With the tourists gone and many locals headed out of town for well-deserved respites from the demands of a hectic winter season, the valley is fairly quiet, which is great for the rest of us who aren’t going anywhere.

It’s fairly but not totally quiet, as a quick review of recent local press headlines shows ( “Ballot question 'A' passes handily in Glenwood Springs” ).

Per the overwhelming results of the citizen’s vote, language will be added to the city of Glenwood Springs’ home rule charter requiring a public vote on the annexation of land or any residential/mixed-use housing on city-owned land. This citizens’ referendum was initiated by those who felt their elected representatives were not focused enough on the quality of life of its current residents. Sound familiar?

Perhaps the citizens of our midvalley and upper-valley towns also might be encouraged to take similar action. The powers-that-be and the developers won’t be happy, but who cares about their bruised egos and diminished profits?

More headlines: “New Basalt council votes to support Midland project” and “Town of Basalt, foes frame issues in Midland Avenue election.”

Basalt’s pending conflict was initiated by those who are opposed to several key elements of this massive public works project in the heart of town. The initiative’s proponents claim the town is making unauthorized expenditures and that it will eliminate too much parking in the downtown core.

The issues aren’t overly complex, but the elected and appointed bureaucrats are adamantly defending their turf and are throwing up a lot of doublespeak in order to get their way.

The mistake the bureaucrats made was in starting construction before all stakeholders were aligned and all the complex issues were settled. If the vote goes in favor of the initiative’s proponents, several of the unfavorable design elements will be changed and the enormous price tag will be reduced. If it goes in the bureaucrats’ favor, the streetscape may look good, but function in ways many find undesirable — while costing a hell of a lot more than necessary.

Here’s another: “Holy Cross approaches 90% renewable power in 2025.”

Holy Cross Energy is closer to achieving its goal of distributing 100% renewable power by 2030, which is good news for the environment and electric power customers in the Roaring Fork, Colorado River and Eagle River valleys.

It’s anticipated that sufficient renewable power will be generated to meet most of the utility’s power needs from their own sources at lower costs to their customers. But since “the sun don’t always shine” and “the wind don’t always blow,” Holy Cross will still be reliant, to some extent, on wholesalers that aren’t entirely renewable to fill the gaps.

Finding reliable, renewable power sources to fill those gaps will be the challenge they face in seeking out and developing other backup sources to solar and wind such as hydropower storage and geothermal energy. I’m confident that the smart and strategic thinkers at Holy Cross are up to the task and will be able to meet its goals and those of its customers.

Still more headlines: “The airport of our dreams” and “ Pitkin County officials distracted over incorrect or irrelevant facts.” These stories represent more “sturm und drang” on the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport redevelopment issue, which has been festering and left unresolved for many years.

Issues surround how large and luxurious a new passenger terminal should be; whether to move the runway, taxiway and control tower and what size they should be to accommodate the planes that are able to fly in and out of our difficult and compromised terrain; how much deference the community is willing to give to those who fly privately; and who should operate and profit from private flight operations. The airport redevelopment plans have been the focus of much editorial newsprint and commentary over the past few months.

The unresolved issues are much too complex for most of us mere mortals to wrap our heads around, but fortunately Amory Lovins, the smartest guy in the room on these issues, has weighed in with his thoughts concerning the various competing claims and lucky for us he’s put his clear and expert thinking in writing for everyone to consider and digest.

His most recent commentary on this subject appeared in this paper on April 21 and in The Aspen Times on May 1. I recommend a visit to each paper’s archives for the clearest discussion of the relevant issues and the smartest path forward. I’d also suggest that the appointed and elected Pitkin County bureaucrats do the same.

The last one: “Homeowner accused of marriage fraud sues APCHA.”

Unfortunately, Mick Ireland, in his role as APCHA hearing officer, is once again the subject of a lawsuit claiming that he used an unenforceable clause in a deed restriction to force the sale of the claimant’s house — and in doing so deprived her of her right to due process. This comes on top of another recent case in which Ireland was rebuked by a district court judge who ruled that Ireland overstepped his authority and both misapplied and misinterpreted the law when he ordered the two homeowners to put their house up for sale.

Isn’t it time for Mick to step down and stop pretending he’s neutral and unbiased in adjudicating these matters when the opposite is so evident?