To the editor:

Tuesday's editorial was a bit off-base in charging the city with sending "mixed messages" on sustainability. Sometimes a city needs to take a step in one direction to prepare to take larger steps in another direction.

Thus, an expansion of the mall and creation of an auto mall is not inconsistent with sustainable development. Keeping shoppers and retail tax dollars in Flagstaff instead of driving to spend money in Phoenix is neither a bad idea nor inconsistent with sustainable living. Consolidating the auto dealers in one location to free up central city land for infill and to cut down of auto buyers' driving all over town to shop for cars also makes "green sense." The trick is to use the tax dollars for smart development, including job creation.

As to affordable housing, if anyone thinks we can build our way out of unaffordable housing prices, they are in la-la land. We need to be looking to the other half of the affordability equation — raising people's incomes. Impact fees will not make housing less affordable. The fees just redistribute the costs of infrastructure. If we don't have impact fees, property and sales taxes have to go up to pay for that infrastructure and that makes living in Flagstaff less affordable.

As for building on the outskirts, the building I see right now is on McMillan Mesa, at Fourth Street, at Butler and Lone Tree, and near the Gore Westside plant.

Finally, if there had not been the fight over Wal-Mart, would Wal-Mart have built the eco-friendly store they are building? I was not on the side of banning Wal-Mart, but I'm glad that viewpoint was well-represented and the issues were raised.

Seems to me, sustainability is not a bad mantra for a city to have.

ANN HEITLAND

Flagstaff