Boulder needs to invest in more open space

Have you decoded the euphemisms? Here in Boulder, “density” is verbum non grata, so instead we plan for “walkable,” “20-minute,” “activated” and “revitalized” communities, for “student,” “achievable” and “attainable” housing, for “accessory dwelling units,” and the bold among us sometimes even mention “gentle density.” This creative assemblage of words means that a promoter can choose the right obscuring terminology for each audience. And, voila, it has worked! Without having to say the word, we are increasing density all over town.

The Denver Regional Council of Governments estimates that we will need 10,700 additional units of housing over the next decade, suggesting that densification will continue. Whether you think that is good or bad, there are consequences: the increasing number of doggy poop bags along trails, the difficulty of parking at Chautauqua, the need for shuttle buses at Eldora, the North Sky on-trail requirement, the no-bike days at Betasso, the near misses between hikers and bikers on the Hall Ranch trails. In short, because of ever-increasing pressure on our open space, we need more public land.

Unfortunately, our budget assumes “declining land acquisition needs over time,” so we need to focus on land we already have.

Three parcels come to mind: First, if the airport is ever closed, that land needs to become open space. Second, the Planning Reserve in north Boulder would give residents of that increasingly dense part of town convenient access to the out-of-doors. And third, the Civic Use Pad at the St. Julien Hotel must remain open as a public square, perhaps something like a Mexican small-town plaza with fountains, benches, trees and flowers.

Turning these areas into housing units would only increase pressure on our open spaces. Let’s not do that. Instead, let’s try to relieve the pressure for those who already live in Boulder.

— Loren Pahlke, Boulder

America should split into two distinct countries

I am disheartened by the outcome of the election, but I have a solution to consider.

Due to political partisanship, the United States is hopelessly divided. The rift continues to grow and will not heal on its own. Republicans are willing to give up their freedom, and the freedom of all Americans, to impose their agenda. Red states elected representatives with similar beliefs, but what about the other half of the population? Those of us who live in blue states value the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and resist a fascist agenda.

I propose splitting the United States into two parts as a long-term solution. It seems radical, but is it more radical than the United States of America, a beacon for democracy, hiring a fascist president with no legal constraints, supported by a corrupt Supreme Court that legalizes his actions for the benefit of billionaires? Giving Donald Trump powers beyond any leader in the history of America is radical and insane. It isn’t American democracy, but it isn’t intended to be.

Blue states embrace freedom, equality and democracy. I am a Colorado resident, a blue state. I don’t want to see my grandchildren live under an authoritarian dictatorship, and I don’t intend to give in to the fascists meekly.

I’m proposing a split. The Red States of America and the Blue States of America. Two entities. Two separate countries, with their own Congress, Constitution and Courts. An initiative needs to be in place before Donald Trump is inaugurated and the walls go up to keep Americans in, rather than keeping immigrants out.

Each state already has its own governor, legislatures and court systems. Each state could have a referendum to choose their country. If there is adequate support, we need to organize a movement.

— Joanne Maypole, Westminster