|
Several weeks ago, I was given the opportunity to write a guest column for The Aspen Daily News about my favorite subject, APCHA. In case you missed it, HERE it is.
In short, while the community prepares and braces for the upcoming airport closure in April 2027, APCHA acknowledges the potential challenges for some of its residents in terms of meeting the 1500 hours per year work requirement. In some cases, this might actually become an issue. But what does APCHA propose? Try full amnesty from work requirements for the ENTIRE HOUSING PORTFOLIO.
I've said again and again that APCHA is not at all about jobs and never has been. This absolutely proves it. As soon as my piece ran, another articlefollowed that highlighted the hiring and housing challenges Kiewit, the airport developer, is facing. It seems, according to The Aspen Times, that "Kiewat has reached out to hotels and condominiums with the aim of facilitating more long term rentals for the staff they intend to hire." The group is proposing a 24/7 work schedule on the airport so tell me again why already-housed Aspen workers are getting a pass on their work requirements to wait out the construction while the community employs an enormous workforce for a generational infrastructure project???
This is yet another colossal local leadership failure. While the rest of us deal with draconian regulations for FTE (full-time equivalent) employee generation from our construction projects and pay mightily in mitigation fees, the cavalier acceptance that the airport construction manager would simply take care of housing its own employees, no questions asked, further illustrates how growth and its impacts are unfairly accounted for in Pitkin County.
The Primary Ballot - VOTE FOR ROB
You've received your ballot in the mail, and as usual, I have a couple things to say. First and foremost, even though it's only a primary, vote! It does matter. Ballots are due June 30.
The most critical local vote is for District 1 County Commissioner. Three are running and only two can be on the November ballot. This should be the EASIEST single vote you have ever cast.
Former member of the BOCC (2011-2015) and ACRA board (2015-19), restauranteur (Rustique, Anderson Ranch, Little Nell, Pine Creek Cookhouse), Rotarian and consultant Rob Ittner is seeking to rejoin the board, while being challenged by notorious housing cheat and tennis instructor, former Mayor Torre, as well as current city councilman, artist and anti-semite, John Doyle.
What a joke. Why ANYONE would think to re-elect Torre to ANYTHING is beyond me. In the two short years he has owned his purloined APCHA unit , he has already run afoul of APCHA regarding his required work hours. And remember, so disillusioned by his own "split shot" plan for the entrance to Aspen (that is not even up for consideration), Torre cast the deciding vote to NOT fund the Castle Creek bridge replacement. Meanwhile, it deteriorates by the day and must be replaced in any case at some point, regardless of what happens at the entrance. It's clearly the $158K annual salary for the BOCC that has this desperate moth circling the flame!
John Doyle insists someone at the County asked him to run, despite being recently re-elected to city council. He's even hired our old friend Mick to work on his campaign. But ask yourselves, is everything SO GREAT at city hall that John Doyle deserves a promotion? Good grief. He says he's focused on transportation, housing and the environment.... yada yada yada. Other than regularly thanking city staff for bringing their pet projects before council for a 4-1 rubber-stamp approval, what has he ever accomplished?
Torre and John are hard NOs. Neither even managed to file his recent campaign finance report properly. We're talking simple math. At some point, this community needs to finally elect grownups to oversee the very real and growing challenges we face in Pitkin County. Having someone with a strong track record who has also owned businesses and met a payroll might be a sensible place to start. Vote for Rob Ittner.
As a matter of housekeeping, here are a few parting tidbits:
- To follow up on "acceptable wood shingle roofs" for Aspen homeowners of historic properties, there is a group of homeowners and local professionals working with HPC to create an accelerated approval process to replace wood shingle roofs with a sustainable, fire-rated, like-kind product. If this affects you or someone you know, and you'd like to know more about this DaVinci product, please join this list. The case for the approval of this product, given the wildfire risk, maintenance burden and insurance pressure, makes itself. HPC is looking to see if there is real demand. Every additional property strengthens the case.
- As we debate the fact that the BOCC recently over-rode county P&Z on its disapproval of the new airport (runway) plans, isn't the more obvious question "Why is P&Z weighing in NOW, just as pre-construction is beginning?" Seriously. That is one broken process. P&Z should be integral from the very beginning. This over-ride calls county P&Z's very existence into question.
- At press time, I am just seeing some ridiculously rudimentary final design schematics for the new airport terminal. Seriously, these look pathetically straight out of 1989. Notably, even at quick glance, it's clear that the architect's mandate was to "design an airport terminal." Period. How our 21st Century airport can ever possibly function as a transportation hub for our transportation-burdened community is completely absent from any and all consideration. There's a 3-story parking garage next to the terminal that offers short and long-term parking, plus rental cars. From there it's a ~200 yard walk to where you'd presumably catch a bus (or God willing, a gondola) into town. That's no commuter solution! It's like parking at the Rio Grande parking garage and getting over to Rubey Park to catch a bus! Ahhh the irony of a parking structure that's the same size as the terminal itself, but it's located furthest from the earmarked afterthought "future transit center." The design does absolutely NOTHING to get people out of their cars at the airport (a classic commuter chokepoint) and onto alternative transportation into town. Predictably, there's a highly detailed design for functionality: staff flows, goods in / waste out, exits and entrances. It's a textbook case of silo-ed planning - our local specialty. And no surprise, it's gonna be really "environmentally sustainable." Energy efficiency costs money, which we have plenty of, but problem solving and vision? The county has none. (In fairness, the RFP for the terminal design likely did not include coordination with future transit solutions. The county simply didn't think of it.)
|
June 16 