|
To:
Alan Kosloff, Board of Directors, Membership, and Interested Parties
From:
Jim Lamont
Date:
December 29, 2005
RE:
Town of Vail 2005 Election Report
Executive Summary:
A coalition, including the Homeowners Association was successful in
decisively defeating the Vail Conference Center proposal by 264 votes (806
to 542). The Charter Amendment to designate the Eagle County District
Court, rather than the Vail Municipal Court as the arbitrator of zoning
disputes was narrowly approved by 21 votes. Had it failed, the Town of Vail
would have become both judge and jury on all zoning matters.
The Town of Vail, soon
after the Association publicly called for reforms in the Town’s fair
campaign and election practices, determined that a candidate for council had
to withdraw from the race, because of term limit requirements imposed by the
state constitution. The Town had not updated its election requirements to
conform to a referendum amending the Colorado constitution in the late
1990’s. The Town of Vail functions under a Home Rule Charter, giving it
near total autonomy from state authority. However, it is still subject to
the requirements of the state constitution. There were other questionable
activities during the election, which reforms of ethical and fair campaign
practices could correct.
Importantly, the election
changed the complexion of the Council, potentially opening the way for major
debate over the community’s growth control regulations. Incumbents Hitt and
Moffet were reelected. Donovan and Cleveland were defeated. Former
councilman Foley was returned to office, along with the third time candidate
Gordon. The new Council selected Rod Slifer, Mayor and Farrow Hitt, Mayor
Pro Temp.
On the issues, of those
newly elected to office, three openly favored, without qualification,
Crossroads as proposed, while the Conference Center was split down the
middle. The unsuccessful incumbents Donovan and Cleveland opposed both
Crossroads and the Conference Center. The remainder of the field, Aikens,
Slack, and Pittman favored both Crossroads and the Conference Center.
Cleveland’s defeat has displeased the some councilpersons to the point it
could adversely affect support for pending redevelopment projects,
particularly if there is an attempt to take advantage of the outcome of the
election.
As it stands, disgruntled
developers appear to have set in motion an agenda that could increase debate
about development community. The resulting controversy could have an
opposite outcome than those they intended. Significantly, to the detriment
of the entire community, it could create a backlash that derails the
community’s current willingness to support well-planned redevelopments. The
backlash could also stimulate unintended consequences leading to changes
that offset the political influence of transients voting in Vail elections.
A transient voter typically, does not own real property, registers to vote
after complying with the 30-day residency requirement and abandons the
community in less than a year.
It is reported some of
these developers did not support approval of the proposed Conference
Center. Some, perhaps, saw it in opposition with their personal and openly
spoken agenda to gain a public subsidy to put a similar facility in their
own pending redevelopment proposal. The collective advocacy of these
developers against the Center could partially explain the depth of the vote
against the proposition and the seeming paradox in the outcome of the
Council elections.
Conference Center Defeat
and Fallout: One reason, some observers speculate, the Conference Center
was defeated is because the proponents campaign strategy was over-the-top in
image and cost. The local newspaper’s ongoing and overly partisan editorial
stance, favoring the proposition, added to the public distrust about an
issue that many voters saw as being promoted by the community’s larger
businesses. The voters rejected the need to “quantitatively” diversify the
community’s economy by subsidizing the convention and conference trade.
They, instead appeared, to desire putting greater emphasis on continuing the
redevelopment of “qualitative” resort facilities as the more appropriate
course to follow.
It is doubtful that the
conference center will be on the public agenda in the near term. The
decision of how to disperse the $7 million in tax revenues already collected
for the Center has become the topic of public debate. The Council can
either temporarily reduce sales tax rates to offset the gain in revenues or
present a proposition to the voters to reallocate the funds to another
project. A faction has already stepped forward to advocate the building of
a typical suburban recreation center, such as exists in Avon. The response
from some in the business community is that they are unreceptive to use
revenues derived for economic development on recreational facilities for
local residents.
It remains to be seen if
the center’s decisive defeat will cause realignment in the leadership of the
Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau (VVTCB) and business interests.
The VVTCB is a pervasive force in the Vail business community. The VVTCB
has advocated shifting the community’s business plan to a greater dependence
upon a publicly subsidized conference and convention center since the early
1980’s. In those decades, twice the voters conclusively defeated the
concept and proponents failed to gain political support, on several
occasions, to bring it before the voters. Proponents, in their
post-election commentaries, seem intent on resurrecting the matter again, as
soon as possible.
Critics, who fault the
outgoing Council for not beginning construction in 2001, fail to recognize
that the voters approved a proposal that had neither a definitive business
plan nor architectural design with predictable construction costs. It was a
calculated political strategy by proponents to present voters with a concept
that lacked definition. Even in 2001, a time when the community was
obsessed with its economic survival, a publicly subsidized conference center
received marginal voter support. The lack of a reliable proposal caused the
three-year delay to prepare a viable business and an architectural plan with
predictable operational and construction costs. The difference between a
concept and a definitive plan proved to be $20 million.
Until there is a
realigning of those concerned about the community’s economic and business
interests, the continued distraction over public subsidies for repetitive
efforts, which are marginally beneficial, will prevent other more productive
business models, directed towards the national and international destination
guest market, from gaining traction. There are a number of productive
destination guest markets to pursue that could be built upon the community’s
resort assets and sophisticated international appeal. There is a need to
reorganize business interest around resort assets now under construction
that create programs, which have the potential to expand Vail’s destination
guest market into more productive arenas.
Town Council Election:
It is the view of some political observers that it was a coalition of
disgruntled developers who successfully unseated Donovan and Cleveland,
because of both incumbents’ role in the Town Council 4 to 3 rejection of a
proposal to redevelop the Crossroads Shopping Center. It is reported that
these developers enrolled sufficient numbers of new voters, who wanted the
amenities proposed for Crossroads, to change the complexion of the Council.
In many instances the new voters are transient, the meet the 30 day
residency requirement, but permanently leave the community within a year.
They have marginal attachment to the community and are not concerned with
the complexities of zoning regulations. The emergence of a block of young
voters is a new and growing phenomenon for Vail.
Conclusion: Once, the first of a new
class of taller and more massive buildings begin to take shape on the
community’s skyline, the debate over growth will intensify. If, history is
a guide, there will be reaction from property owners that will seek to slow
down growth and reduce zoning densities. Such is now the circumstance in
Eagle County. Without a clear and compelling vision of the future, it can
be expected that the move to slow growth with gather force.
There was no
overwhelming mandate conferred on the Council by the electorate. There was a
narrow margin of 130 votes (1,356 cast) between the top seven finalists in a
field of nine candidates. The margin falls near the reported number of newly
registered voters reportedly recruited by the disgruntled developers.
The Council’s goals are complicated because political leaders will soon have
their sights set on the five Council seats that will be vacant in the 2007
election. It appears from the discussion at the Town Council’s recent
retreat that it is their desire to move forward by seeking to build a
broadly based consensus upon a more well-defined vision for the community
long-term future. |