Please don’t make me fry my laptop monitor blowing decaffeinated iced tea through my nostrils. You don’t want to post your ideas on Aspen Post? That’s your prerogative. This has nothing to do with where you express your opinions. Rather, it has everything to do with what your opinions are.

Cheers,

I’ve offered and discussed with others lots of potential avenues to explore, but the point I was making above is that we must have an adminstration open to a different approach.

Part of my earlier posting was in response to your notion of TWO solutions. My point was that there are far more than two. As a result we need to start examining some of them with a new and meaningful strategic plan.
It needs the input of the citizens and developers.

As to my accusation “sticking” —I have specifics as to their “anti-housing” actions, whether intended that way or not. Results are what matters. Their accusations of anti-housing bias from me is based on nothing but their frustration.

Mitch, there are many far more progressive ideas floating around from people with far more expertise than I would ever have. And some with far more money to invest in these programs than I would ever have. Please don’t assume that the status quo is acceptable because the other ideas have not been posted on Aspen post.

First question—how do we get elected officials to quit defending the past and be willing to consider new ideas?

Marilyn

Generally speaking, I don’t deal in feelings.

I have laid out two solutions to the affordable housing problem, stipulated that your professional experience dwarfs anything I can bring to the table, and humbly requested you flesh out your vision of what the program should be. In response, you undermine my request by emphasizing the misguided idea that I think you are against affordable housing.

You are the critic here. You can call Aspen’s affordable housing program a turd, but if you can’t offer something superior and bring it to reality, the purpose you serve isn’t the public’s.

You accuse elected officials of trying to deflect criticism by declaring your position “anti-affordable-housing,” but when you unleash the charge it’s supposed to stick?

Were you able to give us something that works better than the status quo… well, that would be a place to start.

Cheers,

So that is the point. I’m not anti-housing. In fact, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to make it more efficient and have a farther reach. But it seems that you see that as anti-housing. Some of our elected officials try to use that anti-housing cry to deflect the criticism, but it doesn’t stick.

Why do you feel that criticisms of the economics and spending in housing make the critics “against the idea”?

Marilyn

Why would it?

Cheers,

First of all no ramping up a CC campaign for me. But I would like to actively support good candidates. I hope some will run! I don’t have the temperament for it!

Secondly, I am certainly NOT “eminently qualified to evaluate inefficiencies”, but I, like most citizens, am qualified enough to see major errors of common sense. And I did spend probably 800 hours educating myself on the current housing here by reading years worth of studies, visiting sites, studying the numbers, talking with residents, builders, developers, officials. I’m not an expert, but I have made a big investment in my still limited education on the topic. Not for any reason other than wanting to see Aspen’s economy stay viable. I am not a developer or even a potential investor in such programs.

Additionally, there is NOT a singular focus on Council from me in my criticism. I have been quite critical of senior staff at the City for their mismanagement, and misrepresentation of the affordable housing problems. Problems from development planning, to contract management, to massive compliance issues—all costing us hundreds of units of otherwise available housing. Council should NOT be construction experts, but instead insist on executive management in the city to properly conserve and optimize our housing assets.
Allowing such inefficiencies, and then covering them up, and misrepresenting the auditors’ reports makes CC complicit in the problem. THOSE actions are clearly anti-housing. The refusal to deal with compliance issues (employers and reisdents) is also undercutting the program and the public’s confidence in it.

Let’s also take the decision to give the 84 Burlingame Phase I homeowners the rights to block additional homes on this very valuable piece of property. Mick and the official Burlingame Issue Committee for the 2005 election told voters that up to 330 units could be built. Then the City, without taxpayers knowledge, gave the 84 homeowners the right to block anything over 236. We lost about 100 possible units in the process. Given the cost of finding alternative land, developing infrastructure, planning and design expense that was at least a $12 million mistake. Likely more. And now it will be YEARS, at best, before we could build those units anywhere other than Burlingame. To tolerate that kind of action hurts housing. Council pays lip service to wanting to have an efficient housing program, but the actions are inconsistent with that lip service.

There are LOTS of good ways to positively impact the housing issue here, many with willing private sector help. I’ve spent a lot of time talking with planners, developers and others with good ideas on how, with local government encouragement, much more rental and entry level owned housing could be built, likely with little government subsidy. Before I left the Housing task force, after it was clear that CC was going to reject any idea I had touched, I was working to bring together a diverse group of expert professionals and working locals to develop plans for loan guarantees and equity sharing programs for first time homeowners. Just as other progressive cities have done, now leaving us behind, with an anachronistic plan. The idea would be not to use much of the city’s cash, but the strength of its balance sheet to guarantee very low interest loans—one of various ideas to help workers bridge to entry level free market. homes.

The free market entry level does not have to be multi-million dollar homes. New starter homes could be built by developers that don’t require that kind of outlay. But they need fast track approvals, encouragement and the waiver of some fees, etc. by local government to make it work. There are scores of good ideas among many local developers, interested citizens, businesses with employee needs, all waiting for a City administration who will listen to new ideas. It’s not this one! Most developers refuse to even spend another minute trying until we have a different administration. Most cannot afford to waste more hours trying to offer new ideas, only to be beat up or ignored.

I urge you to be open to considering that critics of the present system do not have anti-housing motivations or direct personal interests in the issue. Many are long time residents who care about the town and want it to work. They see that the housing fund is bankrupt, due to reckless Council decisions and oversight, with a dim future for the foreseeable future, but yet with more urgent needs. That is the reason for the criticism and pushing for a closer look and viable alternatives.
(Your analogy of the military’s $150 toilet seat—a fellow member of the housing force commented—“just because I criticize the $150 toilet set does not make me against national defense!”)

I’ve read enough of what you’ve written to see that you perceive the Council’s choices as poor business decisions. I also recall you enjoy a corporate background that makes you imminently qualified to evaluate inefficiencies in matters like Aspen’s affordable housing.

You bristle unnecessarily at my comment. I’m not criticizing. I’m just giving my impressions. I don’t know near enough about the issue to contribute constructively and probably never will. That said, I’ve lived in this valley for forty-two years. This issue has been a canard almost as long.

In my opinion, Aspen’s affordable housing problem is analogous to the causes of the current U.S. economic crisis. Yes, there are several significant differences; however, at the heart problem is not property value per se, but the effect Aspen property values have on the garden variety, middle income debt to income ratio. As effectively as this limits who can get a home mortgage in Aspen, it also limits the City’s ability to acquire land for affordable housing.

There are at least two ways to mitigate the effect of Aspen property values: cap the value of certain properties, or lend on debt to income ratios that are much greater than 40%. Congress chose the latter to considerable folly. Aspen has attempted something more akin to the former with mixed success. You write of “affordable housing programs (note the plural).” Perhaps you’d be willing to flesh-out this either/or proposition?

[Some of the decisions made by Council and the City staff are easily interpreted as the most “anti-housing” actions of all!]

To the extent you criticize Council policy as contrary to affordable housing, I for one will listen. If you’re suggesting Council members are against-affordable housing, I know better. Your examples of Burlingame waste strike me as analogous to the U.S. government paying $150 for a toilet seat. As custodians of tax-payer dollars, Council has arguably done a crappy job. Yet, while I’ve never read Council’s job description, I’m pretty sure expertise in construction management is not a requirement. You can yoke Council with this in a “buck stops here” kind of way, but a singular focus on Council culpability demonstrates disinterest in fixing problems.

Sounds to me like you’re ramping up for a City Council campaign.

Cheers,

Affordable housing programs (note the plural) are crucial to making Aspen work. Given that we cannot ever expect to meet the unlimited demand, we must make our affordable housing dollars stretch to house the most people. We must call on the private sector to find new ways to solve the problem. The City needs to create incentives for the private sector to build more affordable housing. The City has to become good stewards with their limited housing funds.

Some of the decisions made by Council and the City staff are easily interpreted as the most “anti-housing” actions of all!

Take a look at the details of waste and inefficiency in Burlingame. We could have built 150 more units had we not had the waste and “discretionary” additions. Much of that spending was pure waste, lack of controls, lack of planning, inefficient building design, poor contract negotiation, etc. That inefficiency helped only the contractors and suppliers, and in many cases, –no one.. But it hurt the scores of families who need housing. Who could have had it with those millions wasted. Are you suggesting that we should not worry about those “economic details”?

Many of us critics are angry because the fund is now bankrupt, having been spent in suboptimal ways which failed to house nearly the number of families which we could have housed. Is that the economic perspective that you criticize? Yes, I suppose it is. But without considering the economics, how do we fund a housing plan? Without considering the economics, the residents can’t buy units, or afford the mortgages.

Without considering the economics, we have no reason to be efficient, and would continue to squander millions of dollars which could be used to house the working families.

As for economics, the people who should be screaming the loudest are those waiting in line for their turn at the lottery which may be years away because of the wasteful practices of the City in Burlingame and other housing projects they have undertaken.

If economics are to be thrown out the window and not considered, then doesn’t the notion of “affordability”, and workforce housing go with it?

Look at the millions spent ($7+ million) for only two single family homes in town for affordable housing now 1 to 2 years ago. I believe that one employee has been housed with that huge investment in all of these months. Think of what $7 million could have done for housing employees if there had been a real focus on economic efficiency.

Mick and some of his friends want to protect the old, broken system, rather than leverage our assets to house more people. Therefore, they cry “anti-housing” at critics who wish to see a more progressive program.

Many of us “critics” have spent hundreds of volunteer hours trying to develop some new ideas for housing solutions, given the fact that the funds have been decimated. It’s not going to be easy. And yes, economics will be fundamental to making any housing solution work.

Affordable housing is fundamental to a workable Aspen. Economics are fundamental to a workable affordable housing program.

The problem with Burlingame is that indeed economics was thrown out the window in favor of what was easy.

Marilyn Marks
http://www.TheRedAnt.com

Cheers,