ISSUE #269: In the Rough at the Aspen Golf Course (2/11/24)

"All paradises, all utopias are defined by who is not there, by the people who are not allowed in."

-- Toni Morrison

It should come as no surprise that the COVID-era enthusiasm for golf in Aspen has not died down. Time spent outdoors in the fresh air, with views of the Continental Divide, Pyramid Peak, Mt. Hayden, Independence Pass, Hunter Creek Valley, Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk - it’s right up our alley, especially when the Aspen Golf Club, our municipal course, is so noteworthy: ranked as the #1 muni course in the state and #21 nationally in 2009, the 7100-yard Parkland-style course is one of the longest in the state with water featured at almost each hole. What’s not to love? Apparently nothing. The course has apparently been getting loved to death, with 30,000 rounds played last year. And according to “the club,” part of the city’s parks and rec department, the biggest complaint is that “locals are getting squeezed” by the increased demand. Peeling back a layer or two of the onion, this non-golfer was surprised to learn how the Aspen Golf Club has slowly crept from being a public amenity not unlike our parks, trails and open spaces albeit with reservations and greens fees, to what is practically a private club with a privileged class of members and a self-serving citizen advisory board that sets the rules. But it may not be what you think. Despite the 100 Platinum passes ($3250), 185 Gold passes ($1600) and 225 Silver passes ($1050), the Aspen Golf Club has actually morphed into a “local’s only” bastion, with a mission statement of “affordability and accessibility for primary residents” and a recently stated (by the GM) challenge of “balancing those who want tee times while maintaining access to others.”  Passes go on sale February 16 so let’s dig in.  ·      Just who are these “primary residents” aka locals, as far as golf passes are concerned? According to the AGC, those with Colorado driver’s licenses stating a residence in the following zip codes qualify: 81611 (Aspen), 81615 (Snowmass Village), 81656 (Woody Creek), 81654 (Snowmass), 81621 (Basalt), 81623 (El Jebel, Carbondale, Marble, Redstone) and 81642 (Meredith). These are the “verified residents” throughout the Roaring Fork Valley who get first dibs on passes. Then, after March 4, whatever passes (if any) are left will be made available to the public at large. And beyond that, just two (2) tee times per hour will be available for everyone else. All season. ·      Is there ever a “balance” when weighing “those who WANT” access against a limited supply of highly-desired access?  This is crazy. Can you say “mission creep?” Yes, of course there need to be rules and tee times at a public golf course, and it’s great to offer affordable season passes. But why just to “locals?” And with all due respect to those from Carbondale, you’re hardly an Aspen local. Sorry. Like so much else around here, (think: little fiefdoms like the Community Garden), despite being under the city’s umbrella, the AGC operates unchecked and with so much autonomy that things cease to make sense anymore and frankly run unabashedly amok. The AGC is a MUNICIPAL course. Public. MUNICIPAL. Synonymous with “city.”  As in the city of Aspen’s general fund covers the costs of running the AGC above the revenues the club brings in. That’s called a taxpayer subsidy. Why then do full-time residents of Meredith and Redstone (both over 40 miles from Aspen) take precedence over city of Aspen property owners and taxpayers when it comes to accessing the AGC?  It defies logic. By design. The word “fair” gets regularly bandied about, and in the context of golf passes this is no exception. “It’s not fair” has become Aspen’s siren song of woe; the lament that somehow living “here” full-time (within a very wide net, apparently) makes one uniquely more deserving of an increasingly long list of benefits than those who actually pay for them. For those who are excluded from golf passes by the new rules, it should really come as no surprise: you want something that “locals” honestly think belongs to them by divine right – they live here and you don’t. And for that, you will be punished: no golf for you. (And isn’t it interesting that most non-Aspen golf pass holders come from Snowmass Village, where Aspen employees cannot qualify for SMV subsidized housing, but SMV employees are of course qualified for APCHA units? I digress.) What would actually be “fair” would be for those desiring golf passes to line up with their 81611 city-limits property tax bill, in order of taxes paid.  Pay most, go first. Then those passes remaining, if any, could be lotteried to “others” or left open to the public - there being no true distinction between a resident of Dallas who is visiting Aspen and someone who lives in El Jebel when it comes to the innate “right” to an Aspen municipal asset.  I’m not suggesting this as the solution, but it certainly would be “fair.”  And let’s not forget that we are an international tourism destination. Shouldn't some of our tee times be made available to our visitors - you know, the ones who pay the bills? But “fairness” is not what they seek. It has nothing to do with “fairness,” clearly. It’s about taking stuff and making it available only to a moving-target definition of “locals” because our elected city government and the administration thinks this is ok. It’s about control and retribution. And it’s a selfish and dangerous philosophy for an economy that relies on tourism and recreation. This notion of acting on what people “want” has become a warped rationale for building more subsidized housing, potentially subsidizing retail and restaurants, and now prioritizing golf pass sales. Where does it end? (Hint: it doesn’t. The desire for “stuff” people WANT yet cannot afford is infinite.) I know, it’s “just” golf passes. This time. But it’s yet another example of how far off the rails another fiefdom has gone. I bring it up to raise your awareness of next year’s MUNICIPAL election – your opportunity to weigh in and put an end to this nonsense and so much just like it. For now, it appears that only Aspen residents can vote, but at the rate we’re going, who knows.  The election will be on March 4, 2025. There will be two council seats up: those held today by Ward Hauenstein and John Doyle. Good riddance! Ward is term limited off council but could (foolishly) run for mayor, and John can (but shouldn’t) run for council again. Let’s work to make sure they both know the harsh opposition they will face! The good news is there will be at least one open council seat.  Torre is also term limited and thankfully cannot run again for mayor. In other words, we could easily see three open seats. This is a real opportunity to add a rational thinker or three to Aspen’s elected leadership.  Interested candidates, you have a fan right here! EM PS Please continue to share The Red Ant with your networks! I appreciate it!