Weinberger: Do no harm to Aspen

A precept of medicine is “do no harm.” It also applies to the Entrance to Aspen.

Those advocating for the Straight Shot cite, at most, trivial improvements while totally disregarding the adverse implications. Those include degrading neighborhoods, destroying precious open space, adding actually more congestion to our already crowded city, not solving traffic, endangering historic properties, and creating pedestrian hazards. Those potential harms must be factored into any solution; they are conspicuously ignored in comments about the Straight Shot. One must not assume that the twenty-seven-year-old Straight Shot will solve today’s and tomorrow’s problems.

A doctor would not make a diagnosis based on 27-year-old X-rays. That analogy is apt because the proponents of Referendum No. 2 would permit CDOT to go forward with design and construction of the Straight Shot without any update and evaluation of the changes in Aspen over the last three decades. It simply makes no sense to dust off an outdated and failed plan and insist it is the best we can do.

As a medical professional, I would point out that a careful analysis of the benefits as well as the risks is mandatory in any case study. Same for any new bridge: On balance, after considering all the facts, what does the least harm? It is for that reason that I urge voters to vote “no” on Referendum #2. It does not even pay lip service to the changes in Aspen over the last three decades, to the costs and hazards it represents, nor does it solve the problem it claims to address. It would be irresponsible to grant such blanket approval.

Daniel R. Weinberger

Aspen