Money should be spent elsewhere
Dear Editor:We all know, even with the current two entrances and two exits at the Rio Grande Park recycling drop-off site, how congested and clustered the drive-through can get when pickup trucks, a couple of cars and trailers full of grass clippings are double-parked to drop off recyclables.Can you imagine what will happen once the city spends a million dollars of the community’s money to build two new buildings at the site, increase number of containers, add ramps, an exhibit/educational area and only ONE entrance which will double as the exit? Talk about a cluster, especially, when the pickup trucks with trailers full of grass clippings have to do a three-point turn to get out. It could be more congestion than the afternoon outgoing traffic at the roundabout.I, for one, think the million dollars the Council approved for two new buildings in times of a moratorium on building would be more wisely spent on improving the current site without the buildings and then spending the remaining $800,000 on:1. Entrance to Aspen2. Funding for the nonprofits who come before Council each year3. Affordable housing for the worker bees unable to afford the $600,000 Big Burlingame new homes4. Underage drinking problem shared by families, schools, police and court system5. A hook-and-ladder truck tall enough to rescue people and put out fires in top floors of soon-to-be-built “infill” lodges.What is more important … protecting Obermeyer’s new tenants from a recycling center or the above? Please sign the referendum petition being circulated so our community can vote either yes or no on spending $1 million for two new 20-foot-tall buildings in Rio Grande Park.Toni KronbergAspen
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
While it may come as a surprise to exactly no one who lives in the Roaring Fork Valley, Pitkin County and Garfield County have diametrically opposite views of the state’s new red-flag gun law.