Marilyn Marks Says City Is Dense

September 6th, 2008 at 05:49pm Post Staff 43

Some called it a "punch in the stomach," others "complete incompetence," but Thursday, most of the volunteer professionals of the Burlingame Construction Experts Group expressed surprise and dismay when informed that the City had essentially granted bullet proof veto rights to current Burlingame homeowners to prevent density beyond 236 units! The group, working for the past three months to increase Burlingame density was informed that any increase will require a 100%* (yes, unanimous!) vote of the homeowners! (Could even a March powder day garner a 100% affirmative vote in Aspen? Probably not!) Sounds like a sure fire way to avoid optimizing this crucial property. We are astounded that the City would have limited the housing program's flexibility in this way. One member says he has "lost hope" [for fixing Burlingame].

The insulting news came on Thursday after months of volunteer work by this group of the brightest and best development and construction professionals in the valley, as they met again to address their ongoing mission of optimizing Burlingame to create the most homes, most efficiently. Additionally, since May, scores of thousands (at least) of City funds have been spent on architectural, design, engineering fees to explore increased density. Those expensive professional fees do not begin match the level of the collective market value of the services contributed by these volunteer professionals,-- both significant resources which now appear to have been recklessly squandered by the City.

All had agreed that density was essential as the Burlingame land cost per unit is miniscule, and land cost for future projects can run into the hundreds of thousands per unit, which will greatly limit our ability to undertake future projects.

$375,000 and Veto Rights To Boot!
Not only have the Phase I homeowners received close to $400,000 per unit subsidy, but additional booty in the form of legal rights to become NIMBY's, with the power to prevent any increase above the suboptimal 236 units initially planned.
-Never mind that the public was told in 2005 voter materials that up to 330 units could be built there, as limited by the land purchase agreement.
-Never mind that possibility that even those land purchase agreements could have been negotiated upward in the future.
-Never mind that the per unit subsidy is SIX times the $62K that the voters were told!
-Never minding those pesky issues, the City recently prematurely ceded voting control to fortunate 91 homeowners.

Right Questions,-- Wrong Answers-AGAIN!
The Experts Group asked about legal restrictions during their first meeting in June, and operated for a few weeks with incorrect City-supplied information using 330 as the constraint. (Wrong.)

A few weeks later, just AFTER the voting control was delivered to the homeowners, the City staff announced the concerning news that the Homeowners Association contract required a 2/3 affirmative vote for increases beyond 236. City officials assured the Experts that only 13 favorable votes would be needed from the existing homeowners in addition to the votes the City controlled as owners of the planned units. (Wrong again.) Based on this assurance, plans proceeded for several weeks on how to optimize the site.

However, a half hour into Thursday's meeting when architects were presenting increased density plans, the City staff dropped the 100% requirement bombshell, making the previous scores of hours of paid and volunteer work and discussions almost irrelevant. Imagine their shock of learning that months of work had been wasted when the City had had the information for years, but failed to reveal it!

After the shock settled in, to their credit, this group of dedicated professionals sought to find value in the work and "lessons learned" without displays of anger. One wonders what would have happened in their own offices had these bosses encountered such fundamental misinformation presented months overdue by their own staff or attorneys, at a great expense of time and money. The Ant wagers that there some tempers would flare and pink slips would fly!!

The Bad News Never Ends

There is much yet to be understood in this continuingly suprising story of gross mismanagement of our most precious Affordable Housing resource,--Burlingame Ranch. No experienced developer would have:
-- filed the legal documents excluding flexibility and possible growth of a development.
-- granted control of the HOA votes prematurely.
-- granted homeowners veto rights to increased density at an unnecessarily low threshold of 236.

If there was a shred of doubt about whether the City should continue to be in the development business, it is surely gone now--except for City staff of course, who insist that they should retain control of Affordable Housing development!

The Ant is wondering:
-Why didn't the City inform the Citizens Budget Task Force of this constraint in May when the increased density was first recommended?
-In June, when the Experts Group inquired, why weren't they given the correct answer by the City?
-Why did the City turn over voting control to the Homeowners after this potential issue had surfaced?
-Why were covenants written with unusually low flexibility for the City?
-Why were voters told in 2005 that up to 330 units could be built, but homeowners given veto rights above 236?
-When did the City learn of this 100% vote constraint, and how did they learn of it?
-Does this all have a connection to Council's clear, but illogical desire to limit density at Burlingame?

We don't have answers, but we are looking. If you have ideas, please leave a comment on our blog www.TheRedAnt.com

Their Motives?
Although City officials claim to be advocates for affordable housing, The Ant is confused by their actions. The waste and "extras" alone at Burlingame cost us 150 homes in the housing program. 150 homes that can never be built! One hundred of those families could have lived at Burlingame if the City had planned normal covenant flexibility. Instead, officials' priorities seem to be other than serving the working families who need housing.
Needless to say, --The Red Ant doesn't get it!

Entry Filed under: Aspen, Affordable Housing, Aspen City Council