ISSUE # 1 ... THE RED ANT
August 15 Aspen civic affairs can be difficult to dissect. Staying current is tedious work at times. Somehow I became interested and engaged, and occasionally observe things the local papers overlook in the ant hill at Hopkins and Galena, -- Aspen's City Hall. Along with help from some opinionated friends, I will share news bits and personal commentary through an email blast, The Red Ant. Expect some entertaining surprises from time to time.
The Red Ant will eventually archive our commentary, your comments, and related pieces on a blog. If we find enough community interest in our chosen topics, we might expand our reach to other formats. Stay tuned by getting our email commentary. If you prefer your local news a little more traditional, click the link below to unsubscribe.
Surprising Burlingame Survey Results
Last week's town hall meeting on the subject of Burlingame yielded some fascinating opinions of those in attendance. The predictions of participant riots, prompting Dwayne to wear a police flak jacket, turned out to be unfounded. Jerry Bovino ran a civilized, productive forum. Each attendee was asked to participate in a basic (and certainly not scientific) written survey on various Burlingame issues. Most notably, of those surveyed, 92% felt that no, the City should not be the real estate developer for Aspen's workforce housing program. Much was discussed about the overwhelming benefits of having focused expertise for such projects, as it is abundantly clear that the City got in over its head with Burlingame and should not be in the development business. In addition, the City's communication related to Burlingame negatively affected 93% of participants' confidence in information the City provides its citizens. Nobody claimed to be positively affected. It is surprising that the City continues to "spin" its illogical explanations on its audits, its financial data, and its management readiness for Burlingame II. The issue of subsidies was discussed at great length. In the end, 35% wanted much smaller subsidies - less than $100K per unit. 31% need more information in order to deem what is reasonable. Nobody felt that subsidies over $300K per unit are appropriate. The debate over density at Burlingame has now come to the forefront of the discussion as the greater the density, the more economical the project and the lower the subsidy amount.
Inexplicably, the City granted the Burlingame I homeowners the right to prevent density increases over 236, although the Bar-X contractual limit for Burlingame is 330 units. The City's mismanagement has thereby created another "NIMBY: not in my back yard" neighborhood. Few homeowners at Burlingame would vote to increase density regardless of cost savings to the City, without some benefit in return. This has created a legal and emotional issue with the new homeowners, when any experienced developer would have set the highest conceivable limit to build in flexibility and avoid this very situation. A full 50% say they will vote to incur debt to complete Burlingame only when there is a well-developed plan, solid budget AND qualified leadership. (35% claim they will never vote to incur debt for the project.)
Perhaps, if the City makes systems and strategy changes in a thoughtful and results-oriented manner, the 35% "never" voters could possibly be convinced. And when asked if they knew then what they know now, 68% would not have voted for Burlingame. (And when the 20% who didn't vote in that election are removed from the count, that's 85% who voted who would not have voted for Burlingame if they had possessed good information in 2005. )
In a two-newspaper town, 78% felt the local newspapers do not adequately convey the facts about Burlingame issues. While we will never have the breadth and depth of coverage of the Times or Daily News, The Red Ant does expect to stumble on some interesting stories along the way, and will send them along.
Marilyn Marks
Reader Comments