Another interesting legal aspect will be how these initiatives sit with the recent US Supreme Court ruling regarding "disparate impacts" of zoning regulations under the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Briefly, one can use statististics to show decisions and practices have discriminatory effects without proving that they are a result of discriminatory intentions. Like it or not, the simple fact that some Boulder neighborhoods are low density, rich, and white can call into question the underlying zoning that keeps them that way. A recent NY Times piece speculated that this ruling might cause relyably blue districts to shift red because of NIMBY sentiments.

A well intended letter, thank you. However, the biggest cost to running buses or vans is the cost of labor: drivers, maintenance etc. The 10 minute frequency "back east" that you suggest here can be supported only by a larger ridership in tributary areas of housing measured at least at 15-30 units per acre. Those are the densities which transit engineers use to calculate efficient routing. I don't see that to be an easy sell here.

Unfortunately, we can't achieve the benefits of city living when we are committed to very pleasant, but inefficient, suburban densities. I am a little surprised that City staff have de-emphasized this part of the calculation and went ahead with the right sizing, knowing there to be a continued need for automotive transit. I would like to hear a well-reasoned plan to bridge that gap. Subsidies would also be a hard sell.

Thanks for the research. My problem is that I assumed what is obvious to those who understand regional planning seems counterintuitive and wrong to the average layperson. To some extent, being unaware of how cities actually work can be attributed to provincial, suburban experiences as a framework to judge change. The city would do well to explain in easy-to-understand terms the costs in additional school taxes, water, sewer, highway taxes, and police/fire protection that all will bear should policies pass that exacerbate sprawl. A neighborhood vote or a surcharge on a building permit will never insulate existing residents from their eternal expense should feel-good initiatives pass.

I too would hate to see congestion, pollution and would not like to bear increased infrastructure costs. The naïveté of those supporting this will play right into the hands of the elitist no-growth lobby and ironically, the sprawl development interests. The average Joe won't figure this out until well after the city and its surrounding county is permanently ruined.

Which letter is inaccurate and misleading?

If Boulder's streets are being overwhelmed by traffic, it is because many live beyond walking distance to work, school, shopping and other services. Transit cannot serve far flung subdivisions which generate at least 10 automobile trips per day per household. Compact neighborhoods generate only 6 trips per household because of the double advantage of shorter distances to destinations and the ability of,say, a mom-and-pop to thrive in a walkable district. These are facts born out of known planning principles.

The writer also seems to miss the fact that all new development has a much higher proportion of affordable units as a requirement for approval. Where the average single family neighborhood project is required to build 20% affordable, North Boulder, the Junction, and many other projects have had to build upwards of 40% affordable. The land costs are amortized over greater unit counts, so the "million dollar lots" argument is simply false.

As to "growth paying its own way", the writer seems to miss the costs born by all for sprawl. With 50% growth in jobs and population projected in the region over the next several decades (and your precious neighborhood vote has absolutely no control over that dynamic), we will all be paying for polution, new roads, new schools, new police and fire protection etc. if this growth is not directed into existing urbanized areas where those services exist. Sure, Erie, and the "L" towns need to tighten up their sprawl, but Boulder is not imune from the effects of traffic and taxes if the region squanders its remaining lands.

Of course, with no understanding of planning dynamics, these initiatives will result in more sprawl, more traffic, and more costs, but it sure feels good.

This cannot turn out well. Imagine how a neighborhood can find itself contradicting fair housing laws by voting against an affordable housing project. It is not unlike a group voting on who can join a club or who gets served at a lunch counter. There will be lawsuits using these analogies so I would like an explanation from supporters as to how such an initiative does not exacerbate "disparate affects" per recent SCOTUS rulings.

The elephant in the room is the projected doubling of Colorado's growth by 2050, most of it along the front range. Mr. Pomerance is a clever fellow who enlists hot-button issues like road narrowing to push his ultimate agenda of growth limits here. However, before you all punch the "thumbs-down" icon, consider that growth limits here encourage automotive sprawl everywhere else. It's like squeezing a balloon.

Also consider the futility of insuring ease of strictly automotive transit at the expense of other alternatives. We have all learned, for example, that widening highways may temporarily ease traffic, but also enables more distant agricultural fields to be reasonably accessed by car, a boon to speculative land developers since the 1950's. Many a developer has made a fortune on remote subdivisions and strip malls. So we are indeed a clever and creative community, and I would appreciate reading a well considered column by this author, or anyone else, addressing these facts and suggesting potential regional solutions.

While I am no fan of City projects that are "cutting edge" but ill-thought out, like the municipal utility effort, Ms. Young is correct in saying that this effort is only novel in the fly-over states. Many cities have done this well. Even north Broadway is single lane in each direction with a center turn lane, and it accommodates thousands of commuters a day. The alternative would be to house them in town... which is a real stretch for supporters and opponents of "right-sizing" alike.

Ms Gray is within her rights, and indeed has an obligation, to seek help in decisions that are complex and perhaps beyond her experience or expertise. But with all the good planning being done around the world, why did she so limit her resources?

Thanks, Ed. Good communities evolve. Great cities do it well.