(单词翻译:单击)
Land-use regulations and development patterns are a key driver of inequality, pollution, and financial strain.
土地使用法规与发展模式是影响污染、不公平和财政紧张的主要驱动因素。
But whether or not the Park Hill plan was approved would have a negligible impact on these larger crises, which will require collective action beyond the scope of any one project.
但是，无论帕克山开放计划是否获得批准，对这些更大危机的影响都可以忽略不计，解决危机需要超出单个项目范围，进行集体行动。
Asking a neighborhood or municipality to bear the responsibility for a housing crisis and its knock-on effects is asking for failure.
要求社区或市政当局承担住房危机及其连锁反应的责任是在自寻死路。
Local government simply wasn’t built to do this.
地方政府根本不是为此而建的。
Local government is about what you can do for me, right now.
当地政府关心的是你现在能为我做些什么。
Because local officials have a narrow jurisdiction, engaged voters have a direct line to them and significant influence on their decisions.
由于地方官员的管辖范围很窄，参与的选民可以直接与地方官员联系，并对他们的决策产生重大影响。
This tight relationship is good for handling issues like broken streetlights and potholes, but it doesn’t lend itself to managing society-wide problems, such as a housing crisis.
这种紧密的关系有利于处理路灯破损、路面坑洞等问题，但不适合管理住房危机等社会问题。
This is why the political logic of building a lot more housing rarely carries the day at the local level.
这就是为什么建造更多住房的政治逻辑在地方层面很少奏效的原因。
Who would have lived in the Park Hill housing development, had voters approved it? No one knows.
如果选民批准了帕克山住宅开发项目，谁还会住在那里呢? 没人知道。
It could have been a recent University of Colorado at Boulder graduate or empty-nesters from the suburbs looking to downsize.
住进去的可能是科罗拉多大学博尔德分校最近毕业的学生，也可能是来自郊区想要缩小住房规模的空巢老人。
Many of the people who would most benefit from the new housing don’t yet live in Denver—so they don’t have a vote.
许多从这个新住房中获益最多的人不住在丹佛，因此他们没有投票权。
Local housing-policy debates are thus asymmetrical.
因此，关于地方住房政策的辩论并不对等。
Construction projects have no readily identifiable beneficiaries, but they do levy clear harms, in the form of excessive noise and street closures and changing neighborhood aesthetics.
建设项目没有明确的受益者，但它们确实造成了明显的危害，比如噪音过大、街道封闭以及改变社区审美。
Just a small fraction of people even engage in local housing fights.
只有一小部分人会参与当地的住房斗争。
Many of those who do are extreme voices or otherwise unrepresentative of the broader community.
许多参与住房斗争的人观点极端，或者不能代表更广泛的社区。
Look at Fort Collins, Colorado.
看看科罗拉多州的柯林斯堡。
After more than five years of community engagement, and many months of work by city planners, a 5–2 majority on the city council voted to liberalize land-use policies to allow more housing.
经过五年多的社区参与，以及城市规划者数月的努力，市议会以5比2的多数投票决定放开土地使用政策，以允许修建更多住房。
But a small group of opponents pressured the council to reverse itself, gathering 6,500 petition signatures—this in a city of more than 160,000. And they won.
但一小群反对者向市议会施压，迫使其改变决定，他们收集了6500个请愿签名——而这个城市的人口超过了16万。他们赢了。
The council voted again, this time 7–0 to repeal the change.
市议会再次投票，这次废除改变的投票结果是7比0。
