I read in a previous post that perhaps 20,000 residents was our maximum size, but no source was cited to support this number. Judging from traffic and other strains, including our rugged geography and infrastructure limits, I do not see much, if any capacity, for growth. I think we need to consider a policy of virtually zero population growth and zero greenfield development, mostly only allowing for families to stay and grow in place. Many communities embrace growth as a means to increase revenue, but that is like a dog chasing its tail. More people requires more services which further burden's city and school budgets. Sustainability of quality of life and the environment here are vital. We have already lost some of the quality of small time life. Let's be careful.