Merrill: Lessons for Pitkin County Commission from Snowmass Village Town Council
Guest Commentary
On Oct. 14, I attended the Snowmass Village Town Council and heard Amory Lovins and Chuck Butler share their views on Aspen/Pitkin County Airport’s future, followed by those from Michael Miracle and George Newman. On Oct. 21, Mayor Bill Madsen offered a resolution to endorse 1C. The four other members said they could not support it, so Bill withdrew it.
Pitkin County commissioners, take a note.
As an Aspen resident for 37 years and with no vested interest in the outcome, I applied for the Airport Vision Committee and was invited to join. At our first meeting, I suggested to John Bennett that all members share potential conflicts of interest. He did not respond. When I asked Jon Peacock about the scope of our responsibilities, he told us not to concern ourselves with the private/fixed-base operator ops. I asked why that limitation, given 83% of our traffic came from private planes. He replied our focus was on the commercial side and replacement of the CRJ700.
That seemed odd, as I knew the airline companies would not seek community input when purchasing planes; focus would rightly be on their best business decision. My Vision Committee experience was that the county controlled our agendas and seemed unresponsive to exploring all options. I also intuited that there existed a replacement for the CRJ, despite our being told no such equipment existed.
My take-aways:
Airport committees
One hundred twenty three community members were chosen for the five airport committees. When the time came for a final vote, some 60 members across the five committees remained. I do not consider an almost 50% attrition rate a useful indication of community views. I concluded that a vote of the people, only on size and location of the runway, is right and fair. Ballot 200 does not divest the Pitkin County Commission of their power to make overall executive decisions on the airport.
Safety
When United announced the purchase of 19 E175s, ensuring commercial traffic for decades to come, I thought that settled matters. Then I heard the words “safety” and “safer,” repeated by the pro-growth coalition. The airport is safe; the FAA would close it down if it were not. I also know that larger planes are less agile — for example, when they need to abort. We know we have a narrow slot canyon, thin high-altitude air, winds swirling over Owl Creek, and sudden storms. Planes fly in and out on the same runway, head on. Forty three of our 44 recent accidents involved private planes, and many were attributed to pilot error. None of these realities will be changed by a wider or more separated runway. When Highway 82 was widened, did it make it safer?
FAA
Contrary to Auden Schendler, ASE does meet federal safety standards now. As the FAA’s John Bauer stated last year, the FAA is not in the business of downgrading airports. ASE can never be a full Airplane Design Group 3; we will always have many modifications. There is nothing standard about Aspen airport. The FAA stands for access, which means the county cannot unjustly discriminate against nor refuse access to any planes that fit, whether older or newer.
Atlantic Aviation contract
While not yet signed, very much more financially beneficial to the county. If we rebuild the runway in place, it will likely cost less than the estimated $247 million presented to the Airport Advisory Board on March 21. If we widen it, we open ourselves up not just to new private planes, but to older, dirtier, noisier private planes with wider wingspans. When we widened Highway 82, did we see only new cars?
Confidentially, I have seen correspondence indicating G650 owners are anxious to land here with their wider wingspans. I also believe that if we build it, they will come, given our valley’s appeal to people with resources who own both old and new private planes.
Pitkin County Commission
By putting 1C on the ballot, they repeat what is already written about their sovereignty. I asked at one of their meetings what they were afraid of and why they spoke of their responsibilities to all but not to their constituents. Possibly by design, they have added confusion to the debate with 1C. To anyone concerned about amending our Home Rule Charter, I remind them it has been amended some 50 times since its adoption in 1978, at the behest of the commissioners.
The public was not well served by the Aspen airport Vision process, nor by the Airport Advisory Board — some of whose members seem like they were chosen for their pro-growth opinions. The natural consequence of the county’s unresponsiveness to all alternatives, in the ASE Vision process, is ballot 200 on the ballot that seems just and necessary, no matter which way it goes. Vote “yes” on 200 and “no” on 1C.
Jackie Merrill is an Aspen resident.
