Too much density leads to far worse problems than 'global warming'. With high density you get more social problems like crime. Picking on places like Berkeley and Oakland to have more density is not where the problem lies, You think these cities really need more density? They already have horrible traffic and crime problems as it is. The real problem is the excessive and rapid development in places like Brentwood, Walnut Creek and Tracy. All those places need air conditioned housing and long commutes to stores etc.

The best plan is to give a tax credit to people who don't breed and increase the population. FACT: Building more and more housing in Oakland and Berkeley WILL increase green house gases as you fit more and more people in this confined space.

There are no built out cities. None. It is not reality to think that places like Oakland and Berkeley can get along by adding small incremental new development opportunities. Berkeley only built 145 net new units of housing between 1970 and 1995. Our current housing and environmental crises are direct results of these sorts of inactions. Between 1997 and 2007 Berkeley built 1,200 new housing units and that has barely scratched the surface of meeting the City's overwhelming environmental and social justice needs for that ten year time frame. Berkeley still has 25 years of inaction to make up.

Corridors like San Pablo and Telegraph must be places where significant new housing growth occurs. In fact, most of Berkeley's new housing development has occurred along the corridors and NOT in the downtown core. However, downtowns should provide the most significant opportunities from a yield perspective. There are services and transit opportunities that are investments in public infrastructure. To not take greater advantage of them misues public funds. And by the way, both downtowns will benefit handsomely.

I was the City Planning Manager in Berkeley for the ten year period that Berkeley did build some new housing. We need to do a lot more. City planning and development are not separate disembodied disciplines - their goals are inextricably linked and the governing bodies who oversee both are keenly aware of this. We all want to make our cities better places to live for more people. Where will our children live? I left the city two years ago in order to be more directly effective in the ongoing housing debates. I am now an infill, green, and affordable housing developer trying to make a difference where it is most needed - our existing urban areas.

The choice isn't between high density housing and anti-environmentalism, that's a false choice and a very stupid way to approach a very serious and complex problem.

Decisions that development agencies in Berkeley and Oakland make do not have binding consequences for other municipalities. For example, if Oakland decided to put up high density housing (and of course reap the tax benefits) that would not prevent the city of Napa from deciding to pave over farm land for development (and also reap the tax benefits). Both cities make their own decisions based on their own desire for tax money. It's an old game to pretend that what happens in the big cities determines what happens in the countryside, but as anyone who has lived in the countryside knows, small towns and counties desire those same development dollars and have even fewer other tax sources. So, simply making cities less livable for their inhabitants does nothing to protect the larger environment.

Making cities less livable also has other consequences. Cities like Berkeley and Oakland were built to be diverse built environments not just streets of brutalist architecture warehousing inhabitants. Some folks want to live without gardens in high rise buildings, others do not. In terms of quality of life, I've yet to see any data that says living far above the street in a shoe box is more fulfilling than living at street level on a tree lined street. If you destroy the diversity of the city (in the name of further tax revenue), people will leave. Where will they go? To the homes being built around smaller towns that destroy farm land. And how will further density improve the lives of those that remain in the cities? Will more cars and less sunshine, more people and less quiet, make city dwellers happier? Will further destruction of old buildings in the name of density really improve the health of the environment? Can city services and infrastructure support more people? Already we are living atop 100 year old plumbing, wouldn't it be wise to consider whether we have the resources to support more people before we cram them in and put ourselves further at risk?

And what about water? Certainly you can cram people into buildings, but you can't support endless growth with the available natural resources. There is only so much water in California and it is already too little. Simply ignoring natural boundaries to unlimited growth is foolhardy and we already are living with the consequences of such reckless behavior. A piece of land can only support a finite number of people and the sooner we accept that the better. To point the finger at city dwellers or folks in the countryside and say they are the problem is absurd. The problem is that government at every level is beholden to tax revenues based on continuous growth. It is an unsustainable system. It is an illogical system and it is a broken system.

It has become popular to suggest that we can "grow our way out of our problems," but unfortunately that's exactly the kind of thinking that has got us where we are today. Instead, we need to look at the system resources as a whole and live within those resources. In other words, we have to recognize and honor the natural restrictions that exist in the natural environment we hope to save. Ignoring those restrictions in favor of unsustainable growth, whether in cities or countryside is not environmentalism.

Randall Potts, Oakland

For easy, convenient evidence on how redevelopment can be done successfully, head to Emeryville. Oakland and Berkeley simply stink at it. Even El Cerrito is kicking Berkeley's ass in this department.