ISSUE #282: Back to the Future (3/5/25)

ISSUE #281: Out with the Old (1/13/25)

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." -- John Maynard Keynes

The March 4 Aspen municipal election marks a clear difference between tired old bureaucrats with tired old ideas, and smarter, younger, private sector-employed community leaders with fresh ideas and solutions. The choices have never been more clear: Mayor:  KATY FRISCH Council:  EMILY KOLBE Council #2 (you can vote for up to two):  CHRISTINE BENEDETTI Referendum 1:  YES Referendum 2:  NO Here’s why: Mayor:  KATY FRISCH.  “Katy Frisch is looking forward to a new day while Rachel Richards is mired in the past… Katy offers a background of varied nonprofit and community accomplishments while Rachel is a career politician who talks about the issues she worked on but failed to address successfully.” – Richard Felder  I couldn't say it any better than this letter to the editor did. DO NOT VOTE FOR RACHEL.  She has served this community in elected office for 30 years and just can’t stay away, despite her lengthy record of unsolved problems (housing, traffic, dissatisfaction with local government, growth of local government with no solutions to our ongoing issues). She wants to grow the local bureaucracy and make the mayoral role a full-time job. She’s had 3 decades to fix our problems. As the sticker around town says, she’s “RRong for Aspen” and past her “Use-By” date.  HERE is a great comparison of the two candidates.  Council:  EMILY KOLBE.  This former teacher, local business owner and operator  (Brunelleschi’s), community board member, volunteer, mother and coach seeks a council role to protect Aspen’s small-town character and bring a rare dose of common sense to local issues.  She grew up here and has chosen to raise her family here. She's smart, articulate and will bring many critical perspectives to the council table. She is my clear top choice for city council. More on Emily HERE. Council #2:  CHRISTINE BENEDETTI.  Christine is the clear second choice.  She has a strong record of involvement in the community and is known as a pragmatic thinker. She is also raising a family here. Smart people I respect are supporting her so I will too, especially given the other pathetic options!  Besides, a vote for Christine is a vote against the incumbents! More on Christine HERE. DO NOT VOTE FOR TORRE OR JOHN DOYLE, the incumbents. It’s time for both of them to go. As you know, Torre, the notorious housing cheat, two term councilman and three-term mayor can’t simply ride off into the sunset. What else would he do? He is the living example of all that is corrupt and wrong with APCHA, not to mention local government -- reason enough to finally bounce him from any future public decision-making role. He blathers on about ensuring “the best Aspen for each and every Aspenite,” but the only one he really cares about is himself. Enough. Besides, it's time for him to get parking tickets like the rest of us. And as for John Doyle, thanks but no thanks.  The main reason he is “running for council is the concern (he has) about a warming climate and what that means for Aspen the community as well as Aspen the resort.”  We have pressing traffic, housing and leadership issues in this community. Keep up the recycling, John, just not with tired old politicians and their tired old ideas like you, Torre and Rachel. DO NOT VOTE FOR TYLER WILKINSON-RAY OR SCOTT WOOLEY.  While it’s nice to see a newcomer (Wilkinson-Ray) join the fray, lamenting STRs, local construction and national restaurants is not an impressive or knowledgeable rationale for seeking office. Plus, he wants more subsidized housing IN the city but doesn't realize that the Lumberyard is being built on annexed land so it IS in the city. I’d encourage him to regularly attend council meetings and apply to P&Z to learn more about the unfinished construction projects in town, as well as to amass more learning as to how this wacky place came to be what it is today. And don’t get me started on Wooley. Just no. He promotes himself as an “adopted grandson” of a well-known Aspenite, as if that somehow boosts his local bonafides. (Is that a thing? Sounds like stolen valor…) This Rachel acolyte is Skippy 2.0, but worse: lots of kumbaya, hugging and lamenting changes, with no grasp of real-world workable solutions to anything. Except maybe more subsidized housing. Referendum 1: YES.  Take off your “bridge” hat for a moment. This measure simply raises the threshold to alter the use of our parks and open spaces from a 50% +1 vote to 60%.  It DOES NOT prevent future alternative uses for such spaces, it will simply ensure that there is greater community consensus for doing so. It’s intended to prevent the local government from changing the uses of local parks and open spaces for parking, housing or other seemingly high-demand uses and passing such changes with the narrowest of margins.  Currently, Theater Aspen is hoping to build a permanent structure in Rio Grande Park - voters will have the opportunity to approve this, and a 60% consensus seems entirely appropriate. It's a public park, after all. Opponents say Ref 1 is “anti-democratic,” but no: all votes at the council table must be 3-2 at a minimum – that’s 60%.   As Ref 1 relates to the entrance/bridge issue, this would just mean that to condemn the Thomas/Marolt open spaces to accommodate a highway (or for any other use), 60% of the community would have to be in support. This is a community values-based measure, intended to make the threshold just a little bit higher (implying a greater degree of thoughtfulness) to change the usage of our parks and open spaces.  It’s an easy YES on Ref 1. Referendum 2:  NO.  “The current proposal is to bring more cars (some from the future Lumberyard housing development and airport expansion projects), still in a single lane each way, and at similar or lower speed, via a new four-lane bridge into downtown Aspen where there’s no place to drive or park them. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority buses’ spectacular success would be reinforced by two new bus-only lanes, but offset by two new bottlenecks — a Hickory House red light and the Cemetery Lane runaround.” – Amory Lovins  (If you read anything on the issue, read this. It’s THAT good. And it explains the issue better than I ever could.) In short, the Straight Shot DOES NOT FIX TRAFFIC.  Cars and trucks: NO NEW LANES.  It will still be one lane in, one lane out.  The new lanes would be exclusively for RFTA buses, even though these may only save them a minute.  It depends on whether they catch the new stoplight at the Hickory House which WILL slow YOU down. Even the city engineer says, “The current plan, known as the Preferred Alternative, is a (mass) transit-oriented solution and will not make it significantly faster for cars to get into town.”  (ADN 1/19/23) Ref 2 grants CDOT (the state highway department) a permanent blank check to build a highway of their choosing across 80 acres of open space at Aspen’s entrance. CDOT could build the straight shot or anything else they come up with, and we would have NO SAY in the matter.  CDOT loves “transit plans” because they use “congestion” to push people onto public transit. This was critically important in the 1990s, but is pushing more people onto buses our biggest traffic problem today? Methinks no.... Ref 2 advocates regularly call Aspen voters “indecisive” because the issue is 20+ years in the making. Not so fast. The Straight Shot plan crushes three neighborhoods (West End, West Main, Cemetery Lane) and doesn’t address yet alone fix traffic. Maybe THAT’s why it hasn’t moved forward … and shouldn’t. NO on Ref 2. Look for your ballot in this week’s mail.

ISSUE #280: Ballot Basics ... Get Ready! (1/21/25)

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

THE MARCH 4 ELECTION

Here we go again. It's municipal election season. We'll be electing a new mayor, plus two council seats are up for grabs. There are also two hotly contested ballot measures which promise to boost voter turnout. Get educated before you vote. Ballots will be arriving soon! Here's the scoop...

 IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BRIDGE, KINDA...

So you think Referendums 1 and 2 are thumbs up or thumbs down on "the straight shot" entrance to Aspen across the Marolt Open Space? You think Referendum 1 is anti-straight-shot and Referendum 2 is pro? You think Referendum 2 is the long-desired solution to our absurd traffic congestion? You think "the straight shot" is the panacea for the threat of a wildfire evacuation?

If so, you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong!

"The straight shot" is not on the ballot. And that's a good thing because even the city admits that "the straight shot" is NOT a traffic solution. It's an "infrastructure" solution. In fact, with a new stoplight at the Hickory House (7th and Main), "the straight shot" will actually slow traffic with yet another choke point! And it would still only offer one lane of general traffic in each direction!

It is SO SO SO important to know what you are voting on.

REFERENDUM 1

This measure seeks to change the approval threshold for converting our parks and open spaces to other uses from a simple majority (50% +1) to a super majority (60%). It will still be possible to turn open space like Marolt (or Wagner or Paepcke or Heron or Rio Grande or Northstar) into a highway or subsidized housing or a parking lot or some other use, but only with greater consensus. For obvious reasons, Referendum 1 just makes it a little more difficult. This one is a no brainer. For more info click HERE.  Vote YES on 1.

Add your name to Ref 1's list of supporters today!! Click HERE or email Sue.Atkinson@comcast.net

REFERENDUM 2

This is Rachel Richard's personal attempt to hijack the city's and CDOT's process for addressing the entrance to Aspen and the bridge. With this measure, Aspen would cede its voter authority on any future solution entirely to CDOT, a government agency. Specifically, Ref 2 permits CDOT to proceed with both planning and construction activities without local voter involvement.

Please refer to Issue #279 for details on the entrance/bridge options that are being discussed. These are primarily 19th/20th century asphalt solutions to a 21st century problem. But keep in mind, the city is currently working to develop a case for a new Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that will replace the 1998 one. If a new EIS is warranted and presents a specific and data-driven "Purpose and Need," then any number of innovative solutions can be designed and considered. We should keep our city charter-given rights to approve them.

Today, there is no consensus on which problem we are even trying to solve. Council is all over the board. If we really want to solve traffic congestion, we need to specify that. Giving all our authority to CDOT is not the answer. Tell Rachel NO to her candidacy for mayor and vote NO on 2.

** As for fire evacuation concerns, please read THIS letter from former firefighter and assistant fire chief Jack Simmons. Sorry, but "the straight shot" isn't the answer you may hope it is. Even if we used both the straight shot's one general traffic lane AND the one outbound bus lane to evacuate, those two lanes merge into just one lane at the roundabout. The chokepoint might not happen at 5th and Main, but it certainly happens a quarter mile to the west with the same effect: gridlock. This is the reality.

THE MAYORAL CONTEST

Thankfully, Mayor Torre is term-limited out, and not a minute too soon. Enough is enough. (But more on Aspen's most infamous subsidized housing cheat in a minute...)

Welcome Katy Frisch to Aspen's mayoral race. This tireless community volunteer is exactly who we need. Katy is reasonable, practical and an exciting newcomer to city politics. She has previously served as both president and board member of the Aspen school board and president and board member of AVSC. In addition, she has been involved with Aspen Public Radio, the Aspen School District financial advisory board and the Roaring Fork Youth Orchestra while raising two kids here in Aspen. In short, she's smart, she's accomplished, she's a leader and she has the chops to sit at the helm of the council table with a no nonsense approach to taking on the pressing issues we face today, including oversight of city manager Sara Ott. I'm donating to Katy and hope you will too. HERE is a link. $250 is the limit.

Katy is running against perhaps Aspen's most undesirable career politician who propagates class warfare, the dreadful Rachel Richards. Over several decades, Rachel has already been mayor, she's served on council as well as on the board of county commissioners. If ever there was a contrast between new and old, this mayoral contest is it.

Put Rachel out to pasture. We do not need more old ideas and recycled politicians. Vote for Katy.

TWO CITY COUNCIL SEATS

Speaking of recycled politicians, add Torre to that list. Since his mayoral stint is up, he simply cannot let go. He is now running for a council seat. More bad ideas, more waffling and more nonsense. Just say no. The housing scofflaw is a prime example of power going to one's head. He needs to grow up, get a job and get out of the way forward in Aspen. DO NOT vote to re-elect Torre.

And don't vote for John Doyle either. His first term on council is now up and he'd like another four years. No thanks. His first term can most appropriately be summed up by his comments pertaining to the events of October 7, 2023. I refuse to write what he said, but I promise to clip the video and send it to you prior to the election. He has no place in elected leadership in Aspen or anywhere.

There are several others running, thank goodness, so we can bring some fresh blood to the mix. I will study up and let you know who is best for the job! Stay tuned.

IN OTHER BUSINESS

Get your Food Tax Refund. Click HERE And how about donating the proceeds to Katy Frisch or the "Yes on 1" efforts?!

ISSUE #279: Bridge Wars - Two Petitions and A Lot of Bad Info (11/20/24)

"Sometimes you have to, as I say, build bridges where you can - but draw lines where you must."

-- Fred Thompson

With a municipal election merely 15 weeks away, local tempers are flaring over how to address the aging Castle Creek Bridge since our current council can’t seem to get out of its own way, or ours. In August, Torre, John and Ward killed a motion to rebuild  the aging  Castle Creek Bridge before we contemplate building a new bridge elsewhere.     (Rather than fixing the one bridge we can’t live without - and actually improving traffic in the bargain - Torre took us down the rabbit hole to chase his fantasy of the long debunked “split shot.”  This, despite comments from over 200 citizens and businesses urging council to Fix the Damn Bridge.  Where we could have gotten a fast track on a new Castle Creek Bridge, now we face a 5-10+ year white board process that no one thinks the old bridge will survive. It’s a disaster.) We currently have the Friends of Castle Creek, whose efforts I fully endorse and have highlighted HERE. Their  ballot question would ensure that Aspen voters have a strong voice in decisions to sell or change the use of our cherished parks and open spaces.  Not just Marolt—but all of them.  Currently, the City can jettison any park or open space with just 50% + 1 voter who show up at the polls.    Even in Aspen, turnout for big city elections is typically 45% meaning less than a quarter of Aspen’s registered voters can decide the fate of high value parks and open space.   The “Friends” hope to amend the Home Rule Charter to require a 60% +1 “super majority” vote.  With the typical turnout, that’s still less than a third of registered voters, but an improvement nonetheless.   The idea is to keep our parks and recreation spaces from being radically repurposed by a narrow majority that represents a sliver of all locals.  The Friends’ petition applies to all parks and open space but top of mind for most locals is the protection it adds to the potential desecration of the Marolt Open Space by a supersized straight shot—now 130’ and six lanes of asphalt.  (More on that behemoth, below.) If you have not yet signed and want to, please contact sue.atkinson@comcast.net or 970-948-6798 before Friday.  And now we have another petition to add a second ballot question in March - spear-headed by divisive class warrior Rachel Richards, that will give CDOT, by fiat, full control to build whatever it wants, unchecked, across the Marolt Open Space. In effect, it’s an anti-democratic blank check for CDOT to ignore everything already on the books, roll in the bulldozers and build what it desires.   DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION. Here are some important design alternatives and notes on what Rachel proposes.  See renderings at the bottom. THE STRAIGHT SHOT:  In 1996, Aspen voters passed a ballot measure allowing Hwy 82 to be realigned across Marolt  with 4 conditions, each of which would be over-ridden with Rachel’s plan: ·      A 2-lane parkway across the Marolt Open Space plus light rail. Rachel’s folly is a 130’ wide 6-lane freeway that features 2 dedicated bus lanes, 2 general traffic lanes and 2 twenty foot shoulders. Note the same 2 general traffic lanes as what we have today providing zero improvement to traffic congestion. ·      A 400’ cut-and-cover tunnel across the open space, preserving the Marolt meadow. With Rachel’s plan, CDOT can build whatever it wants, with or without a tunnel. ·      Protection of historic assets (the 2.5 acre historic district including Holden-Marolt Museum and the Marolt Open Space). Rachel removes this condition in her blank check to CDOT.  Move over community garden, Nordic trails and paraglider landing zone!  ·      A second public vote when the costs and design are known. Rachel wants CDOT to have full control to do whatever it wants, with no local voice in a new EIS design process. *In the absence of light rail, the 1996 Straight Shot is off the table. There is no rendering. THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE:   Following the 1996 vote, multiple affected jurisdictions signed on to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1998 memorializing the Straight Shot, but adding “temporary bus lanes” at CDOT’s request.  The catch is, Aspen voters did not approve the bus lanes bait and switch (the word “bus” appears nowhere in the 1996 ballot question).  Today, the “Preferred Alternative” has morphed further to include a cornucopia of additions such as a 130’ asphalt roadway and a giant “land bridge” arch over Marolt in place of the “cut and cover” tunnel - all to create some bogus wildlife corridor that redirects animals away from an imaginary migration route over to the golf course. Worst of all, Cemetery Lane will only be able to turn LEFT, come eastward into town and head west at a new 7th Street stoplight. And the West End gets pummeled with still more “Sneakers” that back up the neighborhood for hours every weekday afternoon.  (The PA is a moving target that gets worse with each iteration.) See today’s version of the Preferred Alternative that contains numerous elements not approved by Aspen voters below. THE SPLIT SHOT:  With this design, the Marolt Open Space becomes a highway median with 2 inbound lanes over Marolt crossing a new bridge connecting with Main Street, and 2 outbound lanes on the existing Hwy 82 corridor. Notably, Cemetery Lane will only be able to turn RIGHT, going out to the roundabout before they can come back into town.  The two inbound lanes consist of one general traffic and one exclusive bus lane - again no improvement to the two general traffic lanes we have now.  And a pitiful few seconds of time savings for RFTA riders (that is IF they don’t get a redlight at the new 7th street signal).   Same on the outbound two lanes - one general traffic and one bus lane: no added traffic capacity. See Torre’s fantasy below. And the version that Rachel emphatically conflates with other versions in her published lies. The Split Shot most certainly affects Cemetery Lane traffic and was piublicly debunked as a failure by Jacobs Engineering on 8/5/31. THE 3-LANE SHIFTED BRIDGE: A 3-lane shifted bridge in the exact location of the existing Castle Creek Bridge is the ONLY way to increase traffic capacity and speed cars out of town in the afternoon.  It’s the only plan that gives the West End some relief from The Sneak.  By building one lane at a time, we  can keep two lanes open during all phases of construction.  NO detours and “minimal traffic impact,”  according to Jacobs Engineering on 7/31/24.  This option does not require any open space and would be constructed in the existing right of way.  No public vote is required. Rachel is desperately trying to take the power from the people. Does it get any more un-democratic? There are several other notable considerations when thinking about any new bridge configuration that necessitates access across Marolt: ·      There WILL be a new stoplight at 7th and Main, backing up traffic on Main Street and sending more cars into the West End. ·      This stoplight is clearly not a fix for “idling traffic” concerns. ·      The bus lanes MAY save seconds, but only if they hit the new light right. ·      The Castle Creek Bridge will have to be replaced IN ANY CASE to accommodate Cemetery Lane traffic. ·      The City will forever be responsible for maintaining the Castle Creek Bridge. ·      The City no longer claims “the straight shot” or “preferred alternative” will be a traffic solution. Now it’s an “infrastructure solution” without a traffic fix. ·      CDOT will never approve more cars entering town. Their goal is and always has been to push people onto RFTA.  And where would more cars go once they make it into town? ·      There is a long local voting history on the topic.  Read it HERE.  What is Rachel thinking? If you know Rachel, you know exactly why she refuses contemporary solutions and new technologies, preferring a 20th century asphalt road in a modern era of innovation to solve a 21stcentury problem:  RACHEL. SIMPLY. HATES. RICH. PEOPLE. It’s class warfare, pure and simple. Rachel’s biggest nightmare is a RFTA bus idling behind a construction vehicle, her metaphor for “the rich” slowing down “the people.”  Never mind that the Straight Shot /Preferred Alternative dump on the West End, Cemetery Lane and the vibrant neighborhood of locals at the West end of Main Street (including more than 40 APCHA units).   It flips off Marolt lovers, history buffs, community gardeners and on and on, misappropriating the crown jewel of Aspen’s parks system.  The greatest good for the greatest number of people?  Not Rachel’s goal.  A traffic solution to help commuters?  Nope. The report was written in 1998 and Rachel’s hell-bent on seeing it built before she dies. Despite her collaboration with respected long-time locals who we all wonder what they are thinking, Rachel’s CDOT petition is undemocratic and propaganda-filled, and portends a frightening legal quagmire that will only further slow the process.  She and the others circulating this undemocratic petition can believe whatever they want, but when they send emails and publish letters to the editor with known falsehoods, this is LYING.  DO NOT SIGN THE PETITION.

ISSUE #278: Aspen Voters, Sign This Petition (10/29/24)

"The activist is not the man who says 

the river is dirty. The activist is the man who 

cleans up the river."

-- Ross Perot

FIrst off, have you dropped off your November 5 ballot yet? Please do this ASAP. And if you need ballot advice, see my picks HERE.

Now, keep in mind that we have an Aspen municipal election on March 4, merely 18 weeks away! We'll be electing a new mayor (at last - Torre is term-limited), a new councilman (thank goodness Ward is term-limited) and possibly a second new councilman should John Doyle (wisely) decide not to run for re-election. There will be much more to come as these races shape up! You can bet I will have strong opinions!! 

In the meantime, there is a citizens petition effort underway that pertains to city council's abject failure to replace the failing Castle Creek Bridge and protect our open spaces.

In short, despite the bridge needing replacement REGARDLESS of what ends up happening with a straight-shot, split shot or any other iteration, today nothing is set to happen in the near term unless you count the real possibility of the bridge being downgraded by CDOT so as to set weight requirements for its continued usage. (Or it could simply fail.)

Friends of Castle Creek is a group of dedicated locals who have created a petition that stands to let city of Aspen voters decide whether to increase the level of support necessary to sell or change the use of our parks and open spaces. 

Read about it HERE and sign up for their newsletter!

Today, the city can sell or change these uses with 50% + 1 vote. A March ballot measure will seek to amend the city's Home Rule Charter to require a "super majority" of 60% + 1 vote, more in line with our community values. 

Parks and open space are vital to Aspen and our small town character. This potential change will NOT affect the city's ability to build recreation-related amenities nor how the parks are managed. It would just keep them from being radically repurposed by a narrow majority.

Let's protect our parks and open spaces while the Castle Creek Bridge replacement debate continues. A new approval threshold for the potential desecration of the Marolt Open Space is vital to the process.

Want to sign the petition? Call, text or email Sue Atkinson at 970-948-6798 sue.atkinson@comcast.net She will coordinate a time to collect your signature. IF YOU ARE A CITY OF ASPEN VOTER, please sign the petition today!

It’s time to set aside the debate about the 1998 straight-shot plan and focus on the most pressing problem facing Aspen in 2024: rebuilding Castle Creek Bridge as soon as possible.

• With or without the straight shot, there is no getting around Castle Creek Bridge. The bridge is essential to Aspen traffic flows whether  or not the straight shot ever wins voter approval, secures state-funding, survives multiple lawsuits and is ultimately built.

• Aspen simply cannot wait eight to 15 years for that process to play out while our singular access point into and out of town is at increasing risk of failure. 

• The U.S. Highway 50 bridge over Blue Mesa Reservoir is a cautionary tale. Blue Mesa Bridge was rated “fair” until just a few months ago when a 3-inch crack appeared in a steel support beam, shutting down the bridge in both directions and cutting off the town of Gunnison from the west. Car traffic from Montrose is detoured for months on a temporary gravel road, with trucks rerouted an additional six to eight hours via I-70.

• Blue Mesa Bridge was built in 1962-63, while Castle Creek Bridge was built in 1961. City engineers have been sending up flares about our bridge for years. We should believe them. 

• A March 2024 report by Jacobs Engineering, hired by the city to examine Castle Creek Bridge, rates the bridge “fair” and concludes in no uncertain terms that it must be replaced or repaired, and soon.

• Jacobs’ “three-lane-shifted” bridge replacement option is a no-brainer. It rebuilds the bridge within the current right-of-way with a third lane that keeps two lanes open at all phases of construction. Jacobs concludes there would be no significant traffic disruptions while the bridge is being rebuilt. 

• We applaud the mayor and the Aspen City Council for hiring Jacobs and confirming the feasibility of replacing the bridge. Keeping two lanes open during construction is the main advantage of the three-lane-shifted concept, but when construction is complete, we will have a three-lane bridge with 50% additional capacity to speed traffic out of town in the afternoon. A three-lane bridge is the only plan on the table that gives the West End any relief from the unbearable congestion they suffer every weekday afternoon.

• A legal opinion presented recently to Mayor Torre, commissioned by the nonprofit Friends of Marolt Park, concludes that replacing the bridge in the current right-of-way qualifies for a categorical exclusion from a lengthy NEPA review process. Sidestepping a costly Environmental Impact Study allows engineering design and grant requests to begin in time for the next federal grant cycle in March 2025. The Jacobs’ plan has a near-term price tag of just $84 million, a fraction of the burgeoning cost of the supersized straight shot that will only rise in the years before construction could begin.

• The three-lane-shifted option would be a boon to the Castle Creek — actually removing the giant concrete pier that now disrupts creek flows. And it keeps intact Marolt Open Space — Aspen’s cherished in-town meadow, community garden, Holden-Marolt Historic Site and scenic front yard. 

• The legal opinion also confirms that the 1998 Record of Decision does not have to be reopened to replace the existing bridge. That leaves the straight shot on the table for the future if all the stars align with a public vote, highway funding and a new EIS process. We give up nothing by acting now to rebuild the 1961 bridge and head off the risks of a bridge failure. 

• City staff repeatedly says that the straight shot is “an infrastructure solution, not a traffic solution.” Despite its six-lane asphalt girth, the straight shot offers no significant traffic improvement, and will likely make traffic worse for a number of reasons. A new stoplight at 7th and Main would become a new pinch point to rival the S-curves. Closing Highway 82 between Cemetery Lane and the roundabout would cut off downvalley access to and from Cemetery Lane and funnel all that traffic into town. 

• But we must kick the can on the straight-shot debate and focus on first things first: replacing Castle Creek Bridge and proactively addressing the possibility of a sudden bridge failure that would cripple our town.

FAQ & A PATH FORWARD FOR THE CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE

ISSUE #277: Your Local Ballot (10/15/24)

"Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls."

-- Nanette L. Avery

Your November 5 ballot should be arriving momentarily. In addition to the federal races, there are numerous issues of great importance locally. Turn your ballot in early! (Ballot questions? www.Pitkinvotes.com) Here is how I'm voting:

PITKIN COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES

Pitkin County Issue 1A – NO

This new county-wide property tax would “be used for affordable and attainable housing purposes,” estimated to bring in $8.5 million/year for the next 25 years. This dedicated revenue stream COULD be used for building senior and transitional housing, supporting partnerships, buying down free market properties and preserving and restoring current subsidized housing, however, actual use of this revenue is undetermined and unspecified. Weren’t your property taxes high enough this year? And has Pitkin County conveniently forgotten its role in APCHA – the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority? Or is it starting its own program to distance itself from APCHA since this failed one is completely managed by the city? This measure merely creates a revenue stream for the county to throw at unproven housing solutions with no goals, metrics and most notably, no finish line. It’s preposterous. Vote NO.

Pitkin County Issue 1B – YES

This bond measure seeks to raise $22 million to expand the Pitkin County landfill. The landfill is expected to exceed its boundaries in the next 5 years. This is not a new tax.

Pitkin County Question 1C – YES

This amendment to the home rule charter reaffirms the Board of County Commissioner’s existing authority to approve and implement a plan for the Pitkin County Airport that meets federal and local legal requirements. We elected the county commissioners to make such decisions on our behalf. They are having to pose this question because of a citizen’s petition Question 200 below.

Pitkin County Question 200 – NO

This amendment would strip the powers of the Board of County Commissioners to expand or relocate any runway at the Pitkin County Airport unless approved by a public vote. To risk losing federal funding for the airport is a foolhardy and anti-tourist “stick it to the man” attempt to bring back Aspen’s quiet years, dramatically risking the future of our airport and jeopardizing our economy. 

Aspen Issue 2A - NO

Aspen’s 1% Real Estate Transfer Tax is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2040 but this seeks to extend it for 20 years until December 31, 2060.  This extension is to collateralize a revenue stream for the city to use to develop the Lumberyard.  I am no fan of The Lumberyard, but professional development is the ONLY way this project should progress, if it must be built. Until a partnership is finalized, I find this RETT extension to be premature, not to mention vague, and it gives the city too much leeway to still finance and build the project itself which would be a disaster waiting to happen. 

** AND in late-breaking news, at last night's work session on the 2025 budget, the cost estimate for Phase 0 of The Lumberyard (horizontal infrastructure) was raised from $14.2 million to $45 million!!!! DO NOT AUTHORIZE THESE FOOLS TO HAVE ANY MORE FINANCIAL LEVERAGE TO THROW HALF A BILLION DOLLARS + AT THE LUMBERYARD!!

Aspen Issue 2B - NO

Aspen’s 0.45% sales tax for affordable housing and day care is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2040 but this seeks to extend it for 20 years until December 31, 2060.  This extension is to collateralize a revenue stream for the city to use to develop the Lumberyard.  I am no fan of The Lumberyard, but professional development is the ONLY way this project should progress, if it must be built. Until a partnership is finalized, I find this RETT extension to be premature, not to mention vague, and it gives the city too much leeway to still finance and build the project itself which would be a disaster waiting to happen.

** See above 2A

Aspen Issue 2C – YES

Aspen is one of the only remaining municipalities in Colorado that collects sales vs. use taxes on vehicle sales. This is a housekeeping measure that reduces the vehicle sales tax in line with the rest of the state.

PITKIN COUNTY OFFICES

Pitkin County Commissioner – District 3       Greg Poschman

Pitkin County Commissioner – District 4       Jeffrey Woodruff

Pitkin County Commissioner – District 5       Toni Kronberg

I am supporting Toni Kronberg in the only competitive seat for BOCC. Toni has been a tireless local activist with deep knowledge of local issues (land use, environment, recreation, transportation, transit and highway safety, housing and the Aspen Airport), having met many of these head on.  

Her wise objection to the new property tax for housing (1A) reflects her stance on subsidized housing development that preserves the county’s rural character vs a blank check for vague ideas and potential “partnerships.”

Toni is focused on the Highway 82 corridor as Priority #1.  She has established herself as an advocate of novel and innovative solutions, as opposed to piecemeal, quick fixes that have long proven to be anything but. We desperately need new vision!

You’re already aware of Toni’s work on the community’s behalf. She has thanklessly brought the following issues to Referendum votes – no small feat:

·      Save Galena Plaza Open Space

·      Aspen and Snowmass Rec Centers

·      Aspen Visitors Center

·      Aspen Recycling Center

·      Aspen’s City Hall

·      Burlingame Housing

In contrast, her opponent Francie Jacober vociferously supports the new property tax for housing,  despite there being no plan associated with it. Francie acknowledges that wages and housing costs are completely out of whack, rental housing is unattainable and the valley commute is bad for quality of life. But when even the schools found the current environment unripe for a property tax hike given our recent tax bills, Francis admits the specific plans for the tax are still TBD but wants to raise them anyway. 

Furthermore, as a member of the APCHA board, Francie has done absolutely nothing to advance transparency at the housing authority, and consistently agrees with city staff not to audit the program to determine what it is we actually need.

Let’s put a do-er on the BOCC. Toni Kronberg.

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

Amendment G – YES

This homestead exemption would expand the existing property tax exemption for veterans with disabilities to include vets with individual unemployability status, estimated to affect 3400 veterans.

Amendment H – YES

This would establish a new way to handle judges accused of wrongdoing, independent of the state supreme court through an independent judicial discipline board made up of judges, attorneys and members of the public.

Amendment I – YES

This housekeeping measure addresses an unintended consequence of Colorado’s 2020 repeal of the death penalty. Currently only capital offenses can be denied bail so this would make first degree murder suspects ineligible for bail as long as prosecutors can show they have a strong enough case.

Amendment J – YES

Another housekeeping measure. The Colorado constitution still contains obsolete language that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, even though the US Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage in 2015.

Amendment K – NO

This would move up the deadlines for citizen initiatives to file petition signatures, judge’s declarations of intent to run and ballot measures, in order to give clerks more time to finalize ballots.

Amendment 79 - NO

This would protect access to legal abortion, lift a ban on public funding allowing the state to cover more abortions under Medicaid, and enable state and local governments to add abortion coverage to their insurance plans.

Amendment 80 – YES

This would establish the right to school choice.

Proposition JJ – NO

This allows the state to keep and spend all tax revenue from sports betting, approved in 2019. The original revenue estimates ($29 million/year) are now expected to be much higher, but under TABOR, voters must approve the state keeping the excess which would go toward water conservation and protection projects.

Proposition KK – NO

This is a 6.5% excise tax on gun and ammunition sales that would generate $39 million annually to fund behavioral health support, school safety, gun violence prevention and services for domestic violence and other violent crimes.

Proposition 127 – YES

This would end hunting season for mountain lions and bobcats, and bars the state from ever allowing lynx (a Colorado endangered species) hunting. It still provides for federal employees to conduct population management efforts and ranchers to prevent livestock depredation (with state permission).

Proposition 128 – YES

This would require people who are convicted of murder, sexual assault, aggravated robbery and serious cases of assault, kidnapping, arson and burglary to serve at least 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole or early release.  This is an increase from the current law that allows inmates to apply for discretionary parole after serving 75% of their sentence or even sooner if they’ve earned time off for good behavior.  Plus, there would be no chance of early release if convicted of such offenses 3+ times.

Proposition 129 – YES

This would create a new mid-level position between vet tech (2 years associate degree) and veterinarian (8+ years) called vet professional associate (masters degree). VPAs would work under a licensed veterinarian to address a shortage of veterinary care.

Proposition 130 – YES

This would require the state government to set aside $350 million in a dedicated fund for law enforcement that would pay a new, million dollar death benefit to the survivors of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty and for funding grants to boost hiring and retention. The funds would come from the existing budget, not new taxes.

Proposition 131 – NO

This would overhaul the state election system by creating both a jungle primary (all qualified contenders are on the same ballot and the top 4 vote getters advance, regardless of party affiliation) and institutes ranked choice voting, also known as instant run-off voting (IRV), affecting elections for all state offices, board of education, University of Colorado regents, US Senators and Representatives and state legislators.

Representative to US Congress - District 3 - Jeff Hurd

Despite former Aspen city councilman Adam Frisch's massive fundraising advantage, Grand Junction attorney Jeff Hurd is a mainstream "chamber of commerce Republican" who has focused his campaign in our largely rural district on energy policy. Frisch, who narrowly lost in 2022 to polarizing MAGA figure Lauren Boebert, no longer has that foil, while Hurd vows to fight to secure the border, unleash western Colorado's energy production and fight back against Washington's failed economic policies.

ISSUE #276: "More Housing" - The Flawed Argument Writes Itself (7/15/24)

"The government solution to a problem is usually 

as bad as the problem."

-- Milton Friedman

The “more housing” drumbeat continues, and it’s only getting louder. We’re moving toward starting construction of The Lumberyard, so get your “I told ya so’s” ready.  Staff recently warned that its Phase 0 budget for “horizontal development” is already outdated and too low, although they don’t say how much they think it will cost now.  For some unknown reason, the project’s budget estimates and (more importantly) funding details are being kept tightly under wraps. City Manager Sara Ott seems to prefer the “start building and we’ll figure out how to pay for it later” method. Do you? I didn’t think so.

We’re literally about to spend nearly $1 BILLION to build 277 subsidized housing units. We haven’t determined who they’re for or what need they’ll specifically address.  The LY is outside the roundabout and requires a new stoplight on Highway 82, precisely at the chokepoint of the untenable Entrance to Aspen. It will not even put a dent in what has been deemed in Aspen popular culture as “our housing crisis.”  Neither will $2 million cobbled together from regional governments for a mere regional 6-12 buy-downs. 

Here’s why:

Aspen (and the area) is a highly desirable place to live.  Who wouldn’t want to live here? We have unfortunately (yet arguably intentionally) lost our focus on providing housing for workers who do the community’s and resort’s essential jobs, and instead endeavor to “build community” by housing anyone and everyone who merely wants to live here affordably and is willing to play the game to get in. This has exacerbated the perception of a housing crisis when it’s really as simple as the fact that we’ve ceased prioritizing housing the workers who matter. By subsidizing non-essential workers, it’s no longer just the visitors and second homeowners who place increasing demands on the actual already-burdened workforce who are increasingly driven further and further out of town. Do we really owe housing to everyone? The demand is infinite. We must prioritize which jobs get housing, even if this hurts people’s feelings.

Aspen’s workforce has changed.  In the 1970s-1980s “ski bum” era, workers held multiple seasonal resort-related jobs and often inhabited free market rentals of varying quality. Sure, there were professionals here, but these were more the exception than the rule. And anecdotally, many folks didn’t plan for the future, yet alone contemplate it. Contrast that with today’s workers who see the housing system entirely differently. It’s all about the future. Today in Aspen, you can be an upwardly mobile professional who makes six figures and that’s BEFORE you get an even better paying local job or a remote one that you do from your living room in Aspen. (This allowed loophole is an unguarded opportunity for lottery winners at the expense of essential community and resort workers.) The key is getting into (ownership) subsidized housing and then you’re set for life. (You can even buy a vineyard in France or a house in St. Barth’s – it’s allowed too.)

Pitkin County now wants its own housing fund. Their nascent plan is to place a property tax measure on the November ballot that will raise about $8.5 million annually for regional housing partnerships, buy-downs, homelessness support and capital reserves support for HOAs (read: bailouts).  In an environment where home values have increased 70% and assessed values are up 54%, Pitkin County residents should just say no. Loudly. The county already has a housing program. It’s called APCHA. Just because APCHA operates as a city department, the county can’t just wash its hands of the APCHA mess and levy new property taxes to foolishly go it alone. Commissioner Patti Clapper says lots of small businesses would love to partner to buy units even outside the county. How about allowing local businesses to play the APCHA lottery? At least we’d know the units would be used by local workers!

We have an enormous housing program and no idea what jobs we’re housing.  City council refuses to demand an audit of APCHA. They don’t want to know the facts because these would surely destroy their singular focus on “more.” As a result, we know we have 3102 units (1733 ownership/1369 rental) in the APCHA portfolio, but we have no idea where these residents work. Wouldn’t it make sense to find out which jobs we’re housing and which we’re not? It doesn’t take much to make an intelligent assumption that the local jobs we can’t fill are at the lower end of the wage scale. If these jobs truly need to be filled, we should obviously prioritize housing the necessary workers. Instead, we’re just building “more” housing without regard for who will live there. 

Our housing portfolio is a maintenance time bomb.  And a storm is brewing. No one can compel the various APCHA HOAs to collect reserve funds and maintain their buildings since they are independent LLCs. Most do the bare minimum, if that. One can only guess the state of the HOA insurance coverages in the current insurance environment! APCHA, which serves as buyer and seller agent in every transaction, even taking momentary ownership in the chain of title as well as collecting a 2% fee, says that unit maintenance is the owner’s responsibility. But given the high demand for units, sellers are getting the maximum sales price as a matter of course while also collecting appreciation (3% annually or CPI, whichever is less) for units in dubious condition. This appreciation was originally designed to reimburse sellers for maintenance and upgrades over time. Not anymore. It’s take the money and run, and some units are barely habitable. Some are worse than that. And it finally happened: a subsidized Hunter Creek unit came available recently but the bank demanded 25% down because of its poor condition. Look for more of this to come. 

What bank in their right mind would write a mortgage for Centennial? And how soon until entire complexes are condemned?

And buyer beware. The city just triumphed in the Burlingame 2 HOA’s construction defect lawsuit at the Colorado Supreme Court. When the city is developer they officially have governmental immunity, so homeowners have no recourse with the city for their proven shoddy construction, however egregious.

The regional housing buy-down program is a joke. Well intended, the non-profit Western Mountain Regional Housing Coalition (WMRHC) is seeking $2 million from regional governments to fund the buy-down of 6-12 homes for people employed between Aspen and PARACHUTE. In exchange for a subsidy, new owners will place deed restrictions on their properties. With a mission to “increase the availability and accessibility of affordable community housing,” they’ve completely missed the mark.  The local housing goal should not be to try to make a couple of housing units in the valley affordable. It should be to house the workforce we need, which is entirely different. Alas, Pitkin County has already committed $1 million and the city is looking at a $450,000 grant, despite no discussion of how WMRHC will manage their portfolio. Will buyers have to maintain their units, or will they come back needing further subsidies for upkeep or to fix the neglect of previous owners?  And what about compliance? What’s to stop these homeowners from exiting the local workforce once they too are set for life? Sounds like APCHA 2.0 to me.

Pitkin County currently has 17,407 jobs.  So APCHA’s 3102 lottery winners and renters, if they all are working (and we know they’re not), represent just 18% of the local workforce.  This number is ostensibly why so many believe we need “more” housing. But this does not include employer-owned units (think: hospital, schools, etc.) so the percentage is actually a lot higher, and growing. Yet with infinite demand, we are never going to be able to deliver subsidized housing in such quantities that the complaining will stop. Everyone wants to be set for life like the lottery winners! A far better use of our resources would be to spend it on the other 82% by increasing unit utilization and improving the efficacy and efficiency of commuter transit options.

We have succeeded in building ski country’s largest subsidized housing program. And it’s become an abject lesson in what not to do.  We’ve also socially engineered a middle class in Aspen at the expense of the essential workers the community and resort rely on to operate. Whether it’s $450,000, $2 million or $1 billion, whatever we spend on “more housing” without first determining which jobs we are currently housing and which we need to, the result will simply be “more” of the same. Or worse.

As we approach build-out in the upper valley, the ridiculous scramble to bend zoning rules and chase every shiny new idea is just avoiding properly examining the utilization of what we already have. Local politicos love consultant reports like the debunked regional housing study because building “more” is politically popular. But neither the city, the county or the WMRHC give a flip about the “carrying capacity” of our existing inventory. THIS is what we ought to be optimizing. “More” is limitless. It’s become the lazy answer that fuels these uncoordinated efforts at the margins to eek out a few units here and there.

 The actual solution is right under our nose: optimize what we already have and accept that Aspen and most of the upper valley is never going to be affordable for everyone who wants to live here. And for those already in the system, living (subsidized) requires sacrifice, and should not come with the promise or expectation of upward mobility or the flawed notion of wealth creation through subsidized real estate.

ISSUE #275: Is Subsidized Housing the New Aspen Idea? (6/21/24)

"One of the epidemics in our industry is 

the abuse of power."

-- Nancy Dubuc

Is there anywhere where “more” subsidized housing in Aspen is not appropriate?  Apparently not. With the recent proposal to add subsidized housing at the historic Red Butte Cemetery after failed attempts to do so in 2008 and 2014, we have crossed into truly disturbing territory. (See below to take CRITICAL action on the First Reading of an Ordinance - p. 58 - that will enable such development at TUESDAY's council meeting.) First it was in low-density neighborhoods, but now as we contemplate desecrating our parks and sacrosanct burial grounds, it’s time to ask ourselves whether every “green field” of town is fair game. “More” is limitless. But is “more” actually what’s best for the community?  At the rate we’re going – cramming subsidized housing into every possible nook and cranny in order to “solve” a problem we refuse to define and quantify, we are actually making things worse. Think about our community values as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. “We have a long-standing history and ethic of growth management” to “preserve open space and rural character,” acknowledging since the 1970s that “the time is fast approaching where we will be at the maximum in economy, physical space and quality of life.” Consider for a moment a 80’ x 60’ footprint. This could fit well within the dead-space tragedy known as Galena Plaza, adjacent to the Taj Mahal city hall atop the parking garage. This is coincidentally the footprint of the 84-story, 1400’ tall, 572,000 sf Steinway Tower in NYC. Imagine a tower of that size: enough space to house all 3 phases of Burlingame AND The Lumberyard. Why wouldn’t we break ALL the rules, and break them just once?  And then never talk about “more” housing again. I’m kidding. Kinda. Just think of the great views for the beleaguered masses who WANT to live in Aspen affordably in the very best location. No parking would be needed and there’d be just one HOA to manage. Best of all? No sprawl and no infill of neighborhoods, parks and cemeteries. Maybe THEN the community might stop its perpetual whining about a constant and ongoing need for “more” housing. LOL. I digress.  But recently reading about the lengths local employers are willing (forced?) to go in order to house their own employees, it’s quite remarkable. The Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival & School and Aspen Center for Physics are soon to submit a land use application for proprietary housing on the Aspen Meadows campus, intended for full and part-time staff, interns, students, musicians and visiting physicists. The little historic Victorian at 205 W. Main was (sadly) approved for conversion into 8000 sf of nine 2- and 3-bedroom units (22 total bedrooms) on the 7500 sf lot where the residing ~44 souls employed by the nearby Mollie hotel will fight over not only living space but the 7 on-site parking spaces. We’re clearly now more than willing to compromise our strict design standards to cram in “more” housing just about anywhere.  Then there are the hospital and the school districts, both well on their ways to self-reliance on their own housing inventory. Hospital workers and teachers, hmmmm. Good for them.  And good for us.  So who exactly is living in APCHA housing then?  Oh, that’s right. The elephant. As in “the elephant in the room.”  In other words, we don’t know. We don’t know because we deliberately choose not to. It’s willful ignorance of the highest order; a decision in bad faith to avoid being actually informed about something for fear of the facts that might reveal some surprises and require some unpopular decisions. Aspen’s old guard (the Mick Ireland/Rachel Richards cabal) has always ranted against housing that is tied to employment for fear of becoming “a company town,” yet in the same breath they demand employers pay their own way by providing housing for their own workers. So which is it? Who then exactly is APCHA for?  Beware of the answer because it’s certainly not workers.  We know we’re not housing “essential” hospital and school workers, which completely undermines and renders obsolete the whole point of what we’ve been told APCHA is supposed to be providing for the community! The new term is “community housing.” Think: retirees and others who WANT to live affordably in Aspen! Workers be damned. Meanwhile, Pitkin County is looking to partner with Basalt to build more subsidized housing. The municipality has land but not the necessary funding. The county has money but no land. It’s not yet a match made in heaven, but consider: priority will likely be given to Basalt workers. Fine, but why then is any kind of “priority” for APCHA housing shamed as being “anti-community-housing”?  Why is the APCHA portfolio beyond any reasonable oversight, direction or control?  The entire regional housing debate has dramatically morphed into a progressive “building community through housing ownership” diktat, ignoring the harsh economic realities of the exceedingly high cost of real estate and living here. Housing security (which has become synonymous with “ownership”) is now a local social justice goal.  Apparently you can't be part of a community anymore if you rent! The Carbondale chapter of Habitat for Humanity strives to build homes for $305/sf and sell them for $200/sf, targeting these units for “teachers, nurses and other essential workers,” according to Aspen Journalism. Where have we heard THAT before?  H4H also boldly cites a “2019 housing study” that cites a 5700 unit housing shortfall between Aspen and Parachute by 2027. B***S***.  There’s no question that the region (Aspen to Parachute) generates more DEMAND for housing than it has, but is demand the same thing as need? Not in my book. (The region is awesome – who wouldn’t WANT to live here? That is not economic demand, that’s desire.) I have debunked the 2019 Regional Housing Study numerous times, including by actually reading it and then by calling the principal of EPS, the consultancy that wrote the report to inquire about the methodology employed to generate the ESTIMATES that are widely circulated (see above) as scientific fact by local subsidized housing zealots. I was told in no uncertain terms that “there was no methodology,” just educated guesses, and as luck would have it, the low-level staffer who generated this work product is no longer with the firm. This same report is the source of the widely reiterated current “housing shortfall” estimate of 4000 units for Aspen-Snowmass. These numbers are clumsy, liberal and non-scientific. (LMK if you'd like to see it and I'll email it to you.) Furthermore, without a truly scientific “census” of what we currently have and how it’s utilized, there is no basis upon which to base ANY measurement of current or future “need.” Do not be fooled. I am sick of the scare tactics and false reporting. You should be too, especially when the City of Aspen is seriously contemplating a ballot measure for this November that would extend the 1% real estate transfer tax (RETT) for housing until 2060 in order to issue bonds for the estimated $500 million+ construction of The Lumberyard. (As it stands, the current RETT does not sunset until 2040, and the collection balance through May 2024 is just over $10 million.) It seems mighty premature to extend this tax without far more housing-specific due diligence!! Specifically, why isn’t there more and louder outcry about the utilization of our existing APCHA inventory? Housing at any cost has somehow become widely accepted. It makes me sick, but it continues. If that no longer scares you, housing ANYWHERE really ought to. Former county commissioner and current Open Space and Trails board member Michael Kinsley (one of the proud fathers of APCHA) shared his admittedly heretical view that half of Aspen’s municipal golf course and a portion of the Marolt Open Space are ideal for “more” subsidized housing. His radical solutions espouse deliberately ignoring “governmental, jurisdictional boundaries to solve regional problems.” Predictably, he too all but contradicts himself when he admits that Aspen proper is no longer suitable – despite its original intent – for integrating its diverse social strata, implying that some workers prefer to live outside of Aspen for various reasons. Therefore, he sees the glaring need for a viable way for working people to get to work in Aspen. I can get onboard with that. And then there’s the June 2024 Northwest Council of Governments (NWCOG) regional economic update report which outlines the Q4 2023 jobs and wage data for the six counties: Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit. It’s interesting info if you have the stomach for it. Thanks to the willing assistance of a fabulous data-mining expert co-conspirator, here are the highlights, which really ought to inform local decisions. (Wouldn’t that be something?!) ** See table below - my tech inabilities prevent me from inserting it here!! ·      Look at the ratio of Total Employment to Total Labor Force in Pitkin County relative to the other counties. We have FAR fewer people in our labor force relative to total jobs, which means we inherently have to import more workers than most counties. ·      Look at the ratio of Housing Units to Total Employment. We’re one of the few counties with fewer housing units than jobs, which means we inherently have to import more workers than most counties. ·      Notably, Pitkin County is fortunate NOT to show up among the counties with the highest population growth. ·      And, we’re more than fortunate to have the highest wages for resort jobs, which make up 38% of our economy. Notably: ·      If we try to build our way out of our worker housing shortage (increase the labor force by increasing subsidized/deed restricted housing), then we would certainly show up with high population growth, a result that creates its own challenges and negative impacts to our quality of life. ·      Better utilization of the existing housing inventory we already have is the obvious low-hanging fruit. ·      To echo Michael Kinsley, a shift in focus toward wholesale improvement of transportation for commuting workers to Pitkin County would dramatically improve our ability to fill the jobs that we cannot mathematically fill with our existing labor force. Food for thought. And data to back it up. But it’s nothing new: it simply doesn’t make sense to exert all of our bonding authority and put these and other tax revenues into the proposed Lumberyard basket when this most certainly won’t move the needle under the current APCHA mismanagement and poor inventory allocation. Any potential funding is far better being spent on transportation improvements for the actual workers who commute to service our local economy. And one last consideration for the Bolsheviks who still see government-subsidized housing as the panacea, the answer to being able to live where one grew up and something that one should be able to pass on to one’s kids. Take a look at Vienna, the fastest growing capital in Europe where the city builds 6000-7000 new units of subsidized housing a year to keep up with rising demand. (Population has increased 25% since 1989. That’s serious growth!) Vienna supports its housing program with a 1% tax on ALL salaries, creating a permanent funding mechanism that originated at the end of the first world war. Notably, social welfare systems like this require very high taxation in general, and in Vienna, everyone pays the 1% income tax specifically for housing. If people want to live in a small government apartment for life and even leave it to their kids, great, but they pay for the privilege on an ongoing basis with income taxes. While a wise person might wish to amass wealth privately, away from the grasping hand of government, Vienna’s system does offer a unique option. Never mind that it more closely resembles social welfare than actual workforce housing. Could this be the direction we’re headed? I know, I know, it’s been a minute. Don’t despair. I have several future issues in the works! EM Re: Housing at Red Butte Cemetery: What part of "cemetery" does the City of Aspen not understand in terms of appropriateness for subsidized housing? I don't care if it's one unit or 100, a cemetery is a sacred space for the burial of the dead. This ill-conceived idea has been considered and denied before, and resulted in the proper zoning of Red Butte Cemetery as a "Park," granting it protection from development on par with Wagner, Paepcke and all of our other city "Parks." Housing at the cemetery is a perverse use of this sacred land. Please write council TODAY to voice your strong objections. This is insane.