Affordable Housing, 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 Spring of 2014

In response to the Times article on Housing Mitigation and the following quote:

'“Every day that goes by, we’re taking in substantially less than we should be,” Community Development Director Chris Bendon said.'

Really? Is the sole purpose of Housing Mitigation to raise more money to pay for the $100 *million* +++ Burlingame Employee Housing Development?  Judging from the work session last night (open to the public but not to public comment) those were the marching orders as Staff understood them- "find us more money"and the options Staff presented were certainly creative money makers.

Is  that really the intent of Employee Housing?  Is it supposed to squeeze those who can create jobs to the point they downsize?

But, if making more money is what we need to do…  I understand there are a few unsold units in Burlingame and in my limited experience if something isn't selling it's because there is something missing with what you're trying to sell.  Maybe if all that imagination and resourcefulness could be used to rethink the residential requirements of Employee Housing those units might sell and raise a little cash.

In last night's work session Council asked what progress had been made since the last public meetings on Housing Mitigation  and the response was "We were asked to take a step back". Wonderful, I'd love it if we would all take a step back *and* think.

The question still hangs in the smoke what would $100,000,000.00  have done for Social programs for Aspen? For Seniors? For Schools? For Homeless? For all those "soft" programs which don't involve Construction Contracts and only target Community Welfare?  Has this strategy controlled growth? Reduced free market costs? Reduced commuter traffic? Reduced down valley construction? Has it benefitted local free market Employee Rentals? Has Employee Housing kept our "cat may look at a King" demographic?

How can this system be working when SkiCo builds their Employee Housing in El Jebel and we have  (according to the Monday work session)  over 175 Accessory Dwelling Units unrented inside the City Limits of Aspen?

If we keep throwing money down the trench which is Burlingame is it really benefitting the Community or is it just supporting a Bureaucracy supporting itself?