New Urbanism serves our long-term interests

As I read the headline of the Feb. 24 article on New Urbanism by Jennifer Lang, I strongly suspected that she was from the Independence Institute. In my opinion, the folks from the Independence Institute don't give much credence to ideas or actions that take the long and holistic view of what's in a community's best interests.

In railing against the notion of tax subsidies for developers of New Urbanist high-density, "politically correct" neighborhoods, she seems not to consider that the main reasons for building higher density neighborhoods near mass transit lines might be to conserve precious resources. We need to design growth to use less water. We need to preserve rapidly diminishing wildlife habitat from the ever-expanding exurbs.

Also it would be in our long-term best interests to use less oil, and therefore it makes sense to design communities where commutes are shorter or can be easily made by mass transit. Unless we address these issues now, it will be much harder and more expensive down the line. None of these concerns does Lang elude to, with her individual-rights-trumps-everything - including common sense - mindset.

Jeannie Dunham, Denver

Who pays costs of new low-density enclave?

Jennifer Lang's attempt to articulate an opposing viewpoint to New Urbanist development in Denver was pure sophistry. From the tone of the article, you'd think that suburbanites were being herded into cattle cars and forced to live in stylish lofts among Prius-driving do-gooders.

Moreover, she espouses a position that ironically contradicts her apparent goal of reducing the taxpayer burden of public expenditure. Instead, she might consider the vastly more exorbitant costs to taxpayers associated with the type of sprawling, leapfrog suburban development that typifies almost all of metro Denver.

When another new exclusive, low-density suburban enclave is built, who pays for the additional infrastructure such as new roads, schools, sewer lines, snowplows and fire stations? Who pays when increased traffic from exurban development "requires" that we spend $5 billion to widen freeways every 10 to 15 years? Who pays for the additional public transit for the people that work at the suburban McDonald's but can't afford to live anywhere near it? Who pays for the new stoplights and turn lanes to service the new (taxpayer-subsidized) suburban Wal-Mart? How about the U.S. Postal Service, which counts among its largest expenditures the upkeep of the delivery vehicles required to serve the suburban routes that couldn't possibly be done on foot?

Lang also refers to urban-renewal projects as "socially engineering lifestyles." That epithet would more plausibly apply to single-use zoning laws and neighborhood covenants typical of suburban development, which enforce that people live among people just like them and have to drive everywhere.

Yale J. Kaul, Wheat Ridge

Families live in New Urbanist community

In the opinion piece "New Urbanism's Flip Side," author Jennifer Lang obviously never interviewed residents of Colorado's New Urbanist communities. She wrote, "Certainly singles and childless couples will find these areas attractive." I live in a single-family home in Bradburn Village in Westminster, and while we have childless couples and singles who live here, our community is overwhelmingly populated by families with children who have found our new urbanist community an ideal place to live.

Anyone who has ever spent more than one day at home with a small child can attest that having things nearby - parks, schools, churches, restaurants, shops and bars (for parents' nights out!) - prevents the feeling of social isolation and boredom so common for parents staying at home with their kids in a traditional suburban subdivision, where they have to get into the car (always a big production when you have small children) and drive to get anywhere. I find the author's declaration that "Denver-area residents are being bombarded with high-density living centers" and "the freedom to choose where you live is subtly being eroded by the insistence of planners with New Urbanism on the mind" patently ridiculous.

As to the comment that "social engineering" the lifestyles of Coloradans is the goal of "urban renewal planners," how horrible that I know all my neighbors, that I have a list of 30 people who live close by that I can call in case of an emergency or if I just need someone to watch my 5-year-old so I can get something done.

Petra Spiess, Westminster

Writer had an ax to grind

It's Jennifer Lang's opinion and she's welcome to it, but to make New Urbanist planning sound like a communist plot to overthrow American liberties is downright disingenuous. Obviously she has an ax to grind. Why else would she oversimplify the way tax-increment financing works and ignore all the problems inherent in spreading out forever beyond the blue horizon? Talk about straining fire, police and other public services!

Lang and her ilk have the luxury of their laissez faire ideas because others are trying to solve problems instead of imagining we don't need government.

Ed Hyatt, Denver

For first time, I feel I'm part of a community

After "New Urbanism's Flip Side" by Jennifer Lang, it seems she has a real problem with urban renewal. I live in Bradburn Village, which was used for a picture in the piece, and I don't believe our land was ever called blighted.

As for the New Urbanist being the new Satan, I live in a New Urbanist community, and for the first time in my adult life I feel like I am really part of a community. I have two kids, and the 15 kids on our street have been wonderful playmates for them. Previously, I lived in a typical suburban neighborhood, and I would go to the park and never see the same family twice. I didn't know any of my neighbors. I was lonely, really.

Heidi Swetich, Westminster