This week Aspen Post ran a blog on Tim Semrau’s proposal to increase the annual appreciation cap on affordable housing from 3 to 5 percent.

“Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of affordable housing?” I thought. “Might as well call it unaffordable housing.” As a renter paying ridiculous sums for meager accommodations, I anxiously await the opportunity to make 3 percent on my money.  What will allow me to do so is the fact that many of the units in the system are still affordable.

As I read on, I saw that Tim had a plan to keep the working class in the game.  He proposes using the housing fund to buy down the price of a unit, keeping the housing affordable.

Now there is an idea I can see locals getting behind.  Who wouldn’t enjoy a plan that utilizes city money to pad their own pocket?  However, I don’t think the housing program should be about making money.  It should be about enabling working class residents to live in town without having to throw away gobs of money on rent.  And what happens when the fund has been drained after years of “buy downs” and the City can no longer cover the difference?  My guess, prices go up, putting the cost out of reach for many.

When the first phase of Burlingame was offered by lottery the number of bids on three bedroom units defined the housing situation.  There were nearly 50 bids for the units priced at $190,000, 35-40 bids for those priced at $280,000, 7 bids for the $380,000 units, and 4 or fewer bids for those priced at $430,000 and higher.

It seems most of Aspen’s working families aren’t making six figure salaries.  Surprise, surprise.

The affordable housing program will never be a stepping stone to the free market.  A family living in Burlingame Ranch will never cash in and move to the West End (unless they are aided by a substantial trust fund).  It’s just not realistic, nor will it ever be in a town where forty-year-old condos sell for $1000 – $2000 a square foot.

The difference between a 3 and 5 percent appreciation is significant, but no stepping stone. Take a $150,000 unit.  If it appreciated at 3 percent annually the unit would be worth roughly $271,000 in 20 years.  At 5 percent, the unit would be valued at $398,000.  Great for the seller, not so great for the working class family trying to establish a life in Aspen.

Tim’s plan is to “buy down” the units, offsetting the difference between 3 and 5 percent.  Using this example, the difference equates to $127,000 of City money.  Over time, this would add up to tens of millions, money, which I feel would be more appropriately spent on additional employee housing units.

Comedian Daniel Tosh made a comment during his performance at the Wheeler Opera House last week.  “I love the people of Aspen,” he said.  “I’m not talking about the people that live seventy miles away and drive up for work everyday.  The people who say ‘oh, it’s so expensive here.’  I’m talking about the people who own homes in Aspen and stay there two weeks a year.  My people.”

If the city does not enable the working class to stay in the game by keeping prices affordable and building as many units as the fund will allow, Daniel Tosh’s comment will only become more relevant.