04/25/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Reality ". The Myth is that we still can use the figure 147 homes per year and still come out according to the stated goal. The fact is that these two figures can not be used together. Simple Arithmetic shows that if the population was 16,791 in the_year 2000 and was growing at a rate.of -about 750 per year, you would have a population of about 1.7,550 one year later, 18,300 two years later, etc. The closer this figure comes to the goal 20,500, the fewer homes you can build per year and still stay within the goal. By next year, at the rate we now are growing, only 2,200 more people can be added before the goal is reached. Spread over the 18 years left before the year 2020, only 730 homes can be added (at 3 per home), an average of about 40 homes per year. • If the figure 147 units per year is used (441 new residents at 3 /home) and the number of people left before reaching 20,500 is in the order of 2,200, it would take only 5 more years to reach the stated limit. It is not good city management to reach max population too quickly and we believe much better, for many reasons, to spread growth out over long periods of time, thereby relieving stress on schools, transportation and other services. If the City authorized the building of 147 residences per year (the addition of 441 people annually at 3 per residence), the city would grow by 7,938 people in 18 years (by 2020) . If the City's . population were 18,300 in 2002 (as apparently it will be) then by 2020 the city's population would be 26,238. That would be 1,000 more people than the Metro Council had a ked for and the City objected to (4,500 more than found acceptable in 1998. This growth dilemma is self- imposed by the City. How to switch gears from fast to slow growth in time to preserve the stated goal will, we think, require a moritorium. We strongly oppose changing goals to a 110 higher level. .-10--0/ Environmental Board Comprehensive Plan Comments, Appendix 4, page 2 of 2