ISSUE # 67: pANTs On Fire

"I'm upset that you lied to me; I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche  "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."  -- Joseph Goebbels **SAVE THE DATE:  Sunday 9/11, 5 pm Aspen photographer Andrea Booher was one of two official government photographers at the WTC site from September 12, 2001, until late November that year.  She has just completed a documentary for A&E on her experiences reconnecting with 10 first responders she met there amidst the rescue and recovery efforts.  The 90-minute documentary will be shown as a public event, free of charge, at the Wheeler on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 at 5 pm.  Andrea will additionally have a Q&A following the film. SOMETHING'S BURNING Eeeeew. What's that smell?  Could it be the acrid smoke from one of Aspen's medical marijuana dispensaries?  Nope. More like burning khakis. Smoldering jeans. Trousers a'flame.  Pants on fire. The following recent examples of malfeasance at city hall are mere examples that yet again further illustrate a culture of lies and corruption in our local government.  Aspen's city hall has become a place where truth and transparency do not matter.  City staff has been conditioned to say or do whatever furthers council's agenda.  (Actually, Mick's agenda, but since no one on council stands up to him, they're all complicit.)  This behavior is all that's rewarded.  LIES & THEFT IN THE PARKING DEPARTMENT In their July 18 edition, the Aspen Daily News asserts to have notified the city that their solar-powered parking meters, designated to collect parking fees 10a-6p Monday through Saturday, continue to accept credit card payments after these hours.  The city, specifically parking director Tim Ware, claimed to know nothing about the problem.  "Nobody's called to complain so we didn't know," Ware told the Daily News.  He also claimed that there is no way to determine how much money has been collected by the city from these unnecessary payments. Tim Ware is a LIAR.  It turns out that Ware and the parking department have known of this problem for 3 years and did nothing to fix it.  Local resident Jena Wright emailed Ware in 2008 specifically on this issue.  He responded, telling her that the issue would be remedied with the next software update later that year.  Once caught in this LIE, Ware, with his tail between his legs, stated, "The program hasn't had a major update in 3 years, which is when the problem was slated to be fixed but was forgotten about.  I didn't catch it.  It's my fault."  Yes indeed it is.  But that Ware LIED when first questioned is reprehensible, dontcha think?!   The city still stands by its stated inability to determine how much money was collected fraudulently.  This is another LIE.  Anyone with a shred of know-how about credit card processing knows that each and every transaction is time and date stamped as a matter of course.  It would be exceedingly easy for the city to determine this amount.  My bet is that they absolutely know it but don't want you to.  It's just easier to LIE. This is nothing more than the city KNOWINGLY turning a blind eye to a flaw in its software that enables it to collect money it is not due from out-of-towners who don't know the rules.  Hey, just let them pay a little more because they can afford it, and besides, they drove their evil cars into town anyway, right? As you can imagine, Tim Ware reports to inept and lazy $170,000-a-year  city manager Steve Barwick, and the two were undoubtedly aware of this financial windfall all along. Barwick, known for his sketchy "off the books" financial deals, once again commits intentional financial fraud.  After all, it's easier to collect from unknowledgeable tourists than to collect the town's own receivables from unpaid parking tickets.  (This figure is cited by parking officials to be in the $250K range, but the former city finance director confirms it was already over $500K when he was there in 2005.)  Ware told the paper, "It's not as bad as you think."  REALLY? This is one more example of the pattern of malfeasance and poor management at city hall.  In fact, I'd call it corruption!  Why does Ware still have a job?  (Why does Barwick? This is simply the latest financial scandal that occurred on his watch!) CITIZENS CRY FOUL Local Wilbur Rutledge sent a series of humorous and pointed letters to the Aspen Daily News editor on this very issue.  This one is my favorite:  "Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, ticket head Ware gives another half-hearted apology and more excuses for straight-up lying about not knowing about the parking meters taking after-hours charges.  What is more of a priority than stopping what's under your watch from stealing?  To make things more hilarious, the city doesn't know how much it over-collected but the lead article on the same front page documents a local city budget surplus of almost a million freakin dollars.  And icing on the cake?  The last sentence of the article on Ware: '..at least we got Sundays and holidays right.'  Stop while you're behind, buddy."  --  July 25, 2011 Daily News columnist Sheldon Fingerman added, "How long have we had paid parking and how many times have you seen someone trying to feed the meters after hours and on Sunday?  And someone is just noticing this?  So, for years, those in power have been clueless, and all they had to do was walk around town and open their eyes.  More than once I've had to tell a tourist there was no need to feed the meter after hours." It is yet to be seen what the city will do to re-program the meters and fix the problem now that they've been caught.  My bet is that they'll do absolutely nothing, at least until the busy and lucrative summer tourist season ends! CARPOOL PASSES:  PARKING DEPT CAUGHT LYING YET AGAIN Along the same LYING lines, this classic came to me from a down valley commuter who caught the city in yet another parking-related LIE.  It's a classic.   In March of this year, the city abruptly stopped giving this driver and his family a carpool parking pass because they suddenly "didn't qualify."  (According to the ordinance - Sec 24.16.080 - the city issues daily High Occupancy Vehicle - HOV - parking passes to "vehicles with 3 or more occupants for use on the day of issue only.")  They were suddenly told that since their two high school-age children were not licensed drivers, they did not count as eligible passengers.  The following is a condensed version of the email exchange between the driver and several morons in the city's parking department.  Brace yourself -- it's a doozy! Driver to city:  I do not understand the rules and how they are being applied. From my experience, they are not being applied as written.  After being told that our children are no longer eligible for carpools, I watched the attendant give a carpool pass to a woman alone in her car with an infant in the back seat.  I asked him about it and he said that the rules allow for a single adult in cases when there is a child under 3 in the vehicle.  I have never heard this rule and it is not disclosed either on the pass or on the city website.  Where did this rule come from and who approved it?  It makes no sense whatsoever from a carpool policy perspective to allow this so I question the veracity of what I was told. Furthermore, the passes themselves say that there must be "two (2) adults of driving eligible age" for a pass to be given.  There is nothing about infants on the pass or the city website.  There is nothing about requiring a driver's license of the second adult, only that they be of driver eligible age.  Obviously we would like to regain the right to get a pass with just one of us and one of our children in the car, but if not, that's fine, just please enforce the rules fairly and state clearly what they really are on the pass and the website because according to both, we are indeed eligible. Parking Department to Driver: The intent of the carpool passes is to take another driver off the road, so driving age doesn't really do anything unless they have a driver's license.  As far as the driver with the infant, that was not in the original rules but as an afterthought agreed upon by the city manager's office (Barwick!!) to appease mothers with babies.  I think this is a difficult job to decide who qualifies for a permit but I always try to keep in mind the intent. The Red Ant:  Who hired this moron?  It's the easiest job on earth.  Read the rules.  Issue passes or don't according to them.  Period. Driver to City:  I am afraid that your response is not a legitimate defense of the manner in which these rules and laws are being administered.  As I read the code, it does not say anything about the age of the passengers.  How then can the city administratively modify a law approved by council and modify its intent by reducing from three to two the number of occupants necessary for a permit? The pass itself says "two or more adults of driving eligible age."  This is different from the law that says three people are required and makes no reference to their ages.  "Of driving age" therefore DOES have a lot to do with it.  Seems as though this restriction is directly contrary to the policy intent you stated which is to take potential cars off the road.  In the case of the mom with an infant, the infant is not going to drive itself into the city, so I am at a total loss to see how giving a pass to an individual driver with an infant in the car furthers the policy intent.  Finally, I don't understand why the city manager's office (Barwick!!) is administratively modifying the intent of the municipal code in a manner that restricts its intent without approval of the council.  The city manager should follow the law or get council to defer authority to him so that he can do the arbitrary things he wants.  I would appreciate either an explanation of where my assessment is wrong, or some other understanding of why the policy as currently implemented is proper, or the right to a HOV carpool pass under the terms of the current law. Parking Dept to Driver:  It does bother me that I can't give people the answer they want to hear.  I'm dealing with guidelines and lots of abuse when it comes to free parking.  Everyone is looking for a way to park for free.  I get that.  You are right, the ordinance that states 3 or more people does not require an age, but when it was modified to only 2 people that is when it was decided that it would only apply to adults.  I personally would like to see it fair and consistent to everyone and have some meaning for its intent.  I will share your comments and get back to you next week with more on the carpool pass issue. The Red Ant:  This idiot has a salary and benefits that you pay with your tax dollars! Driver to city:  One more question.  You say the ordinance was "modified," so you mean the council amended the ordinance so the law is different?  If so, can you please send me that ordinance language?  Or do you mean the city manager's office (Barwick!!) changed their administrative rules for following the ordinance?  And again, if so, could you please send me a copy of those administrative rules? Parking Dept to Driver:  You may now receive a carpool permit with your children. The Red Ant:  Hmmm. Makes you wonder how many other honest folks are being gamed by the city and its arbitrary enforcement of the local parking laws. WHEELING AND DEALING WITH THE WHEELER SUBSIDIES I'm clearly in the mood today to be the aggregator of many city LIES, so I've included the links to two poignant letters to the editor on the subject of the Wheeler Opera House and the money we pay to keep its doors open.  In (very) short, the city would have you believe that the annual subsidy to run the place is in the $200K-$300K range.  This is of course what the papers report. But it's a BIG FAT LIE.  The annual shortfall is in the MILLIONS.  Please take a minute to read Mike Maple's thoughtful letter of July 26 entitled "Wheeler Subsidies Too High," and one that I wrote earlier this summer, "Wheeler Subsidies Are Outrageous."   When Gram Slaton, executive director at The Wheeler says to council, "The best way to make money at the Wheeler is to shut the doors and turn out the lights," it's clear we have a very big problem.  A hard look at The Wheeler and its subsidies has thankfully made the list of Council's top ten priorities for the year.  The truth will now come out, and hopefully big changes will be made! THE GEOTHERMAL EXPERIMENT:  THE CITY IS IN HOT WATER In another attempt to "go green" with your tax dollars, the city is looking to tap into geothermal energy below the earth's crust right here in Aspen!  No kidding. The guys will be digging a 1000' well on city-owned land along the Roaring Fork River across from Heron Park, beginning in September.  The digging and drilling experiment is expected to last 45 days.  But don't worry, the city is happy to report that the homes closest to the mess are mostly owned by part-time residents!  Despite many questions (like WHY, to begin with), the city has already identified several other in-town drilling sites for future geothermal energy harnessing. Their big hope is that the estimated 100 degree water temps below our surface can be somehow harnessed to provide energy to heat and cool local buildings, and the greenies at the city are elated.  They don't give a whit about the cost, but I do.  The city has already dedicated $150K to the project.  But $50K of that came as a grant from the Colorado Governor's office.  So THAT's free money, right?  HA. (OK, technically this isn't a LIE per se at this stage, but this one has "WARNING" written all over it.  Need I mention the hydro plant to remind you of what happens - and the LIES that are told - when these guys get ginned up on a new green project?? Heads up.  Buyer beware.) AN OFFICIAL COMMENT:  THE PLAN IS A BUNCH OF HOT AIR An exasperated high level government official (who contacted The Red Ant and approved this reprint under condition of anonymity, for obvious reasons) wrote: "Here is one more insane city project for you to expose: the geothermal test well that is planned for construction this September.  The city has already budgeted $200K (sic) for this and possibly one more test well to determine if there is enough hot water underground to heat part of or the entire city.  Oh yeah, $50K comes from a grant from the state.  Never mind that state money is our tax money too, and they are broke to begin with.  The first well will be located across Neale Street from Heron Park and right next to the Roaring Fork.  Will the hot water coming from the well, which possibly contains heavy metals, flow right into the river?  Where does the $150K (sic) come from? That's easy, the city water and electric funds.  But does a geothermal project benefit either of these enterprises?  Don't think so.  And most important of all, what if there is plenty of hot water under the city, how much would it cost to construct an infrastructure to harness this resource? 50 or 100 million dollars? Does anyone know?  And would we all have to rebuild the heating systems in each of our homes?  Sure.  So what is the point in going ahead with this test project if we can't afford the final system in the end?  It's another waste of money, risking huge environmental damage to solve the world's energy issues.  Oh really, Mick!" THE RESIDENTIAL TAX: THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER This same friend went on to write about the proposed 2% tax on private rentals.  (The city continues to LIE about this as well.  The purpose is not at all to "level the playing field" between the lodging community and private property owners who elect to rent their homes as they claim.)  "And I agree with you on the short term rental issue.  This is not just an issue of the city trying to control the property owners and get in their pockets.  It is a rezoning of the entire city's residential zones.  It adds approximately 10,000 bedrooms to the tourist lodging base while the council would not approve one hotel room.  The council is threatening to destroy our community.  The short term rental rezoning has huge unintended ramifications for Aspen.  Don't think it's been thought out at all. And it's so unnecessary." In a guest column on the subject, Phil Verleger adds, "The imposition of the proposed tax will also force some to put their properties on the market. The supply of free market and deed restricted properties will increase. At the same time, buyers will adjust their expectations, offering less because they will fear they cannot capture that additional income from their properties. The consequence will be lower real estate prices. Those who own properties in Aspen will find that buyers are offering even less. Those that are just hanging on will be pushed to sell, accelerating the price decline. Revenues to the Wheeler fund from real estate transfer tax payments will drop. Aspen and Pitkin County will find that assessed valuations are even lower in 2013 than in 2011. Lower assessments mean lower tax revenues. Are you listening Mick?" Local resident Jerry Bovino added in a recent letter to the editor, "I am not sure why they don't see the natural fall-out from a tax that would discourage homeowner rental, especially on smaller apartments. As regulation and taxation serve to limit the number of one bedroom and two bedroom units in the rental pool, the likely result is that hotels will be able to raise rates, not lower them. To my knowledge, the law of supply and demand hasn't been repealed." The residenital rental tax will come before council this month.  Please continue to write and speak out against this ludicrous idea.  The unintended consequences are terrible! THE LATEST ON HYDRO: A WATERSHED MOMENT Imploring the city to "do the right thing" and withdraw its conduit exemption application, the Colorado director of American Rivers, Matt Rice, asserted in a recent letter to the editor that they "are not convinced the city is proceeding in the best interest of Castle and Maroon Creeks or the community.  We can no longer work with the city to design a public and open process for permitting the Castle Creek project." In response, petulant city manager Barwick told the Aspen Daily News that Rice and other observers can make as much noise as they want; City Council will act when it is ready.  (Isn't he a gem?)  It seems the city is now backing down on its rhetoric of building the drain line from Thomas Reservior as an "emergency" (now that $3M has been spent on this LIE).  The "new emergency" justification for the hydro plant is to provide power for the Aspen Rec Center (ARC) in times of natural disasters, such as floods and tornadoes.  Supposedly we will all be able to camp out at the ARC when something terrible happens.  Right. Thankfully, The Red Ant has word that a lawsuit against the city is pending.  This will hopefully put an end to the hydro plant once and for all.  (It will surely slam the brakes on the project!) Then we can cut our losses, make some personnel changes and move on. A CULTURE OF LIES  All of this adds up to a culture of deception, misinformation and lies. The city's (Barwick's!!) approach to management has filtered through the organization to the point where I don't think staff even considers whether something is truthful before they say it or use it to justify their actions. The only consideration is whether or not it furthers Mick's ends. Truth is not even secondary, it's non-existent.  If they think it will help them, they say it or use it.  And if it doesn't they ignore it. Aspen's city hall has become a completely unprincipled, souless place. It's a direct result of lousy leadership.  In a small way, I actually feel sorry for Tim Ware because he is just following the direction of his bosses. Nothing else is rewarded.  Of course, that's his choice, so he deserves whatever he gets. Until the head of the beast is severed, this stuff is sure to continue.  No lie.

ISSUE # 66: BlatANT Disregard

"We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business.  We say that he has no business here at all."

                             -- Pericles

As they say, when the cat's away, the mice will play.  In Aspen's case, while The Red Ant's away, the Ba'ath Party continues its regulatory march toward more intrusion into our personal and financial lives, its obscene cover-up of the costs and issues associated with the hydro plant, and its misguided and self-serving plans to shove more subsidized housing down the throats  of local taxpayers with a likely 8-figure general obligation bond for Burlingame Phase 2 as early as this November!
 

THE TATTLE-TALE TAX: A NEW TAX ON RESIDENTIAL RENTALS

Ever rent out your Aspen place?  Ever think about it?  Given the IRS lets you do this for up to 2 weeks tax-free annually, many private property owners in Aspen do so in order to offset costs.  But our friends at the city see this "rental activity" as yet another revenue stream they can tap into for about $100K in annual incremental revenue.  It seems the "lodging community" sees private home rentals as cutting into their business and they want to "level the playing field" as well, so the city has cooked up a revocable Permit to Rent that includes a new forced-payment 2% lodging tax.  

Social engineering.  Class warfare.  It is NOT AT ALL about the money.  There just isn't very much in this program.  The city simply wants to extend its regulatory control over free-market residential properties.  And they can.  How? It's already in the local tax code!  Yep.  Section 23.32.090 subjects "lodging services" to a tax.  And Section 23.32.100 specifically exempts lodging rentals from a sales tax when the duration of stay is 30+ days.  This whole idea appears to be a land use issue -- the city will just change the zoning to include residential properties and voila -- control.  

If this thing is enacted, private property owners who choose to rent out their units/homes for less than 30 days at a time will have to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops:  obtain a small business license from the city for a $150 annual fee, hire a local owner's rep, notify all neighbors within 300' of the intent to rent and provide contact info for the owner's rep, and get Homeowner Association approval.  Then, pay the city 2% of the gross rental income.  It's preposterous, and not just because it will cost more to administer than it will bring in to city coffers; it's just one more punitive slap in the face of private property owners in Aspen.  And it's sure to pit neighbor against neighbor.  For more information, read THIS  excellent letter to the editor from local realtor Mark Kwiecienski that outlines the pros (none) and cons (many) of this insipid idea.  I couldn't have said it better myself!

And did you know, when there's a "compliance" or "mis-use" violation (like illegal rentals) in SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, there is no anonymous reporting allowed. You must leave your name as the tattle-tale. Reports are therefore minimal. In the free-market program, however, this will not be the case. City enforcers will be strictly protecting the new revenue stream and exerting their new-found control!  And you know they'll just love the inevitable neighbor vs. neighbor conflicts!

Write to council today (see addresses below)! Tell them to focus on REAL community issues and shelve this idea!!  Besides, didn't we just approve a 1% lodging tax that specifically benefits the lodging community for marketing purposes?!  What is with the greed?!
 

PANTS ON FIRE: LIES IN THE HYDRO PLANT BOND PROSPECTUS

They lied from the beginning.  In a recent review of the "Official Statement" (government parlance for "prospectus") for the issuance of the $5.5M in bonds for the Castle Creek Hydro Plant, several blatant problems leap off the page.  Remember, any time a government issues bonds, they must publish an Official Statement (O.S.) that discloses fairly and accurately the purpose of the debt issuance and how the bonds will be repaid. Such disclosures are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and federal anti-fraud laws require that all material facts be presented accurately, completely and honestly.

SEC attorney Mary Simkins stated (1999):
"The folks whose money you borrow expect your disclosure to be true.  Not surprisingly, so does the law.  This is where we at the SEC come in.  Federal securities law has protected investors for over 65 years by requiring the information provided investors be accurate, complete and not misleading.  Issuers of municipal bonds such as yourselves are forbidden from making statements or omitting material facts from the disclosure you make in official statements and annual financial information.  These provisions, known as the anti-fraud provisions, apply to any person."

The city of Aspen told lies.  Intentional lies, designed to mislead both investors (to promote bond sales) and the feds (to fraudulently obtain a conduit exemption).  The Red Ant is not an attorney, but should these intentional lies be determined to be "material misstatements" in a court of law, the city officials responsible for including them in the O.S. could face charges of securities fraud.  The O.S. cites the following city officials - elected and hired - as responsible for its contents (ca. 2008):  Mayor Mick, Dwayne Romero, Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron and JE DiVilbiss, along with City Manager Steve Barwick, City Finance Director Don Taylor, and City Attorney John Worcester.

Again, Mary Simkins:
"In essence, the anti-fraud provisions say that any person may not make any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make something said not misleading in connection with the offer, purchase or sale of a security."

Remember Enron? Worldcom?  On a scale of 1-100, with these being examples of 100 in the world of securities fraud, Aspen's hydro plant probably rates a 20.  But lies and fraud are lies and fraud just the same.  It is simply egregious to see what our city officials (elected and hired) have done!

The following 6 lies by city officials are quoted directly from the O.S.  

LIE #1:

"The project is planned to RE-ESTABLISH the generating capacity of the original plant.... The project is also planned to include ENLARGING portions of the Castle Creek pipeline (raw water supply) to eliminate deficiencies in hydraulic capacity."  (Emphasis added)

Horse-puckey! The original hydro plant has been non-existent for over half a century. Enlarging?  There is no raw water line to enlarge!  At one point in time, prior to when the former hydro plant ceased operation  in 1958, there had been a small raw water pipeline, but in 2007, this was non-functioning and had been abandoned for decades.  But before its remnant disconnected parts and pieces were finally removed when the city constructed its fraudulent $2.3M drain line from Thomas Reservoir under "emergency" auspices, city officials intentionally lied in an SEC-regulated O.S. that a working raw water line was already in place.  The only reason to make such a false statement was to intentionally mislead the feds while applying for a "conduit exemption" that would enable the city to bypass federal oversight and environmental review.
 

LIE #2:

"The City's total budget for the project is currently $6,197,981."  (This was the project's original budget.) "The project is anticipated to be funded from proceeds of the Bonds, payments from CORE (Community Office of Resource Energy), and available monies in the City's Electric Enterprise Fund."  

The city's budget for the hydro project is $8.3M today. That's 34% over budget, and there's no end in sight.  No funds were cited to be pillaged from the Water Utility which recently kicked in over $700K as an interim cash-infusion just two weeks ago, with millions more still needed and certain to additionally be taken from this source.  It's also highly likely that utility rates will increase substantially to cover additional cost over-runs.  

The O.S. additionally stated the hydro plant would begin generating power in 2010, but its custom-built turbine remains in storage in another state.  At the rate the hydro plant is going, it will not recover its capital investment for nearly a century, and that's only if it operates at 100% capacity!  (Never mind the O.S. promises a 75-year life expectancy for the plant. And it's not likely the plant will EVER run at 100% capacity!)

The Red Ant asks, at what point does underestimation become a material misstatement of fact?  While this example may not be criminal, it surely is incompetent!!
 

LIE #3:

"The City presently expects to receive the exemption in ordinary course, and is not aware of any insurmountable obstacles, based upon a reconaissance-level evaluation of the FERC requirements."  

The city states in the O.S. that the conduit exemption is all but a foregone conclusion, but it seems they didn't count on the Castle Creek neighbors, the environmentalists (local and national groups) and The Red Ant to look closely at what they were trying to sneakily accomplish!  Big big mistake!

Reconaissance?  Try hubris!  The city made this statement with full knowledge that its application for a conduit exemption did not ever once comply with federal requirements. They said an existing raw water line needed to be upgraded when there was no raw water line to upgrade.  Then they spent $2.3M to build one and claim THIS NEW LINE as the "existing" line!

At press time, the city is dithering over whether or not to withdraw its conduit exemption application in favor of a "small project license" application, but there are no guarantees even if they go this route, and the latter comes with a long list of requirements and intense federal oversight.  The conduit exemption application was a sham from the start.  Far from the slam-dunk the city asserted in the O.S., the entire project has proven itself to be a web of lies, intended to avoid/escape federal oversight and true disclosure of the environmental impacts.

Yep, the city is in a pickle!  In fact, there are several hydro plant opponents who hope the city sticks with their current application because they believe the feds see right through the city's fraudulent behavior and there is no chance on earth they will grant a license.
 

LIE #4:

"In addition to applying for FERC licensing, the city is presently in the process of completing engineering design work for and construction of some of the project elements that are necessary for the purpose of ENHANCING the raw water supply system available to the city for is potable water supply or that are otherwise necessary for utility purposes, and that do not require FERC licensing."  (Emphasis added.)
 

What??  ENHANCING some old decrepit broken-down pipeline that hasn't functioned since 1958?  Yeah, right.  This sounds like a nervous attorney's vague C.Y.A. disclosure that there was indeed no raw water drain line from Thomas Reservoir in 2007, thus revealing the city's dark secret: With no existing drain line, the city would just have to build one to claim one.  Maybe no one would notice! Nice try!
 

LIE #5:

"The city expects the proposed facility to last at least 75 years.  The proposed date for completion and operation of the project in 2010 meets the requirements of the city's action plan for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  Meeting this schedule will also enable the city to avoid expected increases in fuel costs that would potentially raise the rates the municipal electric utility charges its customers, maintaining stable and low electric rates in comparison with other electric utilities throughout Colorado."  
 

OK, this isn't really a lie per se, but these are goals the city clearly did not meet, despite being promised in a SEC-regulated document.
 

LIE #6:

"The city expects its expenditures for the purchase of electric energy from the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) will decrease, resulting in an increase in the city's Electric Enterprise Fund revenues expected at approximately $300K annually."  

Worst of all, and illustrative of the fact that the city knew from the start that the hydro numbers did not pencil out, they lied to voters in 2007 and in the O.S. about the revenue-generating potential of the hydro plant.  In short, there is none.  

The O.S. promises a $300K annual increase in revenue for the city once the plant is fully operational, while simultaneously disclosing annual debt service costs on the $5.5M bonds of $350K per year for the next 20 years.  

The city started this project knowing full well that the hydro plant would NEVER cover its own costs, and it's only gotten worse.  With the budget increases approved by council, the annual cost of capital is approaching $540K annually for the next 20 years.  Add in operating costs and the city's overhead, the Castle Creek Hydro Plant will cost around $700K per year, and run at a $400K annual loss for the next 2 decades!

Translation:  Higher utility costs for all, especially Aspen businesses who comprise the majority of the electric utility cost base.  The city did not disclose this (for obvious reasons) in the O.S., nor did they disclose that the project will require subsidies from sources other than self-generated revenue for its entire lifetime!

Appalled yet?  Are there legal ramifications to all of this, specifically intentionally lying in an O.S.?  I'm not entirely sure, but the stench is becoming unbearable!  What do you know?  Any bond-holders out there?  Talk to me.... (And if you want an email copy of the O.S., please let me know and I'll send you one.)
 

BURLINGAME 2: BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME?

Ahh the pre-sale process for Burlingame 2 is on.  And what a joke it is.  "No Lottery - No Deposit - No Commitment" reads the brochure.  It's true.  The city will be looking at this pathetic show-of-hands measurement to determine whether or not to move forward with a likely 8-figure ($50+M) bond to build the 167-unit 2nd phase of the Burlingame subsidized housing project.  The only requirement of those raising their hands?  They must qualify with APCHA, our inept housing authority.  No mortgage pre-approval.  No matter if they already live in subsidized housing elsewhere in the inventory.  No nuthin'.  Just raise your hand and Mick can declare this as sufficient demand to build more and more subsidized housing.  This is what the city does with what they see as "free money." 

In its inimitable fashion, the city has come up with an idea to "minimze" costs:  build Phase 2 in 2-4 small parcels!  As if!  Like building in smaller parcels will net a lower end-cost.  Ha.  Do these fools REALLY know NOTHING about economies of scale?  Apparently.  They're far more focused on the APPEARANCE of a less-costly project than actually building one!  Never mind there is NO (zero, zip, nada) compelling research that truly demonstrates an actual need for more subsidized housing in Aspen, especially at subsidies of over $300K per unit!  But I digress... At press time, council has all but green-lighted Phase 2.  They treat it as a foregone conclusion -- the only question is how to fund it and when.  It doesn't look like the bond issue will be on the November 2011 ballot, but that is still to be determined. The future of Burlingame 2 is an issue to follow closely this summer.  
 

FOOLS RUNNING AMOK

They will not stop on their own, obviously.  Keep writing to council members: Mick, Steve, Derek, Adam, Torre.  Attend the meetings (council meetings and specific agendas can be found in the Calendar & Events section on the home page of www.AspenPitkin.com).  Express yourselves through letters to the editor.  This is no time for apathy!  And FYI, the dreaded AACP seems to be a big summer topic for both the city and the county.  Stay involved and stay in touch!

ONE TIDBIT OF GOOD NEWS

The county has announced that the Pitkin County Library has decided not to hit voters up for $10M in November to fund an expansion.

ISSUE # 65 .... How RedundANT: Hydro Shaping Up to be the Burlingame of 2011

"Oops, I did it again." --- Britney Spears

MOVING $$ AROUND: A FINANCIAL SHELL GAME AT CITY HALL  

How do you go $1M (and counting) over budget on a project you don't even have permission to build?  Well, you can count on the city of Aspen to find a way!  In 2007, misled voters approved a bond measure that provided $5.5M for constructing and equipping a new hydroelectric facility on Castle Creek.  Fooled by the "green" promise of our local bureaucrats (yes, our boy Mick), voters ignored or didn't even ask about the costs vs benefits of the project, the fact that the plant will only operate a couple of months a year, and the property tax increases if (more like when) the electric utility revenues generated are insufficient to service the debt, not to mention the heinous environmental damage that could be caused to the stream's health and riparian habitat by significant reductions in water levels.  (Since they don't yet have a federal permit to build a hydro plant, they are burning though money on a drain line, the purchase of a custom turbine and a new "Energy Center" which will do nothing more than to serve as an edifice to city council's misguided aspiration of environmental immortality.)

Now it seems the "budget" has been increased to at least $8.3M because they've gone $1M over.  But wait.  Was what the $5.5M for?  And how'd it get to $7.3M?  Why do they need another $1M?  Who is the mathematician here?  Must be incompetent and lazy city manager Steve Barwick!  These numbers are an insult to taxpaying citizens of Aspen.  First of all, the $8.3M has already been allocated!  And the water department insists that these figures aren't even close to being final, there are more expenses to come!  So that's not a budget!  JUST WHAT IS THE BUDGET?  Does this sound like another Burlingame?  It sure does to me!  At press time, despite NUMEROUS requests of both the water department and the finance office, no comprehensive BUDGET has been made available.  My guess is that's because there isn't one.  They continue to move money from this fund to that, muddying the waters in order to  prevent citizens from ever discovering the true costs of this latest boondoggle!

WHAT IS THE MUNICIPAL WATER FUND AND HOW MUCH IS IN IT?

In a May 3, 2011, email, the city finance director told The Red Ant that nearly $1M "was transferred from the water fund" to pay for some of the excess expenses from the fraudulent and unnecessary "emergency drainage line" the city built from Thomas Reservoir in an attempt to trick the feds into issuing a "conduit exemption" that would enable the city to bypass environmental studies and sneak by without federal oversight.  Interestingly, the water department officially asked city council for this extra $1M on May 31, exactly 4 weeks AFTER the money had already been transferred!  Barwick!  What kind of organization is this fool running?    

Still claiming that the fraudulent conduit line was constructed for "emergency" purposes, city officials feel that the Water Fund (and therefore the residents who pay into it) should pay for this alleged "necessity" above and beyond the revenues provided by the bonds (and inevitable property tax increases)!  And the budget hawks on council think it's just a-ok to fund some of the ongoing overages with money from OUR water fund. Really?

In a written response on June 23, 2011, city utilities director Dave Hornbacher, who declined to meet with The Red Ant, had his predecessor Phil Overeynder write of the municipal water fund:

"The Water Fund was established by the finance department, I assume, to properly account for revenues generated by and expenses of the City's water department.  Again, I assume that the Fund was established to segregate such revenues and expenses from the City's General Fund and other operating funds. Since the 'operation and control' of the City's water system and Water Department fall under the direction of the City Manager, it is his call as to what type of expenses are 'legal uses' of water funds."

Sources of funding of the Water Fund include: applications for utility service, utility investment charges, utility hook-up charges, monthly fees for metered/unmetered water service, late payment charges, investment and hook-up charges for snowmaking services, violations and sancitions, etc.

As of May 31, 2011, the municipal Water Fund had a cash balance of $9.4M.  (Cash balance or cash cow?  You decide.)

BARWICK'S ATTEMPT AT .... (WHO KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING)

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.  Steve Barwick, CEO of the city and czar of the Water Fund, has yet to pull the city's draft application for a "conduit exemption" from the feds, despite being directed to do so by council in April.  Instead, he wants national organizations and other outside groups to put their support of the City's change of course from a "conduit expemption" to a "small project license" in writing.  As if.  Just because someone doesn't support the city's original plan (to defraud the feds) doesn't mean they will blindly support the city's next move!  Simply preposterous.  Make the change Barwick!  Council voted and told you to!  All this delay does is increase the timeframe needed for the new application, delay the mandated environmental studies, and of course, add to the costs.

THE "8%" NUMBER 

Famous for its major capital project "brochure errors" (remember Burlingame?), the city issued a $3000, 4-page propaganda insert in the June 14, 2011, issue of The Aspen Times that stated, "Right now, the City's utilities are already 75% renewable and the hydro plant would boost this number by 8%, resulting in 83% of the City's utilities providing clean energy and reducing the City's reliance on coal as well as reducing emissions."  Yes, it's poorly written and confusing, but there's that 8% number.  Skeptics question whether the "8%" is consumption by the entire community or just by the city government itself.  City communications director Mitzi Rapkin assures The Red Ant it is the entire community's usage that is impacted.  I darned well hope so, but when the city states, "The Castle Creek Energy Center can provide back-up power for the City in times of emergency by acting as a sole power source for some municipal buildings that could act as shelters," it certainly makes one wonder.... Here are the two scenarios:

        

The elephant in the room:  Is "8%" the maximum amount of power the hydro plant can generate?  Is this projection based on the hydro plant operating full-time or just a couple months of the year?  And what if the feds require more water to remain in the stream than what the city likely based the 8% projection on?  Sounds to me like 8% is aspirational at best!

ASPEN: DOING IT MICK'S WAY VS. THE RIGHT WAY

In a June 24 phone interview with Matt Rice, director of American Rivers, I learned a great deal about Aspen's hydro plant as it relates to what's going on nationally.  In short, there are very few new "conventional" hydro plants (like ours) being built these days, however, there are many municipalities pursuing hydro power on existing dams, etc. 

The difference is that inherent to the design of Aspen's new hydro plant, water will be diverted and the streams will be de-watered as a matter of course.  You just don't see this being done much these days because the environmental impacts most often far outweigh the power benefits.  It's very rare for it to work out otherwise.  Notably and ironically, Colorado is a great example of a state that is creating incentives for what's called "conduit hydropower" (not to be confused with Aspen's fraudulent attempt at a "conduit exemption"), which promotes the use of existing diversions and conveyance systems.  This form of hydropower has NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, and American Rivers is seeing a lot of "conduit hydropower" projects here.  In fact, the State of Colorado and FERC are actually working together to streamline the process for these installations. 

Rice concluded with a reminder that "small" as in "small project license" refers to the amount of power generated, not the size of the environmental impact (which can be just as big as that of a large hydro project).

THE HYDRO FORUM: QUICK RECAP

Here are the links from GrassRoots TV to the first, second and third sections of the June 16 Hydro Forum.  For a very brief overview, watch the "second" section (link above) and fast-forward ahead to 10:32, local water attorney Paul Noto's successful de-bunking of mayor Mick's crazy "the front range is gonna steal our water if we don't build a hydro plant" rhetoric.  (Click "watch now" and enlarge your screen.  To fast-forward, press and hold down the double arrows pointing right.)  Noto's intelligent overview of the water rights specifically on Castle Creek is extraordinarily informative, with even the city's water attorney agreeing.

But don't miss the "third" section!  Fast forward to 21:00 to see mayor Mick in all his defensive nastiness.  On a panel among national experts, our boy behaved like a petulant teenager.  Don't take my word for it.  See for yourself.

WHY NOT SOLAR, FOR EXAMPLE?

Never mind the economies of scale associated with this low-cost, low-impact means of clean energy.  Never mind the scale-ability of solar farms.  Never mind that property values just a few miles from Aspen are currently affordable and solar panels there generate a third more energy than Aspen panels because of the better weather west of Snowmass Canyon.  Never mind the US Dept of Energy offers consumer tax credits from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called "Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credits" that enable consumers who install solar energy systems (including solar water heating and solar electric systems), small wind systems, geothermal heat pumps, and residential fuel cell and microturbine systems to receive a 30% tax credit (with no upper limit; principal residences AND second homes qualify) for systems placed in service before December 31, 2016.  And never mind that entrepeneurs from the Carbondale-based Clean Energy Collective that has solar farms in El Jebel and in Rifle presented a proposal to council in April called "community solar," a concept where multiple homeowners pay into large solar arrays that are professionally maintained and situated in places with maximum sun exposure, thereby enabling large energy consumers to mitigate their energy use through this already-existing local source of clean energy.  Shouldn't THESE ideas be what we SHOULD AT LEAST BE considering?  But no.

Mayor Mick simply didn't like the "community solar" idea one itty little bit because the energy would not be coming from Aspen itself.  He said in an interview with the Aspen Daily News, "It's troubling to send a message that, as an energy-hogging homeowner, you can cut a check and outsource your mitigation requirements to Carbondale."  For Mick, it's really not about the environment at all.  It's punitive.  It's always punitive!  Does that really surprise you??  And of course it's all about his resume.  He wants home-grown energy.  Down Valley energy, regardless of the economics or environmental wisdom or any other potential win-wins, is just not home-grown enough for Mick.  

MY HYDRO GOAL

I'm putting it in writing right here, right now.  We need to stop this hydro fiasco in its tracks TODAY.  The charade is up.  Had nobody been looking, the city might have gotten away with it.  But instead, the eyes of the Castle Creek neighbors, local environmentalists, national organizations and The Red Ant are all over this mess, and what a mess it is.  Costs are approaching $10M today, and at this rate could easily DOUBLE.  The city hasn't even started its new course toward a "small project license," and none of this includes the costs of the environmental impact studies that will be required.  The $5.5M in bond funds were issued in early 2008.  There's nearly $400,000 in debt service every year for this project alone, and that began in 2009.  It is next to impossible to get a straight answer from the city on where the money to pay the debt is coming from!  They're spending and spending because Mick tells them to.  IT MUST STOP.

Now is the time for this community to come together to enact a "stop work" order and/or get a legal injunction in place until a) the environmental impact studies are completed and the results discussed throughout the community, b) an external and independent financial audit is conducted to determine the financial feasibility of this hydro plant and is shared in its entirety with the community, and c) the costs/benefits of the proposed hydro plant are compared and contrasted with several other forms of clean energy.  (Another option is, of course, to cut our horrendous losses and walk away.  Remember, the city does not yet have permission to build this thing.  How much are we willing to spend and potentially waste if the final answer is a big fat NO?)

The city doesn't like citizen feedback.  It never has.  Mick has never let the facts get in the way of another resume-building endeavor built with public funds.  And just because there's no budget is no reason for him to slow down. But this time it's different. 

The financial picture will soon become abundantly clear.  It's bad, folks.  Really bad.  Put it this way, power generated from Castle Creek is going to be so expensive it will cost the city far more to generate than they will be able to charge for it.  Stay tuned!

"It's the only accounting system they are comfortable with, as it's the only accounting system they know how to use.  The ends justify the means.  The hydro plant is green and therefore good, and so it doesn't matter what it costs because it's politically correct and therefore priceless.

They have committed to the plant, and they never back down once they've made a commitment.  This is a crew that never gives an inch, never admits error, and never waivers from their dogma that green is good and money is evil.  And what is money?  It's not something they earn.  Rather, it's something they take from other people, especially rich people who can't vote here;  their voting base lives in deed restricted housing and so is largely protected from taxes.

And so they will keep feeding the plant, if for no other reason than if they don't feed the plant it will die and they've invested so much already in feeding the plant that what's a few more million of other people's money?  What's important here isn't the money, it's the plant.  And so the plant screams:  FEED ME!!!"      ---      An Angry Red Ant Reader

ISSUE # 64 .... Ant Alert: Hydro Forum This Thursday!

Hydro Forum This Thursday,

June 16, 5:30pm

Paepcke Auditorium

PLEASE ATTEND!  TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

This Thursday, June 16, please plan to attend a public forum on Hydro Power in Aspen, presented by The Western Rivers Institute with the generous support of the New-Land Foundation.  It is being held at Paepcke Auditorium, beginning at 5:30pm.  Admission is free.

The purpose of this forum is to begin a new dialog within the Aspen Community on just how a "gold standard" for hydropower in the 21st Century can be developed, or if that is even a realistic possibility with the proposed project.

This is the "hydro forum" I've written about, originally proposed by neighbors of the city's beleaguered hydro plant project on Castle Creek.  The event has been expertly saved from a classic hijack by the City of Aspen by The Western Rivers Institute.  When the neighbors, the environmentalists and The Red Ant agree on the same thing - this is worth hearing about!

Mayor Mick has stated that Aspen needs to set a new standard for hydroelectric development in the 21^st century as an environmentally responsible part of a carbon-free renewable energy portfolio.  What will that look like?  What does Aspen need to do that goes beyond the established process?  Why is Aspen building the only "old school-style" hydro plant in the US when other municipalities are tearing theirs out?  What other strategies might also be employed that help achieve the goals of a carbon-free renewable energy supply?

Be there, learn the facts from the experts and join the conversation!!  Tell your friends.

The agenda for the evening:

• ·        Welcome and Intro:  Ken Neubecker, Director, The Western Rivers Institute
• ·         How We Got Here:  Owen Olpin, moderator/facilitator
• ·         Session I:  The New Direction and What That Means

o   Dave Hornbacker, City of Aspen Water Dept:  New direction and process

o   Richard Roos-Collins:  FERC and NEPA process, the role of the public

o   Audience questions

• ·        Session II: Water Rights - What are they? Could a Front Range city take them?

o   Cindy Covell:  Water Attorney for City of Aspen

o   Paul Noto:  Aspen-based Water Attorney

o   Audience questions

• ·         Session III:  A New Standard for Hydropower (a panel)

o   John Emerick, PhD:  Hydropower and stream ecology

o   Richard Roos-Collins:  The public's role in the permitting process

o   Matt Rice:  American Rivers

o   Mick Ireland

o   Audience questions and discussion

ISSUE # 63 .... I'm IndignANT: Cocaine & Welfare. Really?

"Always the wrong way first and the right way last.  In every case, the right way, once we find it, is so direct and obvious that to have missed it seems the strangest fact of all."  -- Garet Garrett, A Time is Born

THE SUMMER SERIES

This issue of The Red Ant was to have been the first in a multi-part series on our local subsidized housing program, specifically the bureaucracy's clouded judgment regarding oversight and management of our 2800-unit portfolio, and the failed entity called APCHA (the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority).   

This expose, in the works for over a year, and timed just as the city of Aspen is pushing pre-sales for phase 2 of Burlingame in hopes of floating a bond (likely to be in the $50-100 million range) as early as November 2011, will shock and awe you.  It should galvanize your opposition to the massive general obligation bond money needed for further construction at Burlingame, as well as fuel your opposition to more subsidized housing in general until we get a firm grip on the program:  who's in charge, who currently lives in our units, whether or not they qualify, whether or not they pay (and are current on) their homeowners association dues, whether or not the various HOAs have sufficient capital reserves, etc. etc.  The list goes on. 

But alas, the news of the day delays the launch of the series.  But it's definitely coming!  Stay tuned.

THE BIG DRUG BUST

On May 19, federal DEA agents made a major drug bust in Aspen.  Six Aspen residents were popped in an early-morning raid:  Peggy Schlaugher, Wayne Reid, Jack Fellner, Joseph Burke, Joan Anastasi and Christopher Sheehan.  Who'd have guessed that 5 of the 6 are in their 60's!?  And, according to a list of subsidized housing residents provided to The Red Ant in 2010, suspects Jack Fellner and Joseph Burke live in publicly subsidized housing  (Centennial and Aspen Village, repectively)! 

Here's the real kicker: the feds (including DEA, IRS, US Marshalls, FBI and Homeland Security) admittedly and purposely left local law enforcement out of the loop on this investigation and the bust.  Hmm, you ask.  Why?  As part of its year-long investigation, the feds discovered "some kind of relationship" between our local sheriff's office and the suspects!  Yep.  It seems the feds feared that their investigation would be compromised if our local guys learned of the impending bust!  And they admit that they just don't trust our sheriff's department!

Details are still unfolding, but this is no small case.  The suspects are alleged to be part of an organized drug ring that trafficked over 500 pounds of cocaine from Los Angeles to Aspen over the last 15 years.  Yes, you read that right: 500 pounds! 

Sometimes it's just best to print the quotes.  Most of these are from The Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News interviews with participating DEA agents, however I spoke at length with DEA special agent Jim Schrandt to confirm the details.  I have a great imagination and am a true conspiracy theorist, but I'm not THIS good:

• "Oftentimes we work with other jurisdictions and we've actually integrated them into our investigations because usually there's a local narcotics task force that we're working with hand-in-hand from the inception of the case.  Unfortunately that does not exist in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County."  --  Jim Schrant, DEA special agent  (NOTE:  Agent Schrandt tells me that both Telluride and Vail law enforcement fully cooperate with the DEA.)
• "And the reason we weren't able to do that fuller notification (of local law enforcement) was because of the relationship of (current sheriff) Joe DiSalvo and (former sheriff) Bob Braudis and several targets of this investigation who were being arrested."  -- Agent Schrant
• These "arrests make Aspen and its surrounding communities safer by taking significant amounts of drugs off the street and putting violent criminals behind bars."  --  Kevin Merrill, DEA special agent
• Regarding Merrill's reference to "violence," Agent Schrant stated, "We don't know if they (the Aspen suspects) are (violent) or aren't.  But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the organization in Los Angeles is extremely violent and the kilos being consumed in Aspen - and the kilos being trafficked by this (local) organization - essentially sent money to that (LA) organization committing this egregious violence."
• Regarding Aspen's role, "The consumers funded it.  The traffickers paid for it directly with Aspen dollars in excess of at least 500 pounds of cocaine.  This cocaine appears to be consumed entirely in Aspen.  This was the end of the ramp in Aspen.  So all that dope was coming here, and this cocaine being bought and paid for in Aspen was (financially) going directly to this organization in Los Angeles."  -- Agent Schrant
• "There is a strong appetite for cocaine in Aspen." - Agent Schrant
• "Communities like Aspen are consuming these copious amounts of cocaine and their dollars are fueling violence in places like Los Angeles, places like Mexico."  -- Agent Schrant

HATE TO SAY IT BUT, I TOLD YA SO

Last fall, The Red Ant (Issue #50) endorsed Rick Leonard over Joe DiSalvo for Sheriff.  There were several reasons, not the least of which was, "Twenty-three year sheriff's deputy and current sheriff Bob Braudis' anointed one, Joe DiSalvo, stands by the status quo of the department," well known for its lax enforcement of the war on drugs.  "Leonard is a big advocate of cleaning up the local drug scene, even if this involves undercover investigations in certain circumstances.  When Braudis and DiSalvo agree that our local drug problem is a health issue and not a criminal one, we are nothing but a sanctuary city/county for drug dealers.  It's 2010.  This mentality does not fly with The Red Ant."  Alas, DiSalvo won in a landslide.

      "Frankly, based on our investigation, we had revealed close ties between the current sheriff and several of the targets that were arrested." -- Agent Schrant 

The DEA was so intent on keeping our sheriff in the dark that they stationed a DEA agent outside the sheriff's office during the early-morning raid as a "preventative measure" in case word of the bust leaked out.  The Aspen Daily News reported that this action was to "avoid a potentially violent confrontation between officers."  Good grief.  Just how far did the feds think (know?) our sheriff would go to protect the local drug trade?

While the DEA will not elaborate on the relationship between DiSalvo and the suspects, public records reveal that several of them made generous contributions to DiSalvo's recent campaign and those of former sheriff Bob Braudis.  Coincidence?  You decide.

The DEA is also quick to point out that it has no beef with the Aspen Police Department.  The Red Ant surmises that the close quarters of the APD and the sheriff's office in the basement of the county courthouse was reason to additionally keep the APD in the dark.

Best yet, our friend mayor Mick and his pal county commissioner Rachel Richards have both committed to writing formal letters to the DEA in support of Sheriff Joe DiSalvo and asking that the DEA cooperate with and inform local authorities in future investigations.  They both intend to have these letters signed by city council and the board of county commissioners next week.  This is a representative democracy, folks.  By doing this, they effectively say that the residents of Aspen and Pitkin County agree with them that, under the guise of public safety, the local sheriff's office should be notified in advance of any federal drug operation being conducted here.  The Red Ant wholeheartedly disagrees, especially when the DEA affirms that this case is "very much ongoing" and they "anticipate further arrests."  I, for one, am very anxious to know more about these "relationships" before DiSalvo gets one iota of intel from the feds!

By clicking this LINK, you can send an email to the DEA, thanking them for this major bust, their continuing investigation, their early-morning arrests (that ensured maximum public safety and minimized disruption), and their on-going fight in the war on drugs.  They have just made our community safer, when our local sheriff's office would not.  PLEASE take 2 minutes to do this.  Write "Aspen" on the subject line and share your gratitude!  It's bad enough that the Aspen community is, according to Agent Schrandt, perceived as having a "passive attitude toward cocaine use" and is viewed as a "hotbed of illegal drug activity."  Let's support the feds in their efforts to change this.

And to think we spend so much time debating the environmental impact plastic grocery bags.....

ASPEN: THE WELFARE STATE?

"The Pitkin County commissioners this week approved spending at least $9,500 for a phone poll gauging voters' mood on approving a property tax to support the Healthy Community Fund, which supports public assistance programs and aids local nonprofit organizations," according to the Aspen Daily News.  Yep, they're planning to gauge public opinion on the reauthorization and increase of the current property tax to fund "social services" in the county.  We've had the Healthy Community Fund since 2002 with $800K in annual funding for its first 5 years.  In 2006, voters upped it to $1.25M through 2012.

Now that demand for "social services" has drastically increased over the past 3 years, the Healthy Community Fund is seen as the next great way to provide more free stuff - to the tune of $3.5M annually.  This property tax increase would of course entail approval by voters, perhaps as soon as this fall.  Yes, times are definitely challenging.  But when the Wall Street Journal (3/4/11) names Aspen "The Most Expensive Town in America," at what point do we collectively acknowledge that it's ok if some people leave town when there are not enough jobs and they cannot afford to live here any longer?

Furthermore, this can be viewed as a tax that makes local non-profits into component units of government, eliminating their need to fundraise, and replacing private donations with tax dollars.  This would make the non-profits subservient to the government's political mission rather than their own missions to serve people directly.  VERY dangerous.

I received a note from a former resident of Aspen who wrote me upon his learning of these latest welfare developments.  Again, sometimes it's just best to quote:

"If I were going to create a welfare state I would find a town in the most beautiful place in the world, attract millionaires to live there, offer them services, and then impose property taxes on them at a level that would let me subsidize all my friends in the lifestyle they have seen but cannot afford."

He continued, "Apparently, Aspen and Pitkin County have chosen this road.  First there was the building phase, when lots of people were attracted to town to help construct mansions.  Then, the city imposed a moratorium on building, putting many out of work.  The solution: impose a property tax to support welfare for the out of work." 

Oh, and the $9500 buys just 300 phone calls. 

Again, can't make it up.

HYDRO HIJACKED

Was it just a political ploy during election season when Mick and council switched gears and voted to withdraw their controversial conduit exemption from the FERC in favor of a "minor water power project" that will entail more environmental studies and greater federal oversight?  Probably.  Believe it when you see it.  In a recently released report, it seems that a secret, closed-door "mediation session" that didn't even include all parties, yielded a "unanimous" conclusion that a 3-member board (a rep from the city, PitCo Healthy Rivers and Streams, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife) should make all the decisions regarding stream diversions for Aspen's hydro plant.  This is patently ridiculous -- the government is poised once again to have the final say, despite the egregious bureaucratic mis-management of the project at just about every turn thus far.  Notable is the fact that those invited to participate in the secret meeting could not bring counsel, nor could they share with the public or press any details of the meeting.  (For this reason, a large group of stakeholders - the Castle Creek landowners - declined to participate.) 

If you are interested, please plan to attend a public forum on Thursday, June 16, at Paepcke Auditorium, starting at 5:30p, although sadly, I'm not confident it will be anything more than a city dog-and-pony show.  This event was originally conceived and planned by local citizens (the Castle Creek landowners, or "NIMBY's" as the city calls them) as a "community forum" on the hydro plant and its myriad issues, but in their generosity, the group offered the city a seat at the table.  With that, the city proceeded to hi-jack the event, steam-rolling the agenda by usurping the opening statement and even featuring self-proclaimed water expert and I-want-a-hydro-plant-on-my-resume mayor Mick on the panel.  It will be valuable to get Mick on the record regarding the "Castle Creek Energy Center," the monicker for the larger project in the works under the guise of a hydro-electric plant, as well as other nefarious and dubious decisions he has personally made, but with the city in charge, one thing not to expect is the truth! 

 I'm still investigating the securities fraud aspect of the $5.5M bond and the use of its proceeds.  This story is far from over.

AACP TIDBITS

City council recently voted not to fund an update to an 2007 economic conditions study that would provide factual, realistic and current information for use in the beleagured Aspen Area Community Plan update.  The outlay?  $12,000, but ACRA had offered to pay half.  The rationale?  Again, let's quote.  Mayor Mick stated to the Aspen Times, "I don't think we need to rehash the economics because I don't think the AACP should be driven by economics."  He continued, "I think the AACP should say what we want to have happen, not what the market wants to have happen."  Yep, he said it.  Straight from the mouth of your mayor, someone who knows nothing and respects even less about business.

Here are three letters to the editor that ran in response to this patently stupid decision:

• Semrau:  Eyes wide shut? (5/28/11)
• Maple:  AACP process "hijacked" (5/27/11)
• Milias:  AACP is an advisory document  (5/27/11)

TOO IDIOTIC TO OMIT

While the city denies funds for useful, relevant and critical economic data, check-out their latest foolish $30,000 expenditure: $20,000 for re-usable water bottles and another $9400 on "filling stations" for them.  They plan to try to sell "some" of the bottles to recoup maybe $15,000.  Great ROI, huh?  (Incompetent city manager Steve Barwick must've approved this math!) Ahhh, to eliminate plastic water bottles at any cost!  It pains me to even write about this -- see this LINK for the Aspen Daily News story on the city's latest plan to pour your money down the drain!

A RED ANT REMINDER

The Red Ant is political commentary (read: opinion - mine - it's an editorial), designed to present, interpret and discuss local issues that the papers either ignore outright,  merely toe the line provided them by city hall, or fail to connect the oh-so-important dots.  Often derided as a "conservative blog" by these same papers, The Red Ant always strives to present verifiable facts with my perspective and ideas on subjects that relate primarily to accountability and transparency in our local government.  (Detractors regularly cry for more "transparency" from me.  My personal business is not required to be transparent.  I am a private citizen and The Red Ant is a private LLC.  However, the government IS required to be transparent, and that is my focus.) 

Please note that I say "verifiable facts" above.  I do extensive research and am happy to provide my facts to you upon request.  When I utilize information from the newspaper, I quote and attribute it.  And should you find factual errors in my reporting, please let me know ASAP.  The Red Ant has no problem admitting an error or issuing a correction.  Just ask Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) author and advocate Marcella Larsen.  When contacted to correct a detail of her hypocritical and self-serving land deal in Issue #52, The Red Ant graciously made the change and noted it as a correction in the very next issue.  Again, this is commentary -- my interpretations and opinions -- but I insist on the facts.  I always welcome your feedback and comments.  Just hit "reply" to this email.

ISSUE # 62 .... A TransatlANTic Election Re-Cap

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." 

                 -- Alexander Tytler, 18th Century political theorist 

ANT ABROAD

I'm never one to leave The Red Ant readership alone to ponder and decipher the election outcome, so this issue comes together en route from Aspen to Moscow via London.  (Nope, the irony is not lost on me -- a report on the election in the People's Republic of Aspen while headed to the land of the Bolsheviks!?)

ARRRRGGGHH:  50.6% OF THE VOTES GIVES MICK HIS THIRD TERM

Mick was so certain of his own victory that he took a week-long vacation at the beginning of campaign season.  At the time, he thought he was running unopposed.  Thankfully Ruth Kruger and Andrew Kole stepped up in the 11^th hour to challenge him and make him work for it.  But in the end, Mick got 892 votes, where Ruth got 719.  Andrew brought in 150.  At press time, it appears that his tally NARROWLY eliminates the need for a run-off.  Oh-so narrowly.  So there we have it.  Mick again.  But the community is VERY Sick of Mick just the same.  It was no landslide and therefore no mandate.  869 citizens voted AGAINST him.  Problem is, 892 voted for him.  Two more years and he's term-limited out.  That is, unless he changes the law to abolish term limits..... Good grief.  But I promise, The Red Ant will be on him like "white on rice" every step of the way.  It's the least I can do.

COUNCIL RUN-OFF IS OFF

Incumbent councilman Steve Skadron and challenger Adam Frisch handily won the two available council seats with 925 and 853 votes, respectively.  (The threshold was at 717 votes.)   These two candidates raised the most campaign funds and were the beneficiaries of "bullet voting" endorsements.  (The Red Ant loathes being grouped with Aspen Times columnist Su Lum for anything, but alas we both promoted a bullet-voting strategy that helped get our candidates elected!)  With six challengers for two seats, it was unexpected to have such decisiveness for both seats in the first round, but given the choices, ok, I see where that could happen.  

ANALYSIS

THE PRECINCTS:  The bulk of Mick's support came from precincts dominated by subsidized housing, and 4 of the 5 precincts are:  Precinct 1 (East Aspen, the Midland/Park neighborhood), Precinct 2 (the downtown core), Precinct 3 (Hunter Creek area) and Precinct 5 (Castle Ridge and Burlingame). This confirms what we've long believed: subsidized housing residents vote for their own, despite terrible problems with the well-intended program, including an incumbent mayor who breaks the same housing rules so many honest residents abide by, and a capital reserves scenario that is solely the result of the city and county creating the housing program and then letting it run itself into the ground!  (Remember, Mick was a 3-term county commissioner before becoming mayor, and is effectively the godfather of Aspen's subsidized housing program.)  His anti-business / pro-entitlement stance keeps the local economy in shambles, with an estimated 50% of subsidized housing residents out of compliance with their rental agreements or deed restrictions because they CAN'T find enough work to fulfill their employment obligations.   Voting is a strange animal -- often frighteningly predictable and making no sense whatsoever in the same breath.  But as The Red Ant has said before, there has been great success for a guy like Mick when he can say, "Vote for me, I got you a house."  Incidentally and no surprise, Precinct 4 (the West End and Cemetery Lane) was where Ruth beat him.

TURN-OUT:  Voter turn-out was notably low this year.  In the 2009 race when we employed the controversial Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) vote-counting method, we were thrilled by the fiery Marilyn vs Mick mayoral contest and provoked by the yes/no vote on the Aspen Art Museum's desire to purchase the old Youth Center space.  This season's race has been anemic at best.  Just 1761 voters cast a ballot in the mayoral race.  Certified totals are not available yet for this year, but in 2009 it was 2544.  The Red Ant ponders, was it the snooze-fest of a campaign that kept voters away? Or was it that we finally had accurate vote counts, adult supervision of the clerk, a locked ballot box in her office, reconciliation of mail-in ballots, voter ID mandated at the polls, and tight controls throughout the process to prevent the long-suspected election fraud from occurring yet again!?  Probably a combination of both.

INTEGRITY:  For the first time in recent memory, the city -- as keeper of the election records -- does not know HOW you voted!  This is thanks to the countless hours and tireless behind-the-scenes work of election integrity activist Marilyn Marks, election commissioners Ward Howenstein and Bob Leatherman, and Pitkin County election manager Dwight Shellman III who the city hired to oversee and begin to fix our election process.  There were significant changes to the election code -- steps to ensure voter anonymity and to re-establish voter confidence in our previously sketchy system.  And boy did Dwight have his hands full, cleaning up several decades' worth of sloppy records, questionable practices and erroneous voter rolls, among other messes too numerous to mention!  As you know, until now, Aspen has long played fast and loose with our voting procedures.  No more!  THANK YOU!  And a special thank you to the fine group of citizen election judges who "worked" the election.  It was great to see so many dedicated citizens making the commitment to ensure fair and accurate elections in Aspen!

OUTLOOK:  From the political/legislative perspective, despite Mick's re-election, there is good news. We have guaranteed ourselves at least a political break-even with Adam's election:  when Dwayne left in February, Ruth was appointed to keep his seat warm.  Adam will now sit in that seat for the next 4 years.  Theoretically, we are no worse off than we were before this election.  And we're likely better off, especially if Adam takes a no-nonsense approach with Mick.  (It's Aspen politics - we've gotta take good news, however lame, if, when and where we can get it!) 

FUNDRAISING:  Many of the candidates elected not to fundraise at all during this race or to simply fund their campaigns themselves.  Ok, it's noble, I guess.  But it was also B-O-R-I-N-G and ineffective!  There were very few goofy and self-aggrandizing "I'm great" campaign ads and even fewer hosted "meet & greets" to casually chat with the candidates over wine and cheese.  Most candidates simply relied on the debates to get their messages out.  Bad idea!  The winners raised money, advertised and held various diverse outreach events!  C'mon folks:  Aspen voters like to see their candidates put a little skin in the game and WORK for their votes!   Even the Sick of Mick campaign raised nearly $3000 in mostly $19.99 increments!

ENDORSEMENTS:  Endorsements by the local papers were generally (and boringly) predictable.  While The Aspen Times went waaaaay out on a limb with their endorsement of Adam Frisch (along with Steve Skadron), it was "despite his support from conservatives and the pro-business crowd."  Good grief.  While on one hand laughable, it's both telling and frightening that the Times vilifies those who call for fiscal restraint in government AND the very same business types they rely on for advertising revenue!   They also predictably endorsed Mick yet again. (Have they ever NOT endorsed him?)  Ok, it is their paper, but when they tout "(he) embodies the values that define the town," while admitting "he's stubborn, prickly and occasionally rude," you know just why they are the town joke.  The Red Ant implores you to do your part -- keep The Aspen Times and their strong anti-business stance in mind when YOU buy advertising.  In other words, don't.  The Aspen Daily News also endorsed Mick.  That too was to be expected.  The Daily News' weak endorsement was admittedly based "not on style but substance," telling readers that Mick "brings a strong work ethic to the job."  Folks, that's because he does nothing else.  He has successfully made a less-than-part-time board-type position into a $27,000 a year career!  NOTE:  The Aspen Times hardly sold any campaign ads this election cycle.  It could have been their pricing -- nearly 40% above the Daily News -- but it was probably more a result of their predictable Mick love-fest.  (Aside from Marcia Goshorn, no candidate wanted to be associated with him!)  But it's most likely because the Times condones "anonymous blogging," where the local haters Pete Louras ("We Deserve Better"), Marcella Larsen ("Stop the Greed Now"), Phyllis Bronson ("Animal Safety") and others have a venue to spew their venom from behind the "cloaks of secrecy" of their noms de plume.  Well, not so secret. But I digress....

IN SUMMARY

Yes, I am disappointed.  Very.  I am simply delighted by Adam's victory, but I had really really hoped for a mayoral run-off -- and we nearly got one.  My biggest fear now is the voting power of the electorate as demonstrated by those who voted for Mick in an environment where he was so solidly on the wrong side of many, many issues.  What does that say?  What kind of community-wide litmus test was this?  I fear the looming $50+M ballot measure for a general obligation bond to build Burlingame 2.  Thankfully it wasn't on this ballot.  But given these results and the precinct voting numbers, it will be a BIG FIGHT to defeat it when it does come before us.  (Notice how I didn't say "if.")

HYDRO UPDATE:  THE BIG ISSUES REMAIN

On April 26, council voted 5-0 to yank its controversial, environmentally indifferent and ethically challenged "conduit exemption" application and will now pursue a more environmentally stringent review with greater federal oversight.  The new plan is to pursue a "minor water power project license."  Did the city really think they could sneak the original shenanigans past the neighbors, the environmentalists, The Red Ant?  This turn-about (just prior to the election -- what a coincidence) is a result of ongoing citizen outcry, condemnation by national environmental groups and threats of lawsuits.  (The Red Ant first covered the hydro mess in July 2010, and has subsequently followed up in 4 additional issues.  See www.TheRedAnt.com, issues 45, 47, 49, 54 and 55.)    This decision followed a closed-door executive session with the city attorneys in which council learned about the city's "vulnerabilities" and the "legal exposure" of staying on the "conduit exemption" application path.  

The new license will add time (2+ years), costs (TBD but in the hundreds of thousands) and uncertainty to the beleaguered project.  It will also put much-needed oversight and responsibility in the hands of the feds as opposed to the city.  However, with $4.4M of the $5.5M bond funds already spent (more like wasted), the financial picture is bleak at best.  (Recall that $2.3M has been spent BUILDING an emergency drainage line from Thomas Reservior -- not for emergency purposes, rather to "create" a conduit so the sought-after "exemption" could be applied for using this "existing" infrastructure!)  Dust in the wind now.  And the custom $1.5M turbine has already been purchased.  It's in storage in another state.  Could there be some securities fraud here, given the funds were used for something other than the voter-approved hydro plant for which the bonds were issued?   Hmmmm.  You can darned well bet I'm looking into it!  Regardless, there was definitely some "misrepresentation."  With just $1.1M of the bond money remaining, how will this thing ever get built, even if it gets approved someday? 

It was funny if it wasn't so pathetic to hear mayor Mick, in a 10-minute sermon on the mount, espouse the glories of hydro power while lamenting the city's continued reliance on coal-fired electricity until the hydro plant is built and productive.  Mick felt the need to remind everyone that this hydro plant is "the right thing to do" because it sets "an example for other communities," and besides, "carbon is killing our community in so many ways."  His favorite scare tactic to rally the declining support for the hydro plant is to tell people that if the hydro plant doesn't get built, our water will be sold to Denver or Phoenix in what's called a "trans-mountain diversion."  It's total BS.  The city will always have the rights to our water for municipal uses.  Their problem is that when they decommissioned the old hydro plant in the 1950's, they lost those hydro plant rights in a use-it-or-lose-it situation.  Thus, they are having to re-apply. 

Mick is simply obsessed with the Koch family who owns a large parcel of land at the far upper end of Castle Creek, and constantly vilifies them for some imagined nefarious plot to sell off our water.  Utter nonsense.  I see it as Mick lamenting a lost "claim to fame" on his resume and trying to guilt the community into feeling bad about it -- when in reality it's Mick whining because he and the boys tried to skirt the law but they got caught!  Questions remain about the feasibility of the new license application, but for now we can breathe a sigh of relief.  Thanks to citizen activists Yasmine DePagter, Maureen Hirsch, Connie Harvey and Ken Neubecker (of Trout Unlimited) who have tirelessly worked to expose this issue. Look for information on their community forum on the hydro plant in mid-June!

HE SAID WHAT???  (AND APPARENTLY IT DIDN'T MATTER!)

Did you hear?  On April 25, during the city council meeting, mayor Mick spoke both of "borrowing" a local kid from the Animal Shelter for a family day at the rec center AND of bringing your "circumcision" to the polls as I.D.  I have a hard time even writing about it so I posted the succinct clips on YouTube.  Watch the :30 piece for yourself HERE.   You can't make this stuff up!  This is a very disturbed man.  Given he now has a third term, it's time for Mick to grow up.  He is 61 years old!  Sixteen years in public office have enabled him to completely lose touch with reality and completely disregard the principles of common decency.  What do you think the odds are of his behavior changing?

ISSUE # 61 .... I'm Not ReluctANT to Endorse!

"Government is not the solution to our problem.  Government is the problem."                 -- Ronald Reagan (watch video) "We've gotten shockingly used to incompetent government."        -- Carly Fiorina THE 2011 ELECTION: RED ANT ENDORSEMENTS I always support the fiscal conservatives, especially when they are proven and respectful leaders.  Grown-ups.  In choosing candidates to endorse, it is paramount that they "get it."  And this year, The Red Ant has 4 key and stated issues that are of great community significance: the AACP, hydro plant, the lack of subsidized housing capital reserves, and a plastic bag ban/tax that is effectively a government effort to impose an illegal tax in violation of TABOR (taxpayers' bill of rights).  It's been painful to watch novices on city council vote on critical issues that they very clearly do not comprehend.  This isn't a "he's a nice guy" race - we're not electing the homecoming king/queen or captain of the lacrosse team here.  We're talking about an $85M budget and the responsibility for decisions that directly impact the livelihoods of our friends and neighbors, not to mention the future of Aspen!  On the other hand, never in recent memory has there been such a weak slate of candidates running for office.  I would be lying if I were to say that endorsing candidates in this election was easy or obvious.  Sure, there are very nice people running, some have great hair, some are "great guys."  Others are complete jerks.   When you see the candidate responses to The Red Ant questionnaire (below), I think you'll agree with me!  The Red Ant is proud to endorse:  Ruth Kruger for Mayor:  This political newcomer is a breath of fresh air.  She currently holds Dwayne Romero's seat on council -- a temporary assignment she was appointed to earlier this spring. As a commercial real estate broker and former P&Z member, Ruth knows the ins and outs of a spreadsheet and has experienced first-hand the "goings-on" in city hall.  She has also experienced how bad public policy directly affects our local economy.  Ruth herself said it best, "The city is off the rails and in need of focus on responsible budgetary issues to get back on track." She's an advocate of government transparency, process improvement and that civility and inclusion so notably absent in the Mick Ireland councils these past 4 years. Vote for Ruth for Mayor! For council, I must candidly admit, this was more of a challenge.  I do not agree across the board with ANY of the council candidates.  However, I found through my questionnaire, conversations with many of them, and the track records of the others that, given our choices, the future of Aspen is in the best hands with: Adam Frisch for Council:  A business guy with a strong financial background who is raising a family in Aspen is just what local government needs today.  He's a straight shooter, not afraid to take a stance, but equally accessible to hearing new ideas and viewpoints.  Adam specifically stated, "The city has failed to do its job; it is actually impeding the encouragement of new business and the growth of existing ones." Identifying and getting rid of the obstacles is where he can make a real difference.  And that's not to mention Adam's proven commitment to the community through leadership roles on civic boards and local non-profits too numerous to list.  The Red Ant's greatest political regret to-date was not endorsing Adam for council in 2009.  It was a terrible mistake.  Vote Adam for Council!**  **IMPORTANT:  Now that we are rid of Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), we are likely to have a run-off on June 7.  It is vital that we do what's necessary to get Adam on council NOW, in the first round.  Therefore, I strongly urge you to simply "bullet-vote" for Adam.  This means just vote for Adam despite the opportunity to vote for two candidates.  We'll get him seated in the first round and have time to decide between  whichever two candidates advance to the run-off in June.  (Yes, I will endorse for that race if/when the time comes.)  Question #1: YES  (This small land-swap appears to be a harmless housekeeping matter, although I hope the city gets out of the real estate game ASAP.  Read more here.)  ASPEN IS "SICK OF MICK" -- 96.5 MILLION REASONS WHY People want to know why I'm so SICK OF MICK.  Let me explain and you will be too.  There are 96.5 million reasons.  Taxpayers, environmentalists, non-profits, local businesses, historic preservationists, subsidized housing residents and special event planners should be violently sick, given the public resources Mick has wantonly squandered amidst the worst economic downturn in years.  (Just imagine how the wise and thoughtful deployment of $96.5 million could have impacted our community!)  Mick has been an irresponsible leader, wastefully spending millions and escaping all accountability, and has led staff and council to be perennially on the wrong side of ALL the important issues.  The following is a list of Mick's flops, foibles and self-serving behaviors (and by no means is the list complete) that caused the community to squander at least $96.5M during the leadership of mayor Mick: ·BMC PURCHASE: The city spent $18.25M on the lumberyard in 2007 as part of its ill-fated "land-banking" scheme to acquire property for future subsidized housing development.  The purchase was completed without an appraisal, and today the assessor's office values the property at $3.2M.  (Community is out $15M.)   OTHER LAND SPECULATION: The city shelled out another $16.6M in 2007 on 4 other properties, depleting the housing fund. To date, not one has been developed for subsidized housing, and the rental revenue for the squalid dwellings is negligible at best.  Yes, intrinsically the land still has value, but certainly not $16.6M worth today!  For now, the money is tied up and will be for the foreseeable future unless the city dumps the properties at substantial losses.  (Community/the housing program is currently out $16M.) HYDRO PLANT:  The $5.5M bond (repayment capped at $10.78M) approved by voters in 2007 has already been issued. This beleaguered attempt at local "renewable energy," despite having no permits, has been revealed to have already cost $4.4M for questionable drainage pipe and transition line installation, and equipment purchases. Mick famously defended the continuance of plant construction without permits because "we've already bought the ($1.5M) turbine."  Back-pedaling recently during the campaign over a need to consider the impacts on stream health, Mr. Environment himself has proposed a low-level environmental study that the hydro plant project does not even qualify for!  Misuse of the bond funds could also be considered securities fraud and open up a HUGE can of worms (and legal expenditures) for the city.  Debt service on the bonds was sold to voters as coming from the electric utility fees from the power generated, but the hydro plant will likely only be in operation a couple months a year, at most.  Ad valorem property taxes (without limitation to rate or amount) were approved to be levied to cover the debt, however we will more likely see dramatic increases in utility rates, especially for Aspen businesses who are the largest power customers.  Citizen outcry has grown LOUD, and many are calling for a pause in construction for a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) by the feds.  Others are telling the city to cut its losses and walk away.  None of this will come cheap or quick.  (Community is on the hook for $10+M for the bond debt service, regardless.) BURLINGAME PHASE 1:  Mayor Mick has been a longtime proponent of subsidized housing at Burlingame, at one point promising a $62,500 taxpayer subsidy per unit.  In the end, Burlingame 1 cost $45M more than what he promised ($33M attributed to undocumented "construction inflation" on a fixed-price contract and an additional $11.7M in change orders).  The subsidy was over $32M for 91 units -- $359K per unit.  (Community/housing fund is out $45M.) BURLINGAME PHASE 2:  To date, the city has spent $3M in planning costs for the proposed 167-unit subsidized housing expansion that will require a $50+M general obligation bond for the estimated $100+M project.  This includes a campaign to pre-sell the proposed units, featuring a brochure stating the #1 reason to sign up: "NO LOTTERY - NO DEPOSIT - NO COMMITMENT."  (The "zero accountability" marketing strategy?  Like we need more of THAT!?)  Burlingame 2 planning costs are likely to increase until the bond measure is STEAM-ROLLED by voters whenever it hits the ballot.  (Community is out $3M, and counting. THE GIVEN INSTITUTE In late 2010, the University of Colorado Medical School had a $20M immediate cash sale offer for The Given Institute, a facility no longer feasible to CU (operational deficits were over $200K/year).  Mick led council in threatening an emergency ordinance to prevent the sale, and then asked CU to delay in order to negotiate with the city as a potential buyer.  CU acted in good faith, and after over 6 months of Mick-driven delays, ultimately sold the west end property for $13.8M to a private buyer.  What did Mick accomplish for Coloradans?  A loss of over $6M in funding for medical research and healthcare in the name of protecting Aspen's 1970's architecture.  Aspen leads again!? (Over $6M vanished into thin air.) THE AACP  Conservatively costing over $1M to-date in out-of-pocket and staff time (and it's far from finished), plus thousands of hours of volunteer time, the community plan draft is based on a 2006 economy.  Public input, while collected, has been rejected and ignored to reflect Mick's "no growth" philosophies.  These philosophies stand to make any kind of construction (expansion or new development) financially impossible due to 100% subsidized housing mitigation and mandated increases in development fees, according to community business leaders.  Conservative estimates put the costs-to-complete the AACP at an additional $250K, bringing the total cost to at least $1.25M.  If the document is deemed to be "visionary/aspirational," it easily will have cost $1M more than it should have.  If it's deemed to be regulatory, the costs from lawsuits will be astronomical.  (Community is out at least $1M.) INVOLUNTARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION  Ordinance 30 of 2007, Mick's legacy from his first month in office, was passed as an "emergency" to control the maintenance and improvement of private homes over 30 years old.  Three years of turmoil, unnecessary demolitions and over $250K in task force funding (not to mention literally thousands of hours of volunteer time) had to be thrown at the problem he created late one night before it was finally resolved earlier this year when "historic preservation" in Aspen was officially determined to be VOLUNTARY.  A needless waste of time and money.   (Community is out $250K.) "MICK'S VACANT LOT"  After threatening to defend the AACP "to the last dollar," mayor Mick settled a lawsuit that granted special exemptions to the Aspen Art Museum for a proposed museum facility on the Wienerstube  property.  This settlement was reached prior to being heard by the appeals court that was (obviously) likely to strike down the AACP's purported power as a regulatory document.   As a result, the savvy Wienerstube property owners negotiated a win/win for themselves, and now own a valuable vacant lot without having to negotiate to tear down the 1970's era Wienerstube building.  Should the Museum actually buy the land and build their museum, Mick's settlement grants them a free pass from spending years in the P&Z and council negotiations process.  In the meantime, Aspen can thank Mick for the quick demolition of several local businesses that can no longer serve the public or generate jobs and tax revenue.  And should the museum never purchase the site, it's unclear but purported that the settlement benefits flow to any new development there.  Yep, unfettered, unregulated development in the form of something other than a new Art Museum, which at least has a public benefit.  The worst possible outcome!  (Community is out TBD!  It's impossible to quantify!) MAIN STREET MEDIAN  Under Mick's leadership, the city proposed a median be built down the middle of Main St.  Never mind its own snowplows could not operate within the new design configuration, local fire engines could not make left turns off Main Street when responding to fires!  (Community is out over $100K for this insipid idea.) QUIZNO'S BIKE RACE Mayor Mick the avid road-biker cajoled his fellow councilmen into providing $140K in city funds to bring a stage of the Quizno's Pro Challenge bike race to Aspen this summer.  (A commitment to this untried event also comes from the lodging community which kicked in $200K in comp rooms over the slow weekend after the Music Festival ends.)  The mayor admits that he can't promise the event will pay will off in its first year, but his love of biking and the fact that he's seen bike races in Europe were enough to empower him to use your money to bring this event here.  Number of participants in the race:  128.  Should the city be spending $140K in tax dollars for this?  I think not.  (The community is out $140K.) And these last two items are just a couple of "self-serving" reasons why I'm especially SICK OF MICK: SPECIAL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING  Mick lives in a subsidized housing project (Common Grounds) that exists outside of the "normal" APCHA portfolio.  When vacancies at his project occur, only those who belong to the small association (anyone can join for $50) are entered into the lottery for housing there, unlike the APCHA lotteries that include all qualified comers.  Few know about this "association" so the lottery pool is tiny.  The idea is called "co-housing" where neighbors share the maintenance work to keep costs down; in reality it's chaos.  The maintenance is a disaster and hardly shared.  Mayor Mick "rents" an office on-site yet neglects to pay said rent.  And his pal Rachel Richards (on the BOCC) is a member of the "association," hoping to be picked next for an open unit in the project.  Of, by, and for the people?  Not Mick!  His housing is in a special CLUB!  And its HOA capital reserves scenario is worse than most all others!  NO VOTER I.D.:  As part of thorough election reforms to reduce voter fraud and improve voter confidence in our municipal elections, the election commission recommended that voters be required to show ID before voting.  The state requires it and so does Pitkin County.  Mick argued vociferously against changing the city's law to require the same, citing a vast right-wing conspiracy to disenfranchise "the old" and "the young" voters with this "cumbersome" requirement.  It would be funny if it wasn't so telling.     So, there you have it - more than 96.5 million reasons.  And you can be sure there are plenty more, but ENOUGH ALREADY! ASPEN CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES I recently sent the candidates a questionnaire, not unlike those sent by the daily papers, but specifically focused on what I see as THE critical issues.  Here are the questions and responses from those who chose to participate. I strongly believe that candidates who are afraid to take a stand on the issues in black & white in The Red Ant signal to me that they will be equally "reluctant" leaders and are therefore undeserving of your vote.  (Ya think?)  I do however feel that the complete responses of all candidates who took the time to respond should absolutely be shared.  (This is a VERY long issue and I apologize, but I encourage you read the candidates' responses.) 1)  Should the AACP be guiding (regulatory) or aspirational (visionary), and why?  Would you vote to approve the AACP as written, yes or no, and why?  (And for Mick and Steve, what is the budget for the AACP and who approved it?) Cliff Weiss: The AACP is both.  The Planning and Zoning commission adjucates applications that are asking to vary from or exceed code.  The land use code cannot foresee every loophole or tactic being used to exceed code and amending the code takes time.  Therefore it is the job of the AACP to be a regulatory tool that ensures a project provides some public benefit, mitigates for its impacts and is appropriate with its neighborhood.  Developers and the community need certainty.  Requiring consistency with the AACP gives everyone the certainty that there are limits to what will be acceptable.  There are also many policies and action items that are recommendations and therefore advisory to county commissioners, council and the departments affected. Marcia Goshorn: The AACP is a visionary document like a master plan that gives a road map.  To consider a document that is only revised every 10 years regulatory could be dangerous.  We can create land use codes that honor the AACP, but need the ability with changing conditions to change our course to better meet our needs and eliminate failed programs.   I would not vote to approve it as it now stands, there are too many sections that still include failed programs that started with good intentions but did not work. Andrew Kole: I think the AACP should be "visionary", and truly a reflection of community values, and NOT used as a political tool or football.  The current AACP is like a buffet without a central theme. At times it is confusing at best. The City says "the AACP shall be used as both a guiding and regulatory document", while the County "recognizes the AACP as an advisory document."  Additionally, with 521 listed Action Items (a rather large number), the AACP tries to do too much without the proper resources to succeed, as City staff can only do so much. To cut to the chase, the key item that needs to be debated is the language taking affordable housing mitigation from 60% to 100%, and the undefined phrase, "critical mass."  Finally, when it takes almost three years to write a document, the result creates assumptions that are not only out of tune with the current economy, but potentially fatal to it. Factor in arbitrary language such as "critical mass" only adds to the confusion and fear associated with the Growth Section of the document.  The AACP is supposed to reflect the Aspen Idea which, when you get down to it, is living in harmony. While this version attempts to achieve that goal, it still needs some retooling.  And no, since the final document is still a moving target, I'd have to vote no in its current form. The time it has taken to write the current AACP, specifically the man-hours, both staff and volunteer, give me cause to step back so we can re-discuss what we, the citizens really want the AACP to be.  Steve:  The AACP should be a guiding document. It should lead us to amend the land use code in a way that satisfy the community vision. No, I would not vote to approve it as it is written. I think it needs to be easier and simplified. And, some issues like 100% AH mitigation I'm not convinced are practical.  Adam: The community has made it clear that the AACP is a very important document, and I agree.  Aspen needs and deserves a guiding document that brings focus to our most important hopes and aspirations.  The document should be advisory, with the possible exception of the land use issues, but only, and this is a very important distinction, only if this section is consistent with the land use code.  As to the current process, I would like to see us take a 'pause' while the Community Development Department has the economic assumptions redone to reflect our current conditions.  The 2007 assumptions were not made during a normal 'boom' cycle, but during a period of economic activity, especially real estate speculation, that none of us will see again in our lifetime (nor do I care to see return).  It is vital for our community to understand the expected repercussions from the AACP prior to voting on it.  Having the original numbers reviewed would be much quicker and less expensive than the first time around. Ruth: The AACP is a guiding document meant to define our mission and vision while defining valley principals.  We have zoning regulations that determine the regulatory statutes.  Perhaps we should redefine them in a simpler way so that everyone knows the rules of the game.  Why not clearly define what a project can be and what an applicant can and cannot do?  This game of setting the rules, like drawing a line in the sand then moving it has created a great loss of income and failed projects that could have meant jobs for our local work force rather than big holes in the ground and wasted opportunity.  Pitkin County has lost 2400 jobs in the last 2 years.  These are our friends and neighbors who have lost their homes and their quality of life.  What is the end game here and why do we continue to play?  Let's be fair and design a program that is definable.  Arbitrary interpretation is no longer acceptable and has resulted in too many lawsuits. 2)  Do you favor a fee (how much), an outright ban or the status quo (that could include incentives) with regard to plastic bags, and why? Cliff:  The goal was to reduce waste.  I don't think taxes are the solution.  Waste carting companies already pick up other recyclables, why not plastic and corrugated as well?  If the city is truly looking to cut waste, then they should work with the state to support a bill against wrongful packaging.  Packaging contributes far more to landfills than plastic bags. Marcia: I have always favored a carrot rather than a stick. City Market already gives you a discount if you bring your own bag, but a lot of people do not know it. The city could also work with the Lodging community and ACRA to find some incentives to encourage them to place reusable bags in the condos or sell inexpensive ones at point of sale. We could also have incentives to the stores to use bio degradable bags like the free dog bags. There are alternatives that can still put us on the cutting edge and accomplish the same goals. Andrew:  No fee!  No ban!  I favor presenting the idea on its merit and feel the public will get on board. I am also in favor of promoting the non-use of individual plastic water bottles through the same process. Steve:  This program needs to be assessed further. I don't feel committed to either option at this time but I am committed to reducing waste. Adam:  Our community should always be striving to be as environmentally responsible as possible.  However, a tax or fee is unlikely to decrease anyone's plastic bag usage -which should be our goal.  One proposal that I would like to see discussed is creating a public-private partnership to help the lodges, condominiums, property management companies, and hotels provide reusable bags for their guests.  While I think we need to be careful on banning widely used products, the reason I remain open to discussing this issue is the banning of the bags by the following countries, none of which are exactly known for the environmental stewardship: Bangladesh, China, Eritrea, Nepal, Somaliland, Taiwan, Tanzania, and Thailand.  If these countries can ban the bags, we should at least discuss the pros and cons.  Regardless of any action per above, my preference is to work with our partners in our community to offer a consistent approach to this problem on a valley wide basis. Ruth:  I believe that it is not within the powers of the City Council to impose a fee on a transaction between parties without a vote of the public (otherwise known as a tax).  I think it is a great discussion that could help change people's behaviors for the better and is worth having.  I think speaking to state officials or looking at a statewide program for returnable bottles is a more effective and more far reaching program to pursue. 3)  Who should pay for common area repairs to subsidized housing projects when the HOA reserve accounts do not have the money?  Explain. Cliff: I think the city will have to share the cost with the homeowners on a project-by-project basis.  While the homeowners a culpable for their lack of planning, so is the city.  I campaigned on this issue in 2003.  Did the city have regular meetings with HOAs?  In hindsight, the city should have provided new HOAs with guidelines and capital reserves requirements and received annual reports a decade ago and now must be a part of the solution for failing to do anything. Marcia: The information that has been leaked about the capital reserve studies is very misleading. The studies are preliminary and are only meant to be a budgeting tool for the Associations.  The affordable housing associations are no different than the free market projects when it comes to repairs and capital reserve funds. Few HOA's fund their capital reserve at a 100% level. I urge you to check your own associations to see where they stand. Major repairs are generally funded through special assessments or bank loans which is the same for free market and affordable housing and has been done that way as long as condominium projects have been in existence. In an issue as serious as Centennial helping the Association create their own special improvement district could be done at no cost to the taxpayers other than the residents of Centennial, but still would need the support of the City Council to make it happen. It would be paid back with their own taxes much like a sewer district. It would save them money and allow them to spread out the payments at a much lower interest rate. We can accomplish anything working together. Andrew:  This is a very tough question that is going to generate a lot of debate.  It is my belief, after serving on the Housing Frontiers Group for the last two years, the existing and future financial problems should be the responsibility of the HOAs and APCHA (City and County). Without going into excessive detail, there is no question in my opinion, all three entities have failed in one way or the other and the costs associated with the solution should be shared. Steve: Home owners. However, I think the city could have done more to prevent and support HOA boards from operating with woefully insufficient capital reserves. Adam: I have been spending the last 18 months working on this exact issue as a member of the Housing Frontiers Group (HFG).  I do think there is a role of the community/government to help the individual HOAs get back on track as far as their reserves are concerned.  Examples will be running education seminars for the individual homeowners and most importantly, help the HOA boards get up to speed on their rights and responsibilities.  I have spoken with a lot of AH residents and HOA board members and no doubt the vast majority of them are trying hard to do the right thing---manage their HOAs to the best of their abilities.  In their defense, I think APCHA has done a poor job in providing the tools to their residents.  This education piece is something HFG is working on.  Money invested in helping the HOAs to 'learn how to fish' as opposed to a 'bail out' is money well invested as far as I am concerned.  From talking to all HOA and individual residents, this is their hope as well.  As to the actual capital reserve shortfalls, I look at the issue like our nation's Social Security problem; while the roof is not falling down anytime soon, we do need to make some changes to get the program on a sustainable path.  When the data does come out, I think it will be very manageable as we need to remember the shortfall is over a 30 year period, not due in the next month. Ruth:  I believe we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend we have no place in the discussion.  It is a long standing problem that has not and is unlikely to be fixed without guidance and funding from the City.  I would like to explore a low interest loan program for the adequate repair and replacement for health and safety issues.  These can be paid back over time and/or upon the sale if the units.  4)  Should the city continue to spend money on plans for Burlingame Phase 2, yes or no, and why? Cliff: No.  When plans for Burlingame were first introduced, I was against the development.  I was concerned the project would set a precedent for sprawl throughout the upper valley.  Worse, there were no mass transit plans that made any sense.  The development would exacerbate traffic on Hwy 82.  Now that there are 89 or so units, I would still like to know how the development would be serviced by mass transit before I could support expansion. Marcia: I believe that we need to complete the plans currently underway so that when the time is right to start construction we are ready to do it with no additional costs or delays. We have come so far with the plans already it would be a complete waste of money to stop them mid-completion and a complete waste of taxpayer's money that has already been spent and increase the final cost.  Andrew: No.  Before we spend another dime we need to find out what our workforce housing needs really are (category, size), and if we even need more.  We also have to look at the costs associated with repairing what is already built.  It is very easy to say we need more workforce/affordable housing during an election, but the facts as they stand now do not justify building for the sake of building.  I believe in workforce/affordable housing. But, I am not a fan of certain pieces of Aspen's current program or process when it comes to determining what Aspen's needs are today, and in the future.  I promise you there are a lot of ways to go, and the public is not hearing all of them. Instead we are spending money like the proverbial "drunken sailor." Steve: Yes, but pay close attention to the pre-sales process. If there's not enough demand, we shouldn't build it. Adam: While the process of Burlingame-phase 1 left a lot to be desired, I think the end result of a family oriented affordable housing project close to town is a huge community asset.  I have a lot of friends who are thrilled to be there.  City Hall has learned a lot from the BG-1 process and I know they are working on some industry best practices that were not in place prior.  Assuming BG-2 follows the "qualified" demand issue I discuss below, I think it is fine to go through the pre-sale process to see if there is enough 'qualified' demand for any stages to be built.  It is imperative that we study the demand issue; something this community has never had to do. Ruth: In the current economy this is a frivolous use of taxpayer money and staff time on additional units at Burlingame.  We do not need to be building new units to compete with the units we have now that are not selling.  We need to focus on what we have and financing options for the current stock. 5)  Should we continue to build more subsidized housing, yes or no, and why? Cliff: Yes.  But not by the city.  I support public/private projects and Peter Fornell's concept of smaller easily assimilated projects.  If lottery applications are high for a particular category unit, it indicates we need more units to meet demand. Marcia: There are several public private partnerships currently underway and they need to be completed. To stop them now would be irresponsible. To only look at the here and now instead of the future does no one any favors. We need to look at what will be in the pipeline from development projects and current construction as a whole. The need for housing for teachers, policemen, and the everyday people that make up the foundation of this community is as important as it ever was. I do not know about you, but if my house starts to burn down I want my volunteer fireman to be living closer that Basalt. Andrew: Yes, No, Maybe? Could I be more non-committal?  First, we need to take care of what we have. Next we need to determine what we really need. I know the lines for the lower categories are long. I also know that our population is getting older and we have no plan to assist retirees.  Finally, I know we talk a good game, but we now need to get our hands dirty and do the right thing, the smart thing for all citizens. Steve: We should build to satisfy community goals, not build AH simply for the sake of building.  Adam:  While we still have a long-term affordable housing shortage, we need to take a few breaths and make sure we realize that the world has changed and Aspen's AH program is not immune.  On the supply side, the City will need to borrow for any new project.  This requires a vote of the community, not just the City Council.  While not necessarily a bad outcome, it does make a higher hurdle to clear for adding housing units.  Also on the supply side is the issue of where to place any additional units.  Our community has high and admirable goals for density and protecting open space.  We do not have an unlimited amount of land, even for affordable housing.  On the demand side, the concerns are even deeper.  While the economy has had a dampening effect on affordable housing, current lending standards have really placed a stifling effect on demand.  The question now is not who would like/needs affordable housing, but who is finically qualified to obtain it given the current lending practices.  With needs of 10-20% down, this is really the challenge for perspective new AH homeowners.  While the details are always important, the first step to building more units is do we have a critical mass of people who can qualify?  The second level of the demand question is not so much on the new projects possibly going up, but with a lot of that demand coming from existing AH units, we need to make sure we can fill the older inventory as well. Ruth: With the loss of 2400 jobs from 2008 and 2009, the law of supply and demand begs the question why?  We have land-banked enough properties for the next century if we are determined to hold our growth rate to a minimum.  I say we take a pause and look at the facts of what we need and what we want.  With the current requirements of the City and the AACP, the City will certainly be the largest developer and perhaps the only developer left in town. 6)  Should the city continue to pursue a federal exemption from conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on Castle and Maroon Creeks in order to move forward with the Hydro Plant, yes or no, and why? Cliff: Yes, but this issue should never have become so contentious. The conduit exemption is not really relevant to a solution.  There was nearly a solution for a higher minimum level CFS (cubic feet per second) flow.  The solution would have preserved the health of the creeks at the expense of a small amount of power generation for two months.  When P&Z discussed the solution, we were told it couldn't be done.  I'm frequently told it can't be done.  But the more I pursue it, the more I prove it can be done. Marcia: This issue has two people that I greatly respect, Mark Udall and Connie Harvey, who usually stand shoulder to shoulder on environmental issues on opposite sides. The City would require an environmental assessment for any developer and I believe that the city needs to hold itself to the same standards not a lower one. We need the best information available to create an informed decision for a healthy sustainable environment. Andrew: No. The city needs to STOP and take a really good look at the history of the project, the bond, and listen to the citizens that have become more informed than the officials making decisions.  The Hydro Plant was an idea not properly researched (due diligence anyone), that became an obsession that might actually do significant damage to our streams.  To date we have spent $2.3M on a pipe to nowhere, $1.5M on a turbine, and $600T for a transmission line.  In total, we have spent over $4.4M of the $5.5M bond authorized by the citizens. And, I understand, spent the $2.3M under the guise of an emergency drainage line (another emergency?) not needed, but to generate an exemption needed for the Hydro Plant.  As I see it, spending bond money on something other than what is intended in the bond sale, is problematic at best, and could have more far reaching consequences. Steve:  No. We need to be responsible in our pursuit of hydro-power, and I don't believe pursuit of the exemption is satisfactorily responsible. Adam: No.  Aspen should instead apply for a "Minor License Application," which is a more stringent application process.  While a formal environmental assessment will be required, it is the right thing to do for our community.  I have a hard time understanding why, as an environmentally committed community, we would avoid conducting an environmental assessment.  The City of Aspen places stringent environmental requirements on all building projects, and it should do the same on its own projects.  Hypocrisy does not bode well with me, nor do I think for the community. Ruth:  It appears that the hydro plant has been moving forward in a bit of a rush to achieve a worthy goal.  It is my understanding, after several conversations with those more knowledgeable in this complicated system, that the rule of the project is that the ends justify the means.  It is odd that a project that aspires to an environmentally sustainable goal would not be more sensitive regarding the environment.  It is my understanding that the study performed was only over a 2 month period in the summertime with the rest of the information extrapolated from a very old study.  This project needs a pause to perform the proper due diligence and to play by the rules required by the state and the proper authorities. 7)  How would YOU have handled negotiations between the city and Jonathan Lewis, purchaser-to-be of The Given property?  (NOTE:  At press time, The Given Institute has met its maker and was torn down on Monday and Tuesday, April 18 & 19.) Cliff: Negotiations usually result in compromises where no one gets everything they want.  I didn't see what was on the table so I can't tell you where the settlement could have been.  But I understand the process and believe there might have been a different outcome. Marcia: I have always believed that you should go into any negotiation with no preconceived notions and listen to all of the proposals. I am hoping that something can still be worked out. The reported proposal by Mr. Lewis could be in someways the best of all worlds. To build one house for his family member without cutting down any of the beautiful trees and renovating the existing building with the modernization it has needed for a long time could preserve a beautiful property. We are not coming from a position of strength, so we need to be humble and listen with an open mind and heart. Andrew: Better than they were handled. I say this because I have been negotiating for most of my life in one form or another.  As a city we have not been the best of negotiators.  Two recent examples being the BMC land purchase and the Art Museum.  Why we do not bring in professionals specific to the item being negotiated has never made sense to me. Steve:  More or less the same way it was handled.  Adam: Honestly I do not know.  I do know that it is sad we very well might lose an important part of Aspen's history.  But I hope and expect the next owners to treat the site and trees with the care it deserves as that special piece of property begins a new stage.  It is hard to comment when there are a lot of closed door sessions as the public does not know all the facts.   I hope the situation was unique enough that the process can turn out differently next time a very important building faces the same fate. Ruth: I would have loved to enter a negotiation to pay the stated subsidy of $200,000 and partner with CU as a leaseholder to make The Given a revenue generator and a venue for programs developed to bring more tourism to town.  We could have used the facility as an environmentally-oriented educational facility making this a win/win for all. 8)  Please comment on the situation at the southwest corner of Spring St and Hyman Ave (the now-vacant lot that was previously the Wienerstube) now that it's become public that the Aspen Art Museum has not yet purchased the property and they do not have the funding on-hand to build the museum. Cliff: I'm frustrated that P&Z didn't get to comment on this project before it was decided.  I think it's too big for a transition zone to a residential neighborhood.  I would have been in favor of one less story and some setback on at least one side.  Personally, I didn't like the design.  Bill Wiener had it right - it would have been a pigeon roost.  But I do not have a problem with that location for an art museum.  I also think Infill code that allows tall buildings in the core should be rolled back as well.  Infill was another idea with good intentions that has done more harm than good. Marcia: The news reports did not say that they did not have the money to build, but they wanted the endowment to support it in place before construction begins which is actually a financially prudent thing to do. The original agreement was to avoid a lawsuit, but I do not believe that threats of lawsuits should never be a deciding factor, sometimes you need to call their bluff and be willing to walk away. Andrew: Simply put, I was surprised, disappointed, dumbfounded! Why a demolition permit was approved before the city was dead certain the Museum had their financial house in order is beyond me.  Does anybody remember the Stage 3 deal that resulted in an open construction site for years?  As a matter of fact, how many empty construction sites do we need until somebody says enough!  The AAM might build the museum - but why tear the Wienerstube down until construction was imminent? I'm sure the owners of Bad Billy's or some other establishment could have used the place until the AAM was ready to start construction. Steve: I believe they will complete their transaction. Until then, I think the Museum should support an effort to utilize the space as a public garden. Adam:  I think the vacant lot is indicative a very disappointing and frustrating process for the community.  I was not in the "inside" when most of this process happened, but I think it is a shame for the sake of the community that the Museum received such a fast track approval process.  Even very worthy community projects like the Hospital need to go through the 'normal' land use code.  While it is frustrating for many, and there is no doubt room for improvement, the normal process has done this community well.  The expressway lane for the AAM has rightly frustrated a lot of people and emphasized that the playing field is not always equal for all applicants.  While the Council was forced at the end to choose between two 'bad choices,' they easily could of avoiding getting to that stage if they would have handled the original Wienerstube redevelopment better. Ruth: It appears that the proper due diligence and requirements imposed on the public such as performance bonds were not in place.  The inadequate public process that could have resulted in perhaps a better project resulted in a lost opportunity for the Community to have a truly special project.  Although it was designed by a famous architect, I am not sure the high altitude elements and the heat effect on the glass block ceiling and the wooden lattice exterior were considered.  How can it not be an HVAC nightmare?  And what is to happen to the lattice framework after a few extreme hot summer and cold winter months?   VOTE ON MAY 3 - AND BRING PHOTO I.D. Early/Absentee voting has begun in the clerk's office in City Hall.  You may come in to vote between 9a - 5p M-F through Friday, April 29.  Absentee ballots must be in the clerk's hands by 7p on May 3.  Postmarks don't count. The polls are open 7a - 7p on May 3. Precincts 1-3 vote at Rio Grande Plaza.  Precincts 4-5 and 7 vote at Schultz Health & Human Services (by the hospital).  To find your precinct, go to www.GoVoteColorado.com In order to have a winner on May 3, a mayoral candidate must have 50% of the total votes cast + 1 vote.  If none achieve this threshold, the two top vote-getters enter into a run-off.  Council candidates can avoid a run-off if they individually pull in 45% of the total votes cast + 1 vote.  (Yes, it's possible for one council candidate to win a seat in the first round, in which case the candidates with the two next highest vote counts will advance to the June 7 run-off.)  THE REVOLUTION In an effort to encourage challengers to mayor Mick, The Red Ant and co-conspirators launched the 2011 "SICK OF MICK" campaign on March 21.  (Visit www.SickOfMick.com ) At the time, mayor Mick was running unopposed!  Thankfully, there are now 3 candidates for mayor.  We've got ourselves a REAL RACE!   I'm ecstatic!  This is already a HUGE victory -- to be sure -- but now we need to prevent Mick's re-election!  Thanks to all who have supported the SICK OF MICK campaign.    Fundraising for this effort has been incredibly successful.  Look for several SICK OF MICK ads in the papers in the days leading up to the election.  Thank you for enabling this effort with your generosity!  For now, fundraising must cease (per election laws) but remember, we'll know on May 3rd if we have a run-off on June 7!   If necessary, and let's hope not, I'll be back in touch to replenish the coffers!   If you want yard signs or bumper stickers, please contact The Red Ant at TheRedAntEM@comcast.net and we will make arrangements to get these to you!  CORRECTION Regarding the Aspen Art Museum, Issue #59 reported that they "really don't have the money needed to build the in-town museum on the site they purchased under controversial conditions late last year."  In fact, the Aspen Art Museum has yet to purchase the property at the southwest corner of Spring St and Hyman Ave where the Wienerstube once stood.  The Red Ant regrets the error, and will think of Mick each time I walk past the needlessly vacant lot.

ISSUE # 60....Ant Byte: SycophANTs Unite to Protect Mick

"Nobody thought about it... That this program (subsidized housing in Aspen) would last 30 years and that these buildings would need to be maintained." 

-- Jackie Kasabach, Housing Frontiers Group member and former member of City Council, 4/18/11.

"APCHA doesn't have the time to do this stuff." 

-- Marcia Goshorn, APCHA board member, Housing Frontiers Group member and current candidate for City Council, 4/18/11.

HOUSING FRONTIERS: A LEADERLESS GROUP THAT MEETS IN SECRET, KEEPS NO NOTES

The Red Ant recently attended a meeting of the Housing Frontiers Group (HFG), an obscure extension of the housing authority (APCHA) according to some, a group working for the city manager through assistant city manager Barry Crook according to others, a group recognized and funded by city council according to council minutes, and an "independent advisory body" and "off-shoot of the (now-defunct) Citizen's Budget Task Force with no subservience to APCHA," according to two HFG members.  Go figure.  "Most of the group's time (over the past 2.5+ years) has been spent on developing a program that helps affordable housing homeowners associations complete studies on capital reserves needs," according to HFG member Andrew Kole, in a May 2010 interview with the Aspen Daily News.  The need to study the capital reserves scenarios (or lack thereof) at the subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio stems presumably from the dire situation at Centennial that is estimated to cost in the $10-$20M range to repair, and the revelation that the HOA there has an abysmal capital reserves collection record and a grossly inadequate reserves balance. 

All current candidates for office were invited to the same meeting I attended to learn about what the HFG has been doing, as "subsidized housing capital reserves" stands to become a hot campaign issue.

A PUBLIC BODY, OR NOT?  SHOW US YOUR RECORDS!

Despite allocating $130K in public funds for the capital reserves studies (in a 70/30 split with the various housing projects), APCHA director Tom McCabe and members of the HFG do not and will not  voluntarily make their records publicly available, nor do they keep minutes of their meetings.  When the records (specifically, the draft results of capital reserve studies conducted to date at 22 of 35 subsidized housing projects) were requested using the Colorado Open Records Act, MAJOR deflection and dissention on the HFG began.  Colorado Revised Statutes define a "local public body" as "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of a political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body."   

In other words, McCabe's unwillingness to take minutes aside, it's pretty obvious:  the HFG is a public body, given that its members were appointed at the city manager's recommendation during the summer of 2008 and the group has made many major decisions and recommendations on public policy matters.

And notably, 3 members of the HFG are running for office (Andrew Kole, Adam Frisch and Marcia Goshorn).  Now's the time that this get resolved!  Information has been leaked that the 22 studies to-date show frighteningly deficient capital reserves scenarios.  We're talking tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate. The subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio are "community assets" and the public has a right to know what's going on, where the candidates stand on the issue, and especially what we might be on the hook for!

DENIALS ABOUND

There is great denial that the HFG is a "public body" that must make its records public.  HFG member Pete Louras insists that city attorney John Worcester, acting in his self-ascribed role as the city's supreme court justice equivalent, "issued a ruling" that the HFG is not a public body therefore they do not need to keep minutes or adhere to open meetings laws.  When pressed, Louras could not produce said ruling.  McCabe even went so far as to state, "Because we do not take minutes and do not make public notices of our meetings, then we are not a public body."  Nice circular logic between the two, huh!?  As reported by the Aspen Daily News in January 2010, Worcester has stated in the past, based on his reading of the above quoted law, that unless a body has a "governmental decision-making function," it is not subject to open meetings laws.  The groups either are public and therefore must follow all open meetings regulations - such as noticing meetings, taking minutes and providing e-mails if asked - or they are not.  There is no gray area in the law that would allow a public body to meet in the open but not require it to take minutes or disclose their documents, for example, according to Worcester. 

But Worcester has gotten himself into a pickle before on the public meetings/open records front with his thinking.  Attorney Steven Zansberg, who specializes in Colorado open meeting laws, disagrees with Worcester.  Using another "secret meeting" that Worcester approved as an example, Zansberg told the Aspen Daily News that both formally constituted advisory bodies and delegated governmental decision-making authorities must adhere to open meetings laws.  "When they are meeting to discuss public business, the public has a right to attend."  In the case of the HFG, the public can attend (if they happen to learn of the meeting), but no records are kept or shared with the public in clear violation of open meetings laws.

Does anyone - particularly candidates Goshorn, Frisch and Kole - actually believe that information about significant deferred maintenance exposure in APCHA complexes is NOT public businesses??  Even the HOAs were told up front that the reports would go to APCHA, a public entity.

WHY THE SECRECY?

Some on the HFG argue that people's feelings might be hurt by public discussion and dissemination of the information they have compiled.  Attorney Zansberg points out that almost any topic can receive a "more frank discussion" in private, but that's not an option.  "It's not up to the board, committee or city attorney to make the decision" about what can and cannot be discussed in private.  "You don't get to say that because we discuss sensitive things that we are not subject to open meeting laws," he said.

Incidentally, Louras and Goshorn have a track record on anti-transparency.  Both served on the Citizen's Budget Task Force when the $75M Burlingame "discrepancy" was uncovered.  Louras went so far as to demand that the committee vote on whether or not to have open meetings as the debacle was unfolding, as if that was a legal choice.  He was of course voted down and the Burlingame bomb went off.  He's simply using the same playbook here.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

The HFG's Pete Louras, Jackie Kasabach and Marcia Goshorn are all servile flatterers and long-time campaigners for our dear leader Mick.  And as you know, Mick is running for re-election.  These three awkwardly hijacked the April 18 meeting with ridiculous filibustering (the first 20 minutes were spent debating everything from meeting calendars to the genesis of the HFG - a problem easily solved had someone/anyone taken the minutes) and in doing so, prevented the normal weekly distribution of an updated spreadsheet on the status of the capital reserves studies at the 35 targeted housing projects. (It's likely that because "others" -- the public AND The Red Ant -- came to the meeting the "sensitive" records were kept under wraps!)   Jackie even went so far as to tell her colleagues Andrew, Adam and Marcia that they "shouldn't talk during the meeting since they are running for office."  (Do ya think she'll go to council and ask Mick, Steve and Ruth to zip it?)  And Louras even moved to suspend all HFG meetings until after the elections are over -- in order to keep the secrets safe (that could be June 7 if there is a run-off)!

Here's what's REALLY going on:

• Goshorn (a candidate herself and APCHA board member) is a  neighbor of mayor Mick's in the Common Grounds subsidized housing project.
• It has been leaked to The Red Ant that Common Grounds has one of THE WORST housing  capital reserves scenarios on a per-unit basis among the 22 draft studies thus far. 
• In other words, mayor Mick does not in any way lead by example, but rather, lives in a subsidized housing project that operates by and advocates for MINIMAL/NO collection of reserve assessments in favor of "special assessments" when needed.  (Yeah, right:  a $100+K cash call for a new roof in subsidized housing!?)
• The dissemination of the capital reserves study results (albeit in draft form) will reveal Aspen's "man of the people" as a subsidized housing hypocrite amongst his key demographic:  with Mick as mayor, the city has garnered a citizen's group (the HFG) to educate/convince/induce the various APCHA properties to step up their capital reserves commitments while his HOA does nothing of the sort.
• The study results will expose the long-hidden liabilities and structural problems in the housing program, and this will frighten residents, especially owners.
• The realities of the city and county governments' turning a blind eye to critical housing program shortcomings, oversights and mismanagement from the start will negatively impact plans for more subsidized housing development, particularly Burlingame 2.
• When housing is sold by one owner to the next, APCHA oh-so-briefly assumes ownership in the chain of title.  This inherently puts the local government at great financial risk when they do not disclose problems and deficiencies (financial or otherwise) to the buyer.
• As if getting financing (which now requires 10-20% down) isn't difficult enough for aspiring subsidized housing buyers, deficient HOA capital reserves scenarios will make it even more so, and may likely make it impossible.

The Red Ant believes the big effort to keep this mum by Pete, Jackie and fellow candidate Marcia is two-fold:  first, to keep Mick's hypocrisy from becoming a personal campaign issue for him.   And secondly, it's to avoid the ugly truth about the long-ticking time bomb of the housing program's Achilles heel that Mick and other creators of the program have kept secret for years.  Sorry, it didn't work.  And now the cat's out of the bag.

CITY ATTORNEY'S PUBLIC OFFICE HOURS?

John Worcester.  So, Aspen's overpaid ($161,720 in 2010), and in the eyes of The Red Ant, dishonest and corrupt Aspen city attorney allegedly "issues rulings" for entities that purportedly aren't public??  Does he additionally hold court for the purpose of dispensing legal advice to other non-public local entities?  Really??  Is THAT in his job description?  When are these office hours?  This should be advertised because local attorneys charge upwards of $250/hour! (NOTE:  The Red Ant personally wouldn't take Worcester's legal advice - nor pay a nickel for it - even to get my dog out of the pound.)  

NOW THAT IT'S KNOWN OUR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROJECTS HAVE NO MONEY, WHO PAYS?

That's the $20M question.  For the owned units at the Centennial subsidized housing project at least.  The Red Ant has asked all of the candidates to address this question and will share their answers in the next issue of The Red Ant -- the endorsement issue.

But in the meantime, remember, subsidized housing has been a voting tool in Aspen for over 30 years:  "Vote for me, I got you a house."  While the housing we've paid for as a community is not yet in shambles, their financial resources certainly are.

Make this an issue this week at the candidate forums and debates!  Ask the candidates questions about their views on solutions to this major financial issue and on adherence to open meetings laws and principles of transparency.  And look for the endorsement issue of The Red Ant - coming soon!

If you need my preliminary endorsements in the meantime, please reply to this email and give me your phone number.  I will call you with my most current thoughts.