ISSUE # 9 ... OWN AN ASPEN CONDO? TOWNHOME? HEAD'S UP ... AND QUICKLY!
September 17
The Red Ant is scratching her head. A vortex is spinning and we're now in it. We've heard a lot these past two days from many of you asking about proposed Ordinance #22 - next Monday night's hot topic at City Council, which, if passed, is slated to become law thirty days afterward.
In short, Ordinance 22 seems to update an old law that stipulates affordable housing mitigation for the redevelopment/demolition/ combination of units of "multi-family dwelling units." The effect is to make it almost impossible to redevelop/demolish/combine a condo without building affordable housing on a 1-for-1 basis.
Build A Worker's House FIRST-then Rebuild Yours
Let's say that your condo building is aging and needs redevelopment (an undefined term), or partial demolition (anything over 40% of the walls torn out). Before you can rebuild your unit, it appears that you must FIRST build an affordable housing unit to be controlled by the City---in most cases on your condo site.
The flawed theory is that by redeveloping an older condo property you destroy potential housing for a "local worker," and should have to replace that potential worker dwelling BEFORE you can build a free market unit. (Never mind that the economic logic is insane.) The same punitive measure is required if you attempt to enlarge your unit by combining with a neighboring unit. You must FIRST build an affordable housing unit (which will be anything BUT affordable for you)!
Maybe your neighbor combines two smaller units to make a larger unit. He may be forced to put an employee unit on your common site. Depending on your HOA restrictions, this could be a complex mess.
What?? Impossible. What about your property rights? We thought the same thing. It is clearly not economically viable. It makes redeveloping condo property impossible. Apparently, that's the point. Not to mention the depressing impact on condo values.
The Proposal That Makes Us Nervous
Here is the official Ordinance #22 proposal from the City's website for all of you who, like us, are just hearing about it: The City Proposal--click here At least during the first reading in August, Council requested an array of additional options to be considered on Monday. These options are included in the document linked above. The Exhibit C memo in the packet came to Council from an affected homeowner. It may contain some factual errors, but the general concerns seem appropriate, and have served to draw needed attention to this proposed measure.
Seems the law has been around for a long time, but has been apparently easily navigated through vague "exemptions" in the past. These exemptions to the rule of having to match units demolished or combined with new affordable units before building new free market units (at the same location) were easily obtained. Now, the City wants to better define (and presumably reduce) these exemptions and begin to enforce the regulation. Many definitions are still fuzzy - we're giving them a close look.
The City bills this technically as "loosening" the old law by creating clear exemptions. We are nervous that, in practice, the effect could be quite the opposite.
Why???
No doubt that affordable housing for the workforce is a problem in Aspen. The current City Council has an almost blind zeal to address the issue. Today's Aspen Times reports on long range planning efforts being undertaken. Note the emphasis on the increase in free market housing and concern about affordable housing.
http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809169953
Measures such as Ordinance #22 seem designed to address the trends that concern the Council.
Checking With The Pros
Some of our readers who are real estate professionals see the legislation as outright violations of private property rights. (How can the city tell a townhome HOA that a major renovation - more than 40% of the structure demolished - must include a 100% match in bedrooms converted to affordable housing ON SITE before the replacement of the original free market units?) Others tell us that Ordinance 22 merely clarifies the distinctions between demo projects where affordable units MUST be built and others where they don't. (If you can prove that a local worker - another undefined term - NEVER EVER lived in your unit, then it's exempt from the rule.) Regardless, the economics seem punitive.
Yes, we're confused. But we're wary too. The City's obsession with the increased value of free market properties that at some point in history housed local workers concerns us. We're not entirely clear on the ramifications of Ordinance 22, but we don't like the notion that whether a locally employed person ever rented or owned your unit is a defining issue in your permission to demolish and re-build your unit. Also the fact that the burden of proof that employed citizens did not live in your unit is on you. It is hard to prove a negative!
While we generally like to tell you what we think, this time around we're asking. What's your read on Ordinance 22? Does it go too far? Should the City really be able to stipulate that "multi-family dwellings" in Aspen be responsible for 1-for-1 affordable housing unit construction (on-site) when it's time to re-build their aging structures? We'd love your thoughts. And if you're a condo, townhouse or "multi-family dwelling" unit owner, you may want to hear what your real estate advisor and/or attorney has to say. We'd love to hear, too. Share your comments on our blog at www.TheRedAnt.com to enhance the collective knowledge.
We will learn what we can and report back before Monday's 5 p.m meeting. Make plans to be present, or send your local representative. This is likely the only public hearing on this matter.
Please pass this along to friends who own condos and townhomes here.
Reader Comments (3)
Most of the condo complexes do not have the land or the ability to add more units do to zoning and regulations. They were built in the 60’s with to many units and not enough parking and not to modern code. They are already built to max height and you can not expect them to build affordable housing for the government at their expense. These condos were built very cheaply and not very energy efficient. They will all need to be torn down and rebuilt in the future. This ordinance does not sit well with me and I do not believe it would hold up in a court of law. It only applies to one zone in the city and is very discriminatory.
The city needs to choose option 8 and get rid of this totalitarian ordinance in its entirety. If not there are plenty of owners who are willing to file a class action lawsuit against the city and force them to remove it. This is Socialism at its extreme.