(OPTIONAL): Please provide any comments you have about this Bay Area population growth:
#	Response Date	Comment
1.	Fri, 8/10/07 6:27 AM	John Holtzclaw of Sierra Club says 4BB is sustainable human population. That's a big problem.
2.	Sat, 8/11/07 10:25 PM	Regional growth cannot be limited by cities and Counties, only pushed elsewhere in the state. That's why it's so important to have regional growth management policies that direct all new growth in the into existing communitites. This is not just an "eat-your-peas" grudging acceptance of the inevitable and an atempt to mitigate the impacts of growth. Policies that call for dense, compact, diverse, walkable communities will make our exisitng communities better places to live, work, shop and play.
3.	Wed, 8/15/07 12:29 PM	it is inevitable and we must be prepared to deal with it, like it or not
4.	Wed, 8/15/07 8:21 PM	1. Where is the water for this population coming from? 2. Usually job growth is driven by the need to support your population, so why are we working in reverse - trying to increase jobs to attract a population that we don't have the infrastructure for?
5.	Wed, 8/15/07 10:09 PM	While population growth is inevitable, the infrastructure must be planned and FUNDED before the new housing is approved. City governments in the area put a great deal of attention on environment, open space and green building. These are important issues, but I have seen little or nothing addressing the everyday needs of the growing population, such as athletic facilities, retail and grocery, and the growth of revenue to support schools and services.
6.	Wed, 8/15/07 11:26 PM	Palo Alto cannot house the world, nor should it be expected to do so. Rapidly the quality of life is disintegrating for those who already live here. There are not now enough basic services for the current population: supermarkets, gas stations, physicians - including primary care and pediatricians. Commute traffic to and from the industrial park, Stanford hospitals, and the Stanford Shopping Center is crippling the city and raising pollution levels to unacceptable levels. Maybe it's time to stop the influx of new residents into California. We will run out of water, gas, and electricity...and a diminished food supply. Too many people has a direct relationship to an increase in crime. It's time to draw the line.
7.	Wed, 8/15/07 11:33 PM	As out economy and population grow, our roads anr not being up graded to handle this increase. Palo Alto has added hundreds of new housing units in south Palo Alto with out addressing the over crowded streets!
8.	Thu, 8/16/07 2:46 AM	I don't have a crystal ball; so I can't make any estimates of how much growth or the rate of growth there will be.
9.	Thu, 8/16/07 4:30 AM	The population growth is out of hand. I know that the city wants to have more housing because there will be more property tax. I would like less congestion and less people living here.
10.	Thu, 8/16/07 6:08 AM	so be it
11.	Thu, 8/16/07 4:52 PM	Projections for the next thirty years? Perhaps God has the data to accomplish this miracle accurately. This falls more into the category of prophecy than reliable data-based forecasting generated by unannointed humans. I don't think anyone can can say with any reliability at what rate economic factors will drive population growth that far out. While we can probably project growth for the next 5-10 years, it's wildly presumptuous to go that far out. Since we are planning housing for the next 7-10 years, why don't we talk about growth projections for that period instead of starting the survey with questionable data that appears intended to persuade respondents to a pont of view. This is hardly the way to introduce an objective survey.
12.	Thu, 8/16/07 6:32 PM	I always think growth is a good thing as long as it's planned and healthy. I do have some concerns about school sizes and school budgets.
13.	Thu, 8/16/07 8:54 PM	As our population grows, fueled largely by the leading technology which is the hallmark of Silicon Valley, we must look to other ways than physically commuting to work. We can, and we must, begin telecommuting or doing our work -- as I am now -- by logging into a website. ABAG overemphasizes the value of physically being present at the workplace. Most of us never have lived & worked in the same community -- and have no desire, nor need, to do so.
14.	Fri, 8/17/07 3:13 AM	Two million more people in the Bay Area is four million too many.
15.	Fri, 8/17/07 5:29 AM	The Bay area will continue to grow, or it will stangnate. If it doesn't grow in ways that facilitate transportation without cars, or if it grows only to serve wealthier demographics, it will stagnate. A few of the things we MUST do to ameliorate this growth is 1) get hugh density housing near transportation corridors; 2) INSIST on cheap, accessible mass transportation that is well-coordinated; 3) build sufficient BMR housing to accomodate a majority of Palo Alto's lower paid workers (teachers, police and fire personnel, retail workers, etc. etc.) Last, I hope this survey is not "stuffed" by the anti-growth interests in Palo Alto. Our policy-makers must pay attention to more enlightened visions of what's possible for our city, than those who would see us turn into a soley aggluent upper middle-class enclave. Regarding mass transit: in addition to taking the initiative to stimulate regional mass transit, we must work hard to ensure that intra-municipal mass transit is developed in a far more robust way than the current model. As our community ages, we are going to need to find ways to move older folk around. Palo Alto can lead in this effort, and show the rest of our aging country the way forward.
16.	Fri, 8/17/07 12:26 PM	The growth is a window from Asia and Mexico, along with pulling those seeking fortune. Growth by mixed cultures is always difficult.
17.	Fri, 8/17/07 7:00 PM	Developers don't make people, people make people. Those of us here now benefited by the preparations our elders made for us. Don't deny that to our children.
18.	Sat, 8/18/07 1:25 AM	It is extremely important to our family that Palo Alto make very informed and wise decisions in the next several years to preserve quality of life here. We are on the verge of losing a very special city to horrendous traffic, poor public transportation, reduced train service, and simply too many people.
19.	Sat, 8/18/07 2:25 AM	1.prior to moving to Bay Area, newcomers should make sure they have sufficient means to afford high priced housing locally. 2. newcomers should not expect existing residents to subidize newcomers housing. 3.existing local infrastructure not capable of supporting ABAG growth.
20.	Sat, 8/18/07 4:18 AM	The only way to avoid the fate of Los Angeles is to stop the growth of the Bay Area. Accelerating its growth is NOT the way. The ABAG serves development interests and not those of current Bay Area residents.
21.	Sun, 8/19/07 5:54 AM	Let's do a smart job preparing for it.
22.	Sun, 8/19/07 7:37 PM	Palo Alto has to accept there will be growth in the next 30 years. The city council has to quit being anti-business and so pro no growth. The whole "Palo Alto process" is past it's time in the world of today. Prime examples...30 years of collecting sewer taxes and yet the sewers throughout the city have not been replaced. Putting the utilities underground...again over 30 years and little result. The council moves to the beat of who has the loudest voice and votes..not the voice of the majority of citizens. With the present mentality of the council, Palo Alto cannot even hang onto a major chain grocery store within its boundaries. Yet cities that have planned on growth are expanding their grocery stores, retail in their downtowns to take care of their citizens basic needs. It will take Palo Alto 30 years to plan for the growth that will happen within the next 5 years and by then it will be too late. Height limits need to be removed for business buildings on University Ave. Free parking garages need to be built. Land use needs to allow for denser housing units especially along the El Camino and Cal Train tracks. The Embarcadero Road needs to be extended to the Dumbarton Bridge. Something like Redwood Shores and Oracle complex needs to replace the airport...we have the bay use it. Overall, there will be growth. Palo Alto must go with it or lose what it is today.
23.	Thu, 8/23/07 7:13 AM	Palo Alto is already too full of houses/apartments and not enough business/commercial buildings to provide sales tax revenue. We need to expand commercially, not residentially. If we grow residentially, the new homes/apartments builders need to provide funding for increased city services such as police, fire, schools etc.
24.	Thu, 8/23/07 11:07 PM	Recent polling data shows that the vast majority of Bay Area residents believe that "growth is inevitable", which is good for those of us who like to start the dialogue with this point!
25.	Fri, 8/24/07 1:15 AM	The population growth is inevitable. This is a great plan by ABAG to set targets otherwise many cities will not be encouraged to do their part. This could also provide political cover for the council and planning department.
26.	Fri, 8/24/07 7:03 AM	I think the growth is unavoidable, but right now communities and their governments are not acting proactively to plan for how to accommodate this growth and minimize the environmental impacts.
27.	Fri, 8/24/07 4:03 PM	I'm confused by the statement above - is population growth going to slow or not? I would not be concerned about some growth as long as we increase our high-density housing and make cities more walkable, bike-ridable, and improve our transit systems.
28.	Fri, 8/24/07 7:33 PM	I support infill growth near transit and hope that all communities in the area will do their share.
29.	Fri, 8/24/07 8:38 PM	Sad, but probable.
30.	Fri, 8/24/07 8:54 PM	In addition to traffic and environmental impact concerns, others to be taken into consideration with increased population and, presumably, demographic changes are: the impact on educational systems and infrastructure, hospital and medical facilities, city utility and road infrastructures, hospital and medical providers and facilities.
31.	Fri, 8/24/07 11:28 PM	Bay Area needs to grow wider with good transit system, instead of trying to cram everything into vertical growth.
32.	Fri, 8/24/07 11:50 PM	there is no question. This is stated as fact but unsupported. The job growth can easily be supported by outsourcing, without increasing population density.
33.	Sat, 8/25/07 12:30 AM	That is a lot of people who will need places to live.
34.	Sat, 8/25/07 12:35 AM	If policy can enable growth and an increase in quality of life at the same time, then it is desirable. If policy permits growth at the expense of longer commute times, more air pollution, and no increase in access to services (such as stores), then policy should be changed so that it does.
35.	Sat, 8/25/07 1:54 AM	This growth is to be discougaged; we are struggling now with infrastructure and public services for the population we already have.
36.	Sat, 8/25/07 4:10 AM	Expectations are not assurances. If we don't get stupid about overdevelopmnet we can keep growth down.
37.	Sat, 8/25/07 6:11 PM	Let's face it - the Bay Area is an ideal place in which to live. We can't blame people for wanting to come here. It seems to me that the South Peninsula as well as the north is getting overcrowded. Maybe we should point to the East for industrial and residential growth. This will not be an easy problem to resolve.
38.	Sat, 8/25/07 8:22 PM	i hope it doesn't happen that fast; but as steve levy says "later isn't never"
39.	Sun, 8/26/07 12:33 AM	We've got too many people in the Bay Area as it is. Traffic varies between bad and terrible. From Palo Alto, it typically takes over 1 hour to get out of suburban areas going east. We should adopt policies that limit growth to essentially zero. The most important of those policies is to put restrictions on new housing. If the housing isn't available, the industrial growth will not happen.
40.	Sun, 8/26/07 1:21 AM	#1 cause of global warming is over population. Less population not more homes is the answer.
41.	Mon, 8/27/07 4:25 AM	Send the people that Mexico doesn't want back to Mexico, then we won't have a growth problem.
42.	Mon, 8/27/07 5:40 PM	While population growth leads to factors we all view with negativity (traffic, pollution, etc.), we must also acknowledge the positive view on job creation and economic growth that our capitalistic society dictates. I.e, there is no free lunch.
43.	Mon, 8/27/07 7:30 PM	Even The Earthquake won't stop it.
44.	Tue, 8/28/07 2:06 PM	Economic growth is good. People and free markets have a way of making growth better for everyone.
45.	Tue, 8/28/07 3:00 PM	I don't have a problem with it.
46.	Tue, 8/28/07 6:15 PM	Palo Alto has built too much high density housing that people don't want. They have replaced critial shopping areas like Alma Plaza with housing, so the detriment of local neighborhoods. The city has not worked closely with the school district so they don't know how overcrowded the schools already are. The planning has been terrible. We want more retail, not more housing. The developers should have to help pay for a new school campus, since the district has to propose a bond for $2 - $8 million to open the Garland campus. This does nothing to alleviate the middle and high school overcrowding. The developers only care about their own greed, not about truly improving our city. You can't just add houses without helping pay for infrastructure, school campuses and libraries.
47.	Wed, 8/29/07 8:28 PM	This is a good sign that the Bay Area can maintain its importance in the US and world economy.
48.	Wed, 8/29/07 9:12 PM	I love it!! More homes equals more cash for my money pile!! I say let's up the numbers to 4,000 just for P.A. And we'll call it 'smarth growth' or 'green'; it's the best way for me to confuse the innocent neighbors who are about to get blind-sided by my sad projects.
49.	Wed, 8/29/07 9:14 PM	The Bay Area is alreay overpopulated! Quality of life has declined as traffic, pollutions, resource contention, and other growth-driven issues have negatively impacted the region. My daughter was overflowed to a school outside our neighborhood because the school was at capacity. Adding more housing to already dense areas exacerbate the problem. ZPG ... zero population growth ... please.
50.	Thu, 8/30/07 12:08 AM	Before I even start, this survey is making me very angry. Most of Palo Alto's progress in housing for the last ten years is attributable to my neighborhood - the much-loathed and controversial Stanford West apartments on Sand Hill Road. Nearly 700 units built by Stanord alone don't get us recognition by the survey-writers or Palo Alto as a neighborhood. The map doesn't even show Sand Hill Road! Palo Alto takes advantage of apartment dwellers (milking them for sewer fees, etc., when they didn't even have to pay for the installation of the lines and the streets!!), and would clearly rather we weren't even here. It's also informative to realize Palo Alto refers to our rental rates as Low-income. Does $2500 per month for an apartment classify us as Low income housing? That must be, beccause 12% of the 1300 units Palo Alto claims are moderate-income housing is clearly much lower that the 700 apartments of Stanford West.
51.	Thu, 8/30/07 12:29 AM	I think it poses a real challenge to our well-being, and I hope we will explore lots of options about how best to structure our cities and land so as to accommodate it.
52.	Thu, 8/30/07 1:02 PM	Population growth sounds like a fact. Doesn't matter what my opinion is; it is going to happen. It also sounds like it is due to migration as opposed to birth rates, so encouraging people here not to reproduce will not help.
53.	Thu, 8/30/07 1:50 PM	Growth will happen. We need to manage growth & impact of growth better for local communities not just the 'region'. Do not use mandatory build housing unit numbers as way to manage growth. Allwoo communities to say no to more housing. Require entites like Stanford with large open space tracks to build affordable hosuing into their community on their land for employees who work in the medical center, as reatil clerks, janitors, security guards..just as they do formake sudsidized housing available for those with acdemic appointments. Build more mass transit now...not buses ...and mmediately change gas/diesel buses to electric using solar for energy. Include easy, safe lighted pedestrian access to all transit/shopping areas.
54.	Thu, 8/30/07 2:34 PM	We need to plan for it.
55.	Thu, 8/30/07 3:54 PM	My comment would relate more to population growth killing us.
56.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:07 PM	The lack of control of this growth is degrading the quality of life that has led to the popularity of the area in the first place.
57.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:10 PM	I think the Bay Area, with its long-term growth trends, strong economy, limited amount of land and beautiful natural setting, has the unique ability needs a comprehensive plan so that the area can handle many more people without degrading quality of life here. This will be difficult to do piecemeal but if jobs and housing can be clustered and transportation well-designed, it seems the area could support this growth without an adverse effect on quality of life.
58.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:19 PM	I'm not happy about it.
59.	Thu, 8/30/07 4:30 PM	The population of Palo Alto has been consistent for years indicating that there is virtually no room for growth here. While ABAG's growth projections may be accurate, their solution is not ie the first priority should be to increase public transportation, not housing.
60.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:29 PM	It should be restricted to areas where public transportation corridors exist and can easily be upgraded (such as Caltrain, BART, ACE, bus routes)
61.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:36 PM	I am very concerned about traffic and quality of public schools in this area. The Crescent Park area local school district is at a maximum capacity. Addison School and Paly High School can not afford to grow any more. I am not in favor of building more large units in our neighborhood.
62.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:55 PM	It requires that infrastructure keeps pace with the growth. At least in PA, this has not appeared to be the case, which makes any new housing development a concern.
63.	Thu, 8/30/07 5:57 PM	We pay high taxes and have paid dearly for our homes to live in this community. I do not understand why we are given such a significant quota to increase our housing allotment in Palo Alto. This heavily impacts our traffic, schools, parks and other services and does not necessarily enhance our community. In fact, I would say it is a detraction. I hope our city government is thoughtful in its approach to increases.
64.	Thu, 8/30/07 6:32 PM	I believe reasonable growth is an essential and inexorable part of the economic, cultural, and ecological health of the region, bringing with it the opportunity for change and staying competitive in the modern world. The core questions are How much? and How Fast?
65.	Thu, 8/30/07 6:38 PM	Hopefully local gov'ts will 'get vision, self-discipline and persistence to zone and re-develop to include more open space and some local agricultural spaces to help us all maintain connection with the environment and a need to eat locally, balancing with this inevitable increased density in the face of business and economic and revenue pressures.
66.	Thu, 8/30/07 6:38 PM	The country and California in particular, need to do something to limit population growth. California will not be nearly as nice for our children with 5 people everywhere 3 are now (2040). The efforts for reducing warming and the need to extract more water are somewhat moot in the face of the population growth.
67.	Thu, 8/30/07 8:23 PM	I appreciate the bay area population growth. We have limited land space for new buildings and as a landowner who has responsibility to tenants and as a resident in the bay area I believe that we need good and responsive local government to address the qualify of life issues that accompany growing urban density. I am not opposed to in-fill and residential and business growth if it is balanced with responsible local government and informed community efforts. J. Logan
68.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:38 PM	Sounds likely.
69.	Thu, 8/30/07 9:45 PM	if the above paragraph is to be used again , i think some items ought to be made clear 1) is ABAG quite certain that the increase in jobs absolutely relates to an increase of people actually having to reside in the bay area 2) is this a net increase of 2.0 residents - as it is written, it is not clear that migration out of the bay area has not been included in the calculation.
70.	Thu, 8/30/07 10:42 PM	I am concerned that our communities are not doing everything they can to be prepared to grow sustainably.
71.	Thu, 8/30/07 11:38 PM	I remember the traffic and the discourtesy associated with the stress of increased traffic from before the dot-com bust. The traffic lessened considerably thereafter as people moved away from the area seeking jobs. I shudder to think that we may see a reprise of those times again if the population growth of the Bay Area increases as predicted above.
72.	Fri, 8/31/07 12:42 AM	When I first came to CA, the entire state had six million people. Adding two million more in just the Bay Area stuns the mind. Will we next have pushers at subway doors to stuff more peole insde?
73.	Fri, 8/31/07 3:22 AM	Though the Bay Area is attractive because of climate, it has become economically infeasible for substantial job growth. Companies in this area are increasingly at an economic disadvantage.
74.	Fri, 8/31/07 5:45 AM	terrible- cars, pollution, noise,crowding--very detrimental to the way of life and the beauty of the bay area!
75.	Fri, 8/31/07 11:04 AM	An increase of two million residents is frightening. Already in Palo Alto we are experiencing over-building and the associated parking problems,crowded schools,and other severe adverse effects on the quality of life.
76.	Fri, 8/31/07 7:26 PM	It should be managed through market mechanisms as much as possible
77.	Fri, 8/31/07 9:10 PM	Given the threats of global warming and the ever-present possibility of economic disaster quite independent of that, I wonder whether all this growth can really happen. But it is better to be prepared for all eventualities!
78.	Sat, 9/1/07 8:39 AM	I am very upset and disturbed at what has been happening to Palo Alto. I have lived here since 1970 and thought I'd never want to leave but the past 10 years or so have caused me to think more frequently and seriously about moving away from here. There is too much congestion, too much dense housing going up everywhere with concurrent demand on services and deterioration of what made Palo Alto special. The town is becoming unrecognizable and the change has NOT been positive in my opinion, in any respect. I think it is time to say "NO MORE HOUSING" and I cannot understand why we don't have the right to do just that. It is very depressing. Because of Prop13 we will be forced to move out of state if we chose to move out of Palo Alto. We will be looking for some place more like Palo Alto used to be. The developers always seem to win here and that is very destructive of the quality of life. It's a sad tale of a town that couldn't say "no" to growth and lost it's charm and soul in the process, not to mention becoming more ugly with lot-filling McMansions and big Sardine Can and Bee Hive 3-4 story housing complexes. Then there's the loss of affordable shopping, forcing one to go elsewhere unless one is ultra rich. It's just an increasinly unpleasant place to live, which is heartbreaking. So little of the town is recognizable any more that I sometimes feel as if I've already moved to a strange, new place. I know that change is the natural way of things but when all the changes are negative it is very disheartening. I can't think of one thing about Palo Alto that is better than it was when I moved here, quite the contrary. Our schools are over-crowded and our public facilities, such as libraries, are no longer top-notch nor as good as those in neighboring towns, such as Mountain View. The City really let down those of us who were driven out of our homes by the flood in 1998 and have done little but talk talk talk about fixing the problem since then, as far as I can see. There seems to always be money for far less important things while the infrastructure crumbles. The town is obviously already suffering from over-population but more and more housing keeps being built. It is INSANE!
79.	Sat, 9/1/07 7:57 PM	If cities in the Bay Area commit to zero net growth of housing and business/institutional real estate space then businesses and other employers will be forced to move their operations and employees to areas that welcome such development. I propose zero population growth in the Bay Area.
80.	Sat, 9/1/07 11:31 PM	If this increase in population is not matched by improvements in transportation systems the result will be, in my opinion, disastrous
81.	Sat, 9/1/07 11:54 PM	Why are we thinking only about housing and not about infrastructure, such as parks and school sites? Why are we not encouraging telecommuting?
82.	Mon, 9/3/07 5:08 PM	My main worry is parking and traffic associated with large developments near transportation hubs. Many of these areas are surrounded by residential areas and there isn't any reasonable way to get the occupants of the high density developments to a from their residence except with public transportation. Even though living next to public transportation, people still have cars and drive. There must be adquate parking provided and proof that the traffic from the development does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods before any such development goes forward.
83.	Tue, 9/4/07 3:23 AM	In general, cities are not preparing their infrastructure for the devlopment they're approving.
84.	Tue, 9/4/07 6:06 PM	It's great as long as there is adequate housing and infrastructure, including maintaining the high quality of Palo Alto Unified School District.
85.	Tue, 9/4/07 8:11 PM	Expecting housing to match jobs within each area defined by city boundaries is arbitrary. For instance, adding housing in East Palo Alto (or Menlo Park, Mountain View, Stanford, or Los Altos) would be nearly as helpful in creating housing near Palo Alto jobs as would adding housing in Palo Alto itself.
86.	Tue, 9/4/07 8:50 PM	Where will we put all the kids? Will school building grow at a commensurate rate?
87.	Tue, 9/4/07 9:04 PM	I believe that Palo Alto has enough housing, especially with the new developments being constructed right now. The quality of life will be adversely affected if 3500 new homes are built.
88.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:50 AM	To sustain the prosperous way of life local residents are used to, some growth does have to happen and will happen -- so managing the growth will be key to good governance.
89.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:30 PM	Overpopulation relative to resources is a global problem, at all levels -- from cities to regions to countries to the planet. However, people need to go somewhere. It would be a trgedy to "pave paradise" or overdevelop and totally foul the natural attractions of the Bay Area (or anywhere else). It is also imperative that we do not turn farmland and food production into subdivisions or industrial zones. A hard problem with too many constraints.
90.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:33 PM	Traffic and environmental considerations should be considered as factors that impose practical limits on the growth of bay area population.
91.	Wed, 9/5/07 4:56 PM	Two million growth population in 30 years is 66,600 per year, which is substantial but not an overwhelming growth. Good planning should make this manageable. We need better information on the environmental differences between more housing in existing communities verses longer commutes for workers where the housing is less expensive.
92.	Wed, 9/5/07 6:25 PM	This should largely be a good thing, provided that cities of the Bay Area take steps to increase population density and add smart transportation resources rather than stretch out further.
93.	Wed, 9/5/07 6:44 PM	most likely inevitable
94.	Wed, 9/5/07 6:55 PM	Too much traffic, too little water, too many people, schools not big enough.
95.	Wed, 9/5/07 7:07 PM	My greatest concern is for school populations. Builders are allowed to assume too few students will come from new developments and, at least in Palo Alto, there's no room for new schools to accommodate new students.
96.	Wed, 9/5/07 9:38 PM	definitely threatening to the quality of life that is current.
97.	Wed, 9/5/07 10:16 PM	Six billion people would like to live here. We cannot accommodate them all. The Bay Area is already overpopulated (as is the entire planet). Price is directly proportional to desirability (Econ 101). Demand will not drop until the region becomes less desirable. Do we want to ruin our local environment to achieve lower housing prices?
98.	Thu, 9/6/07 5:25 AM	We will need to make sure we have the infrastructure in place to handle this growth.
99.	Fri, 9/7/07 12:01 AM	peninsula communities should provide infill housing where there exists transportation and services
100.	Fri, 9/7/07 12:37 AM	Because of the intellectual capital in the area and the desirable climate and geography the Bay Area is a logical place for growth to continue.
101.	Fri, 9/7/07 12:42 AM	Bay Area population growth is in "full process" in my neighborhood. I see many more young growing families in my neighborhood. My concern is this and future growth puts a huge strain on the present infrastructure, services, lack of etc, water, power etc.
102.	Fri, 9/7/07 2:45 AM	Where does ABAG intend to get the water and electricity for these additional people? Another major issue for the peninsula is transit. BART must circle the bay before people will use it. Light rail is a joke.
103.	Fri, 9/7/07 3:56 AM	Actual population growth can be strongly impacted by government policies (i.e. immigration policy) and U.S. corporations' policies (i.e. outsourcing). ABAG must remain flexible to respond to these kinds of trends which are not under its control.
104.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:30 AM	in order to cope with any growth and rationale development, the Bay Area requires a more comprehensive urban plan that will include proximity of housing to workplace as well as a fairly developed and efficiet public transportation system. Without these pre-requisites, any development and/or growth will only exacerbate the chaos.
105.	Fri, 9/7/07 2:55 PM	I feel the home growth will impact the schools, and the roads. I am against the proposal.
106.	Fri, 9/7/07 3:10 PM	Expect the local tech economy to continue to shift to finance, marketing, high level product design and away from low level design, product support, verification and manufacturing. Has implications for population growth and mix.
107.	Fri, 9/7/07 3:33 PM	The population growth likely has some relationship with economic growth, for the Bay Area and the U.S. It would be nice to manage the issue so that it doesn't end up a Houston or Atlanta, with long commutes and no central core or identity.
108.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:13 PM	Regardless of what we do, growth will occur. We need to plan for it responsibly.
109.	Fri, 9/7/07 4:54 PM	This seems a very reasonable expectation from all I see.
110.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:16 PM	I am concerned that the schools can't handle additional students. I strongly believe that if developers want to sell homes, they need to pay for additional services such as sanitation, schools, utility and road improvements, fire fighters and police.
111.	Fri, 9/7/07 6:23 PM	It seems this is an effort to regulate something that is largely not regulate-able.
112.	Fri, 9/7/07 8:12 PM	Growth will happen. I hope the expansion of mass transit will keep up with the need to manage flow of highway traffic.
113.	Fri, 9/7/07 9:33 PM	solid, inexpensive, comfortable and effective transportation options must be put into place. If those were subsidized heavily and worked well, people could be financially encouraged to take this safer, more environmentally friendly, and likely healthier option. Bringing more people to live here will ruin this great place, then who wins?
114.	Fri, 9/7/07 10:31 PM	Population growth is going to happen. So we need to prepare for it, and be very wise and intelligent about how it happens.
115.	Fri, 9/7/07 10:32 PM	Our area is already overloaded with traffic...please, no more!
116.	Sat, 9/8/07 12:49 AM	Job opportunities can grow but will go elsewhere if not supported by reasonable costing infrastructure. This is the barrier to growth. Attitudes are the barrier to growth which are conservative and unyielding to progress. Look at the road infrastructure of Mountain View when compared to Palo Alto-night and day. This is just one example.
117.	Sat, 9/8/07 4:31 AM	I would like to see other areas that are further from the coasts to be developed and centers of business located there. Then we'd need better public transportation between the coastal areas and those further inland, such as high speed trains. If we're looking 30 years ahead, this can be planned for.
118.	Sat, 9/8/07 5:08 AM	How many of the US's 12 Million illegal aliens have or are seeking housing in the Bay Area? How much should the projections of population growth in the Bay Area be corrected downward if no increase in housing is provided?
119.	Sat, 9/8/07 3:04 PM	Better transit must precede any additional housing. Crowded schools is another looming problem with no land on which to build more.
120.	Sat, 9/8/07 10:16 PM	We can't stagnate in the future yet "progress" has a cost in traffic, overcrowding, the infrastucture, and the charm of our city. As the king of Siam said, "It's a puzzlement."
121.	Sun, 9/9/07 4:38 AM	Jobs, climate and life style will bring people here. We can't keep them out. We need solutions that make the newcomers a decent life without spoiling what we have. Real solutions will require adjustments for all of us.
122.	Sun, 9/9/07 9:47 PM	1. Essentially impossible to stop. 2 Bay Area growth will be smaller than Southern California (especially Inland Empire) and Central/San Joaquin Valley. Bay Area political power will this decline. Expanding infrastructure to focus on outward growth is the least cost effective way of addressing infrastructure needs.
123.	Mon, 9/10/07 7:14 PM	this growth rate of 2 million people in the next 30 years is too large.