Even though it’s clear that the resort has prevailed over the community, there are still enough of us marching to a different drummer and a tune that isn’t about wealth, power and convenience. So many ask, what do we do now?
It is true that the orange obesity did not win the proclaimed “landslide.” Having won a bunch of elections, 10 to be exact, I never considered a 5-point, 7-point or 18-point win a landslide — simply because it’s not.
Little Aspen and our county can’t reverse that. Not just because we turned out in smaller numbers than four years ago, but because this place is a lot smaller than our collective ego. We were once a cutting-edge laboratory for transit, growth management and diversity — but we are no more. The big issue on the spring municipal ballot will undoubtedly be: How do we stuff people in here more efficiently to serve those who partake of luxury events marketed toward the uber wealthy?
Long ago, a wise urban planner predicted we would eventually be a product for outside consumption, that stage being the culmination of a phased process from discovery through vitality to prosperity and ultimately exclusivity. I would be shocked if the surrogate pop-up campaigns (maybe Aspen Deserves Mo Better) this spring don’t bring heavy money to the table on behalf of the Sam Rose/Bill Guth party and its privatization goals.
Already, “the twins” couldn’t find it in their hearts to support a city stipend for city workers living in the diminishing residential free-market housing that is not a short-term rental (we have a thousand of those) or a second through fifth home of which we have thousands more.
“The other thing with housing here, it’s just a competitive market and with the school district, the hospital, these other (entities) … we need more housing than the 74 that we have, but trying to influx cash into the free market is a really difficult thing to do while actually accomplishing what you set out to do, in my opinion,” Rose stated.
He also said “it would make it difficult for other employers, like the Aspen School District … to acquire units for their employees,” (“Aspen council weighs housing stipend program,” Nov. 12, Aspen Daily News).
How does a council person weigh “make it difficult for other employers” (like Sam’s employer, the school district) against the duty of loyalty he owes the citizens who elected him?
Shouldn’t council members be looking for ways to cooperate, and not outbid each other for the dwindling number of available units? As it is now, the city turnover rate is unacceptably high at a 14% rate, and senior staff can hardly get someone trained before they become sick of paying $2,100 for a basement studio under a mobile home or a three-hour, round-trip commute.
I am sure I will be remonstrated in a way usually reserved for Ukrainians and ceasefire advocates, but someone has to object to the idea that one can vote on housing policy as a $29,000-per-year elected councilman, while serving as the assistant director of the school district’s housing program at the posted salary of around $80,000, or even as a volunteer. Being a director for the district or a councilman with the city means having access to confidential data on what’s available and at what price.
Any real estate broker will tell you that knowing what a rival is willing to pay for a property makes it possible to outbid that rival. What the city and the district are willing to pay is properly executive-session material that should not be shared with a competing employer. Does anyone remember what conflict of interest really means?
The district has been snatching up the low-hanging fruit of (relatively) lower-priced free-market units in competition with the city. And the district’s dilemma stands to worsen as the teachers who own their own market-priced units move to retirement and possibly cash out.
Unfortunately, I can’t recall the last housing “summit” where the needy government agencies (city, county, hospital, fire department, sheriff’s office) met jointly to share resources and expertise. Everyone for him or herself works pretty well for Libertarians and dog-eat-dog Hobbesians and is especially delightful for would-be sellers. It doesn’t work for the public as a whole, however, since our agencies are bidding against one another and the worker-bees unfortunate enough to need a rental. Do we progress toward a housing solution by displacing one worker-bee in favor of another?
The physical structures here are doing well, though older ones are being reconfigured for luxury uses faster than one can say, “Goodbye Owl.” The state demographer estimates the population of the county and the city has fallen every year since 2016 and net outmigration from the county has occurred in every year since 2016 with about 1,613 people or 10% of the population leaving the county. Births forecast for this year are at a rate lower than any in the last 44 years.
We have the same problem as rural communities and dying industrial rust-belt cities have. We are losing the people that can make this a great place. Sorry, no expansion of STRs, no luxury $60 million homes, no Gulfstream 8,000s and no expedited remodel permit processes are going to restore the balance. I’ll be watching this spring to see if any of the council or mayoral hopefuls will attend to this issue or if it’s just another parking, traffic, cheap-food platitude festival of ballots.