Today we bring you the third installment of the League of Women Voters questionaire for candidates for Chapel Hill Town Council.

In the first installment, Oct. 7, the four candidates for mayor address taxes and downtown revitalization, among other issues. Sunday, we printed the biographical information and the responses from the eight candidates to questions on public campaign financing and reducing homeowners' tax burden. Today the eight candidates for four council seats respond to the league's remaining questions on growth and library funding. The candidates were asked to limit their responses to 50 words.

1. What is your position on encouraging high density along major transit corridors?

Jon DeHart: Major transit corridors are the logical locations for medium- and high-density development, reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that additional development is compatible with the vision and needs of Chapel Hill.

Laurin Easthom: My position is balance. If we are to grow and allow high-density somewhere in town, then major transit corridors could be an acceptable location. However, I don't want a line of tall buildings all up and down our corridors. That is aesthetically very unappealing and environmentally irresponsible.

Ed Harrison: I have worked to encourage higher-density development along major corridors, but on the condition that it meet standards of transit- oriented design to maximize use of our fare-free transit. I have opposed development in such locations that surpassed established community standards of environmental protection (e.g. destruction of steep slopes).

Jim Merritt: I would encourage high density along the major transit corridors because as the cost of fuel for cars increases, the demand for public transportation will also escalate. Residents of high-density areas are less likely to drive their automobiles long distances commuting back and forth to work.

Gene Pease: Chapel Hill's population will reach 81,000 in 2035. Land is scarce. The best way to provide new housing and commercial space is through mixed-use projects along our transit corridors. This environmentally friendly approach allows people to take transit to work and to walk to stores and restaurants. Excellent design is critically important.

Matt Pohlman: I support appropriate higher-density development along our town's major transit corridors. We can develop higher-density commercial space along the main transportation arteries of our town while making certain we preserve what makes Chapel Hill such a wonderful community to live.

Will Raymond: Clustering development along transit corridors makes sense. Creating a strip of East 54-style developments hoping for federal light-rail dollars doesn't. I joined the Sustainability Task Force to help identify opportunity zones that align with fiscally, socially and environmentally sustainable growth policies. We need a balance between developer rewards and community benefits.

Penny Rich: Although I support density along transit corridors for the sustainable land use and improved transit service benefits it brings, it will become increasingly important that we protect the surrounding lower-density residential neighborhoods. Density along transit corridors should be coupled with more transit options for the parts of town that are already relatively dense.

2. Should the Chapel Hill Public Library be funded in a different way? Explain your position.

Jon DeHart: I am an advocate of the Chapel Hill Public Library, as my family uses it frequently. I think public libraries should receive the preponderance of their funding from the public coffers in order to reinforce exactly whom they serve. I would be interested in exploring any other options that would help.

Laurin Easthom: Absolutely. Orange County should bolster their annual funding of operational costs to previously agreed to levels of 20 percent instead of currently 11 percent. If they refuse, then perhaps other cities whose residents use the library should contribute a certain percentage based on use, or their citizens should pay an annual fee.

Ed Harrison: Yes. With the cooperation of the Orange County commissioners, funding structures should be changed so that county users outside Chapel Hill's town limits are contributing equitably to operational expenses. The county's level of funding has been static for almost 15 years, in spite of huge rises in Chapel Hill library costs.

Jim Merritt: The public library should be financed by the people it serves. I have reviewed reports that estimate that as much as 35 percent of Carrboro residents use the facilities of the library. The library should be funded with an equitable share of the library annual operating cost by all municipalities.

Gene Pease: Library usage has far exceeded the library's capacity thus the voters overwhelmingly voted for the library expansion in 2004. During this current recession library usage is up 8 percent over last year, further proof that we need increased space. Using bond proceeds is the cheapest, most effective way to finance the library expansion.

Matt Pohlman: By almost every measure, the Chapel Hill Public Library is at (or past) capacity. The voters of our town have made it clear that they want more library space. A public bond offering remains the most efficient way to fund a project of this type.

Will Raymond: Our library is not only one of the cornerstones of many Chapel Hill citizens' intellectual lives but that of our wider community. Understandably, fiscally strapped Orange County is hesitant in shouldering its fair-share of the operational budget but it must. Raising fees limiting access, though, must be avoided.

Penny Rich: Chapel Hill residents can no longer be responsible for paying the majority of the cost of operating a library that benefits both town residents and county residents. Orange County and Chapel Hill should work together in revising library budgets and funding methods to resolve this issue.