What would Yvon Chouinard do? Letter to the editor. Unpublished.

What would Yvon Chouinard do?

Lead by example.

1. Make all City owned and operated buildings net zero. That includes APCHA. Replace “City of Aspen” with “Pitkin County” copy and paste.

2. Make all new City building projects net zero. Replace “City of Aspen” with “Pitkin County” copy and paste.

3. Make all City vehicles EV. Replace “City” with “County” copy and paste.

4. Do not hand out a single City of Aspen subsidy to a company which isn’t net zero. Replace “City of Aspen” with “Pitkin County” copy and paste.

5. Do not hand out a single City of Aspen grant to a non-profit or entity which isn’t net zero. Replace “City of Aspen” with “Pitkin County” copy and paste.

These are not radical suggestions.  After all I haven’t suggested we give every deer, elk, bear, mountain lion, chickadee, nuthatch, blue spruce, lodgepole pine and wildflower an absentee ballot….we should because those are what make “Aspen Aspen”… but that would be radical and I doubt you’d get the bears to vote in March.

Lead by example, that is what I expect of my representatives and my government. Do more-300 City employees can make a bigger difference than any single citizen.

Gofundme bail for climate protesters 
@sunrisemvmt
#GreenNewDeal

Do no harm, letter to the editor

First, do no harm.

Referendum 1, what harm does it do?

First and foremost it increases the friction between City Hall and the Citizens. Some may think that's progress. I do not. That's Aspen politics as usual and I'm thoroughly sick of it. I think that polarization is the problem and every effort should be made to create an atmosphere where we can listen to each other and live together. 

Second- It *favors* large developers. Yes, that's what I said- it gives large new development an advantage over any maintenance or restoration project. Full disclosure- that's me- trying to maintain at 47 year old property which is both my residence and my rental.  One interpretation of code would force me to replace plate glass windows with drywall since more than 25% of my wall is window. Until you bump your nose against it you have no idea how crazy the code is. The more difficult you make it for long time locals to maintain their properties the more you invite bulldozers scraping the ground bare and building new.  The examples of bulldozing old properties due to renovation road blocks are too numerous to mention- unlike the Ref1 proponents whose crystal balls predict that the voters will  "scare" developers into submission- for which - may I remind you- there is not one single precedent. 

Third- legislatively it's a mess. For those governance junkies who occupy their time with Roberts Rules of Order,  the Federalist Papers and Plato it exemplifies the very reason for a Democratic Republic instead of a Democracy.  

Ref1 supporters use the classic FOX news tactic to mobilize a mob with smoke, mirrors and emotional diatribes. This gives away the Representative system without a whimper- much less a fight. 

Engage your inner Spock.

Vote NO on Referendum 1

The intent of infill, letter to the editor

The word "infill" is being flung about as an invective by proponents of the City Charter Amendment  (the ballot initiative which would force building variances to a popular vote). Is infill evil or is the way we have interpreted infill the problem? 

Infill is one of the strategies of "Smart Growth". Smart growth is a middle line between all out no holds barred frothy mouthed rabid development and the implacable phalanx of no growth stone faced NIMBYs. Smart Growth incorporates walkable neighborhoods, slamming the door on urban sprawl, mixing  residential and commercial uses within zones  while preserving open space and farmland. 

Infill isn't only a way of countering urban decay and traffic congestion;  it's a way of increasing density in one area to allow open space in another. 

So why is "infill" a dirty word in Aspen? What follows is a personal opinion.

Did we use vacant land in the City core for infill? No.

Did we replace decaying unmaintained buildings for new vibrant community oriented buildings through infill? No. 

Did we promote diversity by intermingling low cost residential housing with commercial downtown real estate through infill? No.

Did we encourage spaces for small start up businesses through infill? No.

Did we increase our open space through infill? No.

Did we decrease our traffic congestion through infill? No.

Have we improved the quality of life of our citizens through infill? Hmmm…that depends on how much you miss those 'Stube waffles  at the joiners table.

Aam Cafe

Wienerstube

Yet these are all the goals of infill and "Smart Growth". We chose to keep the "build" part of the strategy and ignored the "why" we build and "what" we build part of the strategy. Why did we do that? It couldn't possibly be because "build" makes quick bucks and all the other goals cost time, political capital and money.

This is what we do; we forget the intent of the rules we impose upon ourselves and then we cry foul. Pushing responsibility for 524 pages of land use code onto the voting public will not solve the problem. Holding our Representatives accountable to the intent of the code, that just might work.