Debate Continues On Mick, Tim, Torre 'Debate'

March 28th, 2007 at 05:04am Post Staff 43

Aspen Mayoral candidates Mick Ireland, Tim Semrau, and Torre come into talk show land on "Con Games" on KNFO to debate the #1 issue of the campaign. To ask a question read on-air, just leave a comment on this post on Aspen Post.

Entry Filed under: Aspen, Pitkin County, Race For Mayor 2007, Affordable Housing

8 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch.Mulhall | March 28th, 2007 at 8:03 am

Since I don't live in Aspen, I generally keep my mouth shut about Aspen politics... but can anyone who heard that debate think Mick did himself any favors? If I were Torre and Tim, I'd be polite when addressed and let Mick speak.

Cheers,
2. Wharf Rat | March 28th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

I live in Garco, so I don't have a dog in the hunt. However, some observations regarding the radio debate:

1. As much as I enjoy listening to Con Games, the selective "hard-hitting moderator" approach seems inappropriate when it comes to local election forums. Torre had the best line of the debate: "that's [the Con Man] being [the Con Man]. Take a page from the Jim Lehrer playbook: introduce yourself and the candidates and then cede the spotlight. I felt like I learned nothing of Semreau's proposal because the questions primarily were designed to put Torre and Ireland on the defensive about their criticism of Semrau.

2. What was up with the Chuck softball question: won't there be more opportunities for more people to get into affordable housing as a result of Semrau's plan? And then Semrau says NO! The increased appreciation won't effectively allow the affordable housing ducklings to move to the big pond. All I've been hearing for the last month is the supposed rationale that if the cap is increased, affordable housing owners will be able to snag down-valley free market homes, live the capitalist (I mean American) dream, and start commuting to Aspen with the downvalley renters. Hello?? What is the point of this proposal?

3. Even a bleeding-heart liberal/socialist like me looks at the proposal (so far) as a handout, plain and simple. Of all the folks that could use assistance in the valley, I can't say that owners of affordable housing are at the top of the list.

4. Riddle me this: is not the best way to settle the question as to the health of the real estate transfer tax fund to perform an actuarial study? The on-the-spot number-crunching debate was not informative.

5. All things being equal, tie goes to future generations. Second tie goes to the "more needy". In other words, any candidate better be sure that steps are taken to proactively address housing needs of the future--10, 20, 30 years down the road, and to provide assistance to those in need before providing additional assistance to a current beneficiary. If it is really true that an applicant has only a one in seventy-two chance of winning the affordable housing lottery, it sure seems like that ratio would need to drop before giving the existing beneficiaries additional assistance.

6. The thought occurred to me that, provided it is actuarially sound to tap the real estate transfer tax fund, Semrau's proposal could stand the infusion of market principles. A non-extreme makeover of sorts. Apply the appreciation cap increases prospectively. As of January 1, 2008, all purchases of affordable housing shall be subject to the proposed Semrau limits. If current owners of affordable housing feel they are not getting sufficient benefit/return on their existing investment, then they can give up their current deal and re-enter the housing lottery. Equal opportunity for all (except for the unborn and unarrived).
3. Michael Conniff | March 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Welcome back, Wharf Rat. You went awfully easy on me this time.

Point of clarification:

The discussion between the Big Three was not a formal "debate" where strict rules apply. It was, in contrast, my show, and I have never ever tried to portray myself as neutral. I'm not: I have a definite point of view on things, but I do try very hard to be fair. That's the key. If you checked the amount of air time for each, I think you'd find it pretty even.

Up front in the show, I gave all three the chance to share their affordable housing plans. Not all candidates actually had a plan, as it turns out. Then I asked what I thought was a softball question: how much money is in the affordable housing fund?

Mick said $12 million.

Torre said he didn't know.

Tim said $23 million.

The difference among the three is Semrau had a spreadsheet and all the numbers and projections from Paul Menter, the city's finance chief, a man who is damn good at what he does.

So I said to Mick: There's another $9 million ($11 million, actually) in the RETT affordable housing fund that you didn't even know about. Doesn't that mean there's enough money to do what Tim wants to do in terms of raising the appreciation cap on people who sell their homes?

Mick took umbrage and said that wasn't the point--a good point, I think. But it doesn't change my point: that of the three only Semrau had bothered to find out how much money was in the fund. That would seem to me to be pretty basic knowledge necessary for a meaningful discussion of the future.

Later in the show we dug deeper into finance when Tim said the projections through 2016 would yield more than $100 million in the RETT affordable housing fund, based on Menter's calculations. Torre said the numbers were wrong but had no evidence to support that contention. Mick dismissed the projections as hopelessly optimistic and predicted the bubble will burst.

Mick is probably right about that, but the problem is those projections through 2016 are based on an estimate that the RETT will actually decline 30 percent in 2008, followed by a growth rate of 4 percent per year.

Now, to me, a 4 percent RETT growth rate seems ludicrously low based on recent history--a lowball estimate. Mick disagreed, but he had no projections or numbers of his own to back it up. In fact, he went much further, saying neither a candidate for Mayor nor the Mayor had any need for projections whatsoever.

I completely disagree. I wonder how any city of any size can prosper without at least attempting to estimate how it will or will not grow, without trying long and hard to understand the revenue picture.

The net net for me is that Tim did his homework and Mick and Torre had a near-complete disregard for the numbers. I consider a discrepancy of $11 million to be telling if not downright damning.

You don't need a calculator to draw your own conclusions.

Cheers, The Con Man!
4. oldsage | March 28th, 2007 at 8:26 pm

The Mayoral discussion about Tim Semrau's distribution of excess funds has not addressed several points:

1-An employee who owns employee housing does not forfeit the right to buy free market housing outside of the Roaring Fork drainage. In fact, if you had $400K to spend on real estate, which is the better deal - $400K on a free market downvalley home or $200K on employee housing + $200 on a home in Florida, Arizona, Mexico, Belize or even Grand Junction? In any event, the notion that those who have bought employee housing are somehow "mortgaging" their future seems incorrect.

2-Instead of distributing the excess funds from the RETT to the owners of employee housing (who already won the lottery once) why not give it to those poor souls who entered the housing lottery and were not lucky enough to win. Would that not be a more equitable use of these monies?

3-Mr. Semrau seems to think that we are so flush with cash from the RETT that we cannot possibly spend all of it. A few years ago the State of Colorado was in the same boat and elected to give the surplus back to the people. Guess what happened - now the State is broke with no money for roads, bridges, schools, the arts - you name it. The Federal government also had a surplus not too long ago -need I say more?

4-Why should excess RETT funds be targeted to only one sector - owners of employee housing. How about using those funds to improve transportation and day care services; or to "green" retrofit all of our government buildings and service applications; or to install filters so we can reuse our grey water?

In a nutshell, the discussion needs to move beyond its current state.
5. Wharf Rat | March 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am

Michael,

I see your point regarding preparedness of the candidates--perhaps that is quite relevant in terms of overall competency of the candidates.

Since you have stated that: 1) you have a viewpoint and are not hosting debates from a strictly neutral perspective; and 2) are more interested in the dialogue; I thought it might make sense to ask you some of the questions so that I can get a better understanding of your viewpoint. Of course, I would like to hear Mr. Semreau's viewpoint regarding my concerns as well.

The dialogue items of my post (the last sentence of point #1 and points #2-6) generated no response, so I'll try again.

Could anyone answer the following questions for me:

1. What is the general purpose of Mr. Semreau's proposal? More specifically, if it is not intended to elevate affordable housing owners to free market ownership as has been previously discussed, what is the purpose?

2. Is the proposal a "hand-out?" If not, why?

3. With the limited budgetary information available, can informed conclusions be made as to the long-term viability of increasing the appreciation cap? Can Mr. Semrau's proposal be considered for approval without an actuarial study of the fund?

4. Why should the fund be used to benefit existing affordable housing owners before it is used to benefit those without affordable housing (i.e. 71 of 72 applicants per unit)? What about future needs?

5. Why should Mr. Semrau's proposal not be prospective? Would that not be more fair to everyone in the community who desires to benefit from affordable housing?

I look forward to your response(s).

Thanks.
6. Wharf Rat | April 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Where is the great debate? Neither "oldsage" nor I have received any substantive answers.
7. Post Staff | April 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 am

I'll try to make a more detailed comment later but let me say this in the very early morning:

A 5 percent appreciation cap is no more a "handout" than a 3 percent appreciation cap. It merely acknowledges (a) the roaring real estate appreciation in the Roaring Fork Valley; and (b) the existence of a fund for Affordable Housing in the form of the Real Estate Transfer Tax.

The plain fact is no one else has any clue how to use the money--general pronouncements about upgrades and solar power don't do it for me.

One other quick point: the basic notion of Affordable Housing is ABSOLUTELY a handout or subsidy, as the People's Republic of Aspen taxes the rich to redistribute that income to the poor. That's the way it works here. The debate is really on over the degree of socialism we want.

Best, Con Man!
8. Wharf Rat | April 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 am

Increasing the appreciation cap arbitrarily to EXISTING affordable housing owners is absolutely a handout. You are just giving 2% additional appreciation to owners who have done nothing other than win the housing lottery previously and have already agreed to the terms currently in place.

As I see it, lottery winners have a tremendous leg up on the rest of the working class population working in Aspen--home ownership, tax benefits, equity production, freedom from "landlord tyranny"... and I'm all for that.

In the economic competition of the Aspen working class, affordable housing owners are the "haves" and renters/commuters are the "have-nots". Giving additional money to the "haves" in the form of additional appreciation is nothing more than a handout at the expense of the "have-nots".

No one is debating the fact that the whole notion of affordable housing is a socialist mechanism and can be deemed a "handout." That is a red herring.