Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It will contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

I am writing in regard to what I see as the greatest challenge of the Gateway development plan. I know little about the wide spectrum of needs
that must be met for this to succeed. For the most part, I am impressed by the thoughtful work you and your staff have paid to detail. I have
several questions, as do many others, but right now I want to focus on what seems to me a fatal flaw of your proposal.
I saw a video many months ago, when this plan was first being publicized, in which you mentioned your staff’s ‘’creative approach” to certain
aspects of the development. You used that descriptor numerous times during the presentation. I am speaking now of only one of those
“creative approaches,” the one having to do with traffic.
I do not remember the exact numbers you mentioned, but it was something like 14 parking places allotted for 44 dwellings. Actually, I believe
the ratio was more radical than that. You were assuming that people would use other forms of transportation around town: bikes, shared cars,
etc.
I cannot remember the specifics of your overall presentation, only my reaction.
The Gateway Plan, as with other aspects of the city’s general devotion to “infill,” suffers from this “creative approach,” which strikes me as
nothing more than hopeful (and naive) thinking.
I live at [1800 block of] 27th Street. The east end of it (by Alliance) is a perfect example of the kind of infill outcomes that your “creative approach”
creates. There, on the north side of the road, are a series of habitations, each with a number of sleeping spaces, and, in addition,“Gramma Units” in the back.
Ah, what a great way to provide housing for a large number of people on a small plot of land! The problem is, there were very few parking spaces provided. Far less than the expected number of people living in those spaces. The result (go look) is an ugly hodgepodge of vehicles sprawled out front, crowding the street (often illegally parked) and on every available space, including lawns. The point is, your infill plan on my street has made it look like an urban ghetto. I can only imagine what this town will look like
should all your infill dreams come true.
I am not even referring to all the traffic problems that will certainly be a product of all this infill.
The point is, Mr. Loya, we cannot pretend that people will ride their bikes as much as you or I do. People in America want their own cars. And, by god, no matter what your “creative approach” might hope for, people will have their own cars and park them wherever the hell they can. In this country that is still the norm, and must be expected. Until a massive infrastructure change, which makes traveling around the state by train or bus more feasible, individual cars must be assumed and accounted for.
I could go on and on. I won’t. As I said, I support a well-designed plan to build up the Gateway area, but can’t we do this with a clear-eyed approach to how it will affect our beautiful town? This should not be about piling in as many bodies as we can hold. My suggestion is to do it one piece at a time, and every bit of it state of the art, thus creating a town that people love to live in.