ISSUE #257: The Ugly Truth About APCHA (8/28/23)

"The problem is that those in power do not have the solutions and those with solutions 

do not have the power."

-- Unknown

The more I learn, the worse it gets. Yesterday's column illustrates the horror-show that is the APCHA rental housing system. Read it HERE. As I continue to pull on some new-found threads, look for a bright-hot spotlight on APCHA, its leadership, the city and county leadership responsible for APCHA, and where the lack of will to make straightforward and meaningful changes specifically lies. And I will be naming names. It's a community disgrace: anti-worker and anti-business. All they want to do is build more for people who will not be working the jobs we desperately need to fill. Anyone else see a problem with that? * For those who have been following my little pet project at 205 W Main, I'm sorry to report that HPC sadly approved its relocation (4-3) to the corner of its lot to accommodate a MASSIVE subsidized housing project on the remainder of the property. The tie-breaking vote was by a new HPC member who assumed that a more dramatic relocation would yield a less dense development. The new LUC did not require the applicant to share what is to be built so they didn't. And the density is excessive. But that member didn't realize it. City council refused to call-up the horrible decision. If you'd like to weigh in when council and HPC meet on September 5 to discuss whether or not HPC has a future role in protecting our historic assets, even against subsidized housing development, please write to them HERE, adding "September 5 Meeting with HPC" on the subject line.

* And saddle up. On September 12, it is likely that council will be voting to entitle The Lumberyard. Repeated requests of council and city staff to publicly present the proposed financing plans for the $500M+ project have been ignored or obfuscated. The city manager refuses to publicly share them. A majority of city council has signaled that they do not care. Elections have consequences, folks.

* * * * *

The APCHA deed restricted housing portfolio has 3200 units, split 55%/45% between ownership and rental.  This does not count the hundreds of rental units up and down the valley, owned and controlled by SkiCo, the hospital, the schools and various private employers outside the purview of APCHA. 

Our service-industry labor shortage is not the result of an insufficient amount of this housing, rather the result of an overly complicated housing system, and a mis-match between the housing we are currently providing and the jobs we need filled to properly function.

The long-standing policy of selling APCHA housing units has created a favored “set for life” class, where income, household size and employment only matter on the day of purchase. Second-class renters are at the mercy of multiple property management firms and are income- and upward mobility-capped by APCHA. 

And where owners are forever held to different standards (or no standards at all because rules aren’t enforced), the dirty secret is in APCHA’s 1382-unit rental portfolio, where chaos truly reigns supreme.

Preferring spend its time “qualifying” people and dogging self-employed renters whose businesses they don’t understand, APCHA actually only manages 251 long-term rental units. That’s just 18%. The remaining 82% are privately owned and operated by seven separate property managers who can only rent these units to APCHA-qualified workers because of the deed restrictions on each property.

New to town? Unless your employer has provided housing, you have just entered the housing hellhole. First stop is APCHA, the housing authority. Makes sense. But they rarely have units available, and when they do, priority is given to those with the longest local work history. That’s not you. Next, contact all seven other property managers to inquire about available units and ask to get on their waitlist, if they have one. There is no centralized rental management process and each property manager is free to fill units as he sees fit. 

If you are fortunate and are offered a unit, THEN you must “qualify” through APCHA to ensure the income category and occupancy level for that specific unit are met. Each property has units designated to various income categories, creating a lengthy, complicated and labor-intensive qualification process that could cost you the unit while you wait.

This is precisely why local workers “cannot find housing,” not because it doesn’t exist.

It’s the Wild West. APCHA board member Alycin Bektesh recently explained how “calling around” is a right of passage when seeking a rental unit. She says it’s not uncommon to take the property managers cookies to enhance one’s profile. Imagine a housing board member revealing the necessary practice of bribing your way into the program while dismissing another board member’s suggestion that APCHA take steps to consolidate, modernize and maintain a fair and transparent rental housing leasing and waitlist system? 

APCHA staff concurred; they don’t want to do the “time consuming” work because it’s a “huge program.”

This is hardly the spirit of a community housing program. APCHA doesn’t serve workers and it doesn’t serve our community. Just because there is limitless demand does not mean there’s no need for transparency and efficiency. The independent property managers are under no obligation to renew your lease if they don’t like you. And if they mistakenly grant you an apartment before properly confirming your APCHA qualification, you’re out on the street. It just happened. 

The APCHA rental system is backwards and upside-down. Deed restricted rentals should certainly have employment and occupancy requirements, but let’s remove income categories from the units themselves and charge rent according to the tenant’s income range. We’ll then free essential workers from Aspen’s rarely-mentioned poverty trap, where valuable employees turn down raises and promotions in order to keep their housing. 

Then consolidate the APCHA rental leasing and waitlist system. Since APCHA has to qualify everyone anyway, it is the obvious clearinghouse for maintaining one list that feeds pre-qualified workers to its own and the privately managed units as they open up. A transparent list also ensures that private managers won’t choose only the top earners or those with bribes. 

But who is really in charge? The APCHA director no longer reports to the board. His boss is Sara Ott, the city manager, despite the housing authority legally being an intergovernmental agency, independent of both the city and county. This makes for difficult board oversight, to say the least. However, Ott has been tasked by city council with implementing a 14-point strategic housing plan for which a centralized rental management system would be an effective solution for the plan’s prioritized development-neutral program improvements and would increase the number of available units through access. 

To-date Ott has not brought any meaningful APCHA policies to her five bosses on city council. So, council, if you are at all serious about making more housing immediately available, direct Sara Ott to require immediate consolidation of the APCHA rental portfolio management process. 

The centralization and ease of access for all qualified workers is a straightforward solution that will provide immediate fairness and transparency, and will greatly simplify the administrative process for workers, landlords and APCHA personnel alike.

Aspen’s subsidized housing program is riddled with contradictions and mismanagement, yet the only focus is on building more. This must end. Contact TheRedAntEM@comcast.net