CONF 730: STURCTUAL SOURCES OF CONFLICT
Professor Ho-Won Jeong
George Mason University
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Papers
Smart Growth and Conflict Analysis
Kaui MacDonald
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the 'smart growth' movement as it has been implemented in Loudoun County, Virginia. This will begin with an introduction to the concepts and structures which define smart-growth and then an overview of its implementation on national, Virginia, and Loudoun County, levels. The actual analysis will move from general to specific, with the specific focus being Loudoun County. Recommendations from both this analysis and from existent smart-growth analysis will conclude this paper.
About Smart Growth
The term 'smart growth' comes from a melding of concerns in
the fields of urban planning and development, public policy, and environmental
conservation. It is 'smart' in the sense that there is a structural and political
recognition that an interdisciplinary, community-centered, and long-term benefits
approach to urban development must accompany the growth human populations.
"Spurring the smart growth movement are demographic shifts, a strong
environmental ethic, increased fiscal concerns, and more nuanced views of
growth. The result is both a new demand and a new opportunity for smart growth"
(Anderson 1998).
Smart growth development envisions a blending urban conveniences and environmental
responsibility, being, "transit and pedestrian oriented, and has a greater
mix of housing, commercial and retail uses. It also preserves open space and
many other environmental amenities" (Anderson 1998). The issues which
smart growth addresses include:
" Community Quality of Life
" Design
" Economics
" Environment
" Health
" Housing
" Transportation
At the same time, this is all within the context of an active,
communicative interface of planners, developers, activists, and citizens -
especially in the sense that the latter group can and should call the others
to account for the development (or failure) of the processes. Accountability
has been recognized on a structural level, as the American Planning Association
writes, "citizens now expect to be engaged in community planning processes,
and when they participate, they expect to see results" (2004).
The goals of smart growth are as follows:
" Create Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices
" Create Walkable Neighborhoods
" Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration
" Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place
" Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective
" Mix Land Uses
" Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental
Areas
" Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices
" Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities
" Take Advantage of Compact Building Design
According to sources like the American Planning Association,
the smart growth movement developed over the last few decades of the 20th
century. "In some communities and regions since the 1970s, high rates
of growth have prompted concern over cost of services, adverse impacts on
the environment and quality of life, and the balance between jobs and housing"
(American Planning Association 2004). Central to this statement is a shift
in social values. For example, "We see vacant, developable land as having
competing social values - it can be used for the construction of affordable
housing or for the continuation of agriculture" (American Planning Association
2004). Of course, 'competing social values' also engender the conflict. The
scope of the conflict is wide, including the socio-historical context from
which the smart growth movement is emerging, changes in U.S. population demographics,
and the mixed results of the application of smart growth policies.
Sustainable development is a key idea - and a source of structural and ideological
friction. On the one hand, according to Baker (2000), smart growth responds
to "tremendous growth pressures" (p. 1) by striving to "contain
growth by focusing on the inner city and the creation of high-density urban
centers" (p. 5). On the other hand, smart growth responds to the "spillover
into rural areas" (p.5) by "preserving large tracts of open land
for agricultural, ecological, cultural or recreational purposes" (p.
5). This tension is already recognized in the partner-field of conservation
biology, which posits that there are competing "twin values, preservation
of human society and preservation of the natural world... a thorny dilemma
at war with itself... biologists, (public) audiences... city planners... environmentalists...
politicians" (Babbit 1999, p. 677). While there is a growing recognition
for a holistic response to these values, the question remains as to whether
or not they are best expressed and actuated by the smart growth movement.
To answer this question, the implementation of smart growth must be considered
on macro and micro levels. For the purposes of this paper, the macro levels
will include national and state (Virginia) implementation, and the micro level
will consider smart growth in a county (Loudoun County, VA). The point of
drawing the focus toward Loudoun County is because that area is frequently
cited as an exemplar of both the aspirations, implementation, and failures
of the smart growth movement.
Smart Growth: Implementation
National
As noted earlier, the smart growth movement developed from national
trends in demographics, environmental policies, and quality of life. Bruce
Katz, Director for the Brookings Institution's Center on Urban and Metropolitan
Policy, has stated that, "In our new, decentralizing economy, the fortunes
of cities, older suburbs and newer suburbs, are interdependent. We are linked
by supplier networks and labor networks, a regional infrastructure and a common
environment. The healthier the core, the healthier the region, an empirical
fact that I think we all are beginning to understand" (The Brookings
Institution, June 2001). This is a holistic conceptual framework, and one
to which, "A number of states recognized these concerns and state legislatures
have responded. Some states now take an active role in managing this intergovernmental
dimension to ensure uniformity, fairness, and the advancement of general interests"
(American Planning Association 2004).
Two major factors in implementation on a national level are the politics and
economics of land conservation. Babbit writes in 1999 that, "Open space
is suddenly a hot political topic. State and local ballots offered a record
200 open-space and conservation initiatives last year" (p. 677). Legislation
has been offered to the public, and "voters passed more than 70% of these
measures and approved $7 billion for 'smart growth' initiatives to preserve
open space" (Babbit 1999, p. 677). Land conservation is such a national
concern because the decade between 1982-1992 saw a loss of "an average
of 400,000 acres of farmland to development every year" (Baker 2000,
p. 2). This scale of development was supported by "the longest peacetime
economic expansion in U.S. history" (p. 2). At the same time, however,
economic well-being also prompts dialogue as to quality of life - a shift
in values which is central to smart growth principles.
Smart growth is unlimited by region, ranging from coast to coast, north as
well as south. On the east coast, smart growth policies affect "spending
on roads, infrastructure, and schools in older suburban communities"
in Maryland and New Jersey (Katz 2001). In the south, Alabama has established
a state land trust financed by revenues from oil and gas taxes" (Baker
2000, p. 5), while Georgia's policies toward affordable housing have gained
new oversight policies (Katz 2001) and Tennessee legislators have passed a
"comprehensive growth management act" (Baker 2000, p.1). Likewise
in central U.S., Minnesota has developed "new kinds of regional authorities
to govern issues like transportation and affordable housing (Katz 2001). In
the west, "Colorado and Arizona are debating legislation requiring urban
growth boundaries" (Baker 2000, p.1).
However, while data shows that smart growth has thus far had a widespread
impact, the implementation on a national level still has room for expansion
and development. It is by no means a truly national movement. Proponents of
smart growth have observed that, "the majority of states have yet to
pass comprehensive growth management plans, which mandate or encourage local
planning according to statewide standards and result in land use regulations
such as density requirements and urban growth boundaries" (Baker 2000,
p. 5).
State: Virginia
Smart growth was originally referred to as "growth management" in
the state of Virginia. This state serves as a good example of how political
and economic interests interact with values for land conservation. A report
from the American Planning Association (2002) follows the implementation of
smart growth in the state over a ten-year period, beginning in 1989 with the
creation of a Commission on Population Growth and Development. The goal of
this commission was to study the updating of Virginia's statewide and regional
planning laws. In 1996 the Virginia General Assembly approved legislature
to authorize "the use of 'incentive payments' to encourage regional partnerships
that would promote economic competitiveness and encourage voluntary, inter-municipal
cooperation" (2002). An evaluation of the effectiveness of these economic
incentives is not yet available, but this policy is a clear example of the
interrelations between economics and social re-structuring. Using economic
incentives to encourage regional competitiveness seems rather counter-intuitive.
However, investment in economic interdependency is a significant step toward
the socio-political interdependency required by smart growth principles.
The same APA report indicates that the smart growth movement became more prominent
in the latter half of the 1990s. Another Commission was formed in 1998 "to
find ways to reduce sprawl, trim infrastructure costs and revitalize older
cities through the use of state infrastructure funds in designated 'smart
growth areas'" (2002). Herein the term 'smart growth' is officially recognized
in legislative terms. This is significant in part because of the relationship
between state and local jurisdictions in Virginia. Baker (2000) reports that,
"Virginia is one of the few remaining 'Dillon states' in the country
- local jurisdictions are subordinate to the powers of the state" (p.
2). With the state having legitimized
'smart growth' in 1998, later proposals were approved for application at the
level of local jurisdictions.
2000 saw the passage of the Virginia Vitality Program and the Urban Public-Private
Partnership Redevelopment Fund. The aim of both was to help local governments
with policies and programs related to smart growth. The Virginia Vitality
Program - "created to help localities underwrite purchase of development
rights programs in order to protect farmland and agricultural businesses"
(APA 2002) - was another example of economic incentive in support of land
conservation. The Urban Public-Private Partnership Redevelopment Fund helped
local jurisdictions "finance redevelopment of building sites, including
costs for planning, clearing and remediation" (2002). This showed the
pairing of economics and land conservation from the opposite end of the smart
growth spectrum - the redevelopment of urban centers.
In general, it seems that the implementation of smart growth has begun in
Virginia with support at the national and local levels. Structurally, this
was necessarily a trickle-down implementation, but perhaps the resultant studies,
public dialogues, and legislative items have create the context in which further
implementation may flourish. This will remain to be seen with time.
County: Loudoun County, Virginia
In discussions of regional growth and development, Loudoun County, Virginia,
is often cited as a hot spot - and as an exemplar of the successes and failures
of smart growth implementation. On the outset, it appears to be an ideal candidate
for smart growth policies. Dearborn (1999) writes that, "Loudoun County
is now the third fastest growing county in the country with population and
school enrollments increasing 10 percent annually... School enrollments have
more than doubled between 1990 and 2000" (p. 1-2). Ten percent may not
sound significant, but another perspective is that population increased 30
percent between 1990-95 and 50 percent between 1995-2000 (p. 1). In terms
of quality of life, this translates into suburban development, congested traffic,
and schools that are overcrowded and understaffed. In terms of land conservation,
this is a nightmare.
Smart growth entered Loudoun County early in 1988, via a Government Finance
Research Center whose purpose was to develop a model for county-wide fiscal
impact analysis related to a new development plan called the "Choices
and Changes General Plan," develop guidelines for rezoning, and in general
to be "integral to the continuing planning process" (Holzheimer
1998). Both the fiscal impact analysis model and the Choices and Changes plan
were a success for smart growth. The model was institutionalized, so that
annual progress could be tracked and adjusted for. In 1992 the Plan was granted
the "American Planning Association award for planning excellence"
(Holzheimer 1998).
As the decade proceeded and population kept expanding, however, the politics
of smart growth implantation came to highlight one of the movement's noted
failures. Local elections in 1999 for the County Board of Supervisors - the
development oversight body - were initially a triumph of eight new anti-sprawl
supervisors replacing the incumbents. Three years and nearly 200 lawsuits
later, the anti-sprawl supervisors were "a 3-6 minority" (Smart
Growth Network, November 2003). What happened? The "slow-growth ordinance"
that they spent three years developing via public processes and dialogues
was assailed by "entrenched political attitudes at the state level"
(Baker 2000, p. 2) and lawsuits from "builders, landowners and investors"
(Smart Growth Network, February 2003) whose grievances settled around a sense
of being disenfranchised and being crippled in terms of rapid economic development.
The slow growth policies limited home construction in time of population explosion
and financial need. Furthermore, the requirement for clustered housing projects
preserved open space, but opponents argued that this reduced property value
at a time of already-low property tax income (Dearborn 1999, p. 1-2). The
voting out of the anti-sprawl supervisors in 2003 showed that residents and
businesses were not quite willing to accept higher taxes and limited service
improvements (ex. more schools) in place of a more immediate need for a prosperous
economy. This is a warning for other smart growth proponents to ensure that
the fiscal impact of policies is also supported by the public.
Smart Growth: Conflict Analysis
Dominant social norms have yet to encompass the principles of smart growth,
as was exemplified in the Loudoun County situation. More generally, dichotomy
between smart growth and socio-cultural norms is clear from the fact that
most states still lack a comprehensive development plan. Legislation arises
out of popular support, and popular support is divided over a number of structures
within the smart growth movement.
There are several sources from which the dominant structure generates conflict
against smart growth and maintains the social order. These include:
" political sustainability vs. political responsibility
" economic need and/or profit vs. environmental conservation
" rural/suburban communities vs. urban communities
" property rights vs. zoning regulations
" jurisdictional autonomy vs. interdependence
However this essay will also show that there are emancipatory
conditions available for each of the conflicts listed above. Public discourse,
of course, is the key.
The first conflict to examine is between political sustainability and political
responsibility. The political structure which is the context for smart growth
cannot be ignored nor taken lightly. The political stakeholders include "officials
in the executive and legislative branches of state government... public officials
at the local and regional levels... those who are affected by planning decisions
and who have an interest in how the statutes are revised" (American Planning
Association 2004). Meanwhile, advocates of smart growth cry out that "Smart
growth means hard choices for the greater good, creating housing opportunities
for all income levels in locations that make the most sense" (Washington
Business Journal 2001, p. 62). Popular support, upon which both political
structures and smart growth policies depend, can be fickle. In a struggle
for equilibrium, it is therefore understandable that political structures
would favor the status quo over new situations, rules and relations.
The next conflict, which sets economic need and/or profit against
environmental conservation, is arguably the most serious conflict because
of the potential impact upon basic survival needs. This is also a conflict
which has plagued the environmental movement itself for decades. Both low-income
urban communities and diminishing agricultural communities (Baker 2000, pp.
5-6) are at risk for the transitional economic burdens which smart growth
policies seem to require. The overcrowded communities of Loudoun County showed
by 3-6 ballot the degree to which environmental conservation lags behind economic
interest. Rose (2000) offers lessons from coalition building in which "Conservative
and pragmatic pressure to include cost-benefit analysis in environmental policy
making has forced environmentalists to be more aware of economic consequences
of their policies as well" (p. 106). If it would successfully challenge
the dominant structure, this is a lesson which the smart growth movement must
continue to enact, internalize and institutionalize.
A related conflict lies between the perceptions and valuation
of rural/suburban communities vs. urban communities. There are historical
and structural bases which support this division. Baker (2000) argues that
FHA loans and the National Highway Act supported growth out of urban centers
and into suburban communities (p. 2). Moreover, "Zoning ordinances not
only encourage sprawl by mandating large single-family homes, but they also
discourage the apartment buildings and small lots associated with affordable
housing and inner city development" (p. 3). Katz says that there is a
lack of discourse about these structures, as well as the underlying value
system which divides them, and he calls this lack a "policy blindspot"
(2003). This is a conflict within the smart growth movement as well, with
some focusing on containing and developing the urban centers and others focusing
on limiting suburban sprawl. Even here, however, there is still the underlying
perception of difference between urban and rural/suburban. Freire (1970) writes
that "historical themes are never isolated, independent, disconnected,
or static; they are always interacting dialectically with their opposites...
Confronted by this 'universe of themes' in dialectical contradiction, persons
take equally contradictory positions: some work to maintain the structures,
others to change them" (p. 101). Framing the conflict in this way would
be a useful means to bring attention to the deep perceptual differences and
begin dialogue about those differences.
The conflict between property rights and zoning regulations
may seem overly specific, however it was a key factor in the Loudoun County
disputes and it has implications for a national counter-movement. This goes
back in part to the conflict over economic interests, since "property
rights advocates and home builders have stepped up their efforts to discredit
growth management in general and land use and zoning regulations in particular"
(Baker 2000, p. 4). The fiscal impact analysis used in Loudoun County was
a useful tool, in that "it began "to bring a realistic sense of
the costs of growth into the public discussion (McLaughlin)." The community
benefited from the "objective screen" that fiscal impact analysis
provided. It also lead to a better understanding of the relationships among
the factors contributing to growth and development" (Holzheimer 1998).
Yet there was clearly some kind of breakdown in discourse between this data,
the policies that were implemented, and the stakeholders who successfully
voted the anti-sprawl supervisors out of their positions. On this case, it
would be critical for zoning regulations to pay attention to the economic
aspects of the situation. An understanding of the relationship between market
demand, development, and local budgets is crucial.
Jurisdictional autonomy v. interdependence is also a critical conflict for
the smart growth movement. Baker (2000) writes that, "Inclusiveness in
smart growth has also become a resource and governance issues" (p. 4).
Resources include financial budgets, air quality, and transportation routes,
and governance issues include "transportation, environmental and housing
law" (p. 3). Rose advises that each side become familiar with the opposite
view in order to better understand the "limitations and pressures"
(2000, p. 133). This becomes relevant because smart growth already recognizes
that, "it's going to require lots of choices and trade offs...a comprehensive
strategy around neighborhoods that says, if you're going to have development
in an area, what do you do for the schools in that area, what do you do for
the commercial corridors in that area? Those will have to be linked comprehensively,
and that requires choices that we would have to make. So what we are doing
is actually putting together a framework" (The Brookings Institution,
June 2001 - Andrew Altman, Director, D.C. Office of Planning). This comprehensive
strategy or framework seems to encourage what Coser (1956) would have called
an association rather than a coalition. Coser wrote that, "Coalitions
resist transformation into more permanent groups, being unwilling to make
the "freedom of action" sacrifices that more permanent bonds require.
(1956, p.145). This is certainly the case with the conflict between jurisdictional
autonomy v. interdependence. Therefore the smart growth movement must take
the comprehensive goals of coalition-building with "a growing understanding
that the spheres of nature, work, and community cannot be separated"
(Rose 2000, p. 107) while at the same time changing the framework of perceptions
into a new group-forming association.
Conflict Resolution Perspectives
Public discourse is a key to each these conflicts, and that is in keeping
with the smart growth goal of collaboration between communities and stakeholders.
Freire believed that "Cooperation... can only be achieved through communication.
Dialogue, as essential communication, must underlie any cooperation"
(1970, p. 168). Comprehensive planning, as noted above, is also critical.
Many smart growth advocates speak of coalition-building in the sense that
Rose (2000) uses it, which is more of a Coserian association than a traditional
coalition. A point of change, of course, is "tradition" since this
is a collaborative effort to design new norms and social structures. The goals
are political responsibility, environmental conservation, addressing and redefining
the identities of communities, creating zoning regulations that are fair and
economically sound, and fostering interdependence among jurisdictions.
Comprehensive planning via public discourse can actuate these goals. Political
responsibility and jurisdictional interdependence, for example, require that
the consensus plan is "backed by a united constituency and thus capable
of generating community support" (Babbit 1999, p. 678). Public forums
are a way of generating community support, such as the 2001 symposium with
civic and community leaders in Washington, D.C. The Director of D.C. Office
of Planning, Andrew Altman, discussed a particular issue of community concern
and then drew links with smart growth policy saying, "So you're talking
about a walkable neighborhood; you're talking about smart growth. It's also
about the way that you connect land use and transit. Here you can see the
structure of the city where that growth might occur." (The Brookings
Institution, June 2001). It is not enough to bring together experts - "officials,
county supervisors, biologists, land-use planners, and economists on the front
end to build a consensus plan," (Babbit 1999, p. 678) - without also
making that expert knowledge accessible and comprehensible to the public,
business, and civic stakeholders.
Public discourse must also address the creation of environmental conservation
policies (such as zoning regulations) that are also economically viable. The
economic support for smart growth should also be multi-faceted, drawing from
state and local legislation providing economic incentives for collaboration;
fiscal impact analysis and dissemination of data in a form that is easily
comprehensible to the general public and civic leaders; educational aid and
economic development to balance the survival and economic interest needs of
public and business stakeholders. For example, Katz suggests that "first
tier suburbs could help reset major spending, tax and regulatory policies
in favor of existing communities, where the bulk of the metropolitan population
already reside. That would be nothing short of a policy revolution and could,
if implemented vigorously, ultimately shape metropolitan communities that
sprawl less, preserve more and offer all citizens greater access to employment
and educational opportunities" (2003). This would provide a supporting
socio-economic framework for the transitional period into comprehensive implementation
of smart growth policies.
The implementation also requires that this also be a collaborative process
which is not over dominated by a particular stakeholder group or social class.
Rose (2000) warns, "Single-class movements often reproduce the very problems
that different class movements organize against, even as they work for social
change. This fact is a direct outgrowth of the limited class membership of
separate movements" (p. 15). As with the development of smart growth
policies, smart growth implementation must also be in the business of creating
collaborative, participatory, and interrelated groups or communities. Katz
continues:
The future of first suburbs will depend, in part, upon their ability to build
political and legislative coalitions that reflect their unique set of issues
and challenges. These coalitions will, by necessity, reach across spatial,
partisan, ideological and disciplinary lines. They will be difficult to build
and sustain. They will require local jurisdictions to change the way they
do business and relate to each other. (2003)
Comprehensive planning and implementation also involve changes to secondary
support structures. Babbit (1999), for example, calls for changes in education
and interdisciplinary studies in order to educate current participants of
implementation and build support for future participants and planners (p.
677-78). This is necessary to both sustain and enrich the public and political
discourse.
Education is also a means to counter the tendency for institutionalized policies
to stagnate or otherwise lose relevance to the communities in which they are
implemented. A goal of smart growth is indeed to have planning statutes shape
state and local legislation "to address problems that were unique to
their political, social, economic and environmental circumstances" (American
Planning Association 2004). Rose warns again that, "Interclass and intermovement
coalitions have the potential to overcome the problems of parochialism, lack
of vision, and expediency that plague single-issue, socially homogenous movements
and organizations. Collaboration with diverse groups provides an avenue for
public learning based on a broader, more complex dialogue with people from
other classes, races, political perspectives, and social backgrounds"
(2000, p. 156). Continuing and developmental education is a very way to sustain
discourse that is relevant to participants, comprehensible to the general
public, and advantageous to economic and political interests.
Conclusion
In conclusion, smart growth has "altered the rules of the land development
game: from exploitation of a natural resource to appreciation of its visual,
social and ecological impact" (Baker 2000, p. 3), and it can continue
to operate within new rules as long as public discourse remains central to
comprehensive planning and comprehensive implementation. This also involves
coalition-building and the formation of new groups and associations. "They
must negotiate and compromise with diverse interests, modeling practices that
are essential in a complex, diverse democracy. And they need to balance short-term
political gains with the interests and needs of other impacted groups, which
requires more complex and fundamental changes than working within the existing
political system" (Rose 2000, p. 156). Failures such as happened in Loudoun
County are both warnings and rich resources for how to proceed against dominant
social structures and norms. If smart growth advocates can heed those warnings
and utilize those learning resources, then it is much more likely that a paradigm
shift will successfully occur.
Bibliography
American Planning Association. (2004). "Background on Growing
Smart: A Q&A." Growing Smart. URL: http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/background/htm
American Planning Association. (2002). "Virginia." Growing Smart:
2002 State of the States. URL: http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/States/Virginia.htm
Anderson, G. (July 1998). "Executive Summary." Why Smart Growth:
A Primer by International City/County Management Association. Smart Growth
Network. URL: http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/overview.asp
Babbit, B. (June 1999). "Diversity: Noah's Mandate and the Birth of Urban
Bioplanning." Conservation Biology, 13(3). Blackwell Science, Inc. pp.
677-678.
Baker, L. (May 2000). "The Fast-Moving Fight to Stop Urban Sprawl."
E: The Environmental Magazine. Earth Action Network, Inc./The Gale Group.
URL: http://www.emagazine.com/may-june_2002/0500feat1.html
Coser, L. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Dearborn, P. (August 1999). "Research Brief: Loudoun County Faces Financial
Challenges." Washington, D.C.: Greater Washington Research Center.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum
International Publishing Group Inc.
Holzheimer, T. (1998). "How Has Fiscal Impact Analysis Been Integrated
Into Local Comprehensive Planning? Case Studies of Howard County, Maryland
and Loudoun County, Virginia." APA Proceedings of the1998 National Planning
Conference. Arlington, VA. AICP Press.
Katz, B. (May 2001). "Welcome to the 'Exit Ramp' Economy." The Boston
Globe. Boston, MS: Globe Newspaper Company.
Katz, B. (June 2003). "Forward." Half Way From Everywhere: A Portrait
of America's First Tier Suburbs. W. Hudnut. ULI-Urban Land Institute.
Rose, F. (2000). Coalitions Across the Class Divide: Lessons from the Labor,
Peace, and Environmental Movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Smart Growth Network, (November 2003). "Loudoun County Voters Turn Out
Slow-Growth Majority, But All Winning Candidates Claim Support for Smart Growth."
URL: http://www.smartgrowth.org/news/article.asp?art=3716
Smart Growth Network, (February 2003). "Loudoun County's Slow-Growth
Ordinance Debuts with Flurry of Lawsuits." URL: http://www.smartgrowth.org/news/article.asp?art=3172
Smart Growth Network. "Overview of Issue Areas." URL: http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/default.asp
Smart Growth Network. "Principles of Smart Growth." URL: http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/issues/default.asp
The Brookings Institution. (June 2001) Transcript. "Brookings/Potomac
Conference Forum: The Future of the Core of the Washington D.C. Region."
Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.brookings.org/es/urban/gwrp/transcripts/20010614.htm
Washington Business Journal. (Aug 2001) "Dumb move: Loudoun's 'smart
growth' plan is anything but." Opinion. Washington Business Journal,
20(13), p. 62