Too large for city

If the university abandoned its ill-conceived plan of increasing enrollment, it could preser ve the south campus property and address the damage that its current enrollment of 30,000 students has wrought. The argument that legislative cuts forced CU to adopt a tuition-driven economy fails to consider the cost to the community and the campus of a university that has grown too large for the city.

Exclaiming “Nimby” does not speak to the degradation of neighborhoods, housing stock, air quality, and education. To mitigate traffic, noise, and student misbehavior, and to maintain the architectural integrity of areas like the Hill, CU would be well advised to think of a smaller university, not a larger one.

I joined the faculty when the students numbered in the low teens, twelve or thirteen thousand. Professors taught classes and met in town-hall fashion to debate vexed issues; students experienced serious scrutiny; and the thought of constructing ungainly buildings, like IBS and the stadium addition, was anathema. The educational environment mattered. Now, we no longer pause at obstructing the view of our neighbors, of planning a hotel and university center at the corner of University and Broadway, and of doubling enrollment. The community be damned!

Perhaps some or all of these issues ought to make the next ballot so that the denizens of Boulder can choose between growth and a greener town.

PAUL M. LEVITT Boulder