Smart growth rejects that as a principle. The second principle is about preserving the environment - most people want open space close to where they live. We have public amenities we need to preserve and government has to have a role in that or they're not going to be there. Third, we have to be fiscally conservative with our infrastructure - we need to determine what is the best use for the dollar. Because it degrades the environment and ends up costing us a great deal of money, much more than if we grow in a smarter way.
Business gets the concept, too.
The Builders Association of the Twin Cities issued a report in 1996 arguing that our current growth pattern is too dispersed and scattered - that its nearly impossible to expand urban services efficiently here. Nationally, the Bank Of America and PriceWaterhouseCoopers both have reports arguing the cost of unmanaged growth has begun to take a huge toll. I don't think it's a debate thats been put before the public. People want the good of what we have but at the same time they know the current development pattern, which has been about the same since World War II, may be ending. We're trying to find a different way considering the confines and realities we have.