It looks as if Aspen City Council doesn’t care about searching for the truth behind the Burlingame subsidy numbers, because it decided Monday night not to investigate the matter further.
If City Council did investigate, it might learn about the Goburlingame.com Web site. Here are some statements (which I’ll explain later) from the now-defunct site:
— “The results of the study showed Burlingame’s projected costs (subsidies) of $62,000 per unit were much less than the alternatives available.”
— “The amount of housing that could be generated through downtown infill is tiny and costs 5 times the per unit subsidy that Burlingame will require.”
Who was behind the Goburlingame.com Web site? I don’t know, but this much is known: The site urged residents to vote for Burlingame, was designed by Project West and was apparently put up in 2005 or so.
And wouldn’t you know it? The Goburlingame.com Web site was removed between mid-May and early June of this year, just about the time the city acknowledged that Burlingame subsidies are now five to six times the amount stated in a city brochure in 2005.
Is the Goburlingame.com Web site a smoking gun or just a piece of cyber trash? Were any city or county elected officials involved with it? How about city or county staffers? Was it just a portal to lure inquiring minds into a pay-per-view porn site? Nobody has come forth with information on whether the city had anything to do with the Goburlingame.com Web site and City Council doesn’t seem interested in pawing around to find out.
The five-page Goburlingame.com printout I’m working off of is in the form of questions and answers (“FAQs.”). The most pertinent item today comes when the Web site pegs the per-unit Burlingame subsidy at $62,000, which is nearly identical to the amount listed in the city’s 2005 brochure ($62,500). Which came first, the Goburlingame.com Web site or the city’s brochure? Some folks would like to know.
Was the city in cahoots with the Goburlingame.com people? Were they one in the same?
The Web site also argues that Burlingame (across from the airport) is preferable to affordable housing sprinkled around town as infill.
The writing style and arguments made on the Web site seem vaguely familiar to others published in local newspapers in recent years. The writer states: “Although this project has not changed significantly since 2000, its opponents refuse to accept the community’s verdict and have continued to try and thwart it at every occasion.” The writer states that if voters don’t approve Burlingame “… the environment will suffer.” The writer is apparently no fan of big houses or the free-market system, because he/she states: “The existing zoning could allow up to 60 large luxury homes. … realistically there could be 25 to 30 free market homes approved on the land.” The writer also indicates he/she thinks local government should prevent privately funded housing to some degree because he/she states: “It is the best possible plan for … limiting free market development.”
Some supporters for an independent investigation of the Burlingame affordable housing project (which is about one-third complete, and whose final two phases must be approved by voters) have argued that the city’s 2005 brochure might have violated state or local laws, in that the $62,000 subsidy figure turned out to be five to six times too low. Some investigation opponents argue the whole Burlingame flap is about politics or an attempt to put the kibosh on the project.
It seems to me that all the investigation proponents really want is the truth. Where did that $62,000 subsidy number come from because it also appeared in local news stories in early 2005. The city had the opportunity to correct the figure or explain them but did not do so. Even without an investigation, we now know about the Goburlingame.com Web site and that local stories not only referenced the $62,000 figure but one (Jan. 18, 2005, in The Aspen Times) also said costs included “… design and engineering work, fees and the installation of infrastructure within the housing site … according to a recent analysis by the city.”
Wrapping up here, some investigation opponents might be worrying about what happened in Watergate, when Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) asked the most famous question of all: “What did the president know and when did he know it?” They shouldn’t need to be reminded that it was the Watergate cover up, not the initial break in, that finally brought down Richard M. Nixon.
Final note: If you want a copy of the Go.burlingame Web site referenced here, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to Lynn Burton, p.o. box 484, Carbondale, CO 81623.
Lynn Burton is night editor for the Aspen Daily News. He can be reached at lburton@aspendailynews.com.
