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.