The Burlingame rabbit hole
Dear Editor:It was hard to decipher the rebuttal portion of Rachel Richards’ guest editorial, “Burlingame charges not based on fact” (Aspen Times, March 28). The headline is probably true because facts are hard to come by when you chase the city down the Burlingame rabbit hole. Rachel referenced a census of Snowmass Village, population 1,822, but by the same census, “workers over 16” in Snowmass Village were 1,177. Rachel wanted to focus the reader on 97 units in phase one of Burlingame Village, but the full count is 236, a number deftly skirted in her editorial.A substantial portion of Burlingame is three-bedroom units, so I figure upward of 750 Aspenites in our new bedroom colony – more than a tenth of Aspen’s workers, and easily 400 cars. I have to check in here: When’s the last time you tried to bring home a load of groceries on a bus? Then there’s Rachel’s comparison to Aspen Village and Lazy Glen. Combined, they’re about the size of the Burlingame build-out. Visualize them out there on the ranch. So tell me again why Rachel’s going on about phase one? I simply don’t get why the city shies from mentioning the final population of Burlingame and the associated figures. Another persistent prevarication concerns the number of free-market units. It’s 24 (minimum), not 12, when you count ADUs. The goofiest equivocation is the contract breaching thing. What contract? Where is it? Is it signed and sealed? If it’s not, it’s not a contract yet and it can’t be breached.Mick Ireland found fascinating statistics about the graying of Aspen, but within his own letter he solved the aging riddle. Affordable housing projects morph into empty nests. So I guess the Aspen plan is to build a Burlingame every decade or two while downtown neighborhoods continue converting to barely-inhabited portfolio commodities.Dan SadowskyAspen
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.