Please, not another re-vote
Dear Editor:How many times do we have to second-guess ourselves because we don’t like the outcome and are unwilling to abide by the very tenets that we are trying to protect?I read that one of the opponents to Burlingame mentioned the out-of-town traffic as an issue to be concerned about. Ironic that that problem was largely resolved by voters when the straight-shot was approved. Homeowners and likely the person complaining didn’t like the vote, as it affected their property values, so they brilliantly engineered five additional votes, until they finally voted down the straight-shot. Their justification: Don’t change old Aspen. I actually had to listen to a presentation at the chamber board by Bill Stirling, telling us that the straight-shot would forever impair the down-home, small-town, friendly feeling of Aspen. Tell that to the commuters and visitors sitting in traffic.Now we have another group who wish to abrogate their agreements with the city and nullify a vote that approved 60 percent to 40 percent the wish of the voters of Aspen to proceed with and build Burlingame. If I had been able to vote, in the city, I would have supported Burlingame then as I do now. I would be offended that a group of people would dare to negate that which has already been decided.What kind of message are we sending to children? Don’t worry about voting. If people don’t like the outcome, we’ll just vote again. You may argue that a re-vote speaks to freedom of speech, but if that were the case, nothing would ever be accomplished. A re-vote to correct misstatements or fraud that initially defined information on which the first vote was predicated is perfectly acceptable. Other than that, we have a social contract that, although not perfect, is something the outcome of which we have agreed to (by our citizenship and actions in voting) accept.Why vote if we can change the outcome if we don’t like it? Why have elected officials if we repeatedly vote to change the decisions we elected them to make on our behalf?A last thought: Who is going to reimburse the community for the millions of dollars spent to date on this (previously) voter-approved project? Perhaps there needs to be accountability on the part of those that are willing to challenge the will of the voters. If they insist that this issue be voted on again, without evidence of fraud, they should be willing to reimburse the public for the funds that have already been spent.Andy ModellSnowmass Village
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User