Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicants recount bike-park process; some urge letting voters decide open-space rules
Summary
Open Space Board candidates said the bike skills park process involved broad participation but was altered late by vocal opponents. Candidates were split on a ballot measure to raise the threshold for changing city parks and open space, with some opposing a supermajority requirement.
Aspen City Council candidates for the Open Space Board described a multi-year process around a proposed bike skills park at Merolt and emphasized collaborative decision-making with council and other boards. Dan Pearl said he was proud of the collaborative process and that the board worked to present complexities to council. “I think that was... Im proud of the way that process worked,” he said.
Ted Mann, a reapplicant, said the issue stretched over about three years and that early community support shifted late in the process when opposition amplified. On the topic of a pair of ballot referendums affecting open-space decisions, one candidate explained the board chose not to endorse referendum 1, noting a 5-to-1 board vote to avoid taking a position. Another applicant criticized requiring a supermajority to change park use, saying it would be an outlier in the charter except for two small parcels and would limit the city's flexibility to add open space through special elections.
Councilors used the interviews to probe how the Open Space Board handles community input and whether board members would recuse themselves when an applicant or acquaintance appears before the board. Candidates generally said they would follow statutory and board recusal rules and focus on presenting options to the community.
