I read Dick Turpin's column (Sept. 18) relating to the no-growth movement. I wonder, though, in an area as compacted as Southern California, whether a plan to more effectively allocate the "costs" of development (schools, police protection, etc.) is really pertinent.
Isn't there a point where most will agree that absolute population capacity has been exceeded, as measured by air pollution, effluent, rubbish disposal, etc.? Aren't we nearing the time when federal and state powers will require that net population growth be directed elsewhere? Outside the five-county region?