Voter card count, letter to the editor

If we are putting the future of development in the hands of the Aspen voters it doesn't hurt to do a little research on how those hands have directed government power and government money in the past. 

I spent a little time going through the voting records of the City of Aspen. I highly recommend thumbing through these ledgers. It's instructive. These are all referendum votes not charter amendments except for the last example. 

Public referendum on the Ritz Carlton (aka St. Regis) in 1990, 1561 for development 1059 against-  arguably it was Mr. Hadid's marketing campaign which helped this pass by a healthy  502 votes.

Forbes: "Buy High, Sell Higher"

Purchasing the Mother Lode (click for "before" image), 762 against 596 for - it lost by 166 votes.

"after"

In 1979 street repair, 646 for and 604 against - passing by only 42 votes which must rank as the highest percentage of pro-pothole votes in history.

1978 MIT Aspen interactive movie map

I thought the closest vote in living memory was the Red Brick School Arts Center 526 yes and 523 no- passing by 3 votes.

That may have been the closest referendum vote but the narrowest margin was a charter amendment to increase the Mayor's salary in 1980 from $600 to $800 a month that was 884 to 883 - passing by one vote.

Think Referendum 1 will stop development? Would a $100,000 marketing campaign be worth a couple of $5million dollar free market add ons?  When the odds are this close and the stakes this high a public vote is an acceptable risk. 

No on Referendum 1, please.

Kool-Aid, letter to the editor

How can I be anti-Condo in Basalt and anti-Ref1 in Aspen? 

Isn't Referendum 1 all about hamstringing the evil developers and isn't that what condos in Basalt would be- evil development?

If that's how you read it- you've drunk the Referendum 1  kool aid. 

drinking the kool aid link for those who don't remember the original reference

Ref 1 does nothing to curtail development. Nothing.  

A b s o l u t e l y NOooooooothing. 

All Ref1 does is guillotine City Council and cost us $20K for each special election.  

Vote NO on Ref1. 

Do no harm, letter to the editor

First, do no harm.

Referendum 1, what harm does it do?

First and foremost it increases the friction between City Hall and the Citizens. Some may think that's progress. I do not. That's Aspen politics as usual and I'm thoroughly sick of it. I think that polarization is the problem and every effort should be made to create an atmosphere where we can listen to each other and live together. 

Second- It *favors* large developers. Yes, that's what I said- it gives large new development an advantage over any maintenance or restoration project. Full disclosure- that's me- trying to maintain at 47 year old property which is both my residence and my rental.  One interpretation of code would force me to replace plate glass windows with drywall since more than 25% of my wall is window. Until you bump your nose against it you have no idea how crazy the code is. The more difficult you make it for long time locals to maintain their properties the more you invite bulldozers scraping the ground bare and building new.  The examples of bulldozing old properties due to renovation road blocks are too numerous to mention- unlike the Ref1 proponents whose crystal balls predict that the voters will  "scare" developers into submission- for which - may I remind you- there is not one single precedent. 

Third- legislatively it's a mess. For those governance junkies who occupy their time with Roberts Rules of Order,  the Federalist Papers and Plato it exemplifies the very reason for a Democratic Republic instead of a Democracy.  

Ref1 supporters use the classic FOX news tactic to mobilize a mob with smoke, mirrors and emotional diatribes. This gives away the Representative system without a whimper- much less a fight. 

Engage your inner Spock.

Vote NO on Referendum 1

Test till failure, letter to the editor

Does Aspen need more brute force in local government? 

Ref1 gives you a club, not a voice.

"Test till failure" is an engineering term. You run the system past all safe stress levels in order to see where it breaks first. That seems to be the impetus behind Referendum 1. You throw as many monkey wrenches into the system as possible and in theory this will force City Council to fix the code. It's a brute force strategy. I can tell you from experience you never know which bolt will break first and you never know how far that bolt will fly. Just watch a few "big boom" episodes on Mythbusters.

"Trust me I'm an engineer." It's a classic.

I've asked before and I'll ask again- what are we doing to increase communication between City Hall and the citizens? 

Here are some suggestions for improvement which are not in Referendum 1:

At 5pm when the City Council meeting starts ask who in the gallery is there for which issue. Then listen to the issues which have the most public comment first.  Public first, Council and City Hall business last. Anyone who wants to wait to the wee hours to hear if the schedule will still be posted by the front door on the cork board may do so. Yes, some Staffers may have to hang around longer and be paid overtime- I get that- but it should be the public first. Our time is valuable also. 

I would like to consign clicker sessions to the 9th circle of hell. 

Prepackaged questions and prepackaged answers don't tell you the truth, sitting down with a cuppa and listening, that gets you to the truth. I wish our City Staffers would read "Powerpoint is evil"  by Edward Tufte - or just go straight to the Powerpoint Gettysburg address on Youtube. More paper isn't job security. Knowing your neighbors is job security.

Take all the time used on crafting those clever clicker sessions to contact people who are interested in particular issues instead-  the people who show up, or who live next door to the project, or who use the proposed service. If you reach out to people before the meeting you can actually solve a lot of problems prior the meeting. Radical, I know. Reach out via phone, email or even (gasp) in person and tell people about an upcoming work session, or a public hearing, or a presentation which interests them. It's devilishly difficult to know what is happening and  when it's happening for both the City and the County. We should fix that.

Some people work 9-5 for a living, yes even in Aspen. Schedule  some public outreach during non-working hours. You might even schedule presentations outside of City Hall- like Justice Snows, or Wagner Park, or the ARC. A pool party would cost a heck of a lot less than a special election on variances.

Once, just once I'd like to see all the City employees in one place.  There's a fabulous photo in the Library of all the people who helped make the first FIS course grouped in Wagner. I'd like to see that picture for all the people who work for the City.  If we meet the people in government face to face instead of just wading through their stacks of paper maybe we can start to treat each other like fellow human beings.

Intimidation isn't a long term strategy. Mutual respect and cooperation work better.  

Ref1 doesn't solve the problem; it exacerbates the problem.

Fish out of Water, letter to the editor

I had that total deer in the headlights look during ACRA's Ref1 debate. I'm not a politician or a lawyer and yet there I was talking about about Ref1. 

Thanks to ACRA

Maybe that's the point. I'm Joan Q. Public- the person Ref1 is supposed to rely on the scare Council into doing the right thing. Scary scary me, the Aspen Voter. Oh goodie.

So after 40 minutes of quoting legalese and rehashing past Council meetings which left me completely in the dust there was finally a question which I could understand.  What if Mountain Rescue was built inside the City limits? How would Ref1 effect the code variances necessary to have a functioning Mountain Rescue Station?  Finally, down to something I can evaluate. It was that simple "up or down" vote question to which I'm supposed be able to deliver a definitive answer without knowing all 524 pages of code. Mountain Rescue=good. Mountain Rescue close by= better. Mountain Rescue built with no delay due to public vote= yep, that would be my choice. (Lest we forget it costs the City $20K every time we have a "special election")

Not the first time we've had a 60' fire tower in town either…. (and above Durant Street)

http://aspenhistory.pastperfect-online.com/31083cgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=E640045A-29D1-4ED9-9B18-184780729129;type=501

How would Ref1 effect the code variances necessary to have a functioning Mountain Rescue Station inside the City limits? It might have been a caffeine deficit but I swear I heard two lawyers- two pro Ref1 lawyers- say "I can't answer that question".

Whaaaaaaaaa?????? 

If no-one can answer how Ref1 would effect a hypothetical permit under current code how do you expect me to vote on the Referendum?  That's the question isn't it- how does this Referendum work in real life? I wish both sides would concentrate on that instead of rehashing ordinances, code, zoning,  past council meetings and trying to predict how the threat of voter participation will alter human behavior. But hey, I'm not a politician or a lawyer,  I'm just Joan Q. Public.

Aspen Public Radio town hall meeting, letter to the editor- updated- updated again

"Interpretation" if you take nothing else away from Wednesday's "Keep Aspen, Aspen" Aspen Public Radio town hall meeting keep that one word in mind "interpretation". Let's just pick one example…there were several.. but let's just do one. Current City Council member Ann Mullins said that there had been no variances granted for the Molly Gibson. Former Mayor and would be Councilman again Mick Ireland came back with chapter and verse how the Molly Gibson had been granted a variance with it's FAR. Councilwoman Mullins replied that the Molly Gibson straddled two zones- one residential and one lodging and that the code was up to interpretation depending on which zone you chose.  

If you've read even a small portion of the 524 page code… wait…let's do one better…  here you go:

 "Permitted uses are those land uses which are consistent with other land uses in the same zone district in which they are located and which have been designated as permitted uses for the applicable zone district in Chapter 26.710."  bit like wading through treacle in cement overshoes isn't it?

But what do you do when the proposed project straddles more than one zone?

Well, let's toddle off to 26.710 .022  paragraph B. subsection a. "The use shall be developed by… applying the more restrictive of each requirement." Okay  sounds definitive …but…wait a moment… subsection b. says "The only exception shall be when the area… designated with the ..higher density constitutes more than 75% of the entire land area of the parcel."

Okay- time to take a field trip to the Molly Gibson with a theodolite. 

Ye gads I want more of this don't you?  Errr…didn't I elect someone else to do all of this? How much am I paying for City Government again? Remind me? Oh yeah,  one.  hundred.  million.  dollars.

Follow up: Mick Ireland replied on Facebook citing variance requests in the Molly Gibson, I asked Mick to leave a comment or for permission to copy and paste his response here and have not received an answer yet.  If you're a zoning junkie- please go to Facebook and look up Mick's response. 

Here- posted with permission is Mick's response: "A review of the public record contradicts the claim that variances were not involved in recent approvals. With the exception of the Sky Hotel, which withdrew requests for variances, both the Molly Gibson and Base1 Lodge requested and were granted variances on final approval as was the Hotel Aspen.

In fact, three projects (Hotel Aspen, Molly Gibson and Base 1) received a total of 20 variances including five that are significant and which referendum One seeks to limit, The documented variances are summarized in a table attached hereto and as follows:

Hotel Aspen: The original proposal was for four free market units and lodging. Both the lodging and free market homes were in excess of allowed floor area, cumulative floor area and unit size. The final approval was for three free market homes with one of them reduced in height. The final approval included 36,350 square feet, total, 8,050 above floor area allowable and 1,300 feet more than allowed under Special Review. Neither of staff’s recommendations for bringing the project into compliance were followed. The maximum unit size without TDRs is 2,000 sf by code - this approval grants a variance allowing the units to be much larger than 2,000 sf - up to 3,500 - and allows the three FM units to exceed code to exceed the code by one unit and a total of 4,400 feet of floor area.

Mayor Skadron voted No on this project and asked, “How much does this exceed code?” He concluded, “It exceeds what code allows, it does exceed what code allows.”

Molly Gibson: The proposal requested 12 variances, of which only three are the concern of Referendum One. The project sought 26,959 sf of lodging space, 4,959 or 20% more than the zone district allows even with special review.

The free market component request was for 8,000 square feet, almost double the allowed 4,080 in R-6 zoning according to the staff memo (Exhibit A - PD - Project review Pg 4).

Both of these variances were granted.

Base 1. The applicant asked for $39,733 in fee waivers, calculation of the affordable housing requirement under the Lodge Preservation zone district at a lower rate and complete waiver of the 25.3 parking spaces required under the code.

The affordable housing requirement was either 2.19 or .99 units by staff calculation. Staff recommended using a “LP Overlay” calculation to lower the requirement to a single unit. This was a waiver since the property is not zoned LP Overlay though it could have been. Applicant agreed to pay at the lower rate.

Parking was reduced by council variance from 25.3 to 15 spaces."

Here's Mayor Skadron's reply on Aspen Public Radio:
http://aspenpublicradio.org/post/aspen-development-variances-or-no-variances

I keep going back to the first time I heard "Zoning Junkie" it was only last week in a talk by Jeffrey Brown (hopefully this will go online soon). He was talking about "The Boston Miracle" reclaiming neighborhoods from drug violence. His point was he wasn't a "Zoning Junkie"- all he cared about was listening to people so everyone could live in a safe neighborhood. Amen to that. 

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.

DaDa at City Hall, letter to the editor

Aspen is a town where one vote can make a difference, or at very least  get you into a runoff, so I take my responsibility as a voter seriously. After all, City Council is spending $100 million dollars a year on my behalf so the choices offered had better be more appealing than giving me back my share of that $100 mill along with my food sales tax refund (FYI that would be about a $15.5 K per resident refund). 

City Council is basically a management and oversight position.  Management with vision is a balancing act between practicality and risk.  

Why is our code book thick enough to inflict blunt force trauma? Why does our zoning map look like an order of spotted dick without custard? Why are building heights like a giant plinko board , 42 feet, no 28 feet, no 50 feet where will the height restriction bounce next?  What's the ratio of messy vitality to floor area? Which file cabinet has the wind power contract?  If a parking meter fails in a forest do we only lose half the money?  Why did  one of our planners when asked if we could change the zoning  respond  "I'd rather wake up a bear"?

There is a certain DaDaist quality to City Council meetings. I wouldn't  be surprised to see a melting clock and a man with a rhinoceros head ringing a 2am gong.   

Rhinoceros by Ionesco

When we have  3 hours of public comment on a murphy bed for the cemetery we have a government entrenched in the Surreal. Our surfeit of cash has allowed us to duck out of reality.

That's what I'd like on City Council, a Realist. Convince me that you can take the helm on our 15 department bureaucratic juggernaut. For instance they could put all 15  department heads without a 80% approval rating from their staff on 3 month probationary notice …. but hey- that's a management technique… no politician wants to purge the bureaucracy…. they'd rather wake up a bear.

Ken Kreibel's bearcam

"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.