ISSUE # 99: Hardly tANTalizing News

"Here's to the crazy ones.The misfits.The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."  

                       -- Apple, Inc.

The newness of their elected roles is beginning to wear off, as demonstrated by council's acceptance of the usual shenanigans in city hall.  Several of these capers are not council-directed, but by virtue of the fact that lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick simply steams ahead with his own agenda as though council does not exist, council is already heeding the direction of the bureaucrats rather than the other way around.  Council: Barwick and city staff work for you!!  Get it straight!!

COUNCIL PRIORITIES: A JOKE TO STAFF

Recall in Issue #98, council recently put forth its top 10 goals for the year.  I don't recall seeing anything there about "improvements to the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC)," nor did these goals prioritize the reconstruction of the Rubey Park bus station in town.  (According to the goals, Rubey Park's future is to be contemplated as part of a master plan for the malls and Wagner Park.)  But both of these projects are surging forward with serious momentum.  The city is asking the public whether they want parking for 18, 23 or 25 buses along Durant Street at a new and improved $4-$5 million bus depot, and they're already cobbling money together to make this happen in the very near term.  

In addition, the Aspen Rec Center (ARC), just 10 years old, is apparently on-deck for a major cash infusion of your money.  Needless to say, a major addition to the ARC is not listed as a council priority for the coming year, but "Chekov's Country Club" on Maroon Creek Road is coming soon! The city has hired a $52K consultant to determine what is lacking at the publicly-subsidized facility and to prepare a business plan that outlines for council what to pay for and how.  Public meetings were recently held; early items for the "wish list" include an outdoor pool, indoor tennis courts, an improved gym and an indoor field house.  Perhaps even an on-site hotel. The ARC has a $4 million annual budget; $2 million in revenue and a $2 million public subsidy.    

If council's designated priorities mean NOTHING to city staff, then why bother having them? Mayor Skadron, on whose authority is Barwick directing his staff to move forward on these non-prioritized projects?  

STAFF REWARDS ITSELF WITH TRIPS TO ITALY

Mayor Mick was fond of international travel on the taxpayer's dime.  And, sadly, the tradition continues.  Aspen's Sister Cities program has a sketchy financial relationship with the city, but this fall's boondoggle has taken on monumental new proportions.  With a sister city relationship with the small town of Abetone (Italy) in the works, the city of Aspen sent over the welcome wagon from hell last week.  Sure, it made sense for Steve Skadron to go.  He is, after all, our mayor.  And my guess is that he dressed appropriately (no tank tops and ratty exercise attire) as the city's foremost ambassador.  But for lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick to go as well?  What?? He's hardly the face of Aspen we should be putting forth!  Besides, given that the "meat" of these sister city programs centers on exchange programs for local kids, why not someone from the schools?  

The taxpayer-funded entourage additionally included the city's PR flack and the parks director.  Surely these are employee perks (did they win the raffle at last year's Christmas party?) because there is no good reason for you and I to be buying $1200 airline tickets and paying per diem for these useless strap-hangers!  Thankfully, the ever-gracious Debbie Braun of ACRA joined the entourage, and NOT at taxpayer expense.  Her presence surely lent much-needed class and business acumen to the sojourn. Council, what were you thinking by approving such a boondoggle?!  Just because it's been done in the past doesn't make it ok.

WAGNER PARKING: ANT READERS LIKE IT

The Red Ant was surprised by the large number of readers who responded positively to the idea of an underground parking garage beneath Wagner Park.  And if not buses additionally under the park, then certainly at Main Street and Galena (think: at the current parking garage by the courthouse) or out of town (perhaps at Buttermilk) so they don't stack up right in town in front of the mountain.  The sentiment was clear:  cars are a reality, and we need to find a solution to our dire parking problems.  A centrally-located in-town garage underneath a park is not a new concept.  Recall Union Square in San Francisco and Mellon Square in Pittsburgh.  This is a time-tested concept and one that should not be casually dismissed.

Aspen Times columnist Paul Andersen echoed the growing sentiment to look beyond simply enlarging Rubey Park. His rational piece espouses the virtues of an urban transit hub at a reconfigured Library Plaza, which would provide a more centralized focus for transit along Main Street, substantially reduce in-town bus traffic in residential and high pedestrian traffic areas, dramatically cut carbon emissions, and offer a more welcoming experience than what is currently available at Rubey Park. Read it HERE.

But surprise, surprise.  Lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick came up with what he believes will SOLVE our parking woes.  Get ready -- it's a real doozy!  Barwick seems to think that a new and remodeled version of the Rio Grande parking lot (by the jail and courthouse) will become enticing to all -- despite it's inconvenient location -- with the addition of free (read: publicly subsidized) PEDI-CABS!  Yes, you read that right.  Pedi-cabs. Like bicycle rickshaws.  And maybe even golf carts. Lest this moron forget, Aspen enjoys WINTER conditions at least 7 months of the year!  I shudder at the thought of hopping into an open-air pedi-cab in a mid-winter blizzard in order to meet friends for cocktails across town at Brexi.  As it stands, the parking garage is projected to bring in $383K in 2014. Given $548K in expected expenses, you and I get to subsidize the difference. (This should tell you just what a loser the current public parking garage is!) As our highest paid municipal employee and CEO of the city, Barwick simply owes us a little bit more!  Ya think? Anything to advance his anti-car, enormous Rubey Park bus station expansion agenda, I suppose.

THE REAL IMPACT OF REGULATION

A reader of The Red Ant recently posited that perhaps local-owned businesses ought to get some special deal(s) from the city in order to initially start-up and later survive.  The Red Ant hates "false markets," which is what this would create. I just cannot condone a special "secondary/subsidized" commercial layer for some locals whose business plans can't otherwise make it in an admittedly tough environment.  In my book, it's just called survival of the fittest.  Besides, it sounds like a huge step in the nanny-state direction for a municipality that already subsidizes so much of some folks' everyday lives, from buses, to bike races, to rec centers, to culture (Wheeler Opera House -- taxpayer subsidized at approx $3million/year), to food tax refunds, to housing, to.... you name it.

There is a solution, just a different solution.  Aspen doesn't need to give tax breaks to businesses; Aspen needs to reduce its costly regulations by about 75% so that a business can sustain itself on a reasonable margin.  

Subsidized housing mitigation alone is the single largest culprit. The cost is astronomical for any new commercial development, layered onto the millions collected annually from sales and RETT taxes. There is a river of money flowing from those who create (the developers) to those who consume (the 1560 hour per year service worker).

And housing is just the beginning.  The development fees, impact fees, etc. are so grotesquely out of scale with what should be a reasonably-arrived-at cost of providing whatever services or mitigating for whatever impact is generated that it's ridiculous.

Aspen has become a wealth siphon:  largely inhabited by part-time residents and visitors who, in their personal calculation of value, continue to be willing to pay the ever-increasing price(s) in order to maintain their residences and participate in all that is Aspen. For now. That's not all Aspen is of course, but that's how its economy works. But where is the cost-benefit line? At some point Aspen will reach it. We have to be close to it, don't we? You can't even build a slope-side ski lodge in Aspen because of all the regulation.  How long can it last?

RFTA:  BUS RAPID TRANSIT UP AND RUNNING

The $46.2 million bet has been placed.  With 13 new bus stations and 18 new buses converted to run on compressed natural gas, RFTA's enormous valley-wide overhaul is complete.   Admittedly, RFTA management states that there is no specific numeric goal for the project that was originally designed to increase ridership, however success will be determined by these increases.  Huh?  Recall that the $25 million federal grant didn't come with any strings attached such as metrics to justify the expense, therefore RFTA never bothered to come up with any.  And if RFTA CEO Dan Blankenship can be believed, he expects ridership to increase 25-30% over the next 2-3 years.  Go figure.  RFTA ridership was down 4.4% in 2012.

RFTA EXPANSION:  THE EFFECT ON REAL WAGES IN ASPEN
For the longest time, good help was hard to find.  This drove wages in Aspen upward based on the simple law of supply and demand. Not so, today.  The vastly improved bus system will quickly and comfortably bring more and more workers to Aspen from the hinterland -- so there will be no economic incentive for local employers to raise wages.  In fact, the plush new buses will make it even more appealing to even more down valley workers to make increasingly lengthy commutes.  More workers means more competition for jobs.  And competition for jobs does only one thing: it keeps wages low.  

This is certainly not good for the Aspen worker who lives in town, subsidized or otherwise. The cost of living in Aspen is incredibly high, but for many, the "lifestyle" justifies the trade-off.  It's a similar decision matrix for those who commute.  And when the commute itself becomes easy, warm and comfy (therefore less and less of a negative in the equation), more and more workers will be willing to do it.  There are no indicators that the cost of living in Aspen is ever going to decline, yet alone flatten out.  And as we continue to build and build more and more in-town subsidized housing inventory, there will be more and more local people working at low wages who can afford less and less. The new RFTA expansion has just effectively fattened the wallets of those who live in more affordable parts of the valley who are willing to ride our cushy subsidized buses to and fro.  And for those who live subsidized in town, there will be lower chances of increasing wages, and less and less they can afford to buy or do. This is going to get interesting.  

CAN'T MAKE IT UP

According to the response from a recent open records request of the city, The Red Ant has learned that since 2007, city hall has spent at least $830,000 on payments to two Denver and Boulder-based law firms assisting with its work on the hydro plant water rights lawsuit and FERC matters related to federal permits for the Castle Creek Energy Center (hydro plant).  The bills continue to roll in because the city has not stopped its work toward completion of the hydro plant despite the damning November 2012 vote. This incredible sum of taxpayer money does not include city staff time. How much green energy could have been purchased with THAT tidy (and counting) sum???

BAG TAX WINDFALL

To-date, the city of Aspen has collected $44,826 from the sale of paper bags at local grocery stores.  At 20 cents per, that's 224,130 paper bags!  Recall that the city is embroiled in a lawsuit over this controversial tax (which the city argues is a fee), the funding for which comes right out of the city's general fund.  So confident is the city that they will prevail, Mayor Skadron has already told his counterparts in Telluride to ignore Aspen's lawsuit and press on with similar tax in their town right away!  Aspen's newest tax revenue stream will fund "education efforts," but sadly not the kind so desperately needed by our schools.

CAN'T MAKE THIS UP EITHER

Remember in 2011 when vocal locals were up in arms at the thought of losing Little Annie's restaurant to a new development?  And remember how the city inserted itself into the brou-haha, eventually "swapping" a deed-restricted retention of Little Annie's at its current Hyman Avenue location (by designating it "historic") in exchange for granting approval to the new owner to build a 6900 sf penthouse in the adjoining building with substantial subsidized housing mitigation reductions?  Well, brou-haha be damned.  Seems now that the owner of Little Annie's, the restaurant itself, is soon to close the beloved local institution for good.  His choice. The "historic" structure will be remodeled as a restaurant and brought up to code as planned, but Little Annie's? Tootles. Sayonara. Ciao bella. In its place?  Who knows.  But the city's meddling mandates that the next tenant now operate a "local serving," therefore "affordable," establishment in the space, meaning they can only charge rates on par with those at similar deed-restricted eateries such as Justice Snow's at the city-owned Wheeler Opera House. (Notably, there's another similarly saddled 1800sf deed-restricted "local serving" restaurant space empty and available around the corner - in the basement space below where Cooper Street Pier / Bad Billy's once stood.  To-date: no takers.  Nobody likes to have their income forcibly capped by the city.)

R.I.P. HELEN

Aspen recently lost one of its own: former county commissioner and 3-term mayor Helen Klanderud.  Known as much, if not more, for her philanthropy and dedication to all aspects of our community, as her local political involvement, Helen's presence was felt by all, and she will be fondly remembered. Aspen Daily News columnist Paul Menter warmly, personally and graciously captured "Helen." Read it HERE.

ISSUE # 98: SubstANTial Progress

"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem."  

                       -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

The trajectory is definitely encouraging. Our new council has coalesced and is beginning to assume its own personality. I like what I see. The meetings are notably more cordial, far shorter, and, perhaps most importantly, when our new mayor Steve Skadron, according to an insider, "is on the losing side of a vote, he goes with the flow, with respect." But we face many issues ahead, and these will surely test our elected leaders.

COUNCIL'S GOALS

With a welcome new focus on "process" as opposed to mandated actions (such as last year's "develop a bicycle priority master plan" ridiculousness), Council has prioritized the following issues for our community in the coming year:

• Incentives (such as possible fee waivers, expedited reviews, development bonuses) to assist existing lodges and condos renovate in order to spruce up our aging bed base. Good idea, seeing as how it is highly unlikely that a new hotel will ever be built in Aspen. The more we can do to encourage the rehabilitation and modernization of our existing inventory will hopefully serve to staunch the hemorrhaging of our tourists to resorts with more, newer and better lodging choices.
• Adopt a wildfire mitigation plan that provides a workable evacuation and recovery process should Aspen ever face a catastrophic wildfire. Sun Valley, Idaho, had a real scare last month. We should definitely have a solid contingency plan in place.
• Devise a master plan for city offices that streamlines the office space needs for our municipal government over the long term. City offices are currently spread throughout the town, and for several of these spaces, we pay above-market rents. This makes no sense whatsoever when the city owns properties that could and should be converted to office space where needed. But a "master plan"? Really? I simply don't see a major re-haul of city hall at taxpayer expense anytime in the near future. Keep it simple!
• Draft a "climate change resiliency plan" that will keep the community viable and vibrant for when "climate change" wreaks havoc upon our skiing-based economy. Is this REALLY the role of the city? SkiCo has done a commendable job by diversifying its non-winter on-mountain offerings, and its investment(s) in snow "augmentation" has proven to be tremendous. That is to be commended. But isn't Aspen's aggressive "Canary Initiative" enough? (The goal for Aspen's municipal utility is to provide 100% renewable power by 2015. It currently provides 70-80%.) Besides, the city hardly has a successful track record with its recent decisions to enter the renewable energy business - recall the hydro plant and the geothermal drilling experiment.  This is not a debate about climate change, just a question of whether it is the city of Aspen's job.
• Determine the best uses for the Mountain Rescue cabin and the soon-to-be-vacated Aspen Art Museum space, city-owned parcels that provide great opportunities for rental. Well yes, these could indeed be great rental parcels, but not necessarily when lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick and his merry band of thieves want more and better space for their personal offices. As much as I don't like the idea of housing the Aspen Police Department at the AAM building, for example, it sure beats a $20 million taxpayer-funded office development for our bureaucrats on the Zupancis property (or elsewhere)!
• Determine how to measure economic sustainability. Ya think?! This one should be #1 on the list. The term gets kicked around time and time again, but without metrics, the city regularly funds nonsensical programs and projects (that have no measurable goals) simply because the money is there. Each and every payout by the city (including government employee salaries) should have an economic impact goal and published result!
• Create a master plan for Wagner Park, the malls, Rubey Park and Durant Avenue in order to improve the downtown core. The current rush to redevelop the Rubey Park bus station has firmly placed the cart before the horse. It is telling that this goal made the list; someone on council sees the forest for the trees and is signaling that this specific undertaking ought to be part of a larger downtown solution. Let's hope, because as much as we may need an updated bus depot to accommodate our current and future needs, we have other problems (such as parking and pollution) that could and should be addressed as the same time.
• Determine the city's role in health and human services funding. There is already a property tax (passed in 2011) in Pitkin County that raises $1.9M annually to supplement the County's $2M state-mandated HHS funding.  The existence of this new tax creates a controversial and politically charged situation over the future of the current $380K in annual funding by the city to 23 select HHS nonprofits. The key questions: Is HHS funding solely a County function, or does the city have additional funding responsibility?  If it is a shared responsibility, are Aspen residents being "double-taxed" because they are paying in both the city and county? It is vitally important that city's HHS funding guidelines be established, defined and, most importantly, followed!
• Propose policy changes for the subsidized housing program that specifically addresses the issue of chronically underfunded capital reserve accounts. Well this is certainly a start. And the signal is strong, acknowledging that the subsidized housing is indeed a public asset. APCHA and the housing program were started with good intentions 30 years ago, but in their current state, epitomize the law of unintended consequences. Forcing compliance with capital reserve contributions is step one toward getting this monster back in its cage. But we have a long way to go.
• "Help new business start-ups." Good grief. So now the city wants to get into the subsidized business business. Really? Yes, it is TOUGH (and expensive) to start and to operate a business in Aspen. And only the strong survive. But just because we publicly subsidize 2800 housing units DOES NOT mean we must additionally subsidize businesses that would otherwise fail. It's touchy-feely for sure, but just not good public policy.

NEW STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS LOOKS LIKELY

In another positive move, council stands ready to make notable changes to its existing land use codes, allowing applicants to lock in the mass, scale and land use of a building at the beginning of the process. This is a HUGE departure from the status quo that has those very details in limbo right up until final review - a lengthy, not to mention costly, wait for applicants while they await approval decisions. And no, this does not give an instantaneous approval to all development applications. It simply moves the controversial aspects forward in the process to the conceptual review phase. As councilman Art Daily remarked, this has been "a long time coming."

APCHA TO RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE?

The Red Ant was astonished to learn that APCHA is seriously considering raising the retirement age for subsidized housing dwellers. This is yet another policy discussion to be commended! As it stands today, residents 65 and older can retire in their APCHA units as long as they have worked full-time for at least four years in Pitkin County. City-generated reports have the numbers of retirees who live and will live in housing publicly subsidized for workers skyrocketing in coming years. In an effort (a very positive one) to keep actual workers in the units for a little while longer, APCHA is looking to tie its retirement age to the age when someone receives full benefits as determined by the US Social Security Administration, meaning the age above 65 on a sliding scale for anyone born after 1942. According to APCHA's proposal to the county commissioners, someone born in 1955 reaches full social security benefits at 66 years and 2 months, while people born in 1967 hit full benefits at 67. And if the feds raise the retirement age in the future, APCHA's retirement age would change in accordance. All in all, this is a great first step in addressing the changing needs and dynamics of our subsidized housing program.

But while there are solid positive developments afoot, some of the same BS, like kudzu, continues to proliferate.

THE CANARIES IN ASPEN'S COAL MINE

Did you know that the city has a department specifically called the "environmental health and sustainability department" with a $188,000 annual budget? Originally created to reduce the Aspen community's carbon footprint, the department is now unequivocally determined that it must prepare Aspen (and the region!) for the inevitability of impending climate change. Undertaking what they call "resiliency planning" and "preparedness planning" on your dime, they'll be focusing on further reducing local ground transportation greenhouse gas output (yes, they hate cars) and electricity consumption (they especially hate A/C and snowmelt systems). How they plan to do this is anyone's guess, but I think it's safe to assume that it will cost you money. The best news from this office, however, is that, according to director Ashley Perl, "Local geothermal is not part of the mix, based on what we've found. (Read: Nothing) And we're not including Castle Creek (hydro) in our estimates of how we get to our goal." As they darned well shouldn't!!

BURLINGAME 2 GOING SOLAR

As the ugly beast raises its head with 48 new units coming online in December and January (and another 34 in 2014 and 79 in 2015), the city will be installing solar-powered technology at $6250/unit in each of the subsidized dwellings at Burlingame 2. The city's $150,000 expenditure (matched by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, another city bucket of cash) will come from the housing development fund. This fancy investment will provide solar hot water preheat systems that the city says will offset all energy use by one third and reduce CO2 emissions by about 25 metric tons a year - the equivalent of taking five cars off the road annually! Anything to get those cars off the road, right?!? Besides, the city's subsidized housing manager Chris Everson told council, "It's the right thing to do." Really? Is that the very best we can do with $300,000?

RFTA BUSES ALONG DURANT AVENUE - WHERE ARE THE CANARIES NOW?

The Red Ant has been following the city's motions to re-vamp the 1967-era RFTA bus station at Rubey Park for some time. Shockingly, despite council's stated goal of a master plan for Wagner Park, the malls, Rubey Park and Durant Avenue, citizens were recently presented with a major teardown project involving the construction of as many as three new buildings on the current bus terminal site. As recently as May, the idea had been to remodel the current interior and improve bus parking, but with access to federal grants from CDOT and the federal highway administration (read: free money), our local bureaucrats have managed to cobble together $4.2million for the project. And yes, $1.2 million of that comes from local governments and agencies so it's not entirely free.

Voila! The three final designs under consideration call for 18, 23 or 28 buses parked along Durant Avenue! Where was the environmental health and sustainability department with its $188,000 annual budget when these astounding proposals were even first contemplated? I could not summarize the dilemma any better than this letter from local Susan O'Neal, as submitted to the Aspen Daily News:

"Citizens, alert. Are you aware the choice given at the Rubey Park open house on Monday was whether we want 18 buses lined up and parked along Durant Avenue, 23 buses lined up and parked along Durant Avenue, or 28 buses lined up and parked along Durant Avenue? What kind of choice is that?

"Are you aware buses are allowed to sit and idle during the summer because RFTA wants buses to be air-conditioned when passengers board? Can you fathom how trashy Wagner Park, Ajax and the center of Aspen will look when there are even 18 buses parked on both sides of the street along Wagner, idling?

"I cannot think of any worse air pollution, noise pollution or visual pollution than to park all these buses on Durant Avenue, obstructing our view of the mountains. What are they thinking? And I wonder how much the city paid for someone to come up with this outrageous plan to park all these buses in the center of town? These buses need to be parked at Buttermilk or the airport, not in the center of town, causing horrific air, noise and visual pollution.

"Please speak up to defeat this trashy proposal. We do not want 18, 23 or 18 buses parked in the center of town along Wagner Park. Someone is out of their mind."

Incidentally, Susan, the city spent $177,500 on consultants who were asked to study existing conditions, perform a needs assessment and come up with schematic designs to make the most of the existing site. Seems that infusion of "free money" (read: no one will be monitoring its use or cost/benefit) has truly made a mountain out of this molehill.

WAGNER PARKING: AN OLD IDEA WORTH RECONSIDERING

Now before you come unglued (as many letter writers to the paper have done over the past several weeks), The Red Ant reminds you that no one, nowhere, wants to build a parking garage ON Wagner Park. It is, after all, a beautiful open space in Aspen's downtown core. BUT, think for just a moment about a parking garage UNDERNEATH the park. Oh yes, it would be a mess to build, and the park would become a giant hole in the process, but short term pain for long term gain makes it at least worthy of some serious consideration. And we should consider it now, before we throw millions at building a major transportation depot where the Rubey Park bus station now stands, and before we throw many more millions at fixing the leaking and poorly-located Rio Grande Garage that is everyone's parking spot of last resort.

By political design, we continue to lose parking spaces in the downtown core. And that's just flat out stupid. Cars are NOT going to go away. The drivers of them just might, however. We are collectively in the hospitality business, and it's none too hospitable to tell our guests to ride a bike to dinner. Know your clientele. People need to conveniently and affordably park their cars in order to enjoy the Aspen Idea and all its trappings that we work so hard to provide. We (attempt to) "bury" the cars over by the court house; why wouldn't we consider doing so downtown? At the same time, we could "bury" the buses too. It would certainly be a vast improvement for Durant Street!

This is a time-worn idea whose time for consideration has come again.

CAN'T MAKE IT UP

On day #2 of the US Pro Challenge bike race, law enforcement and race officials were alerted to a suspicious package on Castle Creek Bridge. Out of an abundance of caution (think: Boston), race officials closed the bridge to all traffic and cleared all the spectators from this primo viewing location (from this spot, one could watch the racers descend then climb back up Power Point Road below). The Red Ant has it on good authority that the backpack (as the suspicious package turned out to be) belonged to none other than our former mayor the racer chaser, Mick.

ISSUE # 97: ByzANTine Conundrums

"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."  

                              -- Moliere

THE NEW LINE-UP

Mayor:        Steve Skadron (2-year term)

                   Steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com

Council:       Adam Frisch (2 years remaining on his 4-year term)

                   Adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com

Council:       Ann Mullins (4-year term)

                   Ann.mullins@cityofaspen.com

Council:       Art Daily (4-year term)

                   Art.daily@cityofaspen.com

Council:       Dwayne Romero (2-year remainder of Skadron's term)

                   Dwayne.romero@cityofaspen.com

These are YOUR elected officials. Communicate with them!

Well, we're finally off to the races! With the bold and promising leadership step of switching his vote and casting a ballot for Dwayne Romero in the final vote for the 4th council member, new mayor Steve Skadron made certain that HIS council would be out from under Mick's shadow. When council was deadlocked 2-2 and facing a roll of the dice to determine the council appointee to fill Skadron's vacated council seat for the remaining 2 years of the term, only Howie Mallory and Dwayne remained in contention. Mallory, a retired banker, chair of the Open Space board and a long-time Mick supporter, was the odds-on favorite since submitting his application. But in the end, I believe it was Romero's even-handed reputation and prior willingness to run for elected office that won the day. (That's not to mention widespread cries for diversity on council that many thought only Dwayne could bring.) Skadron also wisely recognized that a roll of the dice for this critical role would likely make Aspen a laughingstock - lesser council moves in the past have garnered national media attention, and not the good kind.

I am optimistic. I like what I've seen from newly seated mayor Steve Skadron so far. He runs a collegial and efficient meeting - the first few were just 90 minutes long. And there is a palpable new and welcoming tenor in council chambers. The appointment process for his vacated seat was as transparent as he promised it would be. And, in stark contrast to Mick, Steve showed up at the opening of this year's Music Festival in coat and tie, with a welcoming and gracious message. (Recall how Mick rolled in last year, wearing grungy bike clothes, and pontificated about smoking pot.) Yes, optics count. Thank you, Steve, for honoring our treasured institution, our community and our guests. You're off to a great start.

The Red Ant is not alone. Local hater and Aspen Daily News columnist Doug Allen is particularly incensed at Steve's dramatic departure from the ways of Mick. His most recent column (read it HERE) has him spitting nails at all to be viewed so favorably.

Aspen faces many difficult issues and potentially divisive challenges ahead. The honeymoon won't last forever, but I like the start. It's an opportunity to re-group and re-prioritize. And let's face it, we're all in this together. Let's give it our best shot.

THE JIM TRUE/FALSE LAW FIRM

Imagine this -- the city's in-house legal department has quite the full plate. Mick's lawsuit-happy tenure leaves the new council with many legal entanglements (most are abuses of litigation for political and personal purposes) that can hopefully be resolved and/or settled out of court in a timely manner. As of June 10, 2013, city attorney Jim True/False, assistant city attorney Debbie Quinn and their paralegal are addressing 11 cases of docketed litigation. That's quite a serious workload. One estimate has the legal costs of all this litigation at over $1.5M of your tax dollars annually. Here are the cases: 

1. Saving Our Streams, et al v. City of Aspen, 2011CW130: lawsuit filed by residents along Castle Creek, claiming the city abandoned its water rights for a hydro plant. Trial is set to commence 10/31/13.

2. Verner, et al v. City of Aspen, et al, 11CV178: lawsuit filed by neighbors of the former Boomerang Lodge claims council abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction by up-zoning the property for 46 subsidized housing units with 33 underground parking places as well as 12 head-in parking spaces on 4^th St. In June, district court judge Gail Nichols ruled in favor of the city. It is unknown whether or not there will be an appeal. 

3. Vagneur, et al v. City of Aspen, et al, 07CV175: lawsuit brought by champions of the 4-lane "straight shot" across the Marolt Open Space who sought to get their petition on the ballot in hopes of raising property taxes by 1.7 mils to fund the project. The case was originally dismissed in favor of the city, and the appeals court later upheld the district court's opinion by ruling that the issue was an administrative vs. legislative matter and therefore could not be decided by voters. The Supreme Court has ruled in the city's favor on all issues, but the case remains open until the court's formal remand is received.

4. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) v. Maureen Mary Kinney, et al, and Intervener Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Third Party Plaintiff: Robert Nix v. City of Aspen, 07CV152: this tangled lawsuit pertains to a deed restriction that involved a lot line adjustment and property exchange, as well as a historic development approval. Mr Nix seeks to undo several of the approvals that were granted to Ms Kinney and Mr Hicks as well as clarify the rights of various parties regarding the property exchange. The matter is set for trial 5/12/14.

5. Meyerstein Trust v. City of Aspen, et al, 2013CA000330 (08CV56): lawsuit challenges whether Aspen's subsidized housing program violates a state ban on rent control in privately owned buildings. The complicated lawsuit began in 2008 and is now at the Supreme Court because the appeals court abstained from issuing a finding on the legality of the deed restrictions in question.

6. Aspenitall, LLC v. City of Aspen, 09CV74: lawsuit claims the city had no established process and inconsistent justification(s) for removing 2 on-street parking places from in front of a private Mill Street property. The 4/9/12 order from the court found in favor of the city on all issues, however the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.

7. Marks v. Koch, 09CV294: lawsuit requested access to 2009 ballot images. The case was originally dismissed but later unanimously reversed in an appellate ruling in favor of Marks that also awarded legal fees. The city is challenging its payment of fees to Marks despite the court's ruling because they believe that their "win" at the district court level precludes them from paying fees for this portion of the suit. Amounts currently are approaching $300K.

8. Koch v. Marks and Branscomb, 2012CA2446 (11CV299), suit against Marilyn Marks and Harvie Branscomb for requesting to see 2011 ballots, given the outcome of Marks v. Koch. City claims that until this new legislation, state law prohibited the examination of cast ballots.

9. Mill Street Aspen, LLC and Scott DeGraff v. City of Aspen, 10CV318: lawsuit stems from a 2010 liquor license denial and finding that DeGraff did not meet the city's "good moral character" standard because of a 2000 civil case in Illinois. Suit asks that the city set aside the license denial as well as the personal finding, claiming that only a criminal record or violations of the liquor code can be judged in liquor license proceedings. Awaiting determination of the court. 

10.  Colorado Union of Taxpayers v. City of Aspen, 12CV224: lawsuit claims the city is in violation of TABOR (taxpayer's bill of rights) because the city's "fee" for paper grocery bags is actually a tax, and taxes must be approved by the electorate, not council. Because this case involves a constitutional challenge, the Attorney General's office is additionally involved.

11. Burlingame Ranch 1 Condominium Association, Inc. v. Certainteed Corporation, City of Aspen, et al, 12CV104: lawsuit names the city, among others, including the contractor and siding manufacturer for construction defects in the 5-year-old subsidized housing project. Settlement talks have occurred, however no final resolution has been reached.

Recently added to this list is City of Aspen vs JW Ventures: lawsuit seeks to force the property owners to comply with a building permit that was issued for the project that allows subsidized housing residents to use a front staircase and elevator despite the project's plat map - approved by city planners - showing the front entrance hallway as a "limited common element" solely for the free market owners' use.

Note to new council: work toward solutions. Many of these cases can be cleared up in short order. It won't necessarily be pretty for the city in all cases, but you have no obligation to continue fighting Mick's personal vendettas with public money. It is not in the public's best interest for the city to engage in lawsuits with citizens as a matter of practice; only when absolutely necessary.  

And The Red Ant knows of litigation that is likely to be filed against the city in coming months.  I'll be writing about it. Hopefully the new council will take the necessary steps to avoid this particular issue....

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING: WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST

I recently wrote about "Caribbean Rotations" in subsidized housing (see Issue # 94) where retirees will soon be allowed to rent out their subsidized housing units to qualified employees while away from Aspen for up to 6 months at a time. I got great feedback from readers on the stupidity of this idea.

One reader, however, took great umbrage at my critique of the new sanctioned subsidized housing-abuse program. Her perspective is illustrative of how far we have gotten off the path of reality when dealing with the challenges of reasoning with those in subsidized housing. The level of entitlement is absurd. She wrote: "When it comes to seniors being in employee housing, I must say many of us have 'paid our dues.' Most of us have fixed up our homes with all kinds of amenities we don't get credit for, and we actually lose money when we sell. One mayoral candidate (who lost) had a good idea: pay us what it would cost to build a new unit. That may have been a good way to get rid of us, though some would still like to stay. I like the idea of being able to rent for 6 months, but how does one choose someone who would take care of our furnishings and personal items? The housing office allows $50 over and above the amount they set as accepted rental rates. For me, that is far below what my expenses are. So, this creates a big dilemma. Who can afford to have someone come and take everything out of the unit, paying for storage and help? I have no idea what the answer is, as I personally dislike the long winter months more and more." 

The Red Ant is pretty clear on what the answer is. It begins with said paying of dues. What dues? Folks in subsidized housing have not paid dues, literally or figuratively. In the literal sense, most homeowner associations in APCHA's portfolio are notoriously negligent in the collection of dues from their residents. In the figurative sense, what dues? With subsidized housing, those who paid for the construction of said housing paid the "dues" in the form of the real estate transfer tax (RETT). Those who live there reap the benefits without paying market costs. Regardless of how long one lives in subsidized housing, the benefits only accrue. There is no "payment of dues" whatsoever. The best way to think about subsidized housing is as a college scholarship. It's earned (based on qualified employment in Aspen vs. grades), but it is not guaranteed forever (must comply with APCHA requirements vs. keep grades up/stay enrolled). In Aspen, there is the added bonus of retiring in a unit built for employees - kinda like graduating and still getting to live in the dorms.  

What is lost on this population is that, in the 'real world,' when someone wants to live in a warmer climate, they figure out how to do it: split time (if they rent out their place, or if they can afford to, leave it empty) or they move. In our subsidized housing program, designed for employees but increasingly occupied by retirees, leaving the units empty is thankfully not allowed. It's not a personal thing. If retired residents of subsidized housing want to fly south, they too should have to make some hard choices. Why should they be any different? And they certainly shouldn't have an easier decision matrix! The rental option is not ideal, but it does provide an option that was not previously available.

Furthermore, I absolutely do not believe that those in housing should have the same (potential) financial upsides as those in the free market. No way. Those in free market housing have far greater investment risk (from market forces), and with great risk comes the potential for great reward. No risk (for those in housing) should reap that same no reward. It's basic economics. Again, it's not personal. Subsidized housing has enabled a great part of our community to live in Aspen when they otherwise couldn't because of the cost, but to assume/demand a guaranteed financial upside on par with the free market is astonishing. The upside for those in housing is the ability to live, subsidized, in the most expensive town in America.

CHAIRMAN MAO'S DINER: "THE PEOPLE'S EATS" DELAYED

As part of a settlement with the city that yielded permission to build a 4527 sf condo on the building's 3^rd and 4^th floors, the developers of the Cooper Street Pier building agreed to provide for an affordable "people's" restaurant in the 1800 sf basement space. (See Issue #4 from way back in 2008.) The benefits/requirements for the lucky tenant are communistic:

• Rent must be less than 75% of the free market rate for a similar space
• Rent cannot exceed $50/sf in the first year
• Menu items must be within the bottom 1/3 of Aspen restaurant prices 

Imagine - the developers are having a difficult time finding a tenant! But now it's the city of Aspen to the rescue. The city, in its new foray into the restaurant business, will begin soliciting qualified tenants who will initially have to invest in a "full tenant finish" for the otherwise empty space. This costly endeavor, coupled with the capped food sales prices, will likely be none too popular for aspiring restaurateurs who actually want to make money. But the city is already asking prospective tenants what kind of discount (read: public subsidy) they will need to offset the cost of this build-out. It simply never ends.

THE BIKE SHARE B.S. RIDES ON

Thanks for the overwhelming responses to last issue's (Issue #96) expose on We-Cycle, the highly controversial bike sharing program. Among readers of The Red Ant, We-Cycle is widely perceived to be a political folly. And the kiosks? Aspen's version of urban blight.

The program's organizers have gone on record with their belief that 100 trips a day is a resounding success, so The Red Ant ran some numbers. Here are some interesting facts:

If We-Cycle averages 100 trips a day at $2 per trip, the program will generate a mere $40K in annual operating income ($2 x 100 trips x 200 days per year of operation - remember, the bikes are stored during the winter months), or less than one-fifth of what they need to cover their $261K projected annual operating expenses. Never mind covering the cost of capital. Assuming a cost of capital of 2.4% (10-year treasury), their annual cost of capital is $74K ($650K at 2.4% for 10 years) on a 10-year depreciation schedule which is probably too long. It should probably be 5-7 years. And never mind 200 days is nearly 7 months! We live in ASPEN. May - November (inclusive) is a wee bit optimistic!

I cannot see any way the program will ever make environmental or financial sense. To cover operating and capital costs in total, We-Cycle would have to average 800 trips per day at $2 per trip (that's right, 800 trips EVERY DAY FOR 200 STRAIGHT DAYS). If we forgive the cost of capital completely, the program would still have to average 650 trips per day for 200 days of annual service to cover its operating budget with fees alone in order to avoid needing an operating subsidy. Can you say "money pit?"

The program's creators are actually brilliant. They have positioned We-Cycle as a "transit" program, so transit financial standards can be applied to measure its success. Transit is notorious for requiring operating and capital subsidies. This is a textbook publicly-funded program, especially with the added perception of an "environmental benefit." And we all know that spending untold thousands of public monies in the name of saving the environment is what we should all be doing, right?

The Red Ant has learned from folks in the transit world in Denver that governments regularly treat CMAQ grants like "found money" because there is no real accountability for how these federal dollars are spent. There is no oversight or requirement to produce beneficial outcomes from its use; money just ends up being used to achieve political ends rather than solving real problems. No wonder Aspen was so keen to do it!

CAN'T MAKE IT UP: BIKES WON'T STOP

Whether you own, rent or use a We-Cycle, soon you won't have to stop at stop signs when biking in the city of Aspen. Heralded as a "safety measure" and an incentive for more people to ride bikes, Aspen Police and city staff recently convinced council (Skadron, Mullins and Frisch) that Idaho's "stop-as-yield" approach is actually safer. What? Assistant Police Chief Bill Linn explained that "cyclists are actually at greater risk when they stop at stop signs because of a few factors: one of them being that there is always an unknown element for motorists in the area when a bicyclist comes to a stop sign. Is that bike going to stop or not?" Really?? Apparently some cyclists have difficulty dealing with the inertia when they come to a hard stop. Puh-lease. The Red Ant doesn't like it. The word "splat" comes to mind. Time will tell. Be careful out there.

ONE MORE THING

HERE's another hilarious installment from Aspen Times columnist Glenn Beaton: Fly the Affordable Skies.  Enjoy.

ISSUE #96: ElephANTs In The Room

"There is nothing in machinery, there is nothing in embankments and railways and iron bridges and engineering devices to oblige them to be ugly.  Ugliness is the measure of imperfection."  -- H.G. Wells

 

BIKE SHARING -- B.S. FOR SHORT

Yep, you've seen them -- the ugly new kiosks all over town, housing institutional-looking 3-speed bikes.    

The much maligned and controversial We-Cycle bike sharing program has arrived!  Here's the skinny.  For a start-up cost of $650K, we now have 100 bikes available at 13 kiosks throughout town.  No, you can't just walk up and ride off with a 50-pound albatross -- you will pay $2 for a 30-45 minute ride.  There are passes available as well:  $7 for a 24-hour pass, $15 for 3 days, and $25 for 7-days.  But not so fast, you don't get to keep the bike for 24 hours, 3 days or 7days.  No, sir-ee.  If you purchase one of these passes, you get unlimited 30-minute trips within your selected timeframe.  Check-in, check-out.  And don't be late.  If you are, you will incur fees on an escalating basis: a $5 penalty for each 15-minute interval over 45 minutes.  And DO NOT lose that bike.  Your credit card will be charged $1200 if you do!  We-Cycle is NOT a bike rental program.  Go to the bike shop for that.  Instead, it's an in-town, point-to-point "last mile" solution for transit. In other words, it's access to an in-town bike for quick in-town needs.  Or, put differently, in a town where most everyone who would ever ride a bike to do in-town errands owns a bike, it's another exclusively political "environmental" initiative with a pathetic business case, no specific or measurable goals, and no articulated accountability for success.  Oh, and lest I forget, a season We-Cycle pass is $55.  Good grief.

The $650K funding for this program comes from a variety of public and private sources.  Aspen/Snowmass Sotheby's is the program's title sponsor, as evidenced by the real estate firm's deep blue logo on the skirtguard of each bike.  Other sponsors include The Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows Resort, Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Valley Hospital, City of Aspen, Genshaft Cramer LLC, The MyersRoberts Collective, The Nick DeWolf Foundation, Pitkin County and Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA).

Specifically in the public sector, here's how the dollars and cents of the deal work.  Pitkin County kicked $200K in to start up the program.  These funds came from a "Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)" grant, which funds projects aimed at improving air quality and reducing traffic congestion. The county receives this allocation from the feds every 2 years; 20% of which must be matched by the county to access the funds.  Luckily the county has a County Air Quality Impact Fund that they could raid for about $25k of these matching dollars.  And the city kindly stepped up with the difference.  

The ~$100k monetary shortfalls that currently exist are being addressed through an "adopt-a-bike" program.  For just $1500, you too can put your mark on one of these gems.

This program has been on The Red Ant's radar screen for several years.  Back on December 8, 2011, I weighed in with this letter to the editor, entitled "That's big bank for bikes":

"When and where does it end?  Asking for $650K to launch a public bike-share program with just 100 pay-to-use bikes?  Instead of iPads for local government officials, how about calculators?  That's a start-up cost of $6500  per bike, and these particular bikes are only for short point-to-point trips.

The craziest thing is that the program will need at least 400 locals (who presumably already have their own bikes) to use the  rental bikes for $75 (sic) each year and another 150 commuters to do the same.  Really?  Do you actually think locals are going to pay to use these things?  Plus, 5000 Aspen visitors will additionally need to participate every year to generate the $261,000 estimated annual cost.  Furthermore, for $261K annually, that's $2600 per bike.  I get my bike tuned every year for $50.  There's something very wrong with this picture.

For We-Cycle program founders Mirte Mallory and Philip Jeffreys to tell our local government officials that the program is "set up for success" is simply ludicrous.  If it's such a slam-dunk for success, then why don't they get a loan and do the program themselves instead of rattling the tin cup at the local taxpayers?  Thank goodness for county commissioner Rob Ittner who wisely asked, "What is their exit strategy?"  He obviously already has a calculator. And a clue.

It's really shameful (yet not surprising) that the others on both government bodies are so clueless to think that yet another fiscally irresponsible government-subsidized program is good for Aspen.  I particularly enjoyed Rachel Richards' comment, "I think it going to be a good fit for the community." Well, it certainly fits right in with the rest of the subsidized portfolio."

Other notable letters that I'm certain you will appreciate include:
Mike Tullar
Sheldon Fingerman

So, is there an exit strategy?  Good question.  The Red Ant is chasing down information on a vaguely referenced "agreement" between the county (and presumably the city) and We-Cycle to get to the bottom of this.  Stay tuned.  But then again, it might not formally exist. The non-profit provided the county with a financial spreadsheet back in 2011, but there is no narrative analysis nor description of major assumptions or goals.  And regarding goals, best I can tell, there are none!  None for ridership, greenhouse gas emission reductions, number of trips, financial results.  Nada.  Hopefully the elusive "agreement(s)" will yield some clarity.  Otherwise, as I have long suspected, We-Cycle is simply a political giveaway program.  The only discussion of accountability again comes from county commissioner Rob Ittner, who has asked to be briefed on the program's capital expenses and membership, noting that the program obviously must be self-sustaining to survive.  The only hint I have been given is that "the agreement" essentially makes the BOCC (and to some degree, the city) "preferred creditors" of the program; the county and city own the bikes and We-Cycle will operate the system.  So, presumably, if the program fails, the city and county get to liquidate the assets and recoup some of the $200K contribution.

Some of you may think the program is off to a solid start -- you've driven past the kiosks and seen empty spaces, right?  Well, not so fast.  There are 182 spaces for the 100 bikes.  This is to ensure there's a parking place for you once you arrive across town at your destination.  In other words, it's very hard to tell how it's going.  There is allegedly a worker with a trailer who continually drives between the 12 kiosks and "balances" bikes and spaces.  But what happens when A LOT of people ride We-Cycle bikes over to the Music Tent for a popular show?  Where will all those We-Cycle bikes go?  And at a $5-per-15 minute penalty, there will be A LOT of unhappy music-loving, bike-riding campers!  Ahhh, there's that pesky law of unintended consequences, rearing its ugly head in Aspen again.  Imagine that!

At press time, the We-Cycle folks claim that the program is off to a promising start with an average of 100 trips/day.  The Red Ant asks, compared to what?

And that's not to mention the ease with which these hideously ugly kiosks made their way into the public realm, cluttering our views while eliminating parking places throughout town.  On one hand, city council acts as the arbiters of good taste and design, and on the other, permits such eye sores to infect our precious and historic small town.  What next?  (In NYC, their new and similar B.S. bike-share program has become a comedy of errors.  The latest has exercise-hungry New Yorkers sitting atop "kiosked" bikes and pedaling to tunes on their iPhones a la an outdoor-yet-private -- and free -- spinning class!  Can't make it up!)

GEOTHERMAL UPDATE
Speaking of eyesores, the city's never-ending geothermal drilling experiment just won't go away.  Recall that this nonsense began back in 2011, when the city added a $50K grant from the governor's energy office to another $150K of our Monopoly money in order to embark on a folly with the goal of harnessing cheap, clean renewable power to create a heating district for Aspen.  This idea was based on anecdotal evidence from the 19th century when miners reported hot temperatures in the mines beneath town.  (No, I am not making this up!)  The concept is to drill down 1500 feet and test the temperature of our subterranean water at a site on the Prockter Open Space across from Heron Park (by No Problem Bridge).  

In order to heat/cool buildings, 100 degree water is required.  To generate electricity, the water must be 220 degrees.  In late 2011, the contractor drilled to 1000' and found nothing.  The next go-round, after several delays, is currently underway, with the goal of getting down to 1500'.  The neighbors are outraged.  In its never-ending quest for "green at any cost" alternative energy solutions, the city continually extends its own deadlines for completion, despite the start of the summer tourism season and the impact on nearby residents and rental properties.  Called "the hole to nowhere" by neighbors, the project's total budget has climbed to $273K, but the city admits that the final costs will not be known until completion.  (The overage is likely due to the contractor starting a new nearby drilling site in May.  "Same goal, different hole," wrote the Aspen Daily News.) Allegedly the experiment ends on Wednesday, July 3.  Notably, as a councilman and then-candidate, mayor Steve Skadron stated that he would NOT support allocating any more funding to this test.  Let's certainly hope not!

HYDRO HEADACHES & HAPPENINGS
We suspected it all along.  The city never cared one bit about the cost of the hydro plant.  They continually call those of us who challenge their financial assumptions and models "liars" and "hysterics," but from the beginning, the ill-conceived project was never about fiscal responsibility or return on investment.  This has come to light via a recently acquired May 2, 2013, memo from city utilities project coordinator William Dolan to city council in response to Old Snowmass resident and Rocky Mountain Institute founder Amory Lovins' excoriating report on the hydro plant (recall Issue # 94).  Read the Dolan memo HERE.  

Key truths and admissions by the city:

• Mr. Lovins' credentials as an energy expert are undeniable.
• While there are indeed "abundant and cost-effective renewable alternatives" to CCEC available, as Mr. Lovins points out, the city's contract with MEAN (municipal energy agency of Nebraska), it's wholesale energy supplier, makes it impossible to pursue these alternatives because the contract dictates the make-up of power MEAN sells to Aspen and other customers.  (As a cooperative 3.5% owner of the energy provider, Aspen can and should play hardball and re-negotiate!!  Besides, MEAN has historically been incredibly flexible with Aspen and its renewable energy goals, notably expanding its choice of energy sources to include greatly expanded access to wind resources at Aspen's request.)
• Lovins' energy efficiency suggestions are spot-on, however, moving the community towards its 100% renewable goal with efficiency measures alone, aggressive regulatory policies and enforcement likely will be necessary.  (How about a carrot vs. a stick?  This community, when challenged, can achieve great things. Furthermore, since when it the city afraid of new regulations? This is a REALLY lame excuse for not actively pursuing energy efficiency as a means of reaching its renewable energy goal, and hardly an excuse for building the CCEC.)

Despite Mr. Lovins' economic feasibility arguments ("CCEC has higher costs and risks than available ample, timely and suitable alternatives, even neglecting its sunk costs and counting only it's to-go costs"), we must remember that the city's primary motivation in developing the CCEC has never been economic in nature.  As a community, we are undertaking this project to reduce our collective carbon footprint and increase our energy security in addition to striving to provide long-term rate stability to our customers.  (BINGO. Here it is in black and white. The hydro plant from the beginning was never a sound financial project, and the city knew it and didn't care.  It was always a "green at any cost" edifice to Mick Ireland and the canaries in city hall, funded with taxpayers' money.)

To further illustrate the pervasive "green at any cost" mentality in our midst, The Red Ant heard from a reader that SkiCo greenie and ardent hydro plant advocate Auden Schendler was overheard at a recent dinner party discussing the merits of his environmental work.  He was quick to tell the group that "given the seriousness of climate change, money should NEVER be an issue when taking steps to address it."  Good grief.

As I've written time and time before, the hydro plant is not dead.  Far from it. The new council can easily start it right back up with a majority vote, despite the advisory vote in favor of shutting it down last fall.

And mark my words, lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick and his hydro helpers will be in front of council as soon as this summer to request additional funding for the completion of a section of "plumbing" over by the hydro plant called "the tailrace."  Remember when these guys punched a hole in Thomas Reservoir to build "an emergency drainline" to the river?  Well, this has been proven to have been a fraudulent project -- the reservoir was deemed "safe" by the state, but the city needed an existing "conduit" in that location so that it could apply for a "conduit exemption" from the feds -- a shortcut for getting the approvals for the hydro plant project.  By building the drainline, even under a false premise, there would be a conduit.  So they did.  The Red Ant and other concerned citizens exposed the "emergency" drainline caper as utter nonsense, but now it exists, and it doesn't empty out anywhere.  The soon-to-be-requested "tailrace" will connect this "drainline" to the river.  Ok, fine and good, just a big waste of money, right?  No, it's even worse.  Barwick is certain to deny the "tailrace" has anything to do with the hydro plant, but he will be lying.  Once the "tailrace" infrastructure is completed, the only missing link to having a fully functional hydro plant is the powerhouse, ironically the least expensive piece of the entire project!  The city would incur the wrath of the feds if they built the powerhouse without a FERC license, so that will be the last piece that gets built.  But once the city has its FERC license or reverts back to its original ploy of calling it a "museum," the powerhouse could easily be constructed very quickly, the custom turbine plopped into place and they are ready to go.  The sneaky saga continues.....

TAKE THE BU$
Come September, RFTA will be nearing completion of the region's $46 million bus rapid transit (BRT) overhaul.  While the project is on-time and within budget, one key component stands to delay the completion and put the balance sheet in the red.  The traffic-control-priority system, which will provide buses with accelerated access through certain intersections throughout the Hwy 82 corridor, continues to experience delays and cost increases.  The concept is for buses to trip a traffic signal to gain quicker passage, but the ongoing delays in installation may prevent testing and driver training prior to the September kick-off.

As for RFTA, the organization expects $47.5 million in revenue in 2013 and has budgeted for $48.7 million in expenses.  What kind of budget is THAT?  It's a typical Aspen budget!  The $1.2 million shortfall will be covered by funds in two "pools" of money at RFTA.  One is the 0.4% sales tax increase for BRT that voters approved in 2008, and the other is an unidentified bucket of mad money on hand at the agency.  Financially speaking, RFTA anticipates operational costs to increase $2 million per year once BRT is fully operational in 2014.  The thought is that increased ridership will offset some of these costs.  However, in 2012, RFTA ridership was down 4% for the year.  Thank goodness for those magic "pools" of money to make up for an even larger deficit as time marches on!

Never known for its prudent spending habits, recall (Issue #90) that expenditures for 13 new bus stations in the valley were "not expensive" because they comprised just a small fraction of the overall cost of the project.  You've seen them -- little stone "chalets" with large windows and chimneys.  The 10 standard stations cost between $230K - $275K each, the Carbondale station cost $360K, and the two mega-stations in Glenwood Springs and at the Brush Creek intercept lot cost $470K-$525 each.  No, not at all expensive.

Sometimes, The Red Ant reads something that's simply too good not to share. For your reading enjoyment, here are two fabulous pieces by Aspen Times columnist Glenn Beaton on the subject of RFTA's largesse. Enjoy!

Bus-ingham Phallus
Colossally Too Big

NEXT ISSUE: THE NEW COUNCIL
With 11 applicants for the council seat vacated by Steve Skadron when he was recently elected mayor, the interviewing process has begun.  The open casting call brought out ghosts of elections past, as well as local characters, including:  recently defeated mayoral candidate L.J. Erspamer, APCHA board member Marsha Goshorn, election commissioner and hydro plant opponent Ward Hauenstein, retired banker and Open Space board member Howie Mallory, Shamrock Foods salesman Jay Maytin, artist and SkiCo foe Lee Mulcahy, P&Z commissioner Bert Myrin, former councilman and 3rd place finisher in the recent council race Dwayne Romero, P&Z commissioner and AACP author Cliff Weiss, Hyatt concierge Wendel Whiting and unsuccessful 2011 council candidate and "spread the wealth" proselytizer Scott Writer.

The four sitting council members will choose this appointee, who will serve the remaining two years of Skadron's council term.  There is great debate about this appointment procedure, with many feeling that the decision should be made by the voters.  This would obviously entail a special election, which would be both costly AND time-consuming.  And that's not to mention a further extension of Aspen's never-ending election season(s).  For now, the rules are the rules, and the rules state that council appoints Skadron's replacement. It should all wrap up by July 8. 

At press time, council has announced that Dwayne Romero, Howie Mallory, Wendel Whiting and Scott Writer have advanced to the final four.  Brace yourselves.

ISSUE # 95: Ode to a MisANThrope

"Many of us, like myself, gain stature by going to enough meetings and eventually become recognized as part of history, or icons.  People write books about us." 

                           --  Mick Ireland (watch it at www.SickofMick.com)

The politician's corpse was laid away.

While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged,

I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.

 -- Hilaire Belloc, "Epitaph on the Politician Himself"

AS WE SEND MICK OFF INTO THE SUNSET, ENJOY THESE LIMERICKS, SUBMITTED BY RED ANT READERS  

Mick once was mayor of town.
How did Aspen elect such a clown?
His style always rude
And manners quite crude
No longer do voters bow down!

The council was thoughtful yet pensive
As the mayor became more offensive.
His bike shorts squeezed tighter
And his voice, it squealed higher
His arguments: all so defensive!

But thanks to Maurice
Who was searching for peace
Our river still swells
So it's a ride to the Bells
For the mayor whose reign soon will cease.

Little Mr. Mick, sat on his dick
Eating his curds and brownie.
Along came Red Ant
Who crawled up his pant
Ant bites got the best of that townie!

Must we vote for Torre or Steve?
We worry what's up Mick's sleeve.
If Mick gets his pick,
Of Steve we'll be sick.
Regardless we know we will grieve!

"The bird" it does fly
From Mick's hand up on high.
It's gesture profane
Flipped with disdain
The coward hides in the blink of an eye.

There once was a grown clown named Mick
Of whom his constituency was sick
He only knew names
Of those in his games
A has-been: out just in the nick!

We once had a mayor named Mick
Who constantly stepped on his dick.
But a fall off his bike
Made him quite the psyche
Of Mick soon did people grow sick.

Townspeople all said a group prayer
"Rid us of the dictator mayor."
Term limits got Mick,
We'll get a new pick
Let's pray not the tennis player!

Mick, Mick -- oh what a dick
You're sick, not quick, but oh so slick.
I find you sad
And for that I feel bad.
For you don't deserve a single lick.

There once was a dude named Mick.
He won office through quite a trick.
Never in doubt,
He wielded his clout,
Even friends called him "Mick the prick."

His biking shorts all a tatter
Folks wondered what was the matter.
He believed in exposure
Of manhood not meriting disclosure,
While eating freely from the public platter.

"Early and often" was Mick's battle cry
As Caleb Kleppner wrote software that would die.
Mick believed IRV was the best
He thought it would pass the election test.
But Aspen voters decided it wouldn't fly.

In 2007 he paid $18 million for BMC West
So our housing program would be the best.
So many more voters it would house
Its many benefits he did espouse
But 6 years later into homes it has not coalesced.
 
There once was a Socialist named Mick

 His political game made many so sick.

His mayoral attire

None would desire

We're happy to be done with that prick!
 

Mick's man-crush on Lance was a sight to behold
He was sure no one could break his hero's mold.
He proposed a special day to honor the star
But the USADA did Armstrong's reputation mar
Good thing Skadron shut Mick down cold!

There once was a writer named Anton P. Chekhov
Reminding us all of a tyrant named Mickoff
Not for his smarts
Or his gift to the arts
But from the boys' list we're "Russian" to check-off!
 
There once was an Aspen politician

Whose only aspiration

Was playing Robin Hood

From public housing in the 'hood.

He ruled by belittling those with ambition.

Nikos' building was simply too tall
So Mick and Jack put up a regulatory wall.
They called the proposal so big it was rude
But they changed their tune when Nikos Hecht sued.
Now Heidi and the Magoons build a huge exhibition hall.

Say "adieu" to the miserable mayor
He fancied himself quite a soothsayer.
Known for bike falls
Had the city by the balls
And regularly screwed the taxpayer.

There once was a mayor named Mick
Many thought he was a dick.
But he wasn't a prick and wasn't too slick,
He was just quicker with his wit
That was his trick!                  (submitted by Jim Valerio)
 

 In 2011 Mick took a Euro vacation
He called it "city business" required of his mayoral station.
Of expense regulations he ran afoul
But city government refused to growl
Can you say "staff intimidation"??

We're Sick of Mick, he's so obscene
Oh, my friends, he's never clean.
But this I know
So away he'll go
Odds are he'll continue to preen.

There once was a man from Aspen
Who didn't know where his ass'd been.
So he became mayor
And oh, what a player.
He took Aspen into the sh*t pen.

The 2009 ballots Marilyn asked to see
Mick told her to go climb a tree
Judge Boyd agreed
But MM wouldn't concede
Now the city owes Marilyn a huge fee.
 
There was a mayor so polarizing
For this he saw no need for apologizing.
His style and grace were non-existent
These traits for him were very consistent.
His arrogant style was so ego-aggrandizing!

Today is a sad day for Mick

True, he made some of us sick

But he had a red book

Its missives he took

And left us with troubles chronic.

We're finally rid of mayor Mick
He hailed from Chicago politic
A cheater and liar
Of him we did tire
His antics just made us so sick!

Deodorant rarely made the scene
But this didn't stop Mick from venting so mean.
Optional bathing was his credo
He smelled like old fettucini alfredo
If only he had embraced being clean!

Mick Ireland, he was a bully
A narcissist: THAT he was fully.
He never stopped to think
How much he did stink
He must've bathed in the gully.

Mayor Mick is so sorry to go
He'll honor himself with a slide show
There'll be recognition
 Instead of admonition
City Hall: reaching a new low.

As mayor, we're rid of that jerk
But what's next? Where will he work?
1500 hours: required to stay
In the housing for which you and I pay
The whole thing just drives me berserk!

There once was a commentator, initials EM.
All that she touched turned into a gem.
So smart and soooooo savvy
Pulchritudinous to boot.
Here is one comrade who sure gives a hoot!
 
Dear Elizabeth... His main nemesis
She's my favorite hero with emphasis.
She'll fight to the death
With all of her breath
To protect us from Mick's supremacists!

Late into Monday night he'd always rant
Often railing about his enemy: The Red Ant.
Now that Mick's gone
Who'll she pick on?
We all hope she won't say, "I can't."
 

There once was a mayor named "What-was-it?"
Everyone sayin' "That does it."
With a WHEW and a HIGH HO
Like Silver.....  AWAY!
Let's hear it for endings and cheer the new day!

THE "ADAPTIVE POETRY" CATEGORY
(They're Poets and They Know It!)

Mick crashed his bike and took quite a spill
He lost control racing down that  big hill.
It wasn't my wish, it wasn't my goal
(And no, I wasn't atop that grassy knoll.)

At last we get to send Mick
Out on a long vacation,
But guess who gets to pay
For his unemployment compensation?
 
There was a prick named Mick
Who sat on his throne to hear himself drone.
Who never saw a hand-out he could resist
And always demanded a special twist
For himself he assured he cared naught
Except when observed he got caught.
So now he is gone
Which for some is so wrong
So unless you are a self-supporting soul
Who does not need Mick to make you whole,
I suggest that you weep
Cause no matter how much you groan
He ain't getting back on his throne!

And, in conclusion, the piece de la resistance:
 
                       Mickey at the Bat

The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Aspen nine that day:
The score was four to two, with one election more to play.
And then Barwick died at first, and True did just the same,
A silence fell on Ba'ath party members, the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to leave but the Blue Roofs clung to hope.
That river doesn't stand a chance, just let those NIMBYs mope.
For greenies to get their way, their hero: on the bench he sat
Their only chance for a hydro plant was with Mickey at the bat.

But Stirling proceeded Mickey, as did also Rachel Richards
The former was  a lulu and the latter was a "pisher."
So upon that stricken multitude, grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of getting Mickey to the bat.

But Stirling let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And then Rachel Richards tore the cover off the ball.
And when the dust had lifted, and the town saw what had occurred,
There was Rachel safe at second, and Stirling hugging third.

Then from 6,000 throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
It rumbled in the valley, it rattled in the Bells.
It knocked upon Snowmass Mountain, and recoiled on McClain Flat,
For Mickey, mighty Mickey, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Mickey's manner as he stepped into his place:
There was pride in Mickey's bearing, but a sneer upon his face.
And when responding to the cheers from Stillwater and Burlingame,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Mickey in the game.

He took a practice swing with the turbine, the crowd waived hands up high,
Even Amory Lovins can't stop us, from running this river dry!
While the writhing pitcher Emmer ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance curled in Mickey's eye, a curse crossed Mickey's lip.

Maurice sent the leather sphere hurtling through the air,
Marilyn mocked Mickey's arrogance, and said she had no fear.
Close by the sturdy batsman, the unheeded lawsuit sped,
"That ain't my style," said Mickey. "Strike one," the umpire said.

From the North 40, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill him. Kill the judge," shouted someone in the stand.
And it's likely they'd a' killed him, had not Mickey raised his hand.

With a cocky smile, Mickey's visage shone,
He stilled the rising tumult, he made the game go on.
He signaled to pitcher Emmer, and once more the hydro flew,
But Mickey still ignored it, and the umpire said, "Strike two."

"Fraud!" cried the maddened crowds.  An echo answered, "Fraud."
But one scornful look from Mickey and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his bike shorts strain,
And they knew that Mickey wouldn't let that ball go by again.

The sneer is gone from Mickey's lip, his teeth are clenched in hate,
He pounds with cruel violence, his turbine upon the plate.
And now Emmer holds the ball, and then he lets it go,
And then the quiet is shattered by the force of Mickey's blow.

Oh somewhere in this favored land, the sun is shining bright,
Somewhere in California, the turbine still has might.
Somewhere plastic bags are laughing, and somewhere locals shout,
But no joy tonight in Ute-ville, Mighty Mickey has struck out.
 
                                         *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
 
Many thanks to all who submitted these clever and entertaining poems!  For added laughs, re-visit the Sick of Mick website from the 2011 campaign at www.SickofMick.com

                                        *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

LOOKING FOWARD

Hope springs eternal at The Red Ant.   Here is a photo of Steve Skadron (on the right), to be sworn in as Mayor of Aspen this evening.  He won the June 4 run-off election vs Torre 920 - 833 (52.5% - 47.5%).  Please note the pressed chinos and navy blazer Steve donned on election night, ostensibly out of respect for the office to which he aspired (and eventually won).  It's a good start.

The Red Ant also acknowledges Steve's post-election comment to the Aspen Daily News with regard to the Aspen Chamber Resort Association's recent study on the long-term economic sustainability of our community. "So our local vibrancy and the quality of life we all seek is all tied to these issues.  I think a good place to look is some of the work that's been done by the Chamber,"  he wisely stated on election night.  I hope that this is an indication as to how Steve will also approach other complex and weighty matters, particularly the issue of the hydro plant.  It is imperative that the new mayor and council take outside facts, studies and information into consideration rather than relying simply on city staff and their highly self-serving and biased "wants."  While these folks mean well, their first priority is protecting their jobs and remaining "busy."  Meanwhile, there are subject-matter experts whose knowledge should be given far more respect and credence than job-protecting wish lists of mid-level bureaucrats.  

Buckle up, folks.  Here we go.....

ISSUE # 94: ScANT Enthusiasm

"I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership.  And when we get lazy as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government."  

                              -- Barack Obama

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT

June 4 marks the mayoral run-off election between Torre and Steve Skadron.  I can't remember a less inspiring race for political office in Aspen.  And how sad that it's down to just these two.

But, as tempting as it is to ignore the run-off and abstain, I will vote because it's the right thing to do.  In fact, I see voting as, among other things, an act that upholds my right to complain about the outcome.  When just 2289 fellow citizens bothered to participate in the May 7 election that brought us to this point, it's really hard not to wonder why those other 4124 registered voter-neighbors just blew it off.  The result of their apathy?  Torre vs Skadron for Mayor.

HERE is the list of those who voted on May 7.  It's public information.  These are your friends and neighbors who exercised their right.  They are the people who have determined the direction (for better or worse) of Aspen's governance. They participated. Those whose names are not on the list did not.  Is YOUR name on the list?  If not, you are allowing others to determine the fate of our town.  You know better.  
 

I will vote for Steve Skadron for mayor.  Of the two, I believe that Skadron is the "least worst."  Besides, a vote for Skadron rids us of Torre.  Yes, Skadron's council seat will be filled by appointment -- determined by Skadron (as mayor), Adam Frisch, and new councilmen Ann Mullins and Art Daily.  I am not worried anymore about the possibility of Mick being appointed.  There is no way Skadron will allow that tyrant to rain on his parade in a long-feared Putin-Medvedev scenario.  I actually don't think Mick will even apply for the vacancy. There is a palpable community-wide sigh of relief that Mick is soon to be history.  And Mick knows this.  Aspen is indeed SICK OF MICK.  At this stage, a new face will be a welcome sight.  Bring it on!

Furthermore, of the two, Skadron is the better listener.  He has at least read and contemplated several things I have sent to council over the years.  That's not saying a lot, I know. And no, I do not particularly see him as any sort of political ally per se, but I do think that he will engage.  He is often visibly confused by complex subjects, but he CAN be reasoned with. While quite surprising, the additional fact that Skadron has a master's degree in finance and is a small business owner gives him the leg up in my book.  Torre, on the other hand, is more stubborn, ideological and entrenched in his own already-formed opinions. The one-named professional tennis teacher and erstwhile local tv personality is a friendly soul, but we're talking about being mayor of Aspen.   There's A LOT more to the job than riding in parades, kissing babies and glad-handing.

So, please get out there and vote, again.  Flip a coin if you must.  But vote.  Then you have the right to complain!!  And I have a feeling that the new council is going to give us plenty to complain about!

Questions about the June 4 election?  Ballots, early voting, precincts, etc. Contact the city clerk's office: 970-429-2687.

IN OTHER NEWS

The campaign always forces The Red Ant to back-burner other news of the day. To catch you up, the following "lightning round" will briefly summarize recent goings-on with relevant topics:

Caribbean Rotations:   Retirees who live in APCHA units will soon be able to leave their units ostensibly for warmer climes for up to 6 months of every year, if they rent to qualified employees.  Previously, subsidized housing residents could only do such a thing if they applied for a 1-time leave of absence. (Working residents are required to occupy their subsidized housing units 9 months of the year.) The idea is to free up short term rental space.  BUT, the law of unintended consequences is kicking down the door.  Retirees and their renters have to work the deals out themselves; APCHA won't get in the middle, but will allegedly monitor the program and determine the rent amount. (Joke.) There are also no stipulations as to which 6 months; participants can simply leave in the spring and fall off-seasons when few renters are looking, and then what? Watch and see: the next generation of scamming the system has been blessed by the bureaucrats.  Instead of housing local workers (the intent of the housing program), we are now housing hundreds of retirees. And that number continues to grow. When we should be encouraging or incentivizing these retirees who no longer want to be here full time to sell their units to actual workers, we're making additional concessions to these folks and enabling them to keep their units and travel half the year on the rental proceeds! APCHA has never been able to oversee yet alone manage the inventory in its portfolio.  Abuse is rampant.  And the program's requalification affidavit method lacks any teeth to ensure compliance. But the local governments simply do not want an aggressive enforcement policy. They just want more and more and more subsidized housing built. This ridiculous new program makes mockery of the intent of the program, and serves only to perpetuate the need for additional housing units.

Hydro Slammed: The city and its beleaguered hydro plant (CCEC) took a beat-down recently from Old Snowmass resident and internationally esteemed energy expert Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute. The 33-page critique submitted to council unabashedly rips the project, its premise, the decision-making process and the city's sketchy and ever-changing project financials. Read it HERE. This was symphony music to The Red Ant's ears. After all, I have been beating this drum since June 2010! Among other scathing remarks, Lovins notably says:

• "The city's economic analysis of CCEC is flawed and unreliable."
• "CCEC has higher costs and risks than available, ample and suitable alternatives, even neglecting its sunk costs and counting its to-go costs."
• "CCEC's total cost may make it the costliest hydro plant ever built."
• CCEC got into trouble because of: "Inadequate consideration of available alternatives and strategic risk management caused bad decisions; input from council's technical advisors was either ill-informed or misinterpreted; and input from the public, which in this region includes world class independent experts, was improperly solicited and inadequately considered."

Of note, Skadron and new councilman Art Daily still support the hydro plant despite the vote and the proven idiocy of the project. And new councilwoman Ann Mullins thinks that last November's vote (against the plant) was so close that council should make the final determination. (Makes one wonder how she views the outcome of football games that end with a field goal as the clock runs out!) Since the November vote was merely "advisory" (thanks to Mick), all it would take is a vote of 3 at the council table to kick the project right back into gear. Meanwhile, the city is still in the process of pursuing its license from the feds. It's not over til it's over.

Marilyn's 2009 Ballots: In the 11th hour, the city of Aspen FINALLY released 2415 ballot images from the 2009 municipal election. HERE they are. Remember, these are the ballot images that the city would not share after promising the public that they too could run the vote count on their home computers to verify the controversial IRV ranked choice voting methodology employed for that election. When the city closed ranks following the election, Marilyn Marks sued to see these same images that had been shown on Grassroots tv throughout the vote counting procedures. (Trust, but verify.) The case was dismissed in district court but overturned unanimously on appeal. Interestingly, 129 ballot images were withheld from the recent ballot image release because the city determined that the voters' identities could be somehow determined on these ballots. Well, that alone is illegal. Identifying marks could possibly signal a vote-buying scheme, for example. Why were those ballots counted in the first place? And they were. Marilyn now has the ballot images she sought, but daunting questions remain. And don't forget, the court also awarded Marilyn legal fees for this inane goose chase. Early estimates put that number at over $300K. We're sure to see a big fight over that payment, but the bigger question remains to this day: What is the city hiding that was worth spending (wasting) over $300K of taxpayer dollars to conceal?

AVH Approved: Well, it's official. Aspen Valley Hospital's 3rd and 4th Phases will move forward once the institution has private money on hand to finance them. The most notable comment came when mayor Mick was wrangling for some sort of personal deal in order to vote in favor. Just what did he want? Mayor Mick had the audacity to ask the hospital board and representatives to REQUIRE that all doctors who office at the new AVH campus accept Medicaid patients like himself. Well, that's illegal, so it can't and won't happen. But I had to laugh -- with the approval a fait accompli, Mick still wanted a pound of flesh in the form of even more freebies. Typical. But finally, someone had good reason to tell him no. Let's all hope that AVH's fundraising campaign keeps up its early momentum so the project gets completed as soon as possible. (And properly landscaped to disguise its immense size.)

War on Free Market Rentals: Blatantly ignoring the compliance rules for those who live in publicly subsidized housing, the city of Aspen has a different approach for locals who offer their private homes for vacation rentals. As of 2012, homeowners who rent out their homes must get a business license from the city and pay sales and lodging taxes on the money they collect from renters. This amounts to approximately 11%. In the year since this new rule took effect, only 10 new business licenses have been issued and the city believes it is missing out on over $100K in lost revenue as a result. Now they've hired a compliance firm that will comb the internet for Aspen rental properties and cross-check these units with city tax records. Scofflaws beware. Can you say "double standard"??

Haters Celebrate: When the recent election results were announced, local haters (and newspaper columnists) Doug Allen and Su Lum rejoiced in their candidates' victories but celebrated even more the fact that The Red Ant's candidates were defeated. Allen tittered about the results, "There's no doubt of who controls Aspen." And he quoted Glinda the Good Witch who famously said, "You have no power here! Be gone, before somebody drops a house on you!" Allen, who is the Aspen Daily News' replacement for our old pal, political windbag and former councilman Jack Johnson, is quite full of himself. A loyal mouthpiece for mayor Mick, Allen's anger and venom will likely become more erratic than ever without direction once Mick is out of office. And the Times' Su Lum, long rumored to be Jack Johnson's mother, similarly mocked "The Red Ant contingent" for its losses. Let these simpletons have their fun. It's true. We lost. But they were frightened. And their lack of class enables them to behave this way. We're not the entrenched political class in Aspen; we have a lot to learn. But we're getting better all the time. And to quote another movie classic, "We'll be back."

THERE ONCE WAS A.....
The Red Ant's nemesis mayor Mick will be leaving office on Monday, June 10, when the new council is sworn in.  To celebrate this momentous occasion in Aspen's political history, please contribute to a special edition of The Red Ant.

This is an open call for limericks that "celebrate" Mick.  How better to honor a guy named Mick Ireland than with a collection of limericks submitted by his constituency!

The rules:

• The Red Ant is a family publication - keep it clean (however innuendo is welcome and encouraged)
• I will assume you want your limerick un-attributed, but will include your name upon specific request
• Email your submission(s) to: TheRedAntEM@comcast.net
• Submit as many limericks as you would like!
• Have fun!
• Deadline June 7

ISSUE # 93: ANT Alert: Election Recap

"Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out." 

                                  --  John Wooden

THE 2013 RESULTS
It wasn't pretty.  Not in the least.  Painful even.  But the people have spoken.
 

There were 2221 (Wednesday morning unofficial tally) votes in the mayoral contest:

 Steve Skadron          516                  23.2%
 Torre                       463                 20.8%
 Maurice Emmer         396                 17.8%
 Adam Frisch              369                 16.8%
 Derek Johnson          346                 15.5%
 LJ Erspamer              131                  5.8%

Since no one candidate broke the 50% threshold, we are faced with a mayoral run-off between Steve and Torre on June 4.  I will (of course) be weighing in with recommendations, but in the meantime, must noodle how on earth I will support one of these guys.  I suppose it will be a recommendation to vote for the "least worst" of the two.  Swell.  So you've got THAT to look forward to.

There will not be a run-off in the council race.  Art and Ann won decisively, each garnering more than the 45% of votes necessary for election.

 Art Daily                   1435
 Ann Mullins                1287
 Dwayne Romero         1094
 Jonny Carlson             108

 WEDNESDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK
 Here are my thoughts on how we got skunked in this election.  And boy did we! 

The mayoral race came off the rails before voting even began.  For the first time in recent memory, all 4 sitting councilmen threw their hats into the ring. On one hand, each thought HE could do a better job than mayor Mick (who was prevented from running due to term limits), and I won't argue that.  But each also completely forgot about political alliances, voting strategy and the quirky behaviors of Aspen voters when it comes to casting their ballots.  With the additions of strong competition from hydro plant opponent Maurice Emmer and planning and zoning chair LJ Erspamer, the votes were sure to be scattered far and wide.  And were they!!

Councilman Adam Frisch, who lost his mayoral bid but retains his seat on council to finish out his 4-year term, according to the Aspen Daily News "compared Aspen's electorate to a pie, with about half leaning toward more pro-business policies and half being in favor of growth restrictions.  When one half of the pie is split between two people and the other is split between three, 'the two people get to eat more.'" And THAT is EXACTLY how it played out.   

This year, we had the unprecedented presence of a group of civic and business leaders (who shall remain nameless) in the mix: the self-appointed "council of elders" as I called them.  Sadly, these community heavyweights were unable to convince any one of the more pro-business candidates to stand down for the sake of the community so as to obtain that elusive 3-2 majority we have all long sought at the council table.  They spoke to both Derek and Adam, whose egos did not allow them to run again for a council seat (Derek) or sit tight in his own seat (Adam).  The concept wasn't personal; it was about not splitting the vote.  But both councilmen were stubbornly committed to pressing on.  So, we got exactly what we deserved:  a mayoral contest between Steve and Torre.  

Had Derek or Adam stepped aside, we'd be headed to the play-offs.  Just look at the numbers above. And weep.

It was perhaps the most anemic campaign in Aspen's storied political history. Yes, the entire community was indeed SICK OF MICK, but the majority came out in favor of his political heir, Steve.  And the local fish wrappers both sickeningly endorsed Torre, the one-named tennis professional, for mayor.  Even their endorsements were pallid; it seemed as though there is a pathetic local sentiment that it is somehow "Torre's turn" after running for mayor and losing 3 times in the past.  Or maybe they just want to get his 2-year term out of the way -- the guy will clearly fun for mayor until he wins or dies.  (Can't make this stuff up.)

But do note: in a numerical analysis, consider that 979 voters supported the "pro-Mick" candidates (Steve and Torre) vs 1111 for the "anti-Micksters."  That's 47%  vs 53%.  The 131 votes that went to LJ are not included in these numbers because they cannot be well predicted in terms of where they'd go -- they'd likely be split among the other 5.  SO, as opposed to this election being a "pro-Mick" anti-growth mandate, it's just the opposite.  Food for thought.  But you'll likely only read that here.

In the council race, I am astounded.  Simply astounded.  I would have bet dollars to donuts on Dwayne taking that race.  But I suppose his pro-business stance and smarts hurt him with our entitled electorate.  That's all I can come up with.  Art and Ann, both lovely people I'm sure, will serve with consideration and seriousness.  But Ann is an avowed Mick-olyte and Art, for all of his "longtime local" reputation, isn't far off.  ("The elders" really dropped the ball here; they recruited a "good guy" but never asked where he stood on the critical issues.)

IN SUMMARY
It's not over yet, but 3 seats at the table are already looking pro-government, unfriendly to business and anti- any kind of development:  Art, Ann and either Skadron or Torre.  If Torre wins, Skadron keeps his seat on council for 2 more years.  In my math, that's 4 at the table.  UGH.  If Skadron wins, we are rid of Torre, but that empty seat will be filled via an appointment by Ann, Art, Steve and Adam.  Doesn't bode well for even a 2-3 vote.  And there's that lingering fear of Mick being appointed... Horrors!

More in a couple weeks when I sort out what to do next.  I am still in shock!

ISSUE # 92: ANT Alert: Vote!

"Look well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust." 

--  Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Norwalk, 1803

THE ELECTION IS THIS TUESDAY, MAY 7

There once was a mayor named Mick

He's leaving, but his policies could stick

Now get out and VOTE

(Thus this little note)

And for a change elect someone WE pick!

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Red Ant suggests that you cast your ballot for:

• MAYOR: Maurice Emmer
• COUNCIL: Dwayne Romero ("bullet vote" for Dwayne; use just 1 of your 2 votes)

For more information on this voting strategy and the candidates, please visit The Red Ant's Endorsement Issue by clicking HERE. 

Please forward this issue of The Red Ant to your friends, especially those who vote in Aspen. Early voting began in the clerk's office on Monday, April 22, and to-date, approximately 950 ballots have been received.  This is a bit higher turn-out than early voting in the past (average 825).  A typical Aspen municipal election garners about 2150 ballots.  In 2009 (Mick vs Marilyn) brought out 2544 voters, while in 2011 (Mick vs Ruth), just 1794 voted.  So, in short, there are a lot more ballots expected in the next 4 days.  Make sure yours is one of them!

There are ENORMOUS political ramifications to the outcome of this election. Both local papers endorsed Torre (yes, Torre) for mayor, and if that doesn't light a fire under your seat to run to the polls, nothing will.  Furthermore, (at least) 3 columnists have made no bones about making this election out to be a divisive "us vs them" contest.  The vicious drivel from these so-called journalists is appalling and hopefully NOT a reflection of the overall sentiment in town.  Check them out:

• Su Lum:  "The ones least likely to stem the tide (of what, she doesn't say) are Maurice Emmer and Dwayne Romero."  Read it HERE
• Lorenzo Semple:  "There are generally two political parties in Aspen these days, the home team and the away team.... That being said, go home team.  protect this house!"  Read it HERE
• Doug Allen:  "I usually write for the masses, but this column is for those Aspenites who comprise what I call the voting majority.... If you're someone who is even considering voting for Maurice Emmer, Derek Johnson, Adam Frisch or Dwayne Romero, this column isn't for you."  Read it HERE 

YOUR VOTE COUNTS IN ASPEN.  I cannot stress this enough.  This will be a close race and every ballot matters.  PLEASE VOTE ON TUESDAY AND ENCOURAGE YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME!

For voting details and questions, please contact the city clerk's office at 970-429-2687.