Siegel: Opposing newest petition

The recent AT article (“Petition supporting Aspen’s preferred alternative continues to circulate; opposing effort submits signatures to clerk Monday”) is telling on the extent of misinformation and deception by Richards et al. Put aside that the published image shows why the straight shot is dead — one lane for cars and trucks, diversion of Cemetery Lane, destruction of Marolt Open Space, new Seventh Street traffic light, etc., all glossed over.

The real question is voter rights. Richards would deny the vote on any new highway before it is even known. Read her petition — it puts the cart before the horse by pre-approval “of any future Record of Decision.” No future vote, preferably no vote at all. She underscores by comparing Aspen to the county — “currently in the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter, it just does not take a vote to change open space in Aspen.” Richards is anti-vote, taking away the voter right under the Home Rule Charter in the future to consider any proposed change in open space and vote its approval.

Just as galling is the attempted smear on the citizens’ petition that would raise the bar on changes of open space and parks use to 60%. Richards and Hauenstein cite examples elsewhere but totally ignore the results in the recent local election. All three Aspen ballot measures passed by more than 60%. Same for the contentious county airport issue. The lesson, if the proposal has broad support it will overwhelmingly pass.

This repugnant and disingenuous criticism of the citizens petition as “anti-democratic” and requiring “a supermajority” comes from Hauenstein and Richards, both of whom have sitting experience on the Aspen City Council. City Council, five members, minimum vote required to pass anything = three votes = ⅗ = 60%. It takes 60% to wash the windows of city hall. Don’t our open space and parks deserve at least the same?

Neil B. Siegel

Aspen