Referendum 1, letter to the editor

Quoting the flier for  the Aspen City Charter Referendum "Keep, Aspen, Aspen":

"All too often, city council is pressured to bend the rules because the  applicant is a nice person, a long time local or otherwise virtuous."

Really? That's how the "Keep Aspen, Aspen"  sees the history of Code Variances in Aspen?

Let's ask the Moss family who tried to expand the Aspen Inn with a balanced ratio of open space to building space. They were monkey wrenched by Council into bankruptcy and foreclosure. In return we got the Saint Regis and Grand Aspen both of which are exponentially larger than the Moss Cantrup plan and have no open space. Next ask the DePagter's about trying to renovate the Holland House. They asked for 9 more rooms. Six years of permit requests later they gave up and sold. Six months after that the new owners bulldozed and we drifted to the "shoot the puppy" years of development proposals which make 9 more moderately priced rooms look damn good in the rear view mirror. For real heartbreak talk to the Paas family. The Limelight is the poster child which Council uses to show the ideal mix of Community gathering space and Commercial yet it was the ping pong permit stipulations from Council which stretched the construction time and the financing to the  breaking point and crashed the project face first  into the Great Recession. The Paas sold to SkiCo. Now SkiCo is replicating the Limelight model, which should properly be dubbed the "Paas Plan",  as a template for other community conscious ski resort hostelries. 

All of these families helped build Aspen during the "non-billionaire" years. All of these families wanted to "Keep Aspen, Aspen" and build a home for their families and their future. No one gave them "special treatment". These long time locals  were pummeled by permits until they broke. Special treatment was reserved for the ones who swept up after them- the developers with endless resources, lawyers, investors, wads of cash and tons of time.

The more difficult you make refurbishment the more you kill our middle class long time local and create a vacuum ripe for the very type of development you're trying to stop. Endless requests for Code variances  are clear indication that the Code is broken. Fix the code. 

Please vote NO on Referendum 1.

"Let's Regulate it." letter to the editor

This is in response to the Alpina Haus article on February 9. and the proposed amendment to the town charter.

Is providing a clean and safe rental property with modern appliances the same as "overdevelopment"?  Our "carefully crafted" permitting process makes no distinction between the two and I believe that is a core problem in our land use code.

During a public comment session in City Council this January (ordinance 19 redux)  I heard Mick Ireland​ say words to the effect that dilapidated properties rent for less which helps to keep our housing "affordable".  He may of been joking, sometimes it's hard to tell. 

Why doesn't Aspen have hotel/rental property inspectors and ratings? I've suggested this before as a way to encourage property owners to maintain their rentals. This would have a much higher probability of success than the deed restrictions and fee waivers proposed in the original ordinance 19. You could make it even more attractive by "fast tracking" any permit which seeks to comply with the inspectors recommendations. It would benefit both the guest and the proprietor by giving our visitors an impartial guide for the essential qualities of a rental (not unlike the "star" system in Europe) while promoting healthy competition between property owners to get the best rating with clean and safe rentals. 

"Regulation" doesn't just mean collecting permitting fees. It implies a certain responsibility to insure compliance with the rules.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Voter Variances, letter to the editor

This is in response to the anti-variance petition article in the Aspen Daily News My major concern which I didn't put in the letter is opening the building variance permits to a ballot questions also invites big money into the process in a way we've never had in Aspen before. Can an election in Aspen be bought? This would be the test.

Oh joy, voter variances.

Getting a building permit in Aspen is a draconian process. 

Do we really think making each application a ballot question will be better?  You think you have information overload now, just wait.

What on earth makes you think the voting public will read each permit application? I soooo look forward to the building permit ads. Don't you want to see ad campaigns for parking spaces and increased roof to floor area? What if it's easier to "spin" the electorate than our elected representatives? Should we vote ourselves out? Nominations are open.

https://www.icivics.org

for those who need a refresher course on the definition of "Republic"

No one pays attention until things turn into a screaming match. 

Don't kid yourself the only reason ordinance 19 was rescinded was due to fear. Fear works. A whole bunch of people showed up after public comment was closed and yelled. Yep that's what we need more screaming matches at City Hall, more finger pointing. It's gonna be greeeeeeeeeat. Just like the good ol days, yippee. (No beatniks allowed)

In my opinion all 91 pages of ordinance 19 sucked.The original intent which was to help older properties renovate was a good one. 

Wheeler Opera House, did it need renovation?

this

or this?

The ordinance strayed from that original intent, greatly. The Council chose to listen to the majority of citizens who showed up for public comment. Badaboom- enact ordinance 19. So where does the fault lie? In my opinion it's two fold there was insufficient feedback to staff when they strayed off point and there was insufficient input during the public comment and work sessions.  The "rethink" of ordinance 19 suffers from the same malaise. Clicker sessions with questions crafted to silo the answers and using the failed ordinance as a template is not the way to win friends and influence people. 

Asking for public participation in these sessions only on weekdays during working hours is the height of class discrimination.

My vote goes to the next representative who is forthright enough to give clear direction to staff and brave enough to point out when the focus is getting blurry. My vote goes to the next representative who will go out and talk with people who don't write letters to the paper or start petitions. My vote goes to the next representative who has the guts to clean our bureaucratic house and start fresh.  My vote goes to the next representative who has the courage to listen.

Lodging incentive public hearing, letter to the editor 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

Winter 2014

Comments on the December 1, 2014  Lodging Incentive public hearing.

The lodging incentive isn't black and white, it's 50 shades of permits.

1. I woke up the morning after remembering one comment above all others. It's easier to get a permit to bulldoze than to renovate. The example cited was 6 years of permit denials for the Holland House addition of 10 rooms  and less than 6 months to get a permit to bulldoze the Holland House. I'm sure Yasmine and Jack could give specifics. That's the formula- the harder it is to upgrade and renovate the more tear downs you get. We should call this the "Aspen Given Effect".

2. "Lodging Incentive" is a bit of spin. I prefer the phrase "removing disincentives" to "incentivising". This may sound like splitting hairs but honestly our road blocks to renovation are mostly self inflicted. For the public outreach "clicker session" I brought in a permit for a 1996 renovation to my Condo- it was under $600 in permitting fees - today I can't get a permit for under $6000 and that doesn't include water and sewer fees. I can buy bathroom fixtures for both condos and quite a bit of  tile for $6000.

3. Mick Ireland is worried that incentives will deplete the City coffers. I'm not. I'm worried about Aspen losing it's soul. The soul of Aspen isn't about old decrepit buildings and it's not about new shiny buildings. The soul of Aspen is in it's people and that's the part of the equation which Mick left out of his "Condo owners only renovate to sell (see footnote*)" You don't  buy into Aspen for the money. There are lots of other places with less risky investments for a higher return. The people who buy something in Aspen do it because they've fallen in love with Aspen. They don't fall in love with a building, they fall in love with a mountain and they find a community which feels "right".

The mountain is the mountain. 

The Community on the other hand is something which can be broken pretty easily. I've had several conversations with other condo owners over the Thanksgiving weekend and there is a theme. "What's happening to Aspen? Why does it want to be New York? Well, dammit, I don't want to be New York. I want to be Aspen." That doesn't mean Aspen in aspic and it certainly doesn't mean a public vote on every variance.

The Mountain Chalet of 50 years ago 

is not the Mountain Chalet of today. 

You have to let steam out of the kettle sometime and if you try and keep the lid on the pressure cooker without opening a safety valve you're going to get an explosion.

We need balance.

4.  I would argue that one of our strongest community assets is the long term local. We've been in the Guest Services biz awhile and have survived boom and bust. A Guest wants a  humidifier, an alarm clock, a coffee maker instead of a french press? No problem I'll buy it, cha-ching for Carl Bergman.  A Guest wants a 60' pine tree removed to get a better view? I refer them to a lodge without trees next to the balconies. We aim to please.

5. Another comment was that Intentionally avoiding maintenance keeps  prices low. Seriously? Well, leave your bike out in the rain for 40 years without oiling the chain and then ride it up Aspen Mountain. That's a strategy for Clear Cut loggers,  Robber Barons, Pyramids  and Ponzi.  It doesn't keep prices low it just destroys the asset.

Since Mick called me out  personally on my plea for "no deed restrictions" I feel obligated to point out that everyone who spoke directly to the proposed deed restriction "lock in 6 months of short term rentals in condos and vacation rentals" said it wouldn't work. Everyone cited a different reason that it wouldn't work but the majority centered on the 6 months of off season being crowded with condos outcompeting long established lodges or overpricing their rentals to the point of a virtual "lock out". 

Everyone can think how to scam the  deed restrictions but they're not thinking about the unique advantages of condos in the rental/residence pool. Condos are flexible. They're like the swiss army knife of property ownership. During the 2008 crash repurposing my long term rentals to short term let me pay the bills. When my mother was no longer able to live alone repurposing the residential condo into a long term rental let me use that income to find a "senior friendly" home for both of us down valley. When my mother purchased two condos in 1968 it gave a single woman with a child a place to live  in one and a  steady source of income in the other. Two condos were cheaper than a West End house, even in 1968. It was 1968's affordable Aspen. The restrictions imposed by Condo declarations and the current permitting labyrinths are high enough hurdles. If Condos lose flexibility the  rental base will be less able to respond to market forces and Community will lose diversity.

*Bill Sterling effectively refuted this viewpoint from Mick by citing the number of his managed properties which continue to rent after renovating. Lest we forget the City also makes money if a Condo sells and as "challenged" as the Aspen City budget is at only $100,000,000 for 6500 residents I don't worry about running out of money, I worry about how we spend that money. That's a related topic for a different letter.

More links of interest:
Marketplace is running a series on Gentrification this week- well worth a listen.

Pride of Place, letter to the editor 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

Fall 2014

We're tracking the shrinking bed base-and yet we're not  tracking the shrinking youth base. How many Aspen  kids are living where they grew up?

"Pride of place" that is at the core of any thriving community.  After all if you don't feel proud of your home and your community all you have to do is leave… right?  What if you feel connected but don't have the ability to stay? That's the dilemma of Aspen's next generation. We've perfected luring in "new blood" and completely locked out our heritage.  I can name a lot more generations who have left Aspen then have stayed. They're choking the "I remember when" groups on Facebook. They rail in letters to the editor with down valley addresses.  They drip nostalgia with every keystroke. They moan with that low pained whipped dog whine of paradise lost.

So, what happens when the tabula rasa is always being razed? You get people without roots. Oh, they have roots, but not here. They are not connected to the land, the sky, the deep deep snows of yesteryear or the millennial  ice in the Grottos. They bring their pride of place with them in a box, locked away for their inner circle and not to be shared with the other locked boxes built next door.

Tyler Stableford: The Farmers

The altruism of the no growth policy was compromised the second the City got into the real estate business. We created an "affordable housing" program which only trickles down one generation- if the kids want to inherit their childhood home- sorry- tough luck. Own your home but  want to get your kids into "affordable housing" and off the couch? Nope, tough luck. Want to actually house your employees in the affordable housing your permitting fees paid for- well maybe- as long as you pay them at or below Aspen poverty level. We've created a draconian nest of land use rules which prevents ranchers from subdividing for their children. We have a pyramid of permitting paper which knocks the knees out from under anyone who wants to build an addition to house for their aging parents or their job seeking kids. We've banned renting a couch in employee housing while capping the income a wiffle above Aspen subsistence minimums. We have $100 million dollar budget for 6500 people and why , why, why do we have 1% homeless with that much money in the City coffers?  Oh yeah, and we've put the hospital, the homeless "shelter", the recreation center, the public schools and senior housing outside of the city limits. Let's separate things into nice neat little boxes by activity and age and , dare I say it ,  by class.

If anyone wants a blueprint for ripping the heart and soul out of a community, brother, this is it. Don't blame "the rich" or the "evil developer" for gutting Aspen's character dear Pogo, you can look a lot closer to home than that. All we've done is create an opportunity for those who can afford to leapfrog all the ordinances and we've  locked out everyone else.   That's what Aspen's no growth  policy has become, no generations, no roots, no character.

Let's turn this battleship of unintended consequences around. Now.

Franz Berko

Lodging Incentive redo, letter to the editor 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

Fall 2014

The City Planners graciously invited me to participate in their "lodge feedback session". I was hoping this would be a fresh start for the lodging initiative. That's me, hopeful.

Sigh…. sadly this was a rehash of ordinance 19. The presentation had not changed one jot. The same studies were cited, the same conclusions pushed forward and we were told outright that this was not the place to "share opinions". We were given push buttons and slide show of questions. There was no "none of the above" option there was only the  "I don't understand the issue" option. (Like hell I don't understand the issue).

When several of us tried to clarify the questions- by pointing out clear bias- we were told that we could write down our concerns on the post it notes provided.

There was no attempt to incorporate the resounding slap back referendum petition from the electorate. After all when was the last time you heard of 797 City voter signatures collected in under a week during off season? I've haven't seen that degree of bi-partisan support here since Tommy Moe won the downhill.

My sad conclusion is that it doesn't matter how many petitions or post it notes we, the public, give our local government. They will continue to propose the same tired strategies over and over again hoping that eventually they will change our minds instead of listening to our concerns. (….and continue to call for public input during weekday working hours so that people who have 9-5 jobs cannot attend but that's a different letter)

The key issues remain the same:

1. Building Height.

2. Building new rentals.

3. Upgrading existing rentals.

Please stop lumping these into one question.  Issue 1 and 2 are linked but you can surely have one without the other, issue 3 is not linked to the other two. We do not need a power point presentation. An honest calm exchange of ideas on how to address these three issues  and how to implement those ideas is what we need. In a community this small, this tight knit and this wealthy that should not be an impossible task.

lodging ordinance rescinded, letter to the editor 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

Summer 2014

Ordinance 19 will not be enacted.

Don't gloat. No name calling. Take a time out please.

If we don't use this moment to work together what makes Aspen any less polarized than Washington?

Referendum Petition to repeal the lodging ordinance, letter to the editor 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

Summer 2014

Why you should sign the petition to put the lodging incentive on the ballot.

1. Height is a big red herring. Renovation and modernization isn't about height, but that's all anybody is talking about.  Who benefits from that? The existing buildings don't .  My condo is already too high to rebuild , heck it was over Wheeler Opera house height when Fred Hibberd and George Shaw built it in the 60's. Freddy got a deal to take the "median" height of the roofs as our overall height. There's a lovely precedent for you. Seriously, older lodges and condos,  we're just trying to keep from falling down and patch roof leaks- and yet there isn't anything in this ordinance which promotes maintenance or repair the only "renovations" addressed are those which apply to new construction- larger room sizes and taller buildings. Hmmmm…. what "new construction" could be south of Durant I wonder?

2. Taking out 20 pages of code and replacing it with 91 pages of ordinance isn't "simplification".  In many cases the "new" rules increase the penalties, mitigations and fees for renovation-and reduce them for new construction. I don't want a "rebate", I just don't want to be penalized for renovating. Full disclosure - that's my interpretation applying this to my own upcoming condo renovation (I'm no lawyer but it's one way to interpret the ordinance). If you want the full spin on this go back and watch all the public comment sessions on Grassroots.

3. It's an omnibus. It's 91 pages and It's  still not specific enough. This tries to lump lodges, condos, and multiplexes under the same rules and regs. Condos are 41% of our bed base and if the ordinance doesn't take into account how condos work then it isn't well thought out. For condos, (my world) it takes no consideration for condo bi-laws or HOAs and asks that the HOA enforce deed restriction of individual owners which would be contrary to most (if not all) condominium bi-laws. Are you going to get HOA's to change their bi-laws to enroll in this plan? Not likely.

4.There are no specified "incentives" other than a rebate on fees which would require deed restrictions. The "low interest loans" are mentioned but not specified (loans on the entire renovation project? on the permitting fee portion? How much "refinancing" does City Hall want to do? Do we start hiring used car salesmen on staff?). Those rebates when applied to individual owners in condos are laughably small ($400 per year in my case- out of a $200,000 special assessment- on a $6 million renovation) This does not warrant the immense "give back" of a deed restriction which would greatly devalue the property (especially if I have to sell it to pay for the ****ing renovation). Of course, if the condo chooses not to participate, we fall to the bottom of the permitting pit. Oh Goody. Win win. I repeat- keep your rebate just let me renovate without kneecapping me.

5. We need more than 3 votes to change the town this much. There was one public work session (I think there were 4 other people in the room). There have been 3 public comment City Council sessions (all the last item on the agenda making the start time after 8 pm).  The vote was originally scheduled for August 25,  two weeks after the last public comment session,  and then got pushed up to August 11, right after the last public comment leaving no opportunity for revision. I believe that the points brought up by the public during those meetings were insufficiently addressed by the Council.

I applaud the idea of the initiative. We do need to modernize our older rental properties because if we don't modernize those older properties will fall down and we will get new construction and that's not the Aspen people come to visit, if that's what they want they go to Vail (and, maybe, by next year, Snowmass?)

Please- take this thing back to the drawing board- break it up into separate incentives for buildings of a certain age, condos, lodges and multiplexes.  Put the Focus on maintenance and renovation the way you said you would when you proposed the ordinance. Then, and only then, look at changing the rules for new construction.

I have a copy of the petition, contact me if you want to make the lodging incentive a public vote.

Lodging Incentive passes, letter to the editor 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

Summer 2014

The Lodging Incentive ordinance passed. 

What next?  We all have theories but none of us has a crystal ball and no-one, I mean no-one, has the magic Aspen crystal ball.

I humbly suggest that this 91 page ordinance be up for review after 91 days.  Let's see how many applicants try and take advantage of the incentives.  If there is a press of applications prior to the enactment of the ordinance (30 days from the vote) we know what we have is better than what we've going to get. If there are only applications for 4 story vacation residences in the first 91 days then we know that the intended beneficiaries (the older lodges and condos) have not been served.  If there are no applications  then we know the ordinance isn't serving anyone.

If there is a flood of applications then everyone who is worried about the evils flowing from this Pandora process had better show up to for every meeting and file their opinion with the planners office next to every application (if you're a neighbor you'll get a notice). If you wait until it's built your protest options are limited and very few of them are legal.

If it doesn't work ….well…  as one of favorite lines from one of my favorite movies says ….. "If the wine is sour, throw it out."  

Lodging Incentive, letter to the editor 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

Summer 2014

Lodging Incentive program round 3, all 91 pages of it, oh joy. It reminds me of one of my favorite sayings "I was on schedule until I got help."

I worry, I worry a lot. I worry that the City of Aspen Government trying to "bolster" our bed base will result in a crash we haven't seen the likes of since 1895.

Let's go back to the core issue. The bed base is shrinking. This can be argued but let's just accept that right now. The premise is that we are losing market share because the bed base is shrinking. If we were constantly overbooked and our yearly occupancy rates were above the 50 percentile range I might agree.  We're not; it's not.

The shrinking bed base argument continues. In the spirit of  "If you build it they will come" increasing the bed base will magically increase market share.  In an equally audacious leap of logic if there are more "pillows" the prices will come down making Aspen more "affordable" since supply will outstrip demand.  Back in the real world loss of market share can be due to too many Guests and too few beds or too many beds and too few Guests. Both can't be true.

There isn't an Alan Greenspan on the Council or on Staff. Using "pillow count" the same way the Fed manipulates the interest rate is not a game we can win because our economics, our marketshare, is largely outside of our control. Aspen's occupancy rate follows the economic health of the global marketplace and if you don't believe that take another hard look at our 13% drop in occupancy in the 2008-09 Crash.

What if the shrinking bed base isn't the cause of the shrinking market share? What if we are looking at a symptom and not a cause? What if we increase our pillow count and our Guest rate continues to decline?  Should we be green lighting more beds just to have more beds? What if we don't have the bodies to put in those beds?  It will certainly kill those left on the margins of profitability (those older properties this  initiative is meant to "bolster"). That is, in my opinion,  tipping our kayak into a vicious circle whirlpool of death. No. Please don't make that grievous error.

What is the real cause of the loss of market share? More to the point what are the causes which we can actually try and address?

Market share can also slip due to disrepair. Here I agree we can modernize and fluff. We can certainly make the refurbishment process less onerous. "No Growth" does not mean "No Maintenance" (you have to oil the bicycle chain every once in awhile and store it out of the rain, you might even want to upgrade from the  rusty 1964 Schwinn).

Another probable cause of lower occupancy is one that the Chamber pointed to prior to the Crash- our aging demographic.

There have been 2 points made during public hearings from our "Young Professionals". The first is that "Not everybody has a couch to surf on in Aspen." and the second "There is nothing for young people to do in Aspen."  The first is ridiculously easy because the only thing it costs is loss of political "face". Allow people in Employee Housing Units to advertise in the sharing marketplace (Airbnb and the like- be a mench- waive the business license fee). The second follows the first because anyone who speaks teenager knows that "there isn't anything to do" translates into "I don't have anyplace to hang out with my friends." or more to the point "my friends aren't here."

Finally,  Council must accept that the current state of dilapidated inventory and overpriced real estate is not in small part the unexpected outcome of it's own anti-growth policies.  The more difficult the City makes development the more rapacious development we will have. Only those clever developers with deep pockets will be able to stay the course. Please accept that no-one can outthink the "evil developer" we can only hope to reward the honest one.

We have a 91 page maze of regulations, caveats,  fees and mitigations labeled as "incentives".  Take a sword to this Gordian Knot "incentive" plan, please.

footnote: "shrinking market share" is also happening with record high sales tax revenues- go figure.

Lodging incentive, letter to the editor, 2014

I'm posting some old letters to the editor. This is so I can remember what I wrote, and to keep myself honest.  I'm posting them in the order I wrote them so this goes back a couple of years.

The more things change….

This is from the Summer of 2014

The City low cost lodging plan doesn't want cheap beds unless those beds are in a Lodge. The City can negotiate with Lodge Owners and Developers. There's a Lodging Association which gives you a single point of contact for negotiations. Developers can be held at gun point , oops, I meant held up at "permit point". Lodges are visible. Lodges keep records. Lodges give you numbers. Lodges fit nicely on a spreadsheet.

The individual condo or homeowner renting through Airbnb, VRBO and Homeaway is not so easy to measure. We invite Guests into our homes and try and give them a "local" Aspen experience. We are the first choice of the young and nomadic demographic. We're individuals. We don't have an Association. Our record keeping is personal. We don't have an Association or high powered Global marketing.  Our success depends entirely on word of mouth and repeat Guests.  We are the "Fringe".  We are the "sharing economy".  We're "messy".  You might even say we're "messy vitality".

The only thing the City Council has done for individual owners is try and regulate and collect a highly questionable lodging tax.  It's the lodging tax which takes my place above the $100 per person occupancy level in high season - my expenses keep it below that- just. Oh, and applying for a permit to improve the interior beyond it's 1968 glory? I could buy all the plumbing fixtures and the tile for the cost of that permit.   Taxes and permits, those effect my bottom line, not building more or building bigger or building higher.

Could we possibly try filling in the empty rooms first? Could we get a little encouragement from the City for higher occupancy in existing buildings?  Could we get a little love for the little guy?