come before council again.  Expect wrecking balls soon. ASPEN ART MUSEUM - FREE ART DOWNTOWN, CIRCA 2013 On August 3, Aspen learned that council, after a 7-hour meeting, had approved plans for a new Aspen Art Museum to be located on the Wienerstube property at the corner of Spring St. and Hyman Ave.  The approval enables the AAM to build a structure with maximum allowances of 30,000 s.f. and 47 feet in height. While some citizens lament a perceived "lack of public process" associated with the approval, it turns out that "unique and accelerated process" for the approval came because the AAM acquired the property for its new building as part of a legal settlement between the landowners and the city, stemming from council's 2008 denial of a mixed-use building on the site and the ensuing lawsuit.  There is great confusion about the project, so The Red Ant wants to make several points clear and correct some of the mis-information that's out there: On the use of public funds: This project is totally privately funded, on private land purchased and paid for by the Aspen Art Museum.  There is NO taxpayer funding of this project. As the AAM is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, it will be exempt from the real estate transfer tax (RETT) of 1.5% when purchasing the property. The building fees for this project are not being reduced. On the height, mass and scale: The configuration has been determined through review by city staff to comply with the code as in effect at the time of the project's original submission. On community character and values: The Wienerstube building has not been designated historic and therefore does not require a review by the historic preservation commission. The planning and zoning commission declined to review the project, although their review was not necessary as part of the approval process. Subsidized housing mitigation does not require the housing to be on site. Parking This project is consistent with the city planning department's recommendation to reduce user traffic in the city core. Most importantly, The Red Ant reminds readers that as we collectively work to develop and sustain our tourism-based economy, it is amenities like the Aspen Art Museum that will continue to bring new and unexpected visitors to Aspen. The AAM plans to occupy its Shigeru Ban-designed building in late 2013.  And admission to the museum is always free. COMMUNITY VOICES This issue's community voices section is dedicated to the intelligent and articulate presentations of opposition to the hydro plant by local citizens who spoke out in a public hearing on September 13, urging council to deny the land use approval.   The Red Ant says to all who wrote in and spoke out, THANK YOU.  Your voices are important.  It takes guts to participate in the public process, but it makes a huge difference! Tom Hirsch "Most people who arrive at major decisions with major impacts like this with multiple layers of impacts - economic and environmental, as well as aesthetic - generally do due diligence before they make these decisions."  "It is generally not done to put a hydro plant in a residential neighborhood." "It's really difficult to (create perspective here) after the fact of millions of dollars already being committed and now you're supposed to make an informed decision.  You guys are in an impossible position." Tom Stardoj "Who decides whether the stream is healthy, and what are your standards for making that decision?" "If you build the hydro plant, it will result in a tug-of-war between the health of the creeks and the viability of the plant.  That's clear.  Each side can only win at the expense of the other one.  To me this is a lose-lose situation." "The project is not in the best long-term interest of the community." Connie Harvey "Maybe you councilmen didn't know as much about (the hydro plant) as maybe you should." "Your figures (on climate change effects on the stream) don't quite compute." Paul Noto "A front range appropriation of our water is a scare tactic." Maureen Hirsch "In 2008, the city received a preliminary permit from FERC, and this permit gave them the opportunity to study the proposed 1.05 megawatt Castle Creek Hydro Plant.  It did not give them permission to build infrastructure.  A preliminary permit does not grant one that kind of permission." Tim McFlynn and Ruthie Brown "(We) have learned a lot about minimum streamflow and what creates a healthy aquatic system in a stream ... And they're not synonymous." Be aware of the "potential unintended consequences and collateral damage." "Take the time to get it exactly right." Dee Malone "Minimum flows are at best an estimate" that "often only maintain a minimally functional stream." "It's like putting the stream on life support." "The stream isn't as vibrant or as functional as before de-watering." "I don't know why we go for the minimum." Bob Rafelson "I've also seen a lot of people alter the flow of the river.  It's grotesque if it's altered incorrectly.... It's a grotesque thing to behold if you're guessing wrong." Jay Hammond "I do not ever recall a conversation about how we were going to divert flows from Castle and Maroon Creeks that did not consider the strong health of both of those creeks." Jeanette Darnauer "It is our subdivision and others below the reservoir that are being used as the justification for spending the millions of the bond money for the hydro plant as a drain line out of Thomas Reservior.  So we're the ones supposedly with the potential for property damage should there be a breech in the dam.  And yet neither my neighbors nor our HOA board of directors have ever been contacted by the city expressing any concern for our safety or any potential damage to our homes.  Thomas Reservoir existed when the county approved our subdivision, and if we were truly in danger, we wonder why would they ever have built the neighborhood below the reservoir or why wouldn't we have been warned 19 years ago if indeed we were subject to the 'potential for millions of dollars in property damage' which is what the water department has stated as a fact in its March memo to you.  The implications of such a warning could be quite serious to us as homeowners or as an HOA." "It baffles me how the city could claim that there would be an emergency situation when the state dam inspector in 1989 said this is a 'small, extremely small reservoir' and it was so benign it would create no public safety hazard even though Castle Ridge Apartments and the hospital were in existence at that time." In addition, Connie Harvey and Michael Lipkin recently both had thoughtful guest columns published in the local papers.  Click here and here to read Connie's two installments, and here to read Michael's. REMEMBER: THE 2010 GENERAL ELECTION - TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2 The following are important dates pertaining to the upcoming election: October 4    Last day to register to vote October 18  Early voting begins in the County Clerk's office October 26  Last day to apply for mail-in ballot October 29  Last day for early voting Sample Ballot:  Click HERE  Onine Voter Registration:  Click HERE For Mail-in Ballot Application:  Click HERE Early Voting:  M-F October 18-29 from 8:30a - 4:30p in the county clerk's office, located at 530 E. Main Street, Suite 101 (Google Map) Where to Vote:  Click HERE   Look for The Red Ant's upcoming Election Issue,featuring endorsements and recoemmendations on the ballot measures!!  Coming Soon!!    **NOTE: TO ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY NON-VOTING TAXPAYERS I would like to facilitate the formation of a group for non-voting taxpayers in the city and the county.  The idea is to create an organization to give a voice to this large community of taxpayers who are experiencing "taxation without representation."  This includes second-homeowners and local business owners who cannot vote here.  Please click here and let me know if you are interested in becoming part of such a group.  Would you like to help lead it?  Would you like to receive emails?  Please indicate whether you are in the city of Aspen and/or in Pitkin County.  I welcome your thoughts.  And please tell your friends.  Let's make something happen!