In her historical piece in the Jan. 10 Camera, Silvia Pettem recounted news stories about how the population of Boulder nearly doubled in the 1950s. (Growth rate = 6.34 percent per year; Doubling time = 10.9 years.)

To see what this means, we must look more closely.

First: In short periods of time modest annual growth rates give startlingly large increases. The 60-year average (1950-2010) population growth rate of Boulder of 2.74 percent per year gives doubling in just 25.3 years!

Second: If the modest 1950s growth rate of 6.34 percent per year continued for another 60 years, Boulder`s population would increase by about 45 times to about 4.7 million people. Compare this to Los Angeles (3.8 Million) or New York City (8.4 Million).

Third: Population growth is destroying democracy in Boulder. In 1950 the population of Boulder was 19,999 people and there were 9 members on the City Council. Today Boulder`s population is over 100,000 and there are still 9 members on the Council. So there are now five times as many citizens per Council member as there were sixty years ago..

Fourth: The rate of loss of democracy in Boulder is equal to the rate of Boulder`s population growth. In the 1950s both were about 6.34 percent per year.

Fifth: Population growth is destroying democracy nationally. The 2000 Census showed that the U.S. population grew 13.2 percent during the decade of the 1990s, but the number of members of the House of Representatives stayed fixed at 435. So after the 2000 Census all of the Congressional Districts had to be redrawn in order to increase the number of constituents in every House district by 13.2 percent.

Our national democracy was founded over 200 years ago on the basis of about 57,000 people per representative. In 1990 the number of constituents per member of the House was about 600,000.

Sixth: Taxes have to rise to pay the public costs of population growth. Some years ago, using data from the 1970 Census, I plotted the per capita annual municipal taxes as a function of the size of the city. The graph showed that when you went from a city of one population in the U.S. to a city of twice the population, the per capita annual municipal taxes increased by between 20 percent and 25 percent. So the national data suggest that in the decade of the 1950s municipal annual taxes in Boulder had to rise by about 20 percent plus the rise due to ten years of inflation.

Seventh: The obvious conclusion is that the population growth does not pay its own way. The book, “Better, Not Bigger” by Eben Fodor (1999) shows examples of this from all over the U.S. He shows, for instance, that every new house in Oregon costs the Oregon taxpayers an average of over $25,000.

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a rebuke to the British Parliament by colonists who objected to being taxed without representation. Population growth is raising our taxes and diminishing our representation. Why don`t today`s “Tea Parties” address this issue?

Eighth: We wonder why the budget situation in Colorado is so dire. Politicians will recite a list of all of the contributing factors but they never give the principal reason. During the go-go growth of the 1990s the rapid population growth caused the tax money to roll in and be spent, but the need for tax-supported public infrastructure rolled in even faster. Education funding will be just one of the many casualties of Colorado`s population growth of the 1990s.

There`s a time to grow. If an infant does not grow, it`s a tragedy. But for adults, continued growth is either obesity or cancer.

Albert Bartlett is Physics Professor Emeritus at University of Colorado.