ISSUE # 83: shANTy Town

"All 'public interest' legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials. The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle."

               -- Ayn Rand

I've been promising (threatening?) to follow up on Issue #71's subsidized housing expose for ages, and with the first "Housing Summit" in 5 years upon us (beginning this Thursday, September 27, and concluding on October 11), it's high time to let 'er rip.

It's such a HUGE mess, there will be two issues of The Red Ant devoted to Aspen's beleaguered subsidized housing program, so look for "ShANTy Town, Part II" later this week!

"COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING"

Originally deemed "employee housing" and later "affordable housing," our community's deed-restricted housing program turns out to be neither. Far from housing just employees (who are required to work a minimum of 1,500 hours/year in Pitkin County) and even farther from being "affordable," our local bureaucrats introduced the new nomenclature ("community workforce housing") in the latest rendition of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Ostensibly to infer that the subsidized housing units are intended for the working people of Pitkin County as opposed to just anyone in the valley, the term "community workforce housing" is as misrepresentative as its predecessors. Simply put, the community's "housing" units are riddled with scofflaws, felons, the unemployed, the homeless and an increasing number of retirees. In short, we should start (and finish) the discussion by calling our politically christened "employee-affordable-community-workforce housing" exactly what it is: simply "subsidized housing."

It's not the people. It is the system. No one should question that Aspen needs a source of safe, affordable, quality housing for its workforce. Everyone should question whether the city and county governments are best suited to provide it. Over the past generation, gradually, a well-intended idea has become a nightmare, and the unintended consequences of those good intentions (the "golden handcuffs" of deed-restricted ownership, the impact on the cost of free market housing, the class-based divide between workers and free market property owners whose properties are often more than five times the value) are exploited for political gain, and threaten the very fabric of Aspen's fragile mountain town tapestry.

What is needed is a an intervention of sorts by of those who make the program possible, the private property owners who finance this ridiculous extravaganza with their RETT payments to the City and their impact fee payments to Pitkin County, but who have no actual power because they do not represent a voting majority. Will the private property owners have a seat at the table at the upcoming housing summit? No. It would just make too much rational sense.

To understand why this issue is so important and why some type of rational intervention is needed, let's start with the basic economic tenets of Aspen's subsidized housing program:

Funded by 2/3 of the City of Aspen's 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) on Pitkin County property sales of $100,000 and above, the housing authority, formed in 1974 and coined APCHA in 1988, has about 2800 units in its portfolio, roughly half owned (on a deed-restricted basis) and half rented. According to its website, APCHA was formed to "foster public and private development of affordable housing for resident workers by making housing available to full-time employees who could not otherwise afford to own a home and build a life as part of the community they support." The intention of the program was to provide a step up to the free market. So much for that goal. With the aspiration of free market ownership no longer part of the equation, should the other elements of the original concept be revisted? Must employees "own a home??" Do the employees support the community or does the community support them?? In its 38 years of existence has the program effectively lost its way?

APCHA lists four primary qualifications for its ownership units:

Prospective owners must:

• work 1500 hours per year in Pitkin County            
• not own other property in the Roaring Fork Valley
• maintain the unit as one's sole residence
• have lived and worked in Pitkin County for a minimum of four years in order to automatically quality for the opportunity to participate in unit selection lotteries

Deed restricted rental units carry these first three requirements but not the fourth.

Beyond these, there exists a complicated matrix of one-time qualification requirements and associated "categories," as well as priority levels for both rental and ownership units. The eight tiered categories, for example, are established according to income and asset levels (at time of application only) as well as the number of household members. The rule of thumb, loosely applied, however, is that there must be as many workers in a unit as there are bedrooms. For example, for a couple or 2-person household to qualify for a two-bedroom housing unit, both must be qualified employees. Children of course affect the equation as well, but it is such a convoluted assimilation of mind-numbing and overlapping regulatory requirements that stories of conflicting "interpretations" are numerous and most people are unwilling to challenge administrative rulings out of fear that such engagement may prejudice their future opportunities. (I leave it to your discretion to dig further at aspenpitkin.com.) The byzantine regulations are merely symptomatic contrivances of the overarching problem. The contrivances continue with the manner in which unit the value of unit ownership is calculated, or should I say fabricated. There is no comprehensive database of deed restriction provisions, and standard deed restrictions have changed over time. But with the "owned" units, the deed restrictions typically include a built-in opportunity for appreciation. So, units that are subsidized by the government and that also provide for an interest deduction against a mortgage also provide an opportunity for capital gain appreciation to the individual owners, even though the units were heavily subsidized in the first place!

Here's how, in general terms, the maximum sales price of a unit is calculated:

• Purchase price
• PLUS 3% simple appreciation for each year owned, or a multiple of the CPI between the date of purchase and the date of sale, whichever is LESS
• PLUS the cost of APPROVED capital improvements, not to exceed 10% of the purchase price, less depreciation
• PLUS the cost of EXEMPT capital improvements (health, safety, energy efficiency, water conservation, "green" building materials, etc.)
• MINUS discounts for the condition of the home, determined through inspection

When demand is high and many qualified applicants enter the lottery for a specific unit, that maximum price is most often assured. But, because "ownership units" are just deed-restricted publicly-subsidized homes that are owned by private citizens, these can be subject to the same potential market outcomes as free market units if the owner cannot sell the unit for what he or she owes on the mortgage. In good times, there is very little risk in this kind of home ownership and consequently very little incentive to maintain the properties. However, the opposite holds equally true; when the market is saturated with units available for sale, only the nicer ones will sell at the asking price.

FORECLOSURES: CAN THE BANK GET THE UNIT? THEN WHAT?

You knew it was inevitable, but surprisingly, it's not been as bad as I'd anticipated. Just 5 APCHA units have gone into foreclosure so far this year. When this happens, at the foreclosure sale APCHA will bid $50 above the minimum price for a unit in order to retain it in inventory. This is done with $500,000 APCHA has in its 2012 budget for exactly this purpose. But, if the bank keeps possession, in many cases depending on the language of the deed restriction, the unit could legally be sold as a free market residence, minus the deed restriction that keeps the units affordable to the workforce. APCHA staff seems to think that the banks would never do this, but hello, in this day and age, the banks want to make money too!! So that raises the bigger question: What happens when $500,000 isn't enough and APCHA can't save them all?

THE RETIREE ISSUE

What happens when the resident workforce, housed in our subsidized housing inventory, is no longer working? (Now nobody wants to boot our subsidized housing retirees out of their units, but we do have a problem, and the tidal wave is coming.) Our pal, lazy and incompetent city manager Steve Barwick, notably says about the coming onslaught, "We'll just have to build more units." Really? Ought the community be thinking bigger? Is doubling down on the unfunded liability of publicly-subsidized housing by continuing to grow the inventory really the right approach? Might there be other alternatives that meet everyone's needs?

For example: Are some of our retirees living in units larger than they qualify for, now that the kids are long gone? Are others wishing they could move to warmer climes like their snowbird brethren? Are they "stuck" in Aspen, with all of their assets tied up in a deed-restricted unit in need of repair that has minimally appreciated over all these years? These questions, and others like it, are what we should be looking at. The fact is, by definition, a retiree is no longer a worker. Yes, retirees bring great diversity and contributions to our community, but the key question in the matter of housing is whether they should continue to be able to live in subsidized housing built specifically to meet the housing needs of our local workforce. And if not, then what?

There are alternatives, many recommended by the City's Citizen Budget Task Force (CBTF) -- formed back in 2008 in the wake of the Burlingame fiasco -- but never implemented, including the development of potential optional financial incentive programs to enable existing residents to downsize, sell, or bridge to the free market. (Incidentally, 23 local citizens served on the CBTF, and it is notable how many are now on the mayor's/city's "public enemy #1" list today. Coincidence? Or did their professional backgrounds and rational assessments of the critical issues threaten the city to such a degree that to demagogue them was the only answer?) In the end, most all of the CBTF recommendations were ignored by council.

THE R.O. GLUT

And then there are the middle-class millionaires. The "Resident Occupied" category of housing, relatively new to the housing program, is specifically for working professionals who could not previously qualify with APCHA yet could not afford free market housing, specifically in the real estate boom years. Residents of R.O. housing have no income limits, but cannot have net assets above $900K. There are certainly some fabulous R.O. places out there that have sold for $1M+. And this category offering has definitely kept many working professionals in our community. But with the recent market downturn, the resale market for R.O. has all but dried up. Many of these places cannot be sold because savvy buyers with a budget of $1M+ would rather spend their money in the free market vs on a deed-restricted place with limited economic upside. Remember, the deed restriction stipulates a maximum sales price but doesn't guarantee it! I foresee R.O. unit prices continuing to fall as supply increases. (There will always be people who want to and have to move away. And pity those who'd like to get "out" of R.O. now so as to be able to wisely invest in the free market!) I see inevitable short sales in this category; I believe it has been over-built with the belief that the good times would never end.

And at press time, recent events are proving me right. Subsidized housing owners at the W/J Ranch are hoping that APCHA will remove the $900,000 asset cap from their R.O. deed restriction. They believe that this asset cap is preventing them from being able to sell their units. Well, well, well. Who'd have guessed? As you recall, the qualification for R.O. housing stipulates no income limits but caps assets at $900K. I hate to tell the W/J folks, but it's not the asset cap that's the problem. It's that they bought the most expensive deed restricted housing in the first place. Nobody on earth who can afford the $1.2M unit on the market at W/J today would be foolish enough to buy a deed restricted place in this economy! It's just a bad investment. Unfortunately for the owner who is trying to sell, the risk taken in his subsidized investment is not paying the huge upside he had naively counted on in better times, and for now he's stuck. But that's a risk that everyone takes in all investments. Hopefully APCHA won't be so near-sighted as to remove the cap. It's a bad precedent for the days when the economy and housing market bounces back. But should they be so stupid, my bet is that the seller will have to take a HUGE hit in order to move that unit, perhaps even a loss depending on what he owes. Simply put: there are no guaranteed outcomes in investing. Nor should there be in the sale of subsidized housing!

THE SCOFFLAWS: EVICTIONS & CALLS FOR COMPASSION

Swell. This winter, security cameras were installed at the City-owned Marolt Ranch rental property. Fights, loud behavior, vandalism and violence seem to have escalated at the subsidized housing project, home to seasonal workers and homeless locals. Imagine that. (And riddle me this... Just how does one define a "homeless local"???)

Next, meet Terry Decker. She lives in APCHA rental housing at Truscott. Most of us know her from the string of malfeasances reported in the weekly police blotter. It seems she and her ex, Marc Altman, characterized as "homeless" and "a transient," have quite the ongoing feud. In April, she whacked him in the head with a hammer and was charged with domestic violence and second-degree assault, a felony. She will be arraigned soon, but lives at Truscott awaiting trial. Not to be outdone, Altman returned in early August and stabbed Decker. He was charged with a number of felony offenses, including second degree attempted murder. The latter incident also threatens Decker with a bond violation charge; she was prohibited from contact with Altman and from consuming alcohol, but cops at the August incident say she smelled of alcohol. These two are known in law enforcement circles for, among other things, trashing a free market rental unit they shared on Bonita Avenue several years ago and then neglecting the court-ordered restitution to the owner required by the judge (see Issue #71), claiming that they are unemployed. That she was allowed to rent an APCHA unit in the first place illustrates just how far the program has fallen.

It was an exciting winter with two high profile APCHA eviction actions. One woman was evicted from Truscott because she had been unemployed for 22 months. Laid off in April 2010, Susan Johnson was drawing unemployment and paying $756/month for her Truscott studio. Should anyone who is collecting unemployment be living in subsidized housing for workers??? Should anyone who is collecting unemployment be paying $756/month in rent in ASPEN??? Times have certainly been tougher than they've been in years, but Johnson's primary rationale that she's lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for about 30 years and raised her children here just doesn't cut the mustard as far as "deserving" subsidized housing in my book. Although it shouldn't be, enforcing the rules is a difficult thing to do. APCHA, you did the right thing. Now another qualified worker can live at Truscott.

Then there's Heidi Mines. Unemployed for the past 4 years, she owns her deed-restricted home. Diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007, she was in treatment for two years, but once healthy enough to work, could not find a job. Outed via an anonymous tip, APCHA gave her a short reprieve. A sympathetic figure, Mines had until July 31 to find a job, otherwise she'd have to sell. Expressing a seeming indifference to the APCHA rules as they applied to her, Mines admitted, "I do realize I dropped the ball." At press time, APCHA director Tom McCabe assures The Red Ant that she has found local employment. Congratulations, Heidi.

Cries for compassion abound! The Aspen Times, while on one hand noting that "if not for certain guidelines, affordable housing units might be filled with retirees and people of independent means," begs for more compassion on the other. After all, they say, both women were making their payments on time, as if that alone should supercede any rules. The Times also played the "this is selective enforcement of the rules" card. They wrote, "If the housing authority wants to start investigating under every rock, there's plenty to turn up." Exactly. Let's start investigating. Even one of Mines' advocates cried out, "Why those two when we know there are other people with violations that are much worse, where they may own two or three other houses and are using public housing for a vacation home?" It's widely acknowledged that the abuses are widespread. I'm sure we'd never have to build another unit if we had proper enforcement. And while my points may seem terribly harsh to some, we cannot break rules just because we like people, or because they strike a sympathetic chord. The more rules we actually enforce, the more fair the program will be for everyone. Especially those of us who pay for it.

My recent favorite? It seems that a certain Anita Boda somehow entered a subsidized housing lottery despite owning private property in Basalt (an APCHA no-no). Who is in charge if this can happen?? Besides, why are people going the wrong way on what should be a one way street?? (Remember the old "step up" to the free market intent of the program?) When she won the lottery and acquired a subsidized housing unit in Aspen, good old APCHA gave her 180 days to sell her Basalt unit. When her Basalt residence didn't sell (imagine that in this economy), she rented it out to "employees," figuring that APCHA would break their own rules and let it go. Thankfully, they've finally had it with her pleas for more and more time; she may just have to sell Basalt now at a loss in order to comply with the APCHA rules. Too bad, so sad - but she shouldn't have been sold an APCHA unit in the first place! Call me crazy but isn't the EASY and OBVIOUS answer right before APCHA's eyes? Make her sell the APCHA unit today! Ya think!? She shouldn't be in it to begin with, and by being there, she is keeping a qualified applicant out. Her tearful retort? She is a mom with a kid and simply can't commute from Basalt to her job in Aspen. Really?! Can you believe this nonsense? Cry me a river.

Again, subsidized housing not a right, but a privilege. Why would we ever build more housing until we know EXACTLY who is in each of our units and whether or not they qualify. And if they don't qualify, it's simple. Get them out so someone qualified can get in.

SANFORD & SON

In a robust housing market when the lotteries were huge and demand was at its peak, you would not believe your eyes at the condition(s) of what sold. Some of these places were on par with fraternity houses, replete with stained carpets, broken/missing cabinets, hideous murals. You see, with high demand, there was essentially guaranteed re-sale, and as such, little to no incentive to take care of a unit. The sellers were all but assured of getting their unit's maximum price because so many people wanted "in." It was actually really sad to see the condition of some of these places.

And then there are those do-it-yourself "improvements." And no, I'm not talking about Tibetan flags and sofas on the porch (although both are proliferate). My favorites are places like up in Williams Ranch where the owner simply paved his whole front yard. Yep, paved it. Now he can park 5-6 cars right in front! Don't the Williams Ranch houses have garages, you ask? Yes, they do. It was one of those fabulous amenities of that R.O. development at the base of Smuggler. But take a drive through. Every driveway has a car or two out front. The Red Ant did some very unscientific research and learned that many residents use their garages as additional living space and for storage, not to put their cars away. You can lead a horse to water, folks, but you can't make it drink!

Now that the housing supply seems to outpace demand (see weekly listings on Wednesdays in the Aspen Daily News), the crappy units languish. Now, some might rationally argue that in a bad economy when demand is low, unit owners might be more likely to make improvements to their units so that these will be more attractive to the few prospective buyers out there.   And the city could further encourage this behavior by not flooding the market with shiny new units to bid on. But the argument is flawed. Subsidized housing is not a pure market, and the working owners of these units are even less likely to make improvements during an economic downturn. The end result is a downward spiral of unit conditions throughout the subsidized housing portfolio, exacerbated by the tough economy.

The laws of supply and demand are tortured in their influence over such a heavily subsidized program. Unit owners are just as likely to try and find ways to game the system as they are to spend money they probably don't have fixing up a unit that stands to benefit them very little financially.

HOUSING THE HOMELESS: A SUBSIDIZED HOUSING QUANDRY... OR NOT

A terrible precedent set in early 2011 that enabled the use of city-owned seasonal housing to house the homeless, coupled with two spring 2012 APCHA evictions, has local homeless advocates crying that the housing authority "may be contributing to homelessness in the Aspen area." Puh-lease. Vince Savage, the director of the Aspen Homeless Shelter (you know, the guy who sent a homeless man with pending criminal charges against him to North Dakota on a bus in the middle of the winter) even went so far as to ask, "Is this a community for rich people and people willing to work 29 hours a week to serve them? Or is this a place that people can come to to live?" Well Vince, it's certainly not a sanctuary city offering free housing for all comers, that's for sure!!! According to the Aspen Daily News, Savage compared the housing system to a college campus, where one can't keep housing without staying in school, and characterized it as exploitative 20th century feudalism. "They're treated like chattel," he said of APCHA tenants. Good grief - when was the last time people lined up to be treated like chattel?? What Savage misses is that APCHA housing is EXACTLY like the housing on a college campus. You have to apply, be accepted and stay in school in order to live in the dorms. In Aspen, you have to qualify, apply, win the housing lottery and stay employed in order to keep your housing. Besides, the often-complicated deed restrictions on the units were put in place to ensure that the subsidies to build the projects in the first place were authorized for the express purpose of providing housing for workers. Housing the homeless in deed restricted units is emotionally-based mission creep for a program that already has enough of its own problems.

There are large legal barriers to change the deed restrictions in favor of housing the homeless and unemployed, so I think this well-intended but misguided proposal will probably fizzle. For now. But even former mayor Helen Klanderud weighed in, reminding APCHA and the homeless coalition that the housing program was originally formed to house young workers. "I don't think anyone at that time anticipated that people would spend their entire lives here," she said. The changing nature of our community and its needs has created the current problems with the housing program, such as what to do about retirees living in subsidized housing as well as compliance. And now the "homeless issue" is poised to take advantage of the program as well. That is, if our officials allow it to happen.

To be continued .... Look for The Red Ant, Issue #84 "ShANTy Town, Part 2" later this week!

ISSUE #82: Fall's fANTastic Follies

"We are in the process of creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal."                -- Carl Bernstein

Just who do they really think they are? Election season is upon us yet again and the true colors (and mental band-width) of our elected representatives are as visible as ever ... And it sure ain't pretty! Note: I will of course be sending a pre-election endorsement issue out by mid-October, so look for this before returning your mail-in ballots or voting early!

AT LONG LAST: THE HYDRO PLANT IS GOING TO A VOTE!

Finally! It's not exactly what we wanted, but at least we finally get to weigh in at the polls. Scared of placing a truly binding question on the ballot, the weaklings on council decided merely to ask an "advisory" question on whether or not to continue spending good money after bad on the beleaguered Castle Creek Energy Center a.k.a the Hydro Plant. But instead of asking a simple YES or NO question of the electorate, the boys could not resist lobbying for their YES preference in the actual ballot language:

Shall the City of Aspen complete the hydroelectric facility on Castle Creek, subject to local stream health monitoring and applicable governmental regulations, in order to replace coal-fired energy with renewable energy?

The city is legally forbidden to campaign for an issue so they wrote their propaganda right onto the ballot itself. It's ironic to note that they didn't want the project called by its formal name, the Castle Creek Energy Center because that sounded "so large." And, to justify the ever-increasing costs far beyond the original $6.2M budget, they've once again "green-washed" the lack of fiscal or environmental responsibility and instead advocate for one of the most ill-conceived and even worse-managed projects in local memory under the guise of global warming prevention. Their hope of course is that the electorate will buy their "it's SO green" BS a second time. The Red Ant ran a full-page ad in the local papers last fall on this very subject. View it HERE.

The city also argues that the Hydro Plant is a good investment, and according to mayor Mick, will remove "5 million pounds of coal from the atmosphere annually." Let's see. Hmmm, based on the city's (questionable) numbers, the project won't even begin generating positive cash-flow for at least 25 years, let alone a positive financial return. Some investment! And 5 million pounds of coal (another dubious number that even the energy provider in Nebraska cannot corroborate) will only be removed from the atmosphere if the Hydro Plant runs at its maximum capacity year-round, and if it offsets 100% of coal-generated energy all the time - not likely to ever happen!

The real outcome? The Hydro Plant represents the overpriced use of obsolete technology that will cost far more in the long run than other better clean power alternatives. It will not substantially reduce carbon emissions. And most notably, it threatens our local ecology to a far greater extent than the value of any alleged global warming prevention benefits it will generate!

The good news? The ANTI-hydro plant issue committee and campaign is officially up and running. This group, Citizens for Responsible Projects, is comprised of local fiscal hawks and well-known environmentalists alike, and enjoys the endorsements of national and regional environmental organizations. As you can imagine, The Red Ant is doing everything possible to build support for this effort! You know firsthand that I've been following and writing on this subject for over 2 years.

There are three very important elements that will determine the success of this campaign:

• They must raise and spend several thousand dollars to fund an education campaign and produce campaign materials. They need contributions small and large, please. There is no dollar limit. (All donations will be publicly disclosed.)
• Endorsements by full and part-time citizens of Aspen and the surrounding area are an important way to show community opposition to the Castle Creek Hydro Plant, and will make others feel comfortable voting against it. They need your personal endorsement, please.
• Grass roots activities such as distributing campaign materials and phoning citizens are what make successful campaigns. They need your help! Contact 2CvoteNO@gmail.com

Mick and his "green at any cost" (environmental and economic) ilk are organizing as well, so this one will surely be a battle. Since they can't dispute the rational and proven arguments against the Hydro Plant, they have already resorted to name-calling and demagoguery. And the letters to the editor are highly suspect - while "signed" by local citizens, the vernacular and tone is unmistakable. Our boy Mick is a ghost-writer! Surprise.

We cannot let the Hydro Plant get "approved" by the electorate again. Recall that in 2007, the ballot language made the "vote for a hydro plant because it's GREEN" message sound far too appealing. And no one asked the important questions. We know better now. The costs - environmental AND fiscal - are simply too great. This is not a vote against renewable energy or even responsible hydro power. It's a vote against this Hydro Plant on Castle Creek!

Many of you signed the petition that I, along with about 30 others, circulated last winter. Will you please lend your name once again to the effort? If yes, simply "reply" to this email and tell me! No need to sign anything. If you are one of the 953 citizens who signed petitions which led to this ballot measure finally making it to prime time, or if you simply agree that the Castle Creek Energy Center's environmental/stream health risks and irresponsible fiscal over-runs are simply too great, please "reply" to this email to lend your name to the advertising and endorsement effort. There will also be stickers, yard signs, campaign buttons and other ephemera available soon. Please let me know what you need. I will forward it along. You don't have to be a local voter to oppose the Hydro Plant! The more the merrier! Please send your donation (of ANY amount) to:

 "Citizens for Responsible Projects"     P.O. Box   8916      Aspen, CO 81612

It's high time to cut our losses and shut this nonsense down, once and for all. Remember: IT'S NOT GREEN TO KILL A STREAM.

COUNCIL HATES FREE MARKET HOUSING - ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN

First they pass an ordinance that limits the height of buildings in the downtown core to just 28 feet, ostensibly to eliminate any more 3^rd floor penthouses. We've long known that Mick abhors the "cold beds" that he calls the free market units atop previously aging structures, never mind these same units financially fueled the redevelopment of tired (and often ugly) buildings that so many historic hysterics cling to as part of their love affair with the days of yore. But that was not enough. Now there's a ban on the construction of any new free market housing in the core. Subsidized housing, sure. But free market, no way.  They don't want our kind.

But, the economic geniuses don't realize what they've done with their ill-conceived legislation. They've only made the rich richer. I hardly imagine that was their objective! In fact, we all know that the new laws are designed to be nothing if not punitive. But oops, those pesky laws of supply and demand will only serve to do one thing - make the fixed amount of existing inventory even MORE valuable. And when that inventory (residential and commercial) is more valuable, rents will go up. It's that simple. It's truly irresponsible. Watch and see.

ARBITERS OF GOOD TASTE? PUH-LEASE!

Yes, it's hard to imagine that city council views itself as judge and jury of what constitutes an attractive building, but as a wave of development applications reaches its final stages, the boys are weighing in and speaking out. It seems that Skadron is "outraged" and mayor Mick questions whether there is "a worldwide surplus of glass" as they recently verbalized their disdain for several proposed projects. And Torre doesn't want Aspen to become "the urban center of the Rockies." As if.

Now recall that it was the recent ordinance to limit building height in the downtown core that brought on this flurry of activity. There was a 2 month window in which applications could be submitted under the old rules, and 9 proposed projects are now in the works. No project is safe from this council, even if it's well within the allowable footprint, height or density; council is already exercising its right to "call up" several applications despite prior favorable decisions made by the planning and zoning and/or historic preservation commissions. Indications are that council is going to make these applications as difficult as it possibly can, but not because there is any question of legalities. Rather, it's an issue of taste. And let's face it, council doesn't have much.

A LAWSUIT OVER THE BAG TAX - TOLD YA SO!

It was just a matter of time. Those of us who opposed last October's ordinance that banned plastic bags at local grocery stores knew it all along: the 20-cent "fee" that the city claimed it was charging for the replacement paper bags is actually a tax! And that's exactly what a new lawsuit against the city, mayor Mick and the 4 councilmen alleges. (In Colorado, it's illegal for the government to charge a tax without the voting consent of the taxpayers.) The non-profit Colorado Union of Taxpayers filed the suit in late August.

In the name of "environmental stewardship," the revenues collected by the city are earmarked for "environmental programs" such as educational campaigns about recycling, providing reusable bags to citizens and/or funding recycling and pollution-reduction efforts. (In May and June, the first two months of the program, the haul was nearly $4000 - that's over 300 bags a day!) Never mind, the only plastic bags banned in Aspen are those at the grocery store. All other plastic bags are still a-ok.

As surprising as all this isn't, the bigger issue is how council would make such an arrogant decision to pass this ridiculous ordinance, despite numerous warnings of its violation of the law. Now the taxpayers get to fund yet another avoidable lawsuit, and will likely be on the hook for the plaintiff's legal fees as well when the city loses. How could this have been avoided? Simply: council could have just put the issue on the ballot and allowed citizens to vote. But remember, with this council, they know what's best for us!

The best coverage of the fee vs tax issue was in former city finance director Paul Menter's column in late August. Read it HERE.

MICK'S "TAX FAIRNESS" VIEWS             

If you read The Aspen Times in August, you may have followed it. Columnist Charlie Leonard interviewed the mayor, and primarily focused on his recent public statements about Governor Romney's tax returns and what Mick sees as tax "fariness." What ensued was a classic back-and-forth between the two that vividly illustrated how Mick sees it as perfectly fair for him to live in subsidized housing despite being an able-bodied lawyer who, by choice, is simply not productive in his field. When Leonard suggested that "most responsible adults realize, barring a disability or temporary setback, that they have a moral obligation to themselves and their neighbors to pay their own way while still finding time for self-supported recreation," the mayor responded by listing all of the volunteering he has done in the community. And, classic Mick, he could not help himself and had to brag, "I doubt that all of the progress we made would have happened in my absence." Yes, this is the same buffoon who famously stated that as Aspen's mayor, he's an icon. ("Many of us, like myself, gain stature by going to enough meetings and eventually become recognized as part of history, ... or icons. People write books about us," he said. See it live at www.SickofMick.com) Just 8 more months of this imbecile...

Read Leonard's column HERE. Read Mick's response HERE. And then Leonard's letter to the editor that ended the debate HERE. A classic and telling exchange!

VOTING INFO

For information on voter registration, mail-in ballots and other vital voting info, please visit www.pitkinvotes.org

Several important dates:

October 9                                 Voter Registration Deadline

October 22 - November 2  8:30 am - 4:30 pm, M-F, Pitkin County Clerk's  Office, 530 E. Main Street, Suite 101

November 6                               Election Day. Polls are open 7 am - 7 pm

NEXT ISSUE: A HOUSING SUMMIT PRIMER

The long-awaited (threatened?) subsidized housing summit is on the horizon. What it will entail and what it will decide is anyone's guess. The program's a mess with more questions than answers, but please know that I have a subsidized housing-specific issue ready to roll just as soon as that date is set! Stay tuned!

ISSUE #81: Got My ANTennae Up!

"The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference."

               -- Bess Myerson, former Miss America 

While the local shenanigans never seem to end, The Red Ant has noticed an interesting trend.  I won't call it "promising" just yet, but on a variety of "hot" topics, several news columnists have taken surprising stances against the city and its preposterous behavior(s).  This is vitally important because of the intentional indifference of our community at large.  For readers of The Red Ant, by choice you get the other side of the story.  But for those who blindly (or sporadically) read the local fish-wrappers, what they read is all they know!

 LIBRARY EXPANSION

The Pitkin County Library wants to grow about 25% (from 32,000 sf to 40,000 sf), and in seeking to do this, wants to raise your property taxes this November in order to finance a $5M 30-year bond for the $10M project.  Included in that bond revenue would be operating revenue for utilities, cleaning and a capital replacement schedule for the new addition.  Note: the library already has $5.3M on hand in its endowment.  Do we really need a $10M addition to this relatively new (1991) public facility, especially when the cited rationale includes a new children's library, an expansion of the teen library, community meeting space, reconfiguration of pathways and book stacks (security concerns), renovation to maximize views and an upgrade of technological areas? Really?  

In general, I have one word to say about libraries in 2012: Kindle. The world is moving away from books, books and more books, in the traditional sense.  We are living in an increasingly electronic world and small town libraries stand to gain the most from this trend.  Besides, to spend this kind of money (that the library does not have) for a place for teenagers to hang out is redundant at best.  Less than 100 yards from the library is the same Aspen Youth Center that the electorate fought tooth and nail to keep from being sold to the Aspen Art Museum 4 short years ago!  People, let's take a look at the 32,000 sf of space we have, and with the library's $5.3M in the bank, do some proper refiguring of that space to accommodate the evolving needs of our community and the technology that best enhances the library's offerings.  Just because the library staff says they can't address their "challenges" with a $5.3M investment doesn't mean a thing.  They're just dreaming big and they want you to pay for their dream.  My friend Bill Pope said it best in his recent letter to the editor, "Focus on content, not concrete."

And sometimes the strangest things happen.  Aspen Times columnist Su Lum, with whom I rarely agree, said it best in her June 20 column: "I do not 'hang out' in the library, but I visit it at least once a week, and I've never had the impression that it was over-crowded or that small children were endangered.  Au contraire, it has always been my view that the second story was considerable wasted space and that it would be easier to get around the circular rim if it were a solid floor. I thought that that was the original plan if the library needed more room."  And it's not just about the money, she adds.  "The whole Galena Plaza project has gotten out of hand."  Spot on, Su.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  

Local Jerry Bovino echoed the sentiment with a letter recommending careful consideration of the library's "questionable plans," reiterated immediately thereafter by columnist Steve Skinner who pointed out that "the world wide web is the library now."  

The Library is currently conducting a phone poll to gauge local voters' opinions of placing a $5M bond measure on the November ballot.  Hopefully, for a variety of reasons including those above, the feedback will be outraged at best.  Besides, don't you just hate how they promote these tax increases: it will only be $12.21 per year for each $1M of assessed value.  Puh-lease.  Conduct a capital campaign.  I'll donate.  But the continual raising of property taxes for unneeded pie-in-the-sky projects is nothing short of insulting.  Hopefully it won't happen.  (Alas, at press time, it seems the phone poll of 300 citizens yielded a slim majority in favor of a ballot measure.  Look to vote on the bond in November. Ugh.)

 BURLINGAME BUILD-OUT
 Brace yourselves.  I said it was coming.  At this stage, 40% of Burlingame Phase 2 has been reserved.  Of course most of these are the lowest-priced units.  And the applicants?  All they had to do was qualify with APCHA and have financing, and put down a $500 refundable deposit.  The question of the day is How Much Interest In Burlingame 2 Is Enough?  At what point does city council proceed with the build-out?  $10M has already been committed to install infrastructure.  There is great bureaucratic debate regarding changing the higher-priced units to more in-demand lower priced ones, but that would entail a greater subsidy.  Anything to sell the things, right?  Remember, Burlingame 1 subsidized its units $350K/per.  Mick?  He wants to "build according to need."  Swell.  Look for a HUGE bond measure in the spring.

 MARILYN WINS BUT MICK WON'T CONCEDE - UNTIL HE HAS TO
 In a surprise move late last month, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed its decision to hear the case Marks vs Koch, Marilyn Marks' case against the city over a citizen's right to inspect anonymous voted ballots as open records. As you recall, this all stems from the 2009 mayoral election when Marilyn was narrowly defeated by Mick in an election decided by the controversial and subsequently repealed "Instant Run-Off Voting" method.  Sold to the populace as a cheap and easy way to electronically duplicate a traditional run-off election in a manner easily verified by the public, as soon as the votes were tallied, the city closed ranks and refused to let citizens have access to the ballots to confirm the city's tabulation of the results.  

Marilyn sued for access, and the city-friendly district court dismissed the case.  Marilyn appealed and won in a 3-0 decision.  The ballots were deemed to be public records.  But oh-no, Mick would not could not concede, so he steamrolled council into appealing to the state supreme court that initially said they'd hear the case, but then decided last week to let the appellate ruling stand -- and reward Marilyn reasonable attorney's fees!  In this case, these are in excess of $275K.  The city was contrite, initially accepting the ruling.  "Closure is a good thing," stated city clerk at the center of the brou-ha-ha Kathryn Koch.  But overnight, Mick cajoled city attorney Jim True into asking the supreme court to reconsider in a rare move.

In quick order, the Colorado supremes responded to the city.  They will not reconsider.  But the fight continues, with the city living up to Mick's promise upon learning of Marilyn's suit 3 years ago.  They will "fight to the last taxpayer dollar" to keep her from getting her supreme court mandated legal fees.

The community outrage is palpable, and not just among the community's citizen grown-ups.  Daily News owner Dave Danforth weighed in with his weekly column (7/8/12) that the "Powers That Be" were more interested in "beating Marks than they were in the electoral process."  It seems the "what are they hiding" question is too glaring for the citizens here, finally.  Danforth even asked what City Hall had to gain from refusing to release a flock of ballot images!  The ridiculous expenditure of public funds on Mick's hatred of his political nemesis has finally reached the tipping point.  Such a shame that it had to come this far (and it's not over yet), but when he can spend your money on a personal vendetta, don't you just know it, he will.

My favorite part?  And this should show you the intellectual quality of those we've elected to council.  Yes, that includes Adam (who is STILL more concerned with getting Mick to like him than actually governing).  Council simply couldn't (or wouldn't?) ask for independent counsel.  After the city's highly irregular recent appeal was submitted, despite no council or public meeting on the subject, Mick defended his actions by claiming that the papers were wrong in their coverage of the issue.  He whined that it would be "grossly unfair" to make the city pay ALL of Marilyn's attorney's fees, claiming that she only won at the appellate level.  Some lawyer Mick is -- she prevailed in the ENTIRE case!  But the dummies on council bought his argument.  They trusted both Mick and highly-conflicted city attorney Jim True and bit -- hook, line and sinker.  Then, in the most preposterous move yet, Mick claimed that since the city always "operated in good faith," they really don't owe Marilyn anything.  Hmmm, my copy of Title 24 of the state statute doesn't contain a "good faith of Aspen" safe harbor exemption. Rather, it emphatically states that the prevailing party SHALL be awarded reasonable attorney's fees.  But once again, Mick was successful in getting the council buffoons to buy into his nonsense.

I hate to say "I told ya so," but recall that Chris Bryan and I as election commissioners were publicly fired and vilified in 2009 amidst this very election mess when we asked city council for $7500 for independent counsel to advise us on the complicated and political mess that was rapidly unfolding before us.  We refused to certify the election, and felt that the city attorneys office was conflicted in advising the very body charged with overseeing the municipal elections. (Recall that the attorneys themselves had designed the vote counting methodology and were also the ones who decided not to release the ballots as public records once these were requested.)  To think now that this whole mess could have and should have been avoided for the measly sum of $7500 is appalling.  But you and I as taxpayers are on the hook because Mick, council and the bureaucrats at city hall just wanted to fight Marilyn.

 ASPEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: READY TO RATTLE THE TIN CUP
 It seems that after 540 phone calls, the Aspen Education Foundation is ready to put a sales tax increase on the November ballot.  Supposedly 59.3% of respondents said they would support a 0.35% sales tax hike to support the public school system.  The big question remains, however: will this be a city of Aspen-only sales tax?  Or will it be county wide?  It matters because more than half the district's students live outside the city limits.  To date, the county commissioners have not embraced the tax measure, but you can be sure that mayor Mick's a big fan!

The Aspen Daily News interestingly covered the story with characteristic slant.  This time, however, it was "Proposed Sales Tax Increase For Local Schools Not Yet Fully Vetted."  Indeed it's not.

 MY RIDDICU-LIST: THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE
 He's foul.  And foul-mouthed.  And as Aspen's #1 ambassador, a disgrace. But mayor Mick reached a new low last month when addressing the incoming students of the Aspen Music Festival and School and their parents with what the Daily News called "his sage advice."  He told the students (average age 22) to "Use your marijuana card.  We have four pot shops.  It will be something to remember."  And, in a lame attempt to be even more charming, asked the students to refrain from doing so in the woods given the fire danger, but instead "go be secretive somewhere else."

Kudos to the Daily News for reporting on this act of idiocy.  In their coverage, entitled "Mayor Hits High Notes With Music Students," they also noted that no other speakers at the welcoming event encouraged the kids to do drugs, noting that "they also wore pants and shoes, while Mick stuck to shorts and birkenstocks."

Why do the proud institutions of this community continually give this reckless fool a microphone?  If this doesn't reflect poorly on our community, I don't know what does.  

 HISTORIC PRESERVATION IRONY
 In all of the furor over the new 28' height limit in the downtown core, I found it ironic to learn that HPC recently awarded the Crandall Building for making "an outstanding commitment to historic preservation in Aspen."  I certainly don't disagree.  But here's the rub:  The 1969-era building that houses Sandy's Office Supply (among other local businesses) was sold in 2009.  The new owners voluntarily designated the Tom Benton-designed building as a historic landmark in exchange for a 3rd floor rooftop addition and other upgrades.  With council's new height limit restrictions, this could not have happened.  Instead, the building would be in bits and pieces in the county dump, and a swishy new higher-rent building would stand in its place.  That's the direction we're headed without the room (upward) to negotiate.  Watch and see.

 JOHN YOUNG -- THE BOCC CANDIDATE TO SUPPORT IN NOV
 We did well, folks.  Or, more accurately, he did.  The Red Ant recently endorsed John Young for county commissioner in the June primary and is proud to report that John moves on to the run-off against Steve Child in November.  Thanks to all who voted for John.  You'll be seeing him out and about over the next 3 months  -- please introduce yourselves and get to know him.  You will surely be as impressed as I am!  And if you haven't already, please donate to his campaign.  Contact: jyoung@sopris.net

 A MEMORIAL DAY HILARITY
 According to several sources who were in attendance at the annual Memorial Day ceremonies at the Roaring Fork Veterans Memorial next to the courthouse, mayor Mick once again inserted himself into the solemn program.  At the podium, he began his diatribe with words to the effect of, "This is the last time I will address this group as mayor of Aspen" when he was interrupted by cheers from the audience.  Mick fatigue.  It's contagious.  Like a virus. Just 10 more months, friends!

ISSUE #80: ANT Alert - BOCC Primary Election

"I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."

                         -- Charles de Gaulle 

ANOTHER ELECTION!

Yes, it's election time again!  In election-happy Aspen and Pitkin County, it seems we continually go to the polls.  This is actually a very good thing -- we're continually making changes!  Please mark down the date June 26 and plan to vote. As you've come to expect from The Red Ant, here's the scoop:

Three seats on the 5-seat Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) are up for grabs.  Well, sort of.  Technically, one is up for grabs and two are just up.  In District 3, Michael Owsley is running unopposed for his third stint on the board.  Same with George Newman, who hails from District 5.  He'll slide right in to his second term.  (You know how I feel about uncontested elections, but I digress....)

District 4 is another story.  Current BOCC member Jack Hatfield is out due to term limits and the race is on.  Not unlike the District 1 race 18 months ago (that Rob Ittner won), this race has 4 candidates running in a June 26 primary, with the top two vote-getters moving forward to a run-off on election day, November 6, 2012.

Regardless of where you live in the County, everyone can vote for the District 4 Commissioner seat.  There hasn't been much local press to-date about this election, and because those who receive mail-in ballots will be receiving these within a couple of days, The Red Ant felt it vitally important to provide a snap-shot of the race, including, of course, my endorsement.  (If you are not voting via mail-in ballot, please print this issue and take it with you to the polls!)

THE CANDIDATES
Many thanks to all four candidates who took the time to submit their platforms and candidate information to The Red Ant.  Please feel free to contact them directly with your specific questions.

 STEVE CHILD

This long-time local and lifelong rancher calls himself a pragmatic environmentalist and land steward who is patient and a good listener while also being both stubborn and gentle.  Childs cites 3 "core values" as filters through which his decisions will flow:
1)  Protection of the Environment:  Wilderness designation and protection, Protection of farm and ranch land, Protection of water resources, Clean air, Cooperation with federal and state agencies
2) Sustainability of Community and Business:  Managed growth, Quality development, Stable business environment, Fair and objective land use decisions, Cooperation with other local governments, Employee and senior housing, Support for health and human services
3)  Energy Policy to Counteract Global Climate Change:  Strive for carbon neutral development, Collaboration with other governments, businesses and non-profits to work toward a renewable energy economy, Strive to end burning of fossil fuels, Promote conservation measures and renewable energy sources, Adapt to changing climate

Regarding the Airport Master Plan, Steve feels the current terminal is inadequate and a new terminal will be less expensive than a remodel of the existing facility, preferably in the area east of the existing terminal.  We don't need an 80,000 sf facility, rather, build a smaller, single-story facility with no underground parking, and put any additional FBO operations on the east side of the airport to maintain the natural/scenic backdrop on the west side.  A Library Expansion would make our current facility more functional, but let's utilize carbon neutral heating and cooling systems there.  Veloci-RFTA and its CNG buses are a good stepping stone to a renewable energy-fueled fleet.  He favors the Wexner Land Exchange because it's good for the wildlife and those who enjoy recreation, but opposes the Saltonstall Ranch acquisition, preferring to see the land in the hands of someone who will continue to ranch it.            Contact: evets.child@juno.com

DARRYL GROB

An Army  combat veteran who served in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam (1969), Darryl Grob is a long-time local who held numerous positions with the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department for 32 years, including as captain, training officer, ass't fire chief and was elected as the department's first full-time fire chief in 1995.  In his career, he built 4 new fire stations in the 87 sq miles of the Aspen Fire Protection District, served on the Pitkin County Public Safety Council for 15 years, was appointed by the governor two times to the Colorado Division of Fire Safety advisory board, and served on the boards of Pitkin 911 and the Combined Communication Center, as well as the Aspen Historical Society.  He currently works for the City of Aspen as a wildfire mitigation project manager and volunteers with the PitkinCounty sheriff's office of emergency management.            Contact: darrylgaa@comcast.net

www. Grob4BOCC.com

JOHN WILKINSON

As a current Snowmass Village Town Councilman, Wilkinson has a track record of fiscally conservative decisions, cutting the town's budgets by approximately 15% in 2008 in anticipation of a dramatic downturn in both property and sales taxes.  This, plus several layoffs, kept the budgets balanced and prevented the use of reserve funds or the need for tax increases.  His priorities for the County include:               

1)  Live within our means by keeping the County budgets in line with the current tax base

2)  Complete RFTA's Bus Rapid Transit program (providing a mass transit system between Aspen and Glenwood Springs) by 2013

3)  Expand the library in order to repurpose the facility to accommodate the changing needs of our community, including public meeting rooms and early childhood reading programs

4)  Open Space and Trails:  As a past member of the Colorado Trails Committee and Snowmass Village trails committee, it is important to keeping working to preserve both open space and wildlife habitat.  

5)  Subsidized housing:  Rather than continuing to acquire and build new housing, create an incentive program to encourage "right-sizing" for empty-nesters

6)  Airport expansion:  We need a change to maximize efficiencies, but not a massive new building.

Contact: johnwilk@bikerider.com           www.Wilkinson4Pitkin.org                   

JOHN B. YOUNG

The former trails director, assistant airport manager and County road and bridge director was also the first town manager of Snowmass Village.  He successfully parlayed these experiences into a successful private land use consulting business, participating in public and private projects in ParkCity, Aspen, Snowmass Village, Vail, Crested Butte, Telluride, Carbondale, and currently, Tusayan (Grand Canyon), AZ.  

Young's priorities for PitkinCounty include:
1)  Land Use and Water:  Protect our resources from outside pressures.
2)  Airport and Tourism:  Tourism drives our economy and the airport is our gateway.  Our terminal needs an upgrade fitted for our size, not the region's.  
3)  Energy Independence:  Energy efficiency is essential to our way of life, but this does not mean "green energy at any cost."

4)  Public Safety:  In this dry year, protecting our citizens is of paramount importance.  Doubling our precautionary measures is necessary.

5)  Small Project Stimulus:  Energy efficient and small scale remodeling projects should be granted immediate priority in the planning and building offices in order to spur employment of our local construction workforce.

6)  Affordable Housing:  The system needs to be revisited so that our inventory matches our needs

Contact at jyoung@sopris.net

THE RED ANT ENDORSEMENT 
 My interest in this election is not on the "good guy" traits of the candidates. (For the record, they're all "good guys.")
 

I have looked at this race through one prism and one prism only:  Who is the candidate who can best compliment Rob Ittner on the BOCC?  We need another rational, pragmatic and thoughtful business professional who can quickly grasp the complex and diverse issues that come before the board, evaluate them for necessity, appropriateness, and cost vs benefit, and act with a critical eye toward fiscal responsibility.  This individual will be a good steward of the public's trust, patiently listen to and respectfully communicate with fellow commissioners and constituents alike, and be able to build consensus amidst the complicated challenges facing our unique community.
 

In short, that candidate is John Young.  
 

John's land use experience in both the public and private sectors ideally positions him to understand and immediately contribute to addressing the complex and pressing growth/development questions that face our community, such as the airport master plan (and potential expansion), the "West of Castle Creek Corridor" (gateway at Buttermilk), complex open space "land swaps," the future of our subsidized housing program, and decisions impacting the Roaring Fork watershed, to name just a few.  He has already faced numerous and varied land use issues in Pitkin County as well as in other communities, and would come to the table with a wealth of ideas and experiences, (like knowing how to navigate the bureaucracy) not to mention a track record of successful projects executed with fiscal restraint and responsibility.

Incidentally, John is no political neophyte.  He is currently serving his third elected term on the board of the Basalt and Rural Fire District, and was narrowly defeated by Jack Hatfield in 2008 when Hatfield was re-elected to the BOCC for his third and final term.  

2012 is John's year.  The Red Ant says, "Vote for John Young for BOCC!"

IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION: THINGS HAVE CHANGED!

Voter Registration Deadline: May 29 (Sorry, I can only do so much!)

Mail-in Ballots Sent Out: June 4

Last Day to Request a Mail-in Ballot: June 19

Last Day to Request a Mail-in Ballot and Pick it Up @ Clerk's Office: June 22

Postage on Mail-in Ballots:  65 cents!!

Mail-in Ballot Receipt Deadline: June 26 @ 7p (postmarks don't count)

Early Voting: June 18-22 from 8:30a-4:30p @ Plaza 1 (BOCC meeting room) 530 E. Main Street

Election Day: polls* are open from 7a-7p

* Polling Places:  The County's precinct boundaries and polling places have changed as a result of redistricting following the 2010 census!  The changes are not drastic but several precincts have new regular polling places for 2012 and future election cycles.

If your precinct or polling place has changed, the County will be mailing you a letter about this, but I'll fill you in as well:

Precinct 1: Rio Grande Meeting Room, 455 Rio Grande Place
Precinct 2: (NEW) Red Brick, 110 E. Hallam Street -- No longer St Mary's Church
Precinct 3: (NEW) Rio Grande Meeting Room, 455 Rio Grande Place
Precinct 4: (NEW) Red Brick, 110 E. Hallam Street -- No longer Crossroads Church
Precinct 5:  Health & Human Services Building, 0405 Castle Creek Rd
Precinct 6: Snowmass Village Town Hall, 130 Kearns Road
Precinct 7: Colorado Mountain College, ABC Campus, 255 Sage Way
Precinct 8: Old Snowmass Fire Station, 1909 Snowmass Creek Road
Precinct 9: St Peter's Episcopal Church, 200 Elk Run Dr, Basalt
Precinct 10: Church at Redstone, 213 Redstone Blvd

If you are unsure of your precinct, please go to www.GoVoteColorado.com and look it up.

VOTE!!  Remember how hard we worked to get Rob Ittner elected to the BOCC in 2010?  This is an equally important election!  Get thee to the polls!

THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

How much did current BOCC member George Newman NOT want to wage a re-election campaign?  The Red Ant has learned that literally one minute after the candidate registration deadline, Newman phoned the clerk's office to see if he would actually have to campaign!  One minute.  Puh-lease.  This is exactly why The Red Ant loathes uncontested elections.  For elected roles such as a seat on the BOCC, even (especially!!!) incumbents should have to get out there and campaign every 4 years!!

ISSUE #79: ANTidisestablishmentarianism

"... as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."  

-- Marianne Williamson, from the Aspen High School Class of 2012 Baccalaureate Service program, May 20, 2012

Part of taking a foreign vacation is cutting ties with home and getting away from it all, especially when crossing the international dateline and waking up 14 hours ahead of Aspen time. But springtime and off-season in Aspen predictably enable governmental nonsense and shenanigans at City Hall, and spring 2012 has been no different. But it was somewhat amusing, a wee bit frightening and certainly ironic, amidst Politburo member Bo Xilai's corruption scandal and political activist Chen Guangcheng's "asylum" mess, to be checking in on our very own People's Republic over the internet from China, the communist motherland. SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER There's a notable new wave of public activism alight in our midst, and frankly, The Red Ant is elated. Citizens from Aspen and throughout the Roaring Fork Valley have organized, formed coalitions, and articulately expressed their views on a variety of perceived concerns, injustices and/or governmental over-reach to encouraging levels of publicity and outright success. This is a promising trend on many levels. An American's right to disagree with, speak out against and petition the government is a Constitutional right, protected by the 1st amendment. In the close quarters of our small community, this right has long been suppressed by intimidation and fear of all-too-real reprisals. The chutzpah of the following "activists" is to be commended, regardless of your stance on their missions. (And authors of letters to the editor are to be equally championed.) Speaking truth to power is necessary and highly valuable to our democracy. To those of you involved, welcome to the neighborhood. I've been looking forward to your arrival! Geothermal Drilling Project: Neighbors of the Prokter Open Space parking lot across from Herron Park have received yet another reprieve from the city's large and loud geothermal drilling experiment. It seems the California-based contractor could not get here in time to continue and complete drilling beyond the 1000 feet they reached last fall without finding water. The neighbors voiced concerns over an industrial drilling site in their front yards during high-season, forcing council to put a May 25 stop-work deadline on the experiment. Look for the drilling to commence in the fall, however. (Remember, this is Aspen, and it's green energy at any cost.) Friends of Rivers and Renewables (FORR): Local filmmaker and environmentalist Chelsea Congdon Brundige has teamed up with Public Council of the Rockies' Tim McFlynn to form Friends of Rivers and Renewables (FORR) on the heels of the heated debate surrounding the city's controversial hydro plant on Castle Creek. But the organization is not focused on one specific issue. Rather, its intent is to "change the culture of our relationship with water" by working with communities to "ensure that the projects (they) pursue are developed with minimal harm to local freshwater ecosystems." Initially, FORR plans to install a comprehensive system of gauges on Roaring Fork streams to measure water levels in order to better understand their health, according to McFlynn. While FORR does not plan to weigh in on Aspen's Castle Creek Energy Center, the organization believes a balance between smart hydropower and the protection of riparian habitats is indeed possible. It is, however, not sure if the city's hydro plant can achieve that goal. Airport Expansion: Cliff Runge, former manager of the airport's fixed-base operator, has formed a group named "Citizens for Responsible Airport Development" in response to the county's requirement (by the FAA) to update its master plan for the airport. The group's concerns are several proposed ideas for the plan including an enlarged passenger terminal, the development of the west side (Owl Creek Road) of the airport for private aviation operations, and a multi-level parking structure, among others. The discussion has gained traction due to the ongoing print advertising by Runge's group as well as the County, which is offering "behind the scenes" tours, austensibly to provide a framework for the master plan. Plastic Bag Ban Overturned at the Polls in Basalt: Earlier this year, Basalt's "Green Team," comprised of residents and elected officials, promoted a ban on both plastic and paper grocery bags. Basalt's council supported the effort with an ordinance to institute a 20-cent fee (tax?) on both types of bags, slated to go into effect on May 1. But citizen and bag-ban opponent Ron Chorbajian saw the decision as "government overreach." He organized a petition drive and collected the necessary signatures to get the issue onto the April 4 ballot. In the meantime, the council modified the ordinance to echo Aspen's bag ban (no plastic, 20-cent fee on paper), but Basalt voters rejected this at the polls. Chorbajian said "winning made him feel good about the democratic process." As it should Ron, as it should. Don't forget the "Hydro" Petition in Aspen: Locals Ward Hauenstein and Maurice Emmer beat crazy odds when their effort to collect 600 voter signatures yielded 953, all collected over a 2-week period during the busy Aspen holidays. The result was that, for fear of a special election, council rescinded the ordinance that re-zoned part of the Marolt Open Space for industrial (hydro plant) use. Sadly, yet realistically, all council has to do is pass another identical ordinance on a whim in the future to get that industrial zoning back. What DID occur was that council made a commitment to place a "hydro" question on the upcoming November ballot. Effort organizers are not convinced however that council will write an up/down binding question on whether to continue building and spending millions on the hydro plant. In my opinion, they'll simply ask a vague and advisory question, and ignore the result. The hydro chapter is far from over, but the petition effort spoke loudly. ANOTHER TAXPAYER-FUNDED BOONDOGGLE FOR MICK Mick's abuse of power and council's fear of stopping him has netted him yet another taxpayer-funded vacation. It worked last year, so he did it again. Mick just spent your tax dollars (amount t.b.d., it was just last week) on an off-season junket to California to see the Tour of California professional bike race in person. Technically, he really didn't ask; he simply announced his plans. That's how much control he has over the other 4 yes-men at the council table with him. His justification for the trip? Officials from the police and special events staffs went on a similar fact-finding trip last year for the USA Pro Cycling Challenge (which returns to Aspen for year #2 in August), but Mick wasn't there. "It's always best to check the facts out for yourself and go to the scene," Mick told the Daily News. Somehow his desire to know how other communities "pay for" similar events warranted a personal trip by our mayor. How about an email? The Red Ant recently received a note from a frustrated subscriber who pointed out that "the Tour of California is in May, after Aspen's (2012) plans are already set. And Mick's term ends next June, before the 2013 race in Colorado. Even if the race stops in Aspen next year, his term will be up (and he will be gone). How is the city going to benefit from Mick's newly acquired wisdom?" The answer: It won't. Are you kidding? ASPEN TAPS YOU FOR FILTERED WATER Our local greenies have gone "limousine" on us. Look for 3 new public "filtered-water" stations in town this summer. Installations at the municipal golf course, Francis Whitaker Park and Koch Lumber Park will join last year's stations at Wagner Park, Conner Park next to city hall and at the skate park near the Rio Grande Trail. The "Aspen Tap Program" is designed to "wean residents and visitors off water sold commercially in plastic bottles made from oil products," according to the city's environmental health department. This year's 3 installations come at a cost of $44,600. "Aspen Tap" is a pretty lame name for the program. After all, the stations don't provide "tap" water at all, rather filtered water for our persnickety greens. What ever happened to good old-fashioned drinking fountains? The funds for this folly come out of the city's "water department enterprise fund," yet another bucket of cash the city dips into to indulge its wacky ideas. This is the fund into which all water utility service fees are deposited and out of which all operating and capital improvement costs of the water are supposed to come. And it's also the source for the millions of dollars of cost-overruns incurred by the city on the ill-conceived and mismanaged construction of the yet-to-be-federally-approved hydro plant on Castle Creek. In 2012, the city plans to spend about $3M more than they take in. They've been burning cash from this fund for quite a while. At the end of 2008, the cash balance was $9.6M and in 2009 it was $9.9M. Since then, the balance has been sliding downward to $7.9M in 2010 and further to $6.8M last year. The budgeted balance for 2012 is $3.8M. We clearly have too much "funny money" in slush funds at city hall - an endless supply of slush from what they see as an endless supply of other people's money. And to think, they are looking at raising water rates yet again.

VELOCI-RFTA & THE NATURAL GAS HYPOCRISY Public transportation advocates (read: our local government) are caught between a rock and a hard place ("fracking" pun intended) in their attempts to balance their enthusiasm for environmentally friendly natural gas-powered buses in the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) fleet with utter disdain for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) drilling in general. In the Roaring Fork Valley, the green light is on for a revolution in local bus transportation. The $46.4 million "Veloci-RFTA" project broke ground recently, and by September 2013, will offer bus riders from South Glenwood Springs to Aspen a bevy of new conveniences, including warm, dry bus stations with WiFi, bathrooms and public art, electronic ticketing and real-time bus arrival information. The Federal Transportation Administration kicked in $25 million for the project, and a year ago, voters in Pitkin County (and other RFTA jurisdictions) approved bonds to cover the balance. Ugh. But the crazy part is, the 18 new buses will run on compressed natural gas (CNG). This has our local greenies in a tailspin. On one hand, CNG is far less expensive than diesel fuel and far better for the environment, but locally, there is a huge brou-ha-ha over CNG drilling leases in the Thompson Divide area near Carbondale. Greenies can be NIMBYs too; they want the benefits of a smaller carbon footprint by RFTA of course, but don't want the "cost" of nearby CNG drilling nor any indication of their support for CNG drilling anywhere. Leave it to Aspen's environmental initiatives manager to tell the RFTA board, "My concern is seeing environmental benefits erased in the name of cost savings." Typical. Note how she neglects to acknowledge the (significant and obvious) "environmental benefits" of switching from diesel fuel to CNG! Can't have it both ways, folks! Some would call it hypocrisy, but in Aspen, remember, it's always "green" at ANY cost! (Note: The CNG-powered buses have been ordered.) ASPEN SCHOOLS: A TAXING DILEMMA There's a quick way to "fix" the local school district's funding problems. And - surprise - it does not involve yet another tax for a change! (The Aspen School District has received voter approval for many bond measures and mill-levy increases in recent years. The community loves its schools but is sick of getting taxed and taxed again.) I have a solution. It will take some elbow grease, but collecting approximately 1500 signatures at the Saturday Market this summer is certainly not a tall order. There is no question that the school district faces future budget cuts and the Aspen Education Foundation (AEF) is actively looking at viable solutions to the inevitable financial shortfalls. To ask voters for a 0.35 percent sales tax increase on retail sales within the school district boundaries is simply taking the easy way out. And taxpayers might just reject another tax increase, regardless of the beneficiary, especially when they learn that there was better option presented. Instead, The Red Ant has presented and is championing a "reallocation" of one-third of the existing Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) revenue that currently goes to the Wheeler Opera House. Sitting on a nearly $30 million endowment built up by the RETT, the Wheeler has no upcoming development plans, and still receives $1.5+ million in operating subsidies (and counting) from the city every year. This won't change. To "relieve" the Wheeler of its RETT revenue for the next 5-10 years (at which point the reallocation would revert back unless extended by the voters) in favor of the Aspen schools is certainly a viable proposition. And voters will surely prefer the reallocation of an existing tax to a new one! I encourage the Aspen Education Foundation to actively pursue this route instead of a sales tax increase. My early indicators (through the grapevine) are extremely favorable in terms of voter approval. But there is one sticking point. AEF leaders met recently with mayor Mick and his sidekick Torre to see about putting such a measure on the November ballot. Both said no. (Ya think?) Mick of course expressed his support for an increased sales tax, however. But this is not the end. AEF must realize that with a little work and some boots on the ground, they can circulate a citizens' petition and get their "reallocation" measure on the November ballot. Let's hope they do. AEF: please don't simply take the "easy way" out and ask for a sales tax increase with such a solid solution close by!  Check with hydro petition leaders Ward Hauenstein and Maurice Emmer! It's really not that hard! COMPARED TO WHAT? A big shout-out to Aspen High School, recently ranked #1 in Colorado and 59th nationally by US News and World Report. This incredible recognition is for our local students, educators and frankly, the taxpayers who foot the bill. As columnist Roger Marolt recently noted, this award benefits property owners in Aspen as well, due to a "substantially large" non-linear relationship between real property owners and school quality. To quote Marolt, "Cha-ching!" But before we let such an accolade go to our heads, and perhaps lead us to justify and blindly support any and all new taxes to support the schools, there are some important thoughts on the newsmagazine's methodology for bestowing this honor. (I do not mean to diminish this recognition in any way, but want to acknowledge several determining criteria for this exceptional ranking.) Please take a moment to read this week's column by Paul Menter entitled "We're Number One." The former city finance director and father of two graduating seniors at Aspen High (congratulations Jordan and Alex!) thoughtfully examines the news weekly's three-step process that sent Aspen to the top of the class. In short, Aspen High, based on its 2010 CSAP test scores (step 1), ranks 17th in math and 12th in reading out of the 40 Colorado high schools considered in the ranking. Step 2 measured the performance of its "least advantaged" students, reported by Aspen as "N/A." The strength of Aspen's Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) participation and passing rates served to generate a "college readiness" measure (step 3). This is clearly what put Aspen on top. Keep up the great work, Aspen. But rest not on your laurels. As Menter concludes, "In education, it's not about how a newsmagazine compares you to thousands of other schools, it's about how successful you are in helping students achieve individual academic success." MY RIDDICU-LIST: THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE The latest installment of complete buffoonery at City Hall was the transportation department's April 11 "free beginner cycling class." No, this class was not a primer on how to conserve gears for your ride to the Bells, nor was it a valuable lesson on how to change a tire. Rather, it was "an effort to inspire people to commute via bicycle," including a "refresher" on "rules of the road and basic cycling skills." Puh-lease.   I was airborne over the Pacific during this nutty event, so sadly, I cannot comment firsthand, but to have observed our municipal employees teaching the merits of "bunny hopping over curbs, balance and turning tight corners" to Aspen's biking-uninitiated in hopes of turning them into bicycle commuters would surely have been a sight. Ahh the lengths our government will go in their (mayoral-driven) efforts to eliminate cars in Aspen. IN THE BREEZE: LOCAL TOPICS BLOWING AROUND Galena Street: Will Mick's hatred of cars (and their owners) be the impetus for closing Galena Street to traffic and paving it over in red bricks just like the Cooper Street and Hyman Avenue malls? He's lobbying hard for it. 3rd Story Variances: The city's online "open city hall" feature on its website is a complete joke. Asking citizens to weigh in on what they would like to see as 3rd floor additions in the downtown core is a gratuitous exercise at best. Nobody at city hall cares. Mick has already said he wants to ban condos and free market residences, and limit third floors to tourist lodging, retail space and other "local serving" businesses. And as you know, what Mick wants, Mick gets. Don't waste your time. Airport Master Plan: Get informed. I've read the papers and the ads. I also took a "behind the scenes" tour. Trust me, I learned A LOT. No propaganda. I'll share my thoughts and opinions in an upcoming issue. Like everything else in this community, it helps to get personally informed. Go see what we have (it's pretty incredible). It will surely help frame what we need, and perhaps what we want. Take a tour. Call 429-2852.

ISSUE #78: Get Me An ANTacid!

"Government is not reason, nor eloquence.  It is force.  And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."         -- George Washington

"The sheep are happier of themselves than under the care of wolves."      -- Thomas Jefferson

BIG BROTHER AND YOUR VACATION RENTALS  

Ever rent your Aspen home? Ever think about it? Well, think again. In the latest chapter of government over-reach and the war on private property, council just passed Ordinance 34 ostensibly because said ordinance "furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare." What?? The city will now regulate "vacation rentals," defined as "the short term occupancy of a residential dwelling unit by the general public for a fee." This "regulation" mandates that anyone who wishes to rent out his/her private property must now obtain an annual business license ($150) and apply for a vacation rental permit. A local owner representative (read: paid property manager) must be "on call" during the duration of each and every rental. Vacation rentals are also required to collect and remit all applicable sales and lodging taxes. And yes, the community development department will be conducting periodic audits to ensure compliance.

How did this come about? Allegedly, the requirement to pay these taxes has been on the books since the early 90's, although no one seems to have been made aware of it. And it seems that there are several "rogue" properties in town where renters disobey trash procedures, parking rules and are neighborhood nuisances. (There have been five, yes five, complaints over the past four years.) Staff originally proposed limiting the number of times a property could be rented, depending on its location. Councilman Adam Frisch hit the nail on the head, calling this "a solution in search of a problem," although he did in the end vote in favor of the ordinance. Go figure.

Instead of addressing how to deal with problem rentals, the answer was to regulate and monitor ALL rentals of ALL private properties. Staff and other city resources are not capable nor desirous of dealing with neighbor complaints about the behaviors of renters; early discussions speculate that the city will not "enforce private covenants" by dealing with scofflaws.  It's all about squeezing the local private property owner - simply because they can. Imagine the new city bureaucracy that will be needed to track down and monitor the hundreds of private vacation rentals each year! It will surely cost far more to administer than the $100,000 it is expected to bring in. 

The following is an articulate letter written to the paper by local resident Maurice Emmer on the subject. I whole-heartedly agree with his list of the unforeseen yet inevitable consequences of the ordinance:

Dear Editor:
According to the papers, Aspen City Council is considering new restrictions on short-term rentals within residential areas of Aspen. I think the promoters of any government regulation should have to satisfy a very high standard of compelling need for the regulation to advance an urgent public policy. Otherwise, we reach a place (we probably have surpassed that place) where people feel government is there to suppress rather than to protect them. I am unaware of any compelling need or public policy urgency in this case. Because I understand the basic, unavoidable laws of economics (i.e., human behavior); however, I can predict some of the inevitable consequences of such restrictions, including:

1. Real estate values in the residential areas of Aspen will be reduced marginally (the fewer potential uses for property, the lower the value), and values will increase marginally outside the city limits, especially in areas closest to town.

2. Restricting the supply of short-term rentals in Aspen will increase the prices of such rentals, driving some business outside the city limits and even to other resort destinations.

3. More homeowners in the residential areas of Aspen suddenly will find they have more "guests" from out of town rather than formal renters. (Additional legal restrictions invite additional scofflaws.)

4. The city will have to choose between (a) spending additional resources on rental police to enforce the restrictions, intruding further into people's personal business, or (b) ignoring rampant disregard for the law.

5. Future potential purchasers of property will have another negative factor to consider when weighing a purchase in Aspen vs. elsewhere.

If City Council believes the above inevitable consequences of rental restrictions are in the best interests of Aspen, they definitely should support the tightest restrictions they can possibly think of.

This, folks, is what happens when we elect a government comprised of 4/5 subsidized housing dwellers. (Only councilman Adam Frisch owns a free market home.) The four, desirous of leveling the playing field at every turn, cannot rent out their deed-restricted subsidized housing for extra cash, so they want to make it cumbersome for you to do it. It's only FAIR, right? Good grief.

DOWNTOWN DOWN-ZONED

Hate to say "I told ya so," but as predicted, council passed a two-story height limit for downtown construction in a special meeting on Monday night. The mayor ignored staff's suggestions and presented a package of amendments that HE preferred, stating that staff's recommendations did not go far enough. Also banned are single-family homes and duplexes, but condos will be considered if enough subsidized housing is provided to soften the deal. The mayor hates the free market, and deems re-development projects that include high-end residential on the third floor "penthouses on stilts" because these buildings "drive up real estate prices and out-compete more modest and desired restaurant and retail businesses."

When a senior SkiCo official commented that Mick's amendments were being expedited without thoughtful review, Mick came unhinged and snapped, "I'm not here to be cross-examined." And his lackeys Torre and Skadron went right along with him, both of them DYING for his endorsement in their 2013 mayoral bids.

The dummies just don't understand the economic realities: it's unrealistic to expect new mid-priced (tourist) retail, restaurants or lodging to be built in the downtown core because land values are simply too valuable for anything other than high-end rooms and businesses.

Ahh, but how funny. The law of unintended consequences is sharpening its teeth. Seems the rush is on for building permits before the new law takes effect early next month. We're about to see a crazy building boom (albeit short-term) as a result of these new restrictions. Development will abound, likely to include: a new building at the Bidwell Building site (Galena and Cooper), a penthouse atop Boogie's, a new building with penthouses to replace the Zocalito building on the Hyman Ave mall, a new building where the Gap currently stands, a 3-story residence behind Susie's on Hopkins Ave, and a third-floor penthouse atop the Aspen Athletic Club building as part of a voluntary historic designation deal. When these and the others that beat the clock are eventually completed, the boom days may be over for some time. This new land use code will make any new development in downtown Aspen economically prohibitive.

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING: ENFORCEMENT AT LAST?

Could it be the new presence of respected locals Bobbie Burkley and Rick Head on the housing board that brings a hint of sanity to the beleaguered organization? I certainly hope so! In recent weeks, two notable eviction issues have come before the board. A renter at Truscotte Place was bounced for non-compliance - she is unemployed and the housing rules mandate that residents work 29 hours a week (1500 hours/year). The second concerned a resident who owns her deed-restricted subsidized housing unit, and she has not worked in 4 years - the first two due to health issues and the subsequent two based on the difficulty of finding a job in this economy. This resident has been given until July to find qualifying employment or she will be forced to sell her unit.

Cries for "compassion" abound. A Sheriff's deputy went on record saying he is "ashamed to be associated with the county" now that APCHA is enforcing its own rules. Letters to the editor call for reprieves all around, given the economy. But the cable company doesn't wait, so surely that bill is being paid. Same with VISA. And the cell phone. Why should subsidized housing in Aspen be THE entity at the end of the list that is expected to bend/break its own rules?  

Notably in both cases, the residents both cried "witch hunt," citing "so many others" in the program who also violate the rules. The fact is, APCHA is rife with corruption and non-compliance. And we've got to start somewhere. Kudos to the APCHA board. The rules are the rules - thank you for enforcing them! There's plenty more work to do.... Keep it up!

But the best has been the recent outcry from the Aspen Homeless Shelter. They believe APCHA is "contributing to homelessness in the Aspen area." What??? Yep, the director there compared the "housing system to a college campus where one can't keep housing without staying in school." It's actually a very good analogy. But then he went on to characterize our subsidized housing program as "21^st century feudalism" where housing residents are treated "like chattel," ruminating whether Aspen is "a community for rich people and people willing to work 29 hours a week to serve them? Or is this a place that people can come to live." (Puh-lease!) Well, the answer is simple: BOTH. If you work, you can keep your housing and live here. Besides, Aspen is a service economy so many jobs are service industry jobs.  The government therefore provides subsidies to keep the housing costs well below what the market will bear.

Government-subsidized housing in Aspen is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.

An easy solution: The Red Ant has recently acquired a spreadsheet that outlines the subsidized housing inventory at each of the projects in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) portfolio. I've been asking for this info for years. Interesting: there are 1429 "owned" units. The spreadsheet is vague at best, but it's a start. For example, Lone Pine condos, built in 1980, has 28 units.   Next, it would make sense to list those 28 units, with the owner of each and where he/she works. It is, after all, public information, just like voter registration. How easy would that be? Very. A simple new column or two on the existing spreadsheet, updated by APCHA each time a unit changes hands or a resident changes jobs, and posted on the county website. Think of the self-policing that would occur. It would be right there, for all to see. Nothing to hide? Nothing to worry about.

RIDDLE ME THIS: SUBSIDIZED HOUSING "MITIGATION?" REALLY?

Just a thought, but as our local governors continue to restrict free market development, they consistently DEMAND subsidized housing "mitigation" for each and every project. This, in the face of the lowest demand for subsidized housing in years and a system filled with non-complying residents. Call me crazy, but in an environment where there are far more subsidized housing dwellers than there are local jobs, why are we punishing property owners and developers, and why on earth are we building more and more government-subsidized housing? One would logically think that anyone who brings jobs to town (through construction, development of retail/restaurants/etc.) should be REWARDED for such behavior. But no. Not in Aspen. Somehow we still demand housing mitigation for more and more people who cannot find work here and cannot afford to eat/shop/live in what the Wall Street Journal deemed "The Most Expensive Town in America." (3/4/11)

MY RIDDICU-LIST: THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

It was classic. In a March 12 council discussion of how to fund the purchase of some new mowing equipment for the golf course, it was noted that the golf course would be better off borrowing the needed funds from the city because the city would charge a lower interest rate than the open market. The buffoons on council began giggling at the thought that they could "make money" by charging interest, clearly not understanding that they are the ones who also PAY that interest. Yep, this is what happens when we elect perfect idiots to serve on city council. They actually think they can MAKE MONEY by charging themselves interest.

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

In defense of the city's recent commitment to move ahead with spending $9.2M (plus a $1.2M contingency that will surely also be spent) on the "infrastructure" for Burlingame 2 despite questionable need or demand, mayor Mick evoked Caesar in his hifalutin statement justifying the build-out of the huge government-subsidized housing project: "Good governments react to circumstances as they confront them. The really great ones, the great cities, anticipate those things and are prepared for the future." Puh-lease. In reality, Mick is more like Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.

CORRECTION: AACP COST $1.37M, NOT $500K

The Red Ant is loathe to disseminate false information. As such, I must correct a recent report that the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) cost $500K. This is not true. The half-million dollar figure merely represented the costs of "existing conditions" reports ($228K), the initial public process ($225K), advertising and special tv taping ($22K), planning & zoning review meals ($4K), and a secondary public process ($23K). Omitted from the initial report were the estimated 15,000 hours of staff time spent on the AACP. According to a planning & zoning report received by The Red Ant, at a basic averaged amount of $58 per hour (includes salary and benefits for the various staff who worked on elements of the plan), that's $870K in staff resources.

Therefore, the $502K spent on studies and consultants plus the $870K in staff time brings the grand total cost of the AACP to at least $1.37M of YOUR MONEY.

MICK: A TAX SCOFFLAW!

Our mayor, a self-proclaimed and erstwhile "tax attorney" is afoul of the law. The Red Ant submitted the following letter to the editor of both papers, but neither would print it. They both need to protect their boy Mick.

To the Editor

The Aspen mayor's compensation is set by ordinance at $2325 per month, or $27,900 per year.

Mick's summer 2011 boondoggle to Europe, for which he requested and received $2418 in expense reimbursement, was not shorter than one week in length, nor was more than 75 percent of his time dedicated to official business purposes of the city of Aspen. It is unlikely that Mick could document to the satisfaction of the IRS that a personal vacation was not a primary consideration in the decision to travel. According to Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code, the $2418 then constitutes taxable income to the mayor. It does not qualify as nontaxable reimbursement for business-related travel.

Since the mayor's controversial expense reimbursement request was granted by the city, it increased the mayor's 2011 taxable income from the legally authorized amount of $27,900 to $30,318. This fact arguably places the mayor and city council, and city manager Steve Barwick (who signed the check), in violation of the law for permitting compensation of an elected official in excess of the amount permitted by the city's municipal code.

The $2418 in income did not show up on the mayor's 2011 W-2. I checked.

Aspen's Sister Cities non-profit publicly confirms helping "arrange" Mick's trip and even threw in $500 in mad money. I would hope this group would eagerly provide the necessary documentation to demonstrate that this travel meets the IRS guidelines for its tax-exempt mission. Let's see it, because it serves no tax-exempt purpose for a 501c3 organization to pay a private citizen $500 to go on a European vacation, which, according to the Internal Revenue Code, is precisely what Mick's junket was.

In the interest of public trust, and given the opaque manner in which this issue was communicated to the community, taxpayers deserve complete transparency. Citizens also deserve to know what "gifts" the mayor mailed back to the U.S., as documented in his expense reimbursement request, and how said gifts benefit the city or the Sister Cities non-profit. Otherwise, those gifts may also constitute taxable income. 

Who on city council is brave enough to stand up to the mayor and demand that he comply with the tax code? My guess is no one. Holding elected officials accountable for how they spend public money, particularly at the intersection of personal benefit and public purpose, which is where the real issue resides, is paramount to ensuring trust in our governmental system.

Is it avoidance? Is it evasion? As Denis Healey once said, "The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of the prison wall."

A RED ANT PILGRIMAGE TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

No, I won't be submitting my travel receipts for reimbursement from the public coffers, but my upcoming trip to China will likely be more of a "Sister Cities" trip on behalf of the People's Republic of Aspen than any bike ride through Europe undertaken by our greedy lame duck mayor last summer.

Besides, I need a break -- I'm simply horrified by the direction we're headed.

Yes, this is a call, one year out, to eligible candidates for office. Eligible. As in knowledgeable. And God forbid, educated. And dare I say, business-minded? And let's get a few private property and/or business owners up there, just for kicks. Mick will be gone so the tenor of the meetings will change dramatically. It's clear that Torre is gearing up to run for mayor. Lord help us. But should he fail, he'll be off the table. Skadron too will run - he has nothing to lose, given that he'll still have 2 years left on council. But really, folks. I know this community is WAAAAY in to recycling, but can't we do better? This is indeed a call-out to grown-ups in our community. PLEASE step forward and serve. Mayor or council - the 1/5 vote is the same. Dwayne? Will you think about it? Mike Maple? Your life-long residency and intelligent contributions on so many local issues position you tremendously to lead. Ward Hauenstein? Maurice Emmer? Your leadership with the hydro plant petition showed the community how you can uniquely build consensus across diverse groups. Off the top of my head, those names came up. There are many others. Leaders AND listeners. The potential is there. We CAN do better. And the community deserves FAR better than what we've got. We're a year out. Time to start thinking. I certainly don't have to be involved in your campaign, but consider me a resource. If you are thinking of challenging any one of these guys, please let me help.

ISSUE #77: FlagrANT Foolishness

"Foolishness is indeed the sister of wickedness." -- Sophocles

"People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools."  -- Alice Walker 

MICK'S ALL-OUT WAR ON "THE RICH"

He's gonna be a handful for the next 15 months, that's for sure. Lame duck mayor Mick is doggedly working through his "bucket list" of punitive restrictions to secure his legacy. Yes, as the clock ticks down on the term-limited career politician, he is on the brink of becoming an emotional wreck, desperately pushing massive spending projects and lashing out at those whose politics, fortunes and lifestyles differ from his own. His Nastiness is specifically on the warpath against those who desire private residential property in the downtown core.

At the February 27 council meeting, Mick went off on a typical diatribe, this time convincing no one (except for maybe the sycophants at the council table) that 3^rd floor penthouse additions to (questionably) historic buildings DO NOT economically finance the redevelopment of the entire property. Yeah, right.  He promised to end such "undesirable behavior" by changing the land use code and  removing "the incentive for doing what you don't want done."  That is, what HE doesn't want done.

Sadly, it's likely to happen. Local architecture firms are working around the clock on re-development plans for downtown buildings whose owners want to get their plans approved before the likely draconian changes to the land use code occur in early April. Property owners, developers and realtors beware.

TORRE'S BIG "NON-EMERGENCY"

Signaling his undying support for Mick's punitive plans to stifle free market development, Torre recently proposed an Emergency Ordinance that would have IMMEDIATELY capped downtown building heights at 32 feet and would have BANNED new free-market condos from the downtown core. (The current land use code allows for buildings as high as 42 feet with 10 additional feet allowed for mechanical stuff and stairwell enclosures.) Wonders never cease: Adam and Derek somehow were not convinced that an emergency ordinance was the way to go, and the ordinance failed in a 3-2 vote. (An emergency ordinance needs 4 votes to advance.) It would have been nice if these two had simply cited Aspen's Home Rule Charter (Article IV, Section 4.11) on emergency ordinances. Or, god forbid, ask the city attorney for the definition: "Emergency Ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, peace or safety shall be approved only by the unanimous vote of council members present or a vote of four (4) council members, whichever is less." So, tell me, where is this "public property" in Mick's and Torre's problem(s) with this issue? Health? Peace? Safety? It was all a sham, and they hoped Adam and Derek would be unknowlingly and unwittingly goaded into voting for it. But just when it looked like we have some thinkers after all, Adam stated, "We have a third-floor problem in this community." What???

Again, safe for now, but it's a very short "now."  A 3-2 vote will be a "win" for the bad guys come April when they present it again through proper channels.  We'll have to come up with a good moniker for the legislation.  Something like: SMT for Scr*wed My Town, or TSM for Terrible Socialist Method -- the 3 letters representing Torre, Steve and Mick who are the drivers of such ridiculous and punitive (and inevitable) legislation.  (It's right up there with banning residents for race, religion or sexual orientation.  This time though, it's just because the people they wish to ban actually HAVE money!)

AN UP-DOWN VOTE ON THE HYDRO PLANT IN NOVEMBER!

Victory! As predicted, council opted to ignore the recent petition's demand for a spring special election, but they did rescind Ordinance 30. Best of all, they have committed to an up/down vote on the hydro plant in November. THIS is GREAT news. That is, aside from the fact that the city clerk will write the ballot language. (No doubt this will be a convoluted mess of yes-means-no and no-means-yes gobbledy-gook, intended to confuse the voters.) But I am especially pleased that the city CANNOT BY LAW expend public funds in its advocacy of the issue. They'll call in the "surrogates" to tout the disastrous project, but the project's opposition is certain to organize (soon) and begin fundraising and campaigning. It's nice when the local environmentalists, fiscal hawks, national environmental organizations, neighbors, good public policy advocates and 953 citizens agree on one thing: the hydro plant must be stopped!  More to follow.

AACP ADOPTED DESPITE BEING BEYOND BAD

Four years and over $500K of your money later, the latest shameful chapter of bad leadership and even worse legislation continues with council's recent approval of the long overdue Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). While not a "regulatory" document per se, this decade's version presents "aspirational goals" for the community that allegedly reflect the desires of the community itself. (Never mind that much of the data collected by the planning and zoning folks who crafted the missive was tossed out when it didn't match THEIR goals for the community.) The final document is sure to keep the city's 300 employees gainfully employed while they strive to create programs that address the fulfillment of such "aspirations" as "providing accessible and affordable health and dental care for residents" and "possible amendments to the city and county codes to include review criteria for self-reliance, health and safety issues" (in other words, the creation of a fee or other methods to off-set the health-related effects of development). No, I am NOT making this up! These, and other such "philosophies," will provide decision-making "guidance" for the remainder of the decade. Good grief.

Just how did this thing pass? In a UNANIMOUS vote, the 103-page document was passed despite a lack of support by council. Huh? (Good question.) Yep, the guys were just worn down by the process. Adam Frisch notably told the Aspen Daily News, "Every time I see the word 'jobs' in here, something negative is associated with that, and I think that's horrible." Ya think? Then why on earth did you vote to approve it, Adam?

Even the city planner who spear-headed the AACP process told council, "Nobody is 100% happy with it, including staff, including the planning commissions, including you, but I think that it's a good reflection of the community discussion, the community dialog that we had on these very important issues." The Red Ant is simply aghast.

(While everything in the AACP is advisory, actual policy changes can be enacted separately by a majority vote of council. Fun times ahead....)

BURLINGAME 2: THE NIGHTMARE BEGINS

It just sickens me to write this. The city apparently had an extra $9M lying around in the housing fund so they decided to spend it on "infrastructure" for Burlingame phase 2. Here it comes. The deciding factor to move forward? 67 people have qualified with APCHA and have mortgage pre-approvals. Yep, 67 people. No commitments, no down payments, no non-refundable deposits. How this community will pay for the $100M project is beyond me and the city is staying mum.

I've acquired the list of those 67 names. It will be interesting to see how many (if any) of these folks actually close on a unit at Burlingame 2 once it's built! A quick glance at the list identifies numerous folks who already live in subsidized housing elsewhere. That's the game - when the community kicks down for new units, those in the system just move into the new places. The whole thing is a complete joke. There are currently numerous units at Burlingame for sale, not to mention throughout the APCHA portfolio - enough to fill 2/3 page in the Wednesday paper every week! Even the Burlingame 1 condo association president spoke out against the city's construction "green light," pointing out that the unsold units in the first phase indicate a lack of demand for more housing there. Council didn't care. Torre even went so far as to suggest that we raise the subsidy to fill the new units! Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

** THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE

The tax man commeth.  In November.  Tin cups are rattling throughout the town: 

• Our 21-year-old library is hoping to put a $5M general obligation bond on the ballot for a 7,000 sf expansion; they've been talking about it for years and the county has already spent over $500K on plans and consultants.  Most of the new space will be public meeting rooms, and the children's area will be "revamped." Apparently our local "book warehouse" needs to be more of a "community hub," according to the librarian and a fancy international library consultant.  The library currently has an existing $5.3M endowment, but the consultant says that's not enough.  The planned $10+M project needs more money -- from your property taxes.  Really? How about an old-fashioned capital campaign?
• The Aspen School District expects a $700K deficit next year and twice that in years to come.  That is not good.  But is a 0.5% sales tax, expected to raise $2.5M annually for the schools, the best answer?  Looking at all the money that city hall has stashed in various superflous "funds," wouldn't you think that as a community we could look at re-allocating some existing taxes (or other revenue streams to the city) to our schools?  How about the 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)?  We certainly don't need any more subsidized housing and the Wheeler has a gold mine in its endowment -- how about re-allocating the RETT money (or at least some of it) to the Aspen School District for 5 or 10 years?  We could set it up so that it grandfathers back to its original purpose unless made permanent.  Now THERE'S some money that would REALLY help our schools -- and it's money that would not be missed!  Let's get smart about this, folks! THAT's one issue I'd like to see on the November ballot!!!
• Council is looking at numerous spendy projects that may or may not necessitate new taxes.  It's still early and unclear.  Heads up for: a Rubey Park (bus station) "overhaul" so that it becomes a "better place to hang out," a "friendly walking corridor" that links the library to Rubey Park, and yes, the Main Street median concept raises its ugly head again.

 Like I said, you can't make this stuff up!

GET YOUR $50 FOOD TAX REFUND - DON'T FORGET!

HERE's the form. Simply fill it out and send it in by April 16!

Just think, when you get that $50 refund check in the mail, you can turn around and make a donation. Me? I'm giving my $50 food tax refund to local stream-protection non-profit Saving Our Streams.

It's a win-win: a tax-deductible donation for me and a contribution to the group that is fighting to protect the Aspen-area streams that are threatened by the city's ill-conceived hydro plant.

 Saving Our Streams    PO Box 4135   Aspen, CO 81612  www.SavingOurStreams.com

ISSUE # 76 ... ReluctANT Minds

"Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel." -- Banker Sir John Quinton

"The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts." -- John Locke

THE LITTLE ANNIE'S BROU-HA-HA  You've probably heard that Little Annie's and its next-door neighbor the Benton Building have been spared from the landfill. Considering the two are questionably historic (at best), this is indeed a victory for the sentimental "I wish it were still 1972" Historic Hysterics who want nothing to change downtown, ever. But why don't they recognize this victory? Why are they still complaining? It's simple. The very land use code that many of them helped design that provides incentives to owners of historic properties came back to bite them. In 2011, after a nearly 18-month fight to create a law that would enable the involuntary designation of private properties, the end result was instead a voluntary historical designation program called "Aspen Modern." The program enables private property owners of buildings on "the list" to negotiate with the City for "benefits" if they choose to voluntarily designate their property. Such "benefits" include variations from and exceptions to the land use code, economic benefits, fee waivers, and priority approvals, among others. When Aspen Core Ventures, owners of Annie's, Benton and the big empty parking lot at Hyman and Hunter, submitted their development plans for a mixed use building on the site, some (including mayor Mick) went wild. How could anyone tear down Annie's? Or the Benton building, where artist Tom Benton lived and worked (before it was changed numerous times and included many different businesses including O'Leary's Pub)? But the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) did not consider either building historic so the fate was sealed. But life-long local and Aspen Core Ventures partner Nikos Hecht heard the outcry, and saw the opportunity that Aspen Modern provided. If he were to voluntarily historically designate Annie's and Benton, then his building proposal would be in a position to negotiate for benefits from the City. And that's exactly what he did. By sparing Annie's and Benton from the wrecking ball, Hecht is now able to build a larger penthouse on the building's third floor (one 6900sf unit as opposed to several 2500sf maximum-sized units) and a second unit on the second floor (2000sf). But the outcry abounds. Some think the penthouse itself was a concession by the city. Nope. The land use code allows for every inch (height/mass/scale) of the new building. But mayor Mick is incensed. He even called Hecht an "extortionist" and his proposal "blackmail" because he couldn't legally kill the project. Aspen Modern and the law of unintended consequences have created inevitable negotiations between the city and private property owners. These don't necessarily favor the city and certainly don't kill development. In the case above, it was a win-win for the developer because his building proposal with or without Annie's and Benton was completely within the code. It was through Hecht's generosity and subsequent negotiations with the city that the Historic Hysterics eeked out their own win when the city made concessions to keep Annie's and Benton standing. In addition, Hecht agreed to lease the Annie's building to an affordable restaurant tenant in perpetuity. Former Mayor Bill Stirling recognized the up-side of the deal, stating that the city has "something on the table that is very workable." So now what? Look for draconian changes to the land use code. I've mentioned before how mayor Mick is vehemently opposed to any more free-market housing in the downtown core. He went so far as to tell The Aspen Times, "I want to make downtown less attractive for luxury residential speculation."   Subsidized housing, fine. Free market housing, not so much. Council is inclined to agree. Councilman Adam Frisch speaks often about making changes to the land use code, recommending "shrinking the goalposts" and not moving them. Ok, sounds like good campaign rhetoric, but what will it really mean? Watch council pull a classic (and predictable) knee-jerk reaction and limit all downtown development to current height limits or to just two stories. It's likely. This will prevent the addition of within-current-code penthouse additions to tired (and debatably historic) buildings. Mick will be happy because no part-time residents will live in the core. Oh, but here comes the law of unintended consequences once again. The next questionably historic building will instead be fast-tracked to the landfill. It's that simple. Without room for negotiation, incentives for the owner, and/or the opportunity for the construction of an economic engine to fund the voluntary historic preservation of buildings, who in their right mind would keep them standing? Not a soul. It'll be a mess. And then we'll be back at square one. The Historic Hysterics have a choice: stay with Aspen Modern and recognize that "negotiation" means give something to get something, OR force a radical change in the land use code. If it's the latter, don't come crying when your next sentimental shack meets the bulldozer. MICK'S CLASS WARFARE WILL HAVE IMPACTS Another less-immediately apparent impact of Mick's ongoing vitriolic and punitive attitude toward development of private property could very well be a reduction of our competitiveness as a high-end, world class tourism destination. Aspen is tremendously unique as a destination because the town IS the resort. This can't be said of other ski resorts. Locals, part-time residents and visitors all converge (sleep, eat, recreate) in the same place --- Aspen. To say that certain people are no longer welcome to physically live in the downtown core WILL have repercussions. There are many other choices for those who wish to purchase private residential property downtown; they may very well stop coming. In turn, the town, its businesses and consequently the locals will feel the effects as the make-up of the community experiences incremental change. This, of course, is the intent of Mick's class warfare. But it's simply not good for Aspen. HYDRO HAPPENINGS It's official. The city clerk has confirmed that the 953 petition signatures turned in last month included at least the 594 required to force council to make a decision: rescind Ordinance 30 of 2011 that rezoned open space land for industrial use (for the Hydro Plant) or conduct a special election on the issue. Citizens are hoping for an election, primarily because many feel duped by the bond measure that passed in 2007. The horrific escalating costs and the environmental mess are the primary concerns of local voters who signed the petition. Mick is going berserk with the knowledge that SO many citizens loathe his pet political destiny project. Rather than addressing or even acknowledging the community's concerns, he has turned his efforts toward a witch hunt to root out the funding source(s) for some educational advertising that ran in both papers during the petition signature collection period. Local stream-protection non-profit Saving Our Streams (SOS) has proudly claimed responsibility for the ad buys, citing its shared desire for protecting Aspen-area streams with petition initiators Ward Hauenstein and Maurice Emmer. SOS' interest was in educating the public on the petition effort, but Mick is incensed since he does not know who the donors are to this private entity. His latest diatribe against the entity was that voters would be "suspicious" if SOS donors are not disclosed. Mick has additionally created a legal "goose chase" that only serves to utilize taxpayer funds (through legal costs) and cost the non-profit money. He has demanded that SOS register as an "issue committee" because the group spent more than $200. This is ludicrous because there is no "issue" on the table (or the ballot) at this time, and the non-profit does NOT have a major purpose of supporting a ballot question or issue. Obviously, Mick just wants to run up the group's legal bills because his argument "is incorrect as a matter of law," according to the group's Denver-based attorney. Meanwhile, for the past month, the City of Aspen has been purchasing (with taxpayer funds) print advertising in both papers that promotes the Hydro Plant! Yes, quarter and one-third page color ads. With YOUR money. But worst of all is the content of the PROPAGANDA (see bullets below) campaign called "Aspen Hydro Power - Smart, Clean, Local, Healthy" they are putting forth to mislead voters toward supporting the Hydro Plant, should the issue come to a vote. (IF/WHEN there is an election, it is ILLEGAL for the city to expend public funds to promote its stance in an issue, therefore they are just doing it early). The Castle Creek Energy Center (CCEC) will ... be the ONLY significant source of power that could be used in an emergency if the grid is down. Nice. The ad shows a picture of "Emergency Shelter at the ARC (rec center)" on CCEC power vs a dark square illustrating "Aspen in an Emergency without CCEC." Really? This argument is an insult to the intelligence of every Aspenite. This is the City's emergency plan? A small hydro plant that is designed to produce just 8% of current demand and is likely to be producing far less at the time of year such an emergency is most likely to occur, such as during a major winter storm event when the water levels are very low. Where is the City's REAL emergency plan?? Please tell me that Aspen has a better plan than sending everybody in town - residents, tourists, employees -dashing on over to the ARC in the middle of a 100-year snow storm event or other emergency? All 30,000 people during high season? Yeah, right. That's not an emergency plan, that's a scare tactic!! The useful life of solar panels and wind turbines is 20-25 years. Hydro is paid off after 25 years with at least 50 more years of hydro power for Aspen to use. For well-planned, economically-constructed and efficiently-maintained hydro facilities, this may be true. But for CCEC, this is flat-out nonsense. It has been shown by numerous sources, The Red Ant included, that the poorly planned and politically motivated hydro plant will operate at a loss for its entire lifetime. If you are aware of a 75-year-old hydro plant that has covered all of its costs over its entire lifetime, please forward the audited financials to The Red Ant. I would love to see the proof. There just may be a few examples where this has happened, but the history of hydro is that over decades, the cost to mitigate for its slow but steady environmental damage and unanticipated maintenance costs overwhelm any chance of breaking even. Ask the Bonneville Power Administration about that one. They operate some of the oldest and largest hydro projects in the nation, and they lose money every year. Why? Mitigation for environmental damage that was not recognized until decades after construction. Plus, given the city's track record in maintaining small hydro projects (back in the 90's they had to replace the turbine at the existing Maroon Creek facility after only a few years due to poor maintenance), this project's costs are going nowhere but straight up! Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Aspen is ignoring not only history but its own incompetence. Aspen will continue to buy as much wind as possible but a utility portfolio cannot be made up only of wind (or solar) because when it isn't windy (or sunny), there is no power. There must be reliable back-up power which is coal or hydro. One is green (hydro), one isn't (coal). The City argues that wind-generated electricity is not available as "base load" power - that is, power necessary to provide base services on a 24-7-365 basis. Yet independent inquiries of MEAN (the Municipal Energy Authority of Nebraska), the City's provider of electricity through the power grid, have indicated that the City could purchase more wind power if they wanted to. Additionally, "green" energy is growing, with more wind and solar power being added to the grid annually, and the technologies for generating and delivering such energy are improving. So why does the City prioritize an overpriced, old technology solution that is likely to harm our local ecology while only generating a fraction of Aspen's power needs over the virtual certainty of less expensive options with no negative local impacts? So Council can take credit and get their names on the plaque of the new Castle Creek Energy Center, that's why. Aspen should take responsibility for its own energy production and contribute to lowering global carbon emissions. Really?? I beg to differ and bet dollars to doughnuts that the citizens of Aspen agree with me. Aspen should take responsibility for being a good environmental steward, but not at ANY cost (monetary, environmental, public policy). This project's "opportunity cost" - that is, the relative cost of current and future alternatives to achieve the same environmental result over the project's lifetime, is far too high to be justified in economic terms. The CCEC is an environmentally sound project that is emission free, local and offers unprecedented protection for Castle and Maroon Creeks basing energy production on water flows. No other water users on those rivers have offered such protection. Ever. This is a seemingly plausible argument that is factually inaccurate and misleading. In other words, it is sophistry. The Red Ant knows of no other Castle or Maroon Creek water users who are currently required by law to take action to protect Castle and Maroon Creeks. The City, on the other hand, very clearly attempted to mislead the Feds by applying for a "conduit exemption" that would have allowed them to sidestep much public review, and environmental disclosure and study necessary under a normal FERC permit application process. And now they have the nerve to claim they are the ones PROTECTING the streams?? Good grief! 66% ($6.9M) of the Hydro Plant is already paid for. $3.6M more to complete the project. Finishing the project is a local investment which builds wealth in the community. Puh-lease. Only Aspen's city hall would use its own incompetence as defense for continuing to build such a poorly planned capital project. To quote a recent letter to the editor from a Glenwood Springs resident, "Their argument is that even though they're running 70% over budget, they've already built or bought most of the plant. So if they've gone this far without really caring what many respected members of the community think, why stop now?" Classic. Besides, do they REALLY think anyone buys this nonsense? "Builds wealth in the community?" As if. You get the idea: This is propaganda at its VERY (and desperate) best! The cost of these misleading ads has exceeded $10,000 to-date. Next steps: My guess is that council will be too chicken to put the issue before the electorate. They'll rescind the ordinance, which sadly will not kill the hydro plant, yet. (They can re-zone later if/when they get federal approval.) Even though this will be a big middle finger to the Aspen voters, they'll do it anyway. They are in a hole and simply can't stop digging. But, if they were smart, they'd quickly throw the issue to the voters. When it gets voted down and the hydro plant gets shut down, they can just say, "It was the will of the voters." These guys HATE making decisions so a public vote would be the easy way out. To further illustrate the contempt the City has for the public process related to the Hydro Plant, they issued a victorious press release when the feds (FERC) recently approved their application for a "traditional licensing process" (TLP) for the Hydro Plant. Many respected entities and experts opposed this application, including the White River National Forest, American Rivers, the Western Rivers Institute, Trout Unlimited, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Public Counsel of the Rockies, and Aspenites Connie Harvey, Tillie Walton and Tom and Maureen Hirsch, who instead favored the more stringent "integrated licensing process" (ILP). Since when is an expedited application process that minimizes public input a victory? Only in Aspen's city hall. It is my guess that with the esteemed and diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the project, the licensing decision will be legally contested. Look for a rescind vs vote decision at the March 12 city council meeting. It will take four of the five votes to rescind the ordinance, so there is still a glimmer of hope for that election.  Keep your fingers crossed. IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT.... City attorney John Worcester resigned recently. Seems the legal issues that the City is currently facing grew too cumbersome for the long-time civil servant. The City faces a Colorado Supreme Court battle with Marilyn Marks over public access to the voted ballots from the 2009 municipal election, and Worcester has been a key proponent of keeping the ballots locked up, despite showing the ballots on GrassRoots TV on election night. It has long been wondered what is on those ballots that Worcester doesn't want shown to the public. Furthermore, the City is embroiled in a lawsuit with neighbors of the Hydro Plant who claim that the City abandoned its water rights for a Hydro Plant when they decommissioned an earlier plant on the site in 1958. And there's the looming question for the City of whether or not the Colorado Supreme Court will take on a case APCHA (the housing authority) has been fighting since 2008. The case involves a landlord who sued APCHA claiming that its affordable housing program that mandates below-market rents in his local buildings is unconstitutional. The case is expected to go before the Supreme Court this year. (If APCHA loses the case, it could potentially have a $100M consequence for the City of Aspen.) I simply loved Worcester's claim in his exit interview that he said he never "technically" lost a case in his 21 years in the city attorney's office. So, losing 3-0 at the court of appeals on the 2009 CORA/ballot lawsuit doesn't count as a loss? Or how about that inane 2004 lawsuit Worcester filed against Kinder Morgan alleging consumer protection violations because the company doesn't account for the impact of high altitude on the heating capacity of natural gas in its rates? That was another loss at the 9th district and in the court of appeals. I guess "loss" means different things to different people! I am personally glad to see Worcester go. He was instrumental in the dismissal and public humiliation of the 2009 Election Commission of which I was a member. Worcester's collaboration with former councilman Jack Johnson to obfuscate the real issue (the election commission refused to certify the 2009 election due to numerous irregularities) and instead vilify the members showed me firsthand what citizens of Aspen were up against when challenging the City on any legal front. Worcester's resignation does save me the completion of my formal complaint to OARC: the Office of the Attorney Regulation Council regarding Worcester's role in the 2009 election commission dismissal. Worcester was a classic perpetrator of SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense. His goals were accomplished when the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, legal costs and exhaustion. SLAPP also intimidates others from participating in the debate. With Worcester now gone, will the culture of "so sue us" end at city hall? Time will tell. But his replacement is assistant city attorney Jim True, who never met a conflict of interest he didn't embrace -- so don't hold your breath! That OARC complaint draft may just come in handy some day! MY RIDDICU-LIST: THE "YOU CAN'T MAKE IT UP" FILE My favorite statement from council on the subject of a special election on the Hydro Plant came from councilman Steve Skadron who complained about the $16K cost of a special election, "My preference would be a November vote rather than a special election; it's less expensive." Never mind by law the special election must be scheduled during a period of between 30 and 90 days following the March 12 meeting. And especially never mind the $10.5M project is $5M (and counting) over-budget. Puh-lease. Less expensive? Since when does Skadron care about money?? ST. ANTon RECAP My recent ski trip to Austria and Switzerland (St. Anton, Kitzbuhel and Gstaad) was great fun with fabulous skiing. They have more snow this season than they've had in 50 years! Doing our part to undo the PR damage mayor Mick did in Europe last summer on his unofficial and unauthorized (yet still reimbursed from the public coffers) goodwill tour, my friend Gail and I donned our Aspen best at après ski: