Aspen: City Of Fear

August 8th, 2008 at 05:57am Michael Conniff 2

I will have (much) more to say about what went down Thursday night at the Paepcke when about 100 people who really do care about Aspen showed up for a Town Hall confab put on by The Committee That Knows No Name. But something amazing happened at the very end of the evening, something I’m confident the reporters from the local papers missed.

By the time the topic of intimidation came onto the table, about 50 people were still in the room—the people who really really cared. I think it was Jerry Bovino who asked whether those in the audience felt they could speak out in Aspen without fear of intimidation or retribution.

Close to half the hands shot up into the air, including many of those up front and right on the aisle—another signal of their intense interest in the town.

I was shocked: half the people at the Town Hall were saying they could not speak freely without fear of some kind of reprisal from elected politicians and most especially City staff. Many of those raising their hands had been in town for a long time, and I was amazed that a level of suppression —I don’t even know what to call it—was alive and well in their hometown.

I have to mull this some more but I think this is unique to Aspen: a ski town that came to life because of free spirits and free thinkers is now populated by a group, significant in number, that feels they have no way to say what they feel without paying for it. Of all the things I heard about Aspen Thursday night this was far and away the most disturbing, a sign that the very nature of the City has been transformed for the worse.

Whodunit? I have my theories, but something better be done about it quick, before there’s no more Aspen left in Aspen.

Entry Filed under: Aspen, Affordable Housing, Aspen City Council

4 Comments Add your own

1. Marilyn Marks | August 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Michael,
I agree with your conclusions and concern about the politics of fear in Aspen. In fact I wrote a short piece on that in the July 4th Aspen Times. I’ll repeat it below.

The emails I got last night and today were all about the chance to break that fear through public forums such as we had last night. I didn’t get a single email about Burlingame, the actual subject of the town meeting. The response was overwhelming on the surprising theme of the freedom to speak without fear in a town meeting.

But I write to correct a couple of points in your blog.
First, the event was sponsored by Dr. Jerry Bovino; Allen, Wertz & Feldman, LLP, Roger and Ginny Aaron, Gaston Alciatore, Penney Carruth, Don Davidson, Scott Davidson, Tom Kosich, Barbara and Jon Lee, Marilyn Marks, Elizabeth Milias, Charley Podolak, Catherine Anne and John Provine, Shellie Roy, John Simpson, Craig Ward, Working Solutions, LLC, and Anonymous Contributors as was noted in the program. Those individuals did a great community service by paying for this opportunity for us to come together as a community.
The incorrect implication in your blog was the sponsor was the yet unnamed Committee which has had publicity, being organized to delay the bond issue on Burlingame. It appears that that work was successful, even before the committee efforts had begun in earnest, although I believe that you were very critical of our efforts and the way I was attempting to organize it, as well as our chances of success.

Also, I believe that Jerry’s question was not whether the people at the meeting were afraid to speak without fear of intimidation or retribution, but whether either they or their friends and acquaintances felt that way. This is an important distinction because, for example, I raised my hand---not because I’m afraid---obviously---but because I know so many who are. While some may have spoken for themselves, others they were speaking for were at home, still fearful of even being present during such a meeting. That includes some city employees who tell me that they feared retribution if they were seen at the meeting.

Your general point is well taken. I just feel that the facts need to be pure on such a sensitive matter.

My July 4th response to the Aspen Times question: Do you feel free in Aspen?
Freedom is why I’m here. Liberty from a quarter-century of corporate life. Moving to Aspen was the ultimate freeing experience — recreation, intellectual stimulus and access to everything I could want. I was told “everyone is welcome here, no matter your background, your profession, or your politics — in Aspen, we live and let live.”

But Aspen is a dichotomy, representing ultimate freedom to those of us who are retired, but with a concerning element of fear-based constraints for those who work here, or are otherwise beholden to the city government.

This concern has been addressed by people I’ve heard from on the recent matter of challenging the city on Burlingame [affordable housing development] and taping public meetings [of the Aspen City Council]. Scores of people report that they want to stand beside me, but they fear retribution — retribution delivered by withholding permissions or privileges or business that the city controls. Others fear verbal attacks, intimidation or scorn. Some vow never to enter Council Chambers again after disparaging treatment in the past.

There is little tolerance for differing views on certain sacrosanct topics. At times, our local government uses its considerable power to quash public process or inquiry, and to discourage any challenge to their sometimes arbitrary rulings. For a year now, we have tolerated the unfair consequences of arbitrary Ordinance 30 dictated overnight without public input, using erroneous data, which the council attempted to withhold from the public. People trapped by the resulting law are not free in Aspen. It is but one example.

The good news is that those of us who have little to lose can still access the fundamental tenets of democracy and the free press to bring focus and change. We, the people, have the power to return Aspen to the tolerant, intelligent and free community it once was. Choose liberty.

Marilyn Marks
2. Michael Conniff | August 10th, 2008 at 8:14 am

I think these revelations are among the most disturbing I've heard since I first came here almost five years ago. How can this be? I ask myself. A populace quite literally living in fear of retribution? It's unconscionable on every level, and I hope City officials can do something (anything) to change such a heinous atmosphere.

I'm not optimistic, but if the likes of Marilyn and her Lady In Waiting can Stop The Bond, than anything's possible.

Best, Michael!
3. Mike McGarry | August 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am

In any healthy community, it is the individual and social obligation of the members of that community to express their respective truths, even in the face of suppose "retribution."

Indeed, "ultimute freedom" is shouting from the roof tops one's truth, regardless of what others may think or say. And it is liberating.

Anyone who claims that but for "retribution" he would show up to own and express his truth (as he understands it) is lying. He is hiding behind "reasons" to excuse his weenie-ing out. What really is happening is he just doesn't have the character to withstand disapproval. He is, in short, an approval suck, and his "reason" for not owning his truth is all made- up, gutless jive.

And, oh ,yes, he will wisper over the back fence to the neighbor. And he might send anonomous
emails with bounce-back hotmail addressess. But he will never, ever expose himself to any real or imagined disapproval--nope! (Oh, my god, what if people don't like me for my expressing my truth!)

It is foolish and self-decieving to thing these wimps will ever out themselves. They are a combination of weenie and Svengali: They want others do do there bidding, because, well, they might be the object of "retribution." (OH-MY-GOD!)

Never think that were it not for their made-up excuses, these weenie/Svengalis would show up to own and express their truths, because they never-ever will. Their defensive approval sucking is chronic, terminal, obvious and non-remediable.
4. Post Staff | August 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Thank you for the clarification(s), Marilyn. I think you now would agree with me that the best-laid plans inevitably give way to the voice of the people. You have but one voice--a strong one--but the voices we all heard Thursday night are what count and need to be addressed, perhaps by another one of your forums.

As moderator, I came away with another revelation, one that counts me out of your future events: that those who oppose the City fathers and mothers with such rage had best beware they don't become the same thing they despise the most in our pols--belligerent and rude.

You, Marilyn, tend to be invariably polite: I would urge you to urge a similar civility upon those in your camp, lest they continue to alienate those who want to help you.

Best, Michael!