Airbnb and Aspen Ideas Festival, 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

Airbnb rentals grounded from using affordable housing units

We are surrounded by genius. Genius to the right of us. Genius to the left of us. Genius in front of us.

Sooooo, no renting your "affordable" couch? Airbnb is baaaaaad, baaaad, baaaad. Someone might make a few extra bucks and someone else might visit Aspen for under $100 a night. Right, because we don't want to have people who live here earning too much money and we only want people to visit here with tons of money. Got it. Genius. Bloody perfect genius.

Meanwhile back  at City Hall… we have lip service being paid to "affordable lodging" through the same old permitting carrot and stick FAR TDR WTF are you thinking 20th century "go fish" for your permit trading cards. Seriously, if you don't know what FAR and TDR mean- be thankful, very thankful- these are anachronisms we use to regulate growth instead of, oh I don't know, keeping up with the rest of the world???.

If any member of City Government (or the Chamber for that matter) had listened to Brian Chesky's talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival they would have heard how airbnb is reaching out to local governments and partnering with them to insure regulations are being met,  insure lodging associations  and landlords are being supported, and working to give a "give back" button to donate directly into the City coffers. Fortunately for us, KJAX has the podcast
  "Airbnb: How the Sharing Economy is Redefining the Marketplace and Our Sense of Community"

Okay, end of airbnb rant, but not the rant about our local government. I saw no one from local government at the Aspen Ideas Festival listening to the "Metropolis" track or any of the "Civic Engagement" panels, listening to Jennifer Pahlka talk about "Code for America" or Larry Lessig pleading for the;SuperPac to end SuperPacs. Is no one in local City Government interested in learning how representative democracy is evolving in the rest of the globe? All you had to do was ride the bike a wee bit farther, to the Meadows. No "the dog ate my homework" excuses allowed this is one darn big event for our small town and it's part of the job- both as ambassadors and representatives.

The world came to us last week and we didn't ride out to greet them. Dope slap. Biiiiiiiig dope slap.

Aspen Art Museum and the Given, 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 was in response to an Aspen Art Museum Press Release calling the new museum the greatest piece of architecture in Aspen for a century. Summer 2014

"The most important building in Aspen in a century." Love it or hate it the Aspen Art Museum is many things, but it is not that. We demolished what was, in my opinion, the most architecturally important building in a century. We demolished the Given Institute. 

I am certain that the inside of the new Art Museum is spectacular. I am equally certain that it invites the glory of our outdoor scenery inside. The rooftop parties are going to be *fabulous*. The installations will be displayed with love, attention and detail. It will be an "Art Experience" for those who walk through. Over time it will become "ours" and we'll give directions to tourists "walk one block past the basket weave building" just the way we use the Wheeler as a navigation point now.

It is different than the Given Institute in one major respect. The Given not only followed the spirit of Herbert Bayer's Bauhaus "form follows function"  it also followed the spirit of Frank Lloyd Wright and honored the land around it. The Given embraced the trees around it. The windows were placed so that you could look north to Smuggler and Red Mountain through the circular window behind Mrs. Paepcke's cottonwood tree and that tree was also framed in the southern view. Harry Weese designed a building which did not shout "look at me!" he designed a building which whispered, "Come, sit by me and be restored. Come, share your spirit with me." 

The angled walls changed with the sun and shadow with the same dynamism as curved walls of Gehry's Bilbao. It sat as lightly on the land as any "green" building built today. 

The Given did not call attention to herself. She rested silently in her garden and nurtured countless Scientists and "thinkers" from all over the world. She aged quietly wrapped in wildflowers and evergreens. There was no public passion to save her from the bulldozer. She was razed in 2011, along with Mrs. Paepcke's cottonwood tree. 

I will surely come to accept the new Art Museum, I may even come to love it over time. I will certainly continue to love the exhibits and the energy inside it's walls and the enormous benefits to our community. "The most important building in Aspen in a Century"? No. Not that. Should the bulldozer ever hover over this building the way it did over The Given let's show a little more passion.

footnote: I wrote this before I toured the inside of the museum. Reactions to the completed Aspen Art Museum can be found on this link: http://ziskac.blogspot.com/search?q=aspen+art+museum

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? 

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?

Community Housing, letter to the editor 2013

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 Winter of 2013

An opinion in response to "rental housing market deserves more attention" : Break the mold

Let's not forget that the Employee Housing program was originally supposed to house seasonal employees. The real estate market t.ook off and the City tried to grab a piece of it losing sight of the original goal. (This also had the opposite of the intended effect by making free market housing *more* $ exclusive.)

I'm in favor of Community housing, not Employee housing. By transforming the definition of seasonal employee (renter)  to full time employee (home owner) without creating a year round industry to employ them  we now have Burlingame, unsold units, aging unkept properties and retirees being asked to vacate to let seasonal employees rent.

We can continue to try and bend the system to shallow ideas or we can take a long cold hard look at the present reality and adapt (one of those Darwinian words "adapt" which is different than the verb "react")

1. Aspen is a town with a Seasonal Industry. As long as the Seasonal Industry lasts there will be a need for temporary housing (rentals). The City of Aspen has decided to help Seasonal Businesses by providing low cost housing to temporary employees. This was first attempted by Companies for their employees in the 19th century and was considered a huge innovation it was called "Social Capitalism". It is my opinion by separating Employee Housing from the fortunes of the Company we've broken that model.

2. The young, the "employable" are the least vulnerable amongst us.  It is my opinion that a Community is judged by how it treats the *most* vulnerable.

3. The more diverse a Community is the stronger it is (old, young, rich, poor, multi racial, multi cultural). It is my opinion until rich and poor rub elbows the bickering will continue and the Community will suffer. That was the Aspen which we "old farts" miss, where no one gave a hoot who you were, just if you could ski. You could be forgiven even that if you threw a good party (damn we used to have more fun).

You want to use housing quotas? Then you should include ethnicity, age and education- or just abandon the quota system.

A development without a green area or a place for kids to play shall not pass. Better yet, a development without a coffee house shall not pass. 

Bring essential services (schools and hospitals) back into the core.  As you increase the density you lower the footprint. Throw out the "zoning" rules, let pop up businesses thrive- anywhere. "Messy vitality" doesn't come from Government it comes from necessity and invention. 

Full disclosure, I have one of those "small rentals" in Aspen and it is a chunk of change to move in. The City could bring down some of my costs (taxes) and/or grant housing subsidies to Seasonal Employees.  The City *cannot* keep "playing landlord" renting/selling below cost and render the Community Services which should be it's primary responsibility.