These issues are generally addressed by local or state governments. Their responses are varied, both because they usually address specific problems rather than underlying issues, and because the responses reflect the structures of local and state governments and the available tools. Often, they respond to undesirable situations rather than act in anticipation. These situations can be difficult to anticipate because they are viewed differently from person to person. In November 1998, voters in many areas passed ballot measures that address these issues, providing large sums of money to protect valued resources, and voted out office holders who disagreed.
Sprawl encompasses varied circumstances that have been widely covered in the media.
The volume of this coverage suggests greater public interest in addressing them. But perspectives over appropriate actions reflect differing views about the origins of these conditions. Some supporters of this view believe that efforts to manage growth could ultimately quash economic prosperity. Others view these issues as resulting from poorly organized, uncoordinated, or misguided planning and decision malting, often involving multiple jurisdictions, and believe the federal government should assist in addressing them. Most growth management issues are raised in terms of net public costs.