SandBox has a couple of comments to make on this piece by John Stroud off the Glenwood Springs Post Independent.
With regard to the proposals to change our charter to allow for public election of our Mayor...just say, YES!!
With regard to spending the money and resources to get councilman term limits upped...just say 'Absolutely NOT!'
The argument that we may fall into the same tar pitMayor Mick has put the City of Aspen into has both a pro and a con.
The pro on elected seats only is that it is always the public right to have a voice and the final say by the casting of their vote. Besides, do you really think anyone during the remainder of this century is ever going to allow another Mick Ireland to happen?? If a voting sector does set up such a scenario, there isn't any way to predict or control that free will which makes Mayor Matt's concerns without merit.
The con on upping the term limits, is that the public has a right to have a voice and when you allow the pushing of the envelope on the law itself when it comes to term limits (or) give an individual free license to become a near career local representative/authority (three terms is over a decade) you're no longer giving a true option of choice. You're giving a weighted selection in an arena that has serious effect on the folks day to day lives. Bottom line, is that any request to fudge a gray area of term limits should be put to a public vote and detailed public input process.
One of the questions SandBox raises today is what happened to the unconstitutionality problem of our city charter vs. state charter when it comes to local elections. Remember Dirk Myers ? Click here and here to refressh yourself. Let's get it all done at once.
With regard to the talks continuing on The Ghettos affordable housing, we're wondering if Mary Noone is pacing herself and watching from home tonight. Just say NO to the city taking over the infrastructure obligations for this developer. After all, we have sinking, cracking and not too distant future major problems in The Meadows development itself (and) a bus barn that is near being condemned when it's roughly only a decade old. These 'affordable' housing apartments are being built as cheap as cheap can get (we've reviewed the plans) on the same soils and will be in the same state within a decade or so.
With all that on our plate, why in the world should we take the infrastructure costs of the driveway/road oout of the developer's hands? Just say NO.
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."
No comments:
Post a Comment