Response for Martin (and see next page, too)
Councilwoman Martin and I similarly resonate on several points. She recognizes that Longmont will ultimately come to at least a slow-growth state. However, she would allow growth to the extent of our existing planning area. I contend that if a planning area can be defined, it can be re-defined. Interestingly, she says we need wiggle-room to improve the City’s walkability, this among other relics of pre-COVID planning. I don’t think annexing outside our existing borders does much to improve walkability of the current incorporated area. My reasoning on her annexation policy applies to other shortcomings that she lists as besetting the interior of Longmont. Annexation, she implies, can lead to higher density and to reclaiming asphalt in favor of smarter public transit options, implying that higher density in newly leeched development is advantageous to interior Longmont. But look: Allowing land-leeches to develop in land currently outside of Longmont does not positively benefit present residents as judged by those metrics. Picture me scratching my head.
Toward the end of the article, Martin is quoted: “The public can help by understanding how local government is working to protect and enhance life in Longmont. A backlash against developers and growth of any kind is not helpful.” I suggest that the direction of understanding should be two-way, that Council should understand what the residents want rather than simply telling the public what is going to happen. I know Martin well enough to aver she would agree in principle with that statement, but I suspect that she might fall short of it in practice. She’s a very smart hard worker and studies the material, but she is capable of making her mind up pretty hard, too. As I have said repeatedly, Longmont owes nothing to the land-leeches. I think that a backlash against the nutrients is unlikely, and that backlash she thinks is aimed at developers is instead at Council for permitting the leeches to run amok.