Submitted by Andrew Kole:
It seems Aspen might have a new Fab Four emerging. I recently noticed that Toni, Susan, Phyllis, and Junee have indirectly united in an effort to generate a No vote from Mayor Mick in the hotly contested Lift 1A saga that is coming to an end (hopefully) on January 14th. It kind of reminds me of the TV movie “Rich Man, Poor Man” that launched Nick Nolte’s career. Now the “girls” are taking advantage of the First Amendment (my favorite) to stop what they perceive is a travesty. To their credit, they have all participated, to different degrees, in the 27-week journey the COWOP took. I’ll admit, at the beginning the COWOP was split about 50-50 on what the master plan for the area should look like. And, that the debate was fierce at times. But it is a fact when it was all over, 90% of the COWOP endorsed what City Council received.
What is also fact is that traffic and the size of the development are the hot buttons. Also fact is the letters to the editor by the Fab Four have been a bit misleading when it comes to traffic. The number bandied about is 1200-1300 cars. Not true! The actual projected number is 500-600 vehicles. Of course after they arrive – they will leave. While it is still a formidable number, when broken down it is less than one car per minute over a 10-hour scenario. The vehicles represent cars going to both of the hotels, existing condominiums, delivery trucks, museum visitors, new Brew Pub customers, and individuals driving up to the top of the street for any number of reasons.
When is comes to mass and size – it is a big project. Councilman Steve and others would prefer small, mid-priced lodges. Sounds great – except that is not what high-end resorts are building, or can afford to build. I wish they could. I once said, “that when vision meets reality, the result is often chaos”. In this case the vision of returning to an Aspen of 40 years ago butts its head with the reality of market demand, and current financing challenges. This has resulted in “minor” chaos, created by those who’d like to really see nothing ever be built versus what the project developed through months of compromise has come to be.
While the COWOP has been characterized as “a failed science project”, and the members as bullied, and unduly influenced participates, I’d like to suggest to the Fab Four and their friends, that if the COWOP had come up with a decision which was in line with their feelings – we the COWOP would be considered “smarter then a fifth grader. When I look back, I will remember the COWOP as a group of people who would probably not have been taking a cruise together prior to our meetings, and more importantly as a group of people who worked very hard to put together the “best” project they could.
As for me – I think they succeeded.
Andrew Kole
COWOP Member
Andrew makes some great points.
I thought it was sensible when Mick and the other council members asked for the COWOP process to build a consensus. However, it does seem a bit disingenous of the council to ask volunteers to do 100s or 1000s of hours of work but then not approve their compromise plan.
Ironically, the biggest concern that all of us have is the size and mass of the new hotels. However, it’s clearly the mitigation fees and housing requirements that force the units to be so out of proportion with the neighborhood.
I have been a big proponent of the city not granting variances. The rules should be the rules….otherwise…change the damn rules. The height limit, massing requirements, etc., should be applied to all projects and then we wouldn’t have to go through this time and again.
However, the dirty little secret in our town is that the council loves it when developers ask for variances. In simple terms, it opens the door for all of us to ask for more affordable housing, ski lifts, museums, parking and any other little bauble the voters might want. Then it becomes a horse trader’s nightmare. Just look at what’s happened to these projects over the years. They add rooms, we add housing. They add height, we want parking. “You want parking?” “We need more rooms.” It is like a cat chasing its tail.
Do you remember in the movie “a few good men” with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson? Nicholson loses it on the witness stand (while discussing the defense of America) and tells Cruise “some where deep down…you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.” So it is with Mick and Company. Despite their protestations to the contrary, they “want the developers to ask for variances.” Then they can torture them by metaphorically “pulling the wings off a fly.” Look at poor Sarpa. The Geneva Convention should protect developers from having to go through this Council-induced waterboarding. Brat and Beer Pub anyone?