"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.