ISSUE #285: Aspen's Housing Lies (3/9/26)

ISSUE #284: The Aspen Zeitgeist (2/6/26)

"Most of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."  -- Thomas Sowell

Oh, hi. It’s been a minute. (Closer to a year.) The Aspen muni elections in March 2025 were the straw that broke this camel’s back.  Aspen dusted off career politician Rachel Richards and made her mayor once again (she needed a job to keep her housing) and re-elected John Doyle, he of alarming anti-Semitic views.  I was disgusted and decided to take a step back for a while and just watch.

During this hiatus, one thing became abundantly clear: we have a horrific news void.  It’s hard to care when you’re unaware. Read about a public matter in the papers one day and never read about it again, unless it’s to parrot city talking points or casually mention another higher cost amount, and there’s never any critical analysis. Sadly, there’s no good way to stay abreast of Aspen public policy. There are too many balls in the air, by design, creating too many issues for a citizen to track. Overlay an indifferent electorate that gives minimal public pushback on the current outrageous and costly policies and programs coming from our local governments and, voila, you get what you pay for: bureaucracies running amok.

I miss writing The Red Ant, but after 18 years of trying tirelessly to affect local matters, the results at the polls last March were so disheartening that I questioned my appetite to continue.  I still care deeply, but do you? While you think about that, I thought I’d fill you in on what’s been going on. Buckle up.

Jobs and Growth

According to the 2024 Pitco Economic Report, the county has more jobs (17,400) than housing units (13,350) and labor force (11,236) so we obviously have to import labor unless we want to build THOUSANDS of housing units.  These simple facts are notable in a local environment of -4.1% population growth, low job growth and essentially zero free market housing unit growth. Why on earth wouldn’t we focus on transportation solutions for importing labor and maximizing the maintenance and efficiency of the already huge workforce housing stock we already have, vs solely trying in vain to build an infinite amount “more”?  

With regard to growth, Aspen is effectively at build-out, therefore the 277-unit Lumberyard subsidized housing project across from the airport was annexed into Aspen, primarily to harness votes, just like at Burlingame. Astonishingly, despite our long-held community no-growth values, THIS growth (and more just like it) is apparently now ok, never mind The Lumberyard alone adds 10% to our local population. There has been no consideration of the impacts of 600 new residents on the roads, the schools and the hospital. It seems our electeds changed our values without asking! Pitkin County officially spells this out in its 2026 Comprehensive Plan, stating “The growth we do want as a community, that meets our community values, is more affordable and middle income housing. We want to grow the community that will participate in our community…”  As if those who pay for such things don’t “participate”???

At a joint council – BOCC meeting in September, clearly surprised by the LY population growth figure and the very real associated impacts on local services, commissioner Kelly McNicholas-Kury sheepishly asked, “How do we study that?”  Yes, she asked that, this far into a what will be a half billion dollar+ expenditure. It’s fun playing developer until you have to reckon with the unintended consequences of actual growth.

Alas, they’ve finally said the quiet part out loud: subsidized housing growth is good. It “builds community,” never mind the 24/7/365 impacts by these folks who property tax-wise do not pay their fair share. Those impacts apparently don’t count. It’s the free market growth that’s the problem despite there being next to none. Again, if you live in free market housing, you’re really not part of the community either. (You just pay for it.) 

The county now factors “intensity” into its calculus in addition to density when evaluating larger free market homes. Stated as settled fact, “The intensity data analysis establishes a correlation between the square footage associated with large residential homes and the associated impacts to economic, transportation and climate intensity.  It also highlights the need to recognize and address the fact that large homes are not acting like conventional homes but more like commercial hubs with workforce-and-vehicle-trip-intensive micro-economies.”  Yes, class warfare has transcended local attitudes and is now officially part of local governance.

Incidentally, speaking of governance, the second largest job growth sector in the county is in Public Administration.  The city and county currently have 385 and 453 employees, respectively. Yes, you read that right, well over 800 local government employees! I suppose it takes a village to spend 2026 budgets of $296.2 million (city) and $312 million (county)!

The Lumberyard

Construction of the 277-unit Lumberyard subsidized housing project has gotten underway.  Today’s cost estimates are at $400 million ($1.4 million/unit), but change orders have already started coming in despite Infrastructure Phase 0 starting in April. In the city’s 2026 strategic plan, to my great surprise (horror?), the number of units remains a moving target (“280-300”) implying that the design is still not yet final. Another example of the city of Aspen building the plane while flying it! Targeted completion is June 2029. With “the city as developer,” what could possibly go wrong?

Here’s what. Just last week council was informed by its very own “affordable housing development manager” who serves as the “owner’s rep” on the project that – oops – they overlooked the need to tie the electrical grid at The Lumberyard into city electrical infrastructure. It’s apparently “an adventure” right now as the city navigates numerous complicated easements at the AABC to make this happen. But don’t worry, they say they’re “pretty positive” and “think they have a pathway,” plus there are lots of “ideas” being kicked around. 

Council’s reaction was predictable. Bill Guth was rightly horrified at the monumental oversight at this late stage, questioning how we got so far along without considering a power source. Rachel made excuses for city staff’s abject buffoonery, and John Doyle reliably pivoted to “solar,” earnestly believing this could be a viable substitute. 

The Lumberyard is also on track to add yet another stoplight precisely at the chokepoint of Highway 82, just east of the airport. The city still maintains that not many cars will be making eastbound left turns from The LY into town, despite there being on-site parking for 435 vehicles. If that’s the case then why not force them to turn right and make a U-turn at the airport light?  And at a certain point, wouldn’t an underpass for eastbound Lumberyard traffic make the most sense, like at the Maroon Creek Club?

If there’s any good news at The Lumberyard it’s that it will be an all-rental complex, with compliance monitored annually through lease renewals, maintenance baked into rent costs, and an end to the “set-for-life” scenarios for those in APCHA ownership housing.

On a side note, I have long wondered why we don’t require subsidized housing residents to live by and exemplify our “save the plant” community ideals by eschewing cars and relying on public transit. For the benefit of living in a $1.4+ million subsidized apartment, it’s really not a big ask and would be a solid step toward doing something in return for the community’s largesse. Snowmass Village is currently considering this for its pending housing project.

Entrance to Aspen and The Airport

The Airport replacement project is officially slated to begin in April 2027. This undertaking, currently estimated at $518 million, is a much needed infrastructure upgrade that also presents a generational opportunity to solve the “entrance to Aspen” conundrum. With reconfigured runways, a new terminal and an improved facility and property layout, this is our chance to create a 21^st century transit center that revolutionizes “the last mile” into Aspen proper and establishes an “entrance to Aspen” that solves our worst problems and creates something we can all be proud of.

It’s currently chaos from the Hwy 82/Brush Creek intersection inward. Traffic is horrendous. The county is shopping airport terminal designs while the city focuses on developing The Lumberyard across the street and dithering about “the entrance” which is nothing short of a dysfunctional community embarrassment. Meanwhile, there are really cool ideas circulating elsewhere about aerial trams and novel innovations that could address “the last mile.” The most recent airport design provides for parking for over 900 cars. Why aren’t we looking at this holistically and integrating it all? Imagine a transportation hub at the airport that offers convenient, reliable, multimodal solutions into town for airline passengers, commuters, Lumberyard residents and those living in the 300 units at the AABC?

Apparently this is not at all a priority, yet alone even a consideration. County commissioner Francie Jacober, clearly caught in the deep myopia that pervades our elected bodies, said of collaboration between the city and the county on the airport, the entrance, The Lumberyard and the last mile, “The county is looking at the airport thing right now, so for us to take on another huge design and research project would be pretty difficult. The city is looking at the entrance, so there are two obstacles right now in terms of making progress with another huge infrastructure project.”  

How can our electeds ignore the need to address these projects TOGETHER? Sadly, despite $1 billion in concurrent, adjacent projects, the city and county have zero coordinated planning or shared vision, just “silo” mentalities. Such ignorance will be the cause of a tragic missed generational opportunity. And likely far worsened transportation gridlock where it occurs today. Welcome to Aspen.

The Straight Shot, Castle Creek Bridge and Traffic

In March 2025, after a contentious battle, the electorate voted to give CDOT free reign to realign Hwy 82 across any part of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space of their choosing to create a more direct route into Aspen and bypass the S-curves. This, despite a 28-year-old record of decision (1998 ROD) documenting ad nauseum that this new alignment is merely a mass transit solution that will not improve traffic or congestion. 

The “preferred alternative” is an asphalt solution to a 21^st century problem that will still feature a single lane for cars in each direction (at the same or slower speeds), dedicated bus lanes, a new stoplight at 7^th Street and a left-turn only at Cemetery Lane (head east into town over the Castle Creek Bridge and then turn right at the new 7^th Street stoplight to access westbound Hwy 82). 

A year later and nothing has changed, nor is it likely to progress for years to come. Why? The city is nowhere near getting CDOT funding; the project doesn’t appear anywhere in CDOT’s 10-year funding queue. Instead, council has directed city staff to re-evaluate the 1998 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), pretending there have been no major changes to the city’s traffic patterns during that time. It’s an attempt to side-step a costlier new EIS that would take into account the tectonic changes of entire neighborhoods that have sprung up in the past 30 years, the revamped traffic patterns from all points of the roundabout, as well as the imminent impacts of the new airport terminal and Lumberyard now in the pipeline.

Meanwhile, the Castle Creek Bridge that was built in 1961 is precarious.  It was rated “fair” by CDOT in 2024.  If the bridge falls below a “fair” rating, CDOT could place weight limits on the bridge or condemn it entirely. Council fiddles while the bridge fails. There is no contingency plan. They decline offers to bring in cutting edge bridge experts who have pioneered carbon fiber construction solutions that happen in days, not months. Fixated on the straight shot pipe dream, Rachel ignores the march of time, and technology that is bringing cheaper, faster and greener mass transit solutions. Yes, technology has finally caught up with Toni Kronberg and urban “rope tow” gondola-like systems that are being implemented around the globe.  While Rachel clings to her outdated, 1998-era bus-centered vision, RFTA officials protest that they are already operating at full capacity and have no plans to increase it.

Always remember, it was Torre, Ward Hauenstein and John Doyle who spiked a motion in 2024 to rebuild the bridge (it has to be replaced in any case, on the city’s dime). Why on earth are we not replacing the bridge today, optimally with an alternating lane, while the lengthy ROD/EIS process plays out? 

Aspen’s 10.35% Sales Tax

As of 2026, aside from Winter Park (11.2%), we officially have the highest sales tax rate (10.35%) in the state of Colorado. Here’s the breakdown:

Colorado state sales tax: 2.90%

Pitkin County sales tax:  3.60%

City of Aspen local tax: 2.70%

Aspen Fire Protection District: 0.50%

Confluence Early Childhood District: 0.25%

Roaring Fork Rural Transpo Authority: 0.40%

Aspen loves to be at the top of every list.  Congratulations, geniuses.

Childcare Tax 

You were fooled.  7A (a 25 cent sales tax on every $100 purchase) passed locally last fall to create a regional childcare tax district because we were told that our childcare capacity only accommodates 44% of kids in the region who need it. That could be true – in the region. But a November 2025 study clarified the local stats. Turns out that Pitkin County “likely” has a shortage of child care slots for infants and toddlers, but childcare for preschoolers is sufficient. Furthermore, the study concludes that “creating new preschool slots may threaten the sustainability of existing providers.”  In addition, the county’s young child population is projected to shrink through 2029. The regional needs are likely far different, echoed in the study’s revelation that a full quarter of those who live in Garfield or Eagle Counties but commute to Pitkin County for work would prefer a Pitkin County childcare provider. Of course they would, especially if we subsidize it. 

So here we are, subsidizing other counties’ populations and childcare preferences. Good news is that council just punted a $15 million (2022 estimate) childcare facility at Burlingame because of the “potential to harm the existing childcare infrastructure.” It could still rear its ugly head in the future...

Short Term Rental Regulations

There are currently 387 STR permits issued in Aspen that enable owners to rent out their properties for less than 30 days at a time. Permits range from $148-$394/year. These are distinctly punitive and have become yet another revenue stream primarily dedicated to vague “community affordable housing efforts.”

Check out the taxes. It’s all designed to pinch the greedy homeowner but anyone with a brain knows such costs get simply passed on to the renter. Screw the tourists, right?

Traditional Lodge: 2% (total with sales tax = 12.35%)

STR (owner-occupied): 5% (total with sales tax and 2% lodging tax = 17.35%)

STR/2^nd Homeowner: 10% (total with sales tax  and 2% lodging tax = 22.35%)

Yet an inane debate rages on. The fact is, people have rented their Aspen condos to tourists for generations, long before Airbnb. A large, uninformed yet vocal group ignores this and honestly believes that if we outlaw all STRs, condos in the downtown core will magically become rentals for local workers again. But seriously, why would owners rent at “affordable” prices when property values and costs have quadrupled?  It’s not STRs that took away rental condos from locals, the market went up. Condos once purchased for $500K are now worth $2M+. Do the math. It makes zero sense for owners to rent these out for $2000 a month - to anyone.

Taster’s/Yogi’s

Besides playing developer, city hall loves to monkey in commercial real estate and restaurant oversight.  There’s a long track record of failure, yet they continue, most recently trying to find a new tenant for the city-owned restaurant space across from Rio Grande Park, intended as an affordable restaurant that offers below-market rent.  The finalists for the deeply subsidized space are in, and they represent popular entities in the valley.  There’s also a high profile PR campaign by one applicant, the 520 Grill, a local’s favorite currently in a free market location on Cooper Street. 

All the letter-writing and hullabaloo made me take a closer look.  It turns out that many of 520 Grill’s current menu prices will actually INCREASE if chosen for the subsidized space! It’s in the RFP in black and white. The point of the whole exercise is to be able to offer the community affordable options. Council tends to decide such issues based on who’s a “good guy,” so maybe this won’t matter. But shouldn’t prices technically go down when the rent does? Just think, if 520 Grill wins, we’ll be subsidizing both the rent AND the owner.

Don’t get me wrong - everyone loves 520 Grill. Food’s great. But just like city council, they’ve missed the plot. Just keep prices the same and profits will increase. Duh. Here’s one more glaring example of why it’s simply bad public policy for city incompetents to be picking winners and losers in Aspen’s competitive restaurant landscape. 

The Armory

Speaking of subsidized restaurants, look for a 5-kitchen food hall, a bar, billiards and a teenage hangout lounge in the soon-to-be-remodeled Armory.  Add to that "flex space" for meetings, banquets, a market and a visitors center and it’ll practically be like the carnival has come to town.  All for today’s estimated cost of $53.7 million.  

But don’t you remember, back in 2018 when we voted on our preference for a new city hall?  Championed by yours truly as well as longtime locals Bill Stirling and Howie Mallory, the option to purchase 517 E. Hopkins from developer Mark Hunt as the future location for new city offices (across the street) to supplement the existing city hall in the Armory was shot down 57%-43% at the polls in favor of today’s new Taj Mahal City Hall.  Hunt’s deal was a committed contract to deliver a redeveloped building at the 517 E. Hopkins location, connected by an underground tunnel to the Armory, for a fixed $45 million. He also offered to remodel the Armory for just $9 million more. It was too good for the bureaucrats to stomach.

Fueled by the city’s own campaign reflecting its vitriol toward a developer (former city manager and Red Ant foil Steve Barwick actually said, we “don’t want to put money in local developer Mark Hunt’s pocket”), voters chose to accept the city’s farcical estimate of $42-52 million not including the land cost, to build the Taj, which came in costing closer to $100 million. (The terrible location is where a large in-town subsidized housing complex belongs.) Today we’re looking at spending $53.7 million (and counting) just to remodel the Armory.  Do you actually think the city’s cost estimate will hold? 

Just like the hideous, ill-functioning, ghost town office space that is today’s Taj, the Armory and its plans to be all things to all people (hardly the “community gathering place” that many sought) will be another grossly over-priced disaster for Aspen. Will we ever learn?

Meadows/Institute/Physics Housing

The latest trend is that major employers have finally given up on APCHA and are developing housing to meet their proprietary needs. The latest is a proposal by the Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival and School and Aspen Center for Physics to develop 60 units for employees, students and guests on their shared campus in Aspen’s historic West End. 

Despite concerns about the STR-like nature of some of the units and overwhelming pushback from the neighborhood over the impacts of an already untenable parking situation, the submission moves along.

It is noteworthy how this proposal stands to be dramatically “under-parked” with P&Z advocating for deed restrictions that don’t allow cars at certain proposed buildings, which will only add to the parking strife in Aspen’s toniest neighborhood. Contrast this to the deliberately “over-parked” Lumberyard that is providing 453 parking spots for 277 subsidized units. Double standard much?  Mayor Rachel seems to think that “at the end of the day, we do have to have a little give from the (West End) neighborhood.” Really?

This is not a fait accompli. Frankly, it needs a lot more work.

Housing Shortage?

Do we really have one? Are there legitimately businesses in town today that cannot hire for lack of housing? For which jobs specifically?  Glenwood Springs has built over 700 units in the past 5 years. At Willits, there are 196 new apartments at the Tree Farm Lofts. Next to Carbondale City Market are 224 new apartments. Near Target in Glenwood are 400 new apartments.  All of these are on the RFTA transportation corridor. From a cost perspective, the Carbondale apartments were $265K per vs. $1.4M (estimated) at the Lumberyard.  And remember, we have no idea which workers are currently being housed in our APCHA inventory.  In other words, we have yet to identify what problem we’re trying to solve - other than building “more.” 

Mid valley communities have historically resisted building worker housing for up valley employers but now that many local jobs are moving to the mid valley, they can’t avoid it. However, this movement of jobs out of the upper valley directly reduces the pressure on workforce housing in Aspen proper, and perhaps even eliminates it if we manage our existing inventory properly. 

To ignore the impacts of this significant increase in housing units in the greater valley on what is purported to be a “housing crisis” in Aspen is intellectually dishonest. Can you see now why no one wants to commission real data or share what does exist? It destroys the narrative of infinitely “needing more.”

This obfuscation and nonsense continue despite the our community guiding document, the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), clearly stating that “we cannot build our way out of the housing problem.” 

Do we really OWE housing to everyone who wants to live in Aspen affordably?

Retirees in APCHA Housing

At one point, The Silver Tsunami was a notion. Then it was coming.  There is no doubt it’s arrived, and we’re surely taking on water.  But don’t expect APCHA to reveal this data.  The numbers are perhaps Aspen’s most closely guarded secret. And I’ve yet to hear a local reporter ever ask for them.  The surely staggering retirees-in-APCHA-housing numbers are deep within APCHA’s clandestine HOMETREK database and in assistant APCHA director Cindy Christensen’s head. 

Next to no data is publicly available anywhere. The 2012 AACP acknowledged that we “are on the brink of a rising retiree demographic,” citing 310 retirees in APCHA housing in 2012 with a forecast of 800 by 2021. Notably, no substantive “retirement” strategy has been discussed in the 14 years since. Another loose datapoint from 2023 contends that 33% of APCHA unit owners are 63+.  Anyone see the troubling direction we’re headed? 

Merely discussing the mysterious “retiree numbers” is grounds for harsh criticism, as though knowing our reality is somehow “anti-retiree.” Sorry, knowledge is power, and when we’re doling out $1.4M in public funds per unit for new subsidized housing units with an undefined end goal, factoring in the growing number of units occupied by non-workers must become part of the equation. 

I’ll stop … for now

I could go on. And I might. I barely touched on APCHA and that list is so long it simply warrants its own issue. But hopefully this brought you somewhat up to speed. I know, it’s beyond depressing. All of this should read as a cautionary tale. There’s a very fine line between being visionary and being a virtue signaling moron. 

The Taj Mahal City Hall and its emphasis on a “one roof” customer service solution seemed to our naïve electeds like the right thing to build (“a 50-year solution”) when in reality there was no vision at all. (Imagine ignoring the work-from-home revolution?) Today the Taj is a huge community stain, symbolic of our bloated bureaucracy with its poor design and reckless execution that notably killed any hope for a town-to-river connection by cutting off Rio Grande Park, and fittingly exists as an empty tomb during most business hours. The airport and straight shot are poised to similarly follow in its footsteps. It’s undeniably tragic to screw up one generational opportunity after the next because of inept elected officials.

There is a good reason I always push to elect well-educated candidates and those with real world work experience. Without it, we get emotional decisionmakers who see every issue in a vacuum. It’s hard to imagine someday electing a majority that seeks enough information to envision and comprehend the larger picture, yet alone the cumulative impacts on our (diminishing) small town character. Don’t take my word for it -  just look at what’s happening today.  

Please let me know what you think. Do you want to know more? Do you have a friend who’d enjoy reading? I have a lot to say.  Question is, do you want to hear it? 

ISSUE #283: Turn Your Ballot in TODAY! (3/19/25)

Bad officials are elected by good citizens 

who do not vote."

-- George Jean Nathan

THE RUN-OFF ELECTION

I have very little to say about the April 1 run-off election to fill two city council seats. There are 4 candidates still in the hunt: Emily Kolbe, Christine Benedetti, incumbent John Doyle and term-limited mayor (and before that, councilman) Torre. Whatever you do, DO NOT vote for John or Torre. 

"BULLET VOTE" FOR EMILY KOLBE

This means vote ONLY for Emily Kolbe, despite being able to vote for two. 

The "bullet vote" theory is this: picture a foot race. Unlike a 100 meter sprint that has the same starting and finish lines, where the fastest across wins, this race is determined by who gets the farthest in a set period given the same start. Think of votes as steps. We NEED Emily on council with Bill and Sam. The best way to get her there is to give her a "step" (vote) while not giving any of her competitors one. Please do not give that other step/vote away. 

TURN YOUR BALLOT IN TODAY

Your ballot is already in your mailbox, if not on your desk or kitchen table. TURN IT IN TODAY. 

This is a simple and quick vote, and for those of us who spend Election Day and those leading up to it "chasing ballots," please make it easier on everyone and just drop your ballot off at the box in front of CITY HALL today. Check this off your list and be counted.

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

"Is it ignorance or apathy? 

I don't know and I don't care."

-- Jimmy Buffett

THE RESULTS

Mayor:

Rachel Richards 1435

Katy Frisch 1189

Ref 1:

NO 1062

YES 952

Ref 2:

YES 1369

NO 1276

Council:

John Doyle 1091

Emily Kolbe 1067

Christine Benedetti 1018

Torre 825

Wooley 630

Wilkinson-Ray 307

Voter Turnout:

2718 (for reference, 2023: 2810 and 2019: 2711)

Active Voters:

5691

THE POST-MORTEM

The disappointing results of yesterday's election illustrate the consistent apathy of Aspen voters as well as the huge power of big money in our small town issues.

The dreaded and tiresome Rachel Richards returns as mayor to further her 30-year career in elected office. She has been mayor once before, served three terms on city council and three terms on the BOCC. This time she promises to make her mayoral job a full-time one because she is currently unemployed. Impressive.

Many, if not all, of Aspen's ills (traffic, housing, class warfare) are directly related to her tenures and personality, yet when presented with the option for a new voice with new ideas in Katy Frisch, the electorate preferred a timeworn politico with out-dated ideas. Aspen simply refuses to embrace change and face the future, forever clinging to bygone days and dusting off failed policies in hopes they'll work next time.

This is specifically why we cannot figure out how to manage and supervise our housing program. It's why 1369 people voted for Ref 2 yet it admittedly will not fix traffic or congestion, nor will any "straight shot" be built in the next decade while the Castle Creek Bridge continues to deteriorate. It's why we are an anti-growth community yet are poised to add 600 new subsidized housing residents (and their cars) to our population (+10%) with The Lumberyard development. It's why we are screwed.

Rachel was inextricably linked to Referendum 2 which she spear-headed. It's not "old Aspen" who voted her in. Had that been the case, Torre would have similarly benefitted in his council race. Rather, the $200K+ donated by Bruce Etkin and Tim Presutti to concede the Marolt Open Space to CDOT, a state agency, in hopes they will build a 1998-era straight shot highway into town, affected the outcome in favor of Ref 2, and Rachel benefitted from this. One bad decision begets another.

As for council, since none of the six candidates reached the 45% +1 vote threshold, we now face a run-off between the top 4 vote-getters: Doyle, Kolbe, Benedetti and Torre, fittingly on April 1.

WHAT'S NEXT

There is one thing to do: ELECT EMILY KOLBE. I will remind you again, but a "bullet vote" for Emily advances her candidacy while not advancing another candidate's. It is IMPERATIVE that we get her on council and this is how we do it.

Please support Emily by donating to her run-off campaign:

www.EmilyforAspen.com

And if you simply must vote for two, cast your second vote for Christine Benedetti.

DO NOT VOTE FOR INCUMBENTS TORRE OR JOHN DOYLE.

It's time for Ronald Wayne Maranian III (aka Torre) to move on. Aspen's highest profile housing cheat has already served 8 years on council and 6 years as mayor. Enough is enough. Let this - his 12th run for elected office - be his last. Back to the tennis courts and New York Pizza for Torre.

And John Doyle clearly has the electorate snowed. This vicious man has an uncontrolled temper, repugnant views and has recently threatened fellow councilman Sam Rose with the texts below when Sam did not endorse him. John is no leader and is distinctly unfit to serve another term on city council.

And because I promised, I have the video clip from October 2023 during the debate over hanging the flag of Israel on city hall in solidarity following the October 7 attacks. John shows his true colors. This platform will not allow me to attach it, but simply reply to this email and I will gladly email or text it to you.

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