ISSUE # 10 ... CIVIL COMMOTION, CONDO-STYLE

Ants Un-Nerved The Red Ant regrets that her instincts (and facts) were right on proposed Ordinance #22 - next Monday night's big discussion at City Council that will update a long-standing land use code section concerning the combination, redevelopment and demolition of "multi-family unit dwellings" (condos, townhouses, etc.) and tighten the exemptions that owners have liberally enjoyed for years. You may click through to send a message to Council to voice your concern before the Monday meeting,  (Click through to email message) , or read the following for the details and click the message link near the end of the letter.  (You may edit the letter to share your personal views.) It seems that the City is pressing for unprecedented control of what they see as the destruction of POTENTIAL housing for local workers, regardless of whether or not it's YOUR free-market owned unit. Community Development Director Chris Bendon read The Red Ant Issue #9 (link here) and told us that he "saw nothing off base" in our interpretation. Consider these realistic examples if the formerly loosely-interpreted list of exemptions is formalized into law, and now enforced: -Identical units in the same building can have wildly different market values depending on who has lived in each unit in the past. (If a locally employed person --even a well paid executive-- ever lived there, those units would be poisoned, and trigger the "mitigation" rule, others would not.) -The due diligence process for a condo buyer will be nearly impossible. Imagine having to prove whether or not a local worker (never mind this "local worker" is undefined) EVER lived in a specific unit! -Lenders, as if they are not nervous enough already in the current market, will be ESPECIALLY wary of this due diligence process and valuation issue. -And realtors, how do you plan to disclose the ramifications of Ordinance #22 to your condo and townhome buyers and sellers? Will contractual materials mandate a lifetime history (rental and ownership) that indicates whether or not residents were "local workers?" -This regulation likely will have the perverse result of causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements.

Civil Commotion as a Commodity?

The list of exemptions to Ordinance #22 graciously exempts from the punitive measure "non-willful demolition" due to flood, fire or other natural catastrophe. Then there's the curious exemption due to "civil commotion." Civilcommotion? (We're serious.) Of course there's no definition, but apparently if this is the cause of demolition," well, then, exemption is granted. Yippee!! There goes the neighborhood! We can see it now. Invitations to the Tupperware parties of tomorrow, a.k.a "A Condo Commotion Posse for-hire." Invite 'em over and they'll show up with their blow-torches and tire irons, have a few beers, and next thing you know, your condo is demolished, and, what a coincidence, so is the one next door. Oh no! OH YES! A "Condo Civil Commotion" just occurred! And now you get to re-build your condo and the one you own next door, as one, thankfully without having to build four bedrooms of affordable housing next to the HOA's swimming pool or in your 2-car garage. " But officer, I swear, I just invited a few buddies over for beers. Yep, they were a little hacked at City Council telling them how many ounces they could drink, and it started a little commotion." The Gant Ants' House Party!

Yes, There ARE Options

Thankfully, there are several "Options" open for discussion on Ordinance 22. City Council requested that Staff develop additional options for consideration. The Red Ant encourages you to re-read Issue #9 and the proposed Ordinance 22, which includes these options in Exhibit A (click here to read). We feel strongly that there is only one choice: Option 8. The elimination of the program in its entirety. The Red Ant is an ardent supporter of affordable housing in Aspen, however, this highly questionable land use code section within Ordinance #22 is not the answer. Many experts we have talked with even question its legality.

The Ant has made it easy to make your voice heard.

To send your recommendation for Option 8 to the Mayor and City Council members, CLICK HERE . You will be asked for your name, local address, and an email will automatically be sent to each of them expressing your view. You may edit or make additions to the email text. Experts Agree Our mailbox was full with all of your feedback and advice on our questions about Ordinance 22. A local real estate attorney states: "The ordinance will create uncertainty in the marketplace. In this shaky economic environment buyers need assurance that their investment is safe. But this ordinance will force buyers to consider whether the future value is going to be appropriated by the local government. And every realtor in town will have to disclose this ordinance to potential buyers." And local realtor Charley Podolak adds: "One of the many unintended consequences of this ordinance is that many buildings fall into total disrepair. If owners must replace 100% of the units on site with affordable housing first, they will likely utilize all of the allotted FAR, density and height before they can build any free-market units to pay for the development."

Be There! Council Needs To See Your Concern

The Red Ant will be at Monday's City Council meeting to promote Option 8. But this measure needs a large chorus of voices to make an impact on Council. Please join us in Council Chambers to speak to this issue. The meeting starts at 5 p.m. However, this item is well into the meeting agenda. http://aspenpitkin.com/uploads/sept22.pdf.htm Public comment will take place when the agenda item is discussed. Your email AND your presence is important to make a difference. If passed, the measure will become law in 30 days.

Comments

[Timothy Wagner]

Dear City Council,

I am an Aspen resident and own a condo in the core. I have reviewed Ordinance 22 and the proposed amendments to it, along with the city Staff's proposed options for further amendments. I strongly support option #8 i.e. elimination of the Ordinance in its entirety.

Without addressing the obvious Constitutional issues, I believe that the Ordinance is inherently unfair and inequitable. The Aspen homeowners that can least afford to pay the full brunt of the cost of affordable housing are being required to pay for a disproportionate share when their complex ages and needs to be redeveloped. This requirement of the lowest economic end of the free market owners makes this an incredibly regressive tax on this class of homeowners. If the perceived benefit of providing affordably housed workers is worth it to the recipients of such services, then a more equitable allocation of these costs among the perceived beneficiaries should be made. And who are these perceived beneficiaries? Its all the tourists(that pay no RETT nor contribute in any other financial way to the Aspen affordable housing program),employers(who reap the benefit by having a pool of City subsidized workers that they can pay less in wages than they ordinarily could),all Aspen residents(some of which contributed to the program through the RETT, others that are forced to build affordable housing when their complexes are redeveloped and some that rent and pay nothing towards the program) and of course the affordably housed residents that get to live in this incredible place and be subsidized by the rest of the population. There should be a comprehensive plan on what the majority of the population of this City wants to pay for affordable housing and then a plan to evenly distribute the cost among all of the perceived beneficiaries.

Under this ordinance, on a "best case" basis where a condo complex's age warrants redoing it and it has adequate excess unused density, the existing owners will have to essentially pay double the construction cost to redo their complex--once to rebuild their own units and a second time for the affordable units. In a "worst case scenario" where there is no excess unused density, the existing owners will have to let their aging complex deteriorate or build affordable housing on their land for free and no longer be qualified to live there. This is so incredibly inequitable, whatever the original intention of the ordinance was in 1988, it has turned into a perverse means to add to the affordable housing stock in this city. And one last thing--as the owner of an existing condo in the core, I resent being treated as some "fat cat" that can afford to pay for the "local workers" housing--the implication is that just because I'm retired and live here means that I didn't work long and hard for my money to buy into this very expensive town and that I can afford to pay for "local workers" housing. I was part of the "working class" my entire life and am now part of the "retired class". I deserve to be treated as well as the "local workers"--the difference is I worked my entire career 1st before I could afford to move and buy here. The "local workers" intentionally made their choice to live in a very expensive place before they worked and earned enough money to live here and are not entitled to have their housing needs provided by others in disproportionate relationship to the benefits received.

Tim Wagner