|
Is there anywhere where “more” subsidized housing in Aspen is not appropriate?
Apparently not. With the recent proposal to add subsidized housing at the historic Red Butte Cemetery after failed attempts to do so in 2008 and 2014, we have crossed into truly disturbing territory. (See below to take CRITICAL action on the First Reading of an Ordinance - p. 58 - that will enable such development at TUESDAY's council meeting.) First it was in low-density neighborhoods, but now as we contemplate desecrating our parks and sacrosanct burial grounds, it’s time to ask ourselves whether every “green field” of town is fair game. “More” is limitless. But is “more” actually what’s best for the community?
At the rate we’re going – cramming subsidized housing into every possible nook and cranny in order to “solve” a problem we refuse to define and quantify, we are actually making things worse. Think about our community values as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. “We have a long-standing history and ethic of growth management” to “preserve open space and rural character,” acknowledging since the 1970s that “the time is fast approaching where we will be at the maximum in economy, physical space and quality of life.”
Consider for a moment a 80’ x 60’ footprint. This could fit well within the dead-space tragedy known as Galena Plaza, adjacent to the Taj Mahal city hall atop the parking garage. This is coincidentally the footprint of the 84-story, 1400’ tall, 572,000 sf Steinway Tower in NYC. Imagine a tower of that size: enough space to house all 3 phases of Burlingame AND The Lumberyard. Why wouldn’t we break ALL the rules, and break them just once? And then never talk about “more” housing again. I’m kidding. Kinda. Just think of the great views for the beleaguered masses who WANT to live in Aspen affordably in the very best location. No parking would be needed and there’d be just one HOA to manage. Best of all? No sprawl and no infill of neighborhoods, parks and cemeteries. Maybe THEN the community might stop its perpetual whining about a constant and ongoing need for “more” housing. LOL. I digress.
But recently reading about the lengths local employers are willing (forced?) to go in order to house their own employees, it’s quite remarkable. The Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival & School and Aspen Center for Physics are soon to submit a land use application for proprietary housing on the Aspen Meadows campus, intended for full and part-time staff, interns, students, musicians and visiting physicists. The little historic Victorian at 205 W. Main was (sadly) approved for conversion into 8000 sf of nine 2- and 3-bedroom units (22 total bedrooms) on the 7500 sf lot where the residing ~44 souls employed by the nearby Mollie hotel will fight over not only living space but the 7 on-site parking spaces. We’re clearly now more than willing to compromise our strict design standards to cram in “more” housing just about anywhere.
Then there are the hospital and the school districts, both well on their ways to self-reliance on their own housing inventory. Hospital workers and teachers, hmmmm. Good for them. And good for us. So who exactly is living in APCHA housing then? Oh, that’s right. The elephant. As in “the elephant in the room.” In other words, we don’t know. We don’t know because we deliberately choose not to. It’s willful ignorance of the highest order; a decision in bad faith to avoid being actually informed about something for fear of the facts that might reveal some surprises and require some unpopular decisions.
Aspen’s old guard (the Mick Ireland/Rachel Richards cabal) has always ranted against housing that is tied to employment for fear of becoming “a company town,” yet in the same breath they demand employers pay their own way by providing housing for their own workers. So which is it? Who then exactly is APCHA for? Beware of the answer because it’s certainly not workers. We know we’re not housing “essential” hospital and school workers, which completely undermines and renders obsolete the whole point of what we’ve been told APCHA is supposed to be providing for the community! The new term is “community housing.” Think: retirees and others who WANT to live affordably in Aspen! Workers be damned.
Meanwhile, Pitkin County is looking to partner with Basalt to build more subsidized housing. The municipality has land but not the necessary funding. The county has money but no land. It’s not yet a match made in heaven, but consider: priority will likely be given to Basalt workers. Fine, but why then is any kind of “priority” for APCHA housing shamed as being “anti-community-housing”? Why is the APCHA portfolio beyond any reasonable oversight, direction or control?
The entire regional housing debate has dramatically morphed into a progressive “building community through housing ownership” diktat, ignoring the harsh economic realities of the exceedingly high cost of real estate and living here. Housing security (which has become synonymous with “ownership”) is now a local social justice goal. Apparently you can't be part of a community anymore if you rent! The Carbondale chapter of Habitat for Humanity strives to build homes for $305/sf and sell them for $200/sf, targeting these units for “teachers, nurses and other essential workers,” according to Aspen Journalism. Where have we heard THAT before? H4H also boldly cites a “2019 housing study” that cites a 5700 unit housing shortfall between Aspen and Parachute by 2027.
B***S***.
There’s no question that the region (Aspen to Parachute) generates more DEMAND for housing than it has, but is demand the same thing as need? Not in my book. (The region is awesome – who wouldn’t WANT to live here? That is not economic demand, that’s desire.)
I have debunked the 2019 Regional Housing Study numerous times, including by actually reading it and then by calling the principal of EPS, the consultancy that wrote the report to inquire about the methodology employed to generate the ESTIMATES that are widely circulated (see above) as scientific fact by local subsidized housing zealots. I was told in no uncertain terms that “there was no methodology,” just educated guesses, and as luck would have it, the low-level staffer who generated this work product is no longer with the firm. This same report is the source of the widely reiterated current “housing shortfall” estimate of 4000 units for Aspen-Snowmass. These numbers are clumsy, liberal and non-scientific. (LMK if you'd like to see it and I'll email it to you.) Furthermore, without a truly scientific “census” of what we currently have and how it’s utilized, there is no basis upon which to base ANY measurement of current or future “need.” Do not be fooled.
I am sick of the scare tactics and false reporting. You should be too, especially when the City of Aspen is seriously contemplating a ballot measure for this November that would extend the 1% real estate transfer tax (RETT) for housing until 2060 in order to issue bonds for the estimated $500 million+ construction of The Lumberyard. (As it stands, the current RETT does not sunset until 2040, and the collection balance through May 2024 is just over $10 million.) It seems mighty premature to extend this tax without far more housing-specific due diligence!!
Specifically, why isn’t there more and louder outcry about the utilization of our existing APCHA inventory?
Housing at any cost has somehow become widely accepted. It makes me sick, but it continues. If that no longer scares you, housing ANYWHERE really ought to. Former county commissioner and current Open Space and Trails board member Michael Kinsley (one of the proud fathers of APCHA) shared his admittedly heretical view that half of Aspen’s municipal golf course and a portion of the Marolt Open Space are ideal for “more” subsidized housing. His radical solutions espouse deliberately ignoring “governmental, jurisdictional boundaries to solve regional problems.” Predictably, he too all but contradicts himself when he admits that Aspen proper is no longer suitable – despite its original intent – for integrating its diverse social strata, implying that some workers prefer to live outside of Aspen for various reasons. Therefore, he sees the glaring need for a viable way for working people to get to work in Aspen. I can get onboard with that.
And then there’s the June 2024 Northwest Council of Governments (NWCOG) regional economic update report which outlines the Q4 2023 jobs and wage data for the six counties: Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit. It’s interesting info if you have the stomach for it. Thanks to the willing assistance of a fabulous data-mining expert co-conspirator, here are the highlights, which really ought to inform local decisions. (Wouldn’t that be something?!)
** See table below - my tech inabilities prevent me from inserting it here!!
· Look at the ratio of Total Employment to Total Labor Force in Pitkin County relative to the other counties. We have FAR fewer people in our labor force relative to total jobs, which means we inherently have to import more workers than most counties.
· Look at the ratio of Housing Units to Total Employment. We’re one of the few counties with fewer housing units than jobs, which means we inherently have to import more workers than most counties.
· Notably, Pitkin County is fortunate NOT to show up among the counties with the highest population growth.
· And, we’re more than fortunate to have the highest wages for resort jobs, which make up 38% of our economy.
Notably:
· If we try to build our way out of our worker housing shortage (increase the labor force by increasing subsidized/deed restricted housing), then we would certainly show up with high population growth, a result that creates its own challenges and negative impacts to our quality of life.
· Better utilization of the existing housing inventory we already have is the obvious low-hanging fruit.
· To echo Michael Kinsley, a shift in focus toward wholesale improvement of transportation for commuting workers to Pitkin County would dramatically improve our ability to fill the jobs that we cannot mathematically fill with our existing labor force.
Food for thought. And data to back it up. But it’s nothing new: it simply doesn’t make sense to exert all of our bonding authority and put these and other tax revenues into the proposed Lumberyard basket when this most certainly won’t move the needle under the current APCHA mismanagement and poor inventory allocation. Any potential funding is far better being spent on transportation improvements for the actual workers who commute to service our local economy.
And one last consideration for the Bolsheviks who still see government-subsidized housing as the panacea, the answer to being able to live where one grew up and something that one should be able to pass on to one’s kids. Take a look at Vienna, the fastest growing capital in Europe where the city builds 6000-7000 new units of subsidized housing a year to keep up with rising demand. (Population has increased 25% since 1989. That’s serious growth!) Vienna supports its housing program with a 1% tax on ALL salaries, creating a permanent funding mechanism that originated at the end of the first world war. Notably, social welfare systems like this require very high taxation in general, and in Vienna, everyone pays the 1% income tax specifically for housing. If people want to live in a small government apartment for life and even leave it to their kids, great, but they pay for the privilege on an ongoing basis with income taxes. While a wise person might wish to amass wealth privately, away from the grasping hand of government, Vienna’s system does offer a unique option. Never mind that it more closely resembles social welfare than actual workforce housing. Could this be the direction we’re headed?
I know, I know, it’s been a minute. Don’t despair. I have several future issues in the works! EM
Re: Housing at Red Butte Cemetery: What part of "cemetery" does the City of Aspen not understand in terms of appropriateness for subsidized housing? I don't care if it's one unit or 100, a cemetery is a sacred space for the burial of the dead. This ill-conceived idea has been considered and denied before, and resulted in the proper zoning of Red Butte Cemetery as a "Park," granting it protection from development on par with Wagner, Paepcke and all of our other city "Parks." Housing at the cemetery is a perverse use of this sacred land. Please write council TODAY to voice your strong objections. This is insane.
|
October 15 
