Density, properly sited, can be good. We'll never have good public transportation without a little more density. Although I don't know where it should be built, I can imagine an attractive neighborhood of town houses in Atherton. Being in Atherton, they are unlikely to be affordable to most, but any increase in the supply of housing in this area would be beneficial.

Menlo Park is facing the same challenges, but there it has been politicized into a question of teacher housing. However, at the end of the day it is almost a philosophical question. Should we accept changing the fabric of existing single family neighborhoods in order to increase housing?

People cheering this on, beyond the obvious developers, obviously can't afford to live in these neighborhoods, which in itself is sad but part of our market economy system. Perhaps it would make more sense to increase density around major arteries that is built for the traffic, and has public transport and other infrastructure, as opposed to residential areas with a high density of kids playing on the streets?

About that, I'm living in a very nice house that I think you might have sold me.

I *can* afford to live in a single-family neighborhood. And I'm acutely aware of how bad it is for our region when the people who keep our wealthy community healthy, educated, fed, vibrant, safe, and interesting are all having to spend hours commuting every day. I'd think the realtors would be taking a longer-term view on this and looking for creative solutions.

Taking a vacant lot that was never a single-family home and turning it into apartments doesn't diminish the single family homes nearby –- and it doesn't change the traffic in any significant way. It just means some of the people driving on our streets from places like Morgan Hill and Manteca to get to work now have much shorter commutes.