<<  <  >  >>

alternatives to conventional shopping

As with the Transportation Partners

malls as well as infill development.

grants, some of the grants may be larger

· The Urban Land Institute holds (with

than indicated here. For example, EPA's

EPA funding) a national Partners for

grants database reports a $512,000 grant to

Smart Growth conference.

the Growth Management Institute, while

that organization's Web site says that the

grant was $700,000.3 0

As noted, many of these programs are

partly or entirely funded by EPA. EPA smart-

There may also be additional grants not

growth grants include

found in the database. For example, EPA

gave National Association of Counties

· $700,000 to the Growth Management

$429,312 for the Joint Center for Sustain-

able Development. That organization is a

Institute for "workshops, focus group

part of the Smart Growth Network, but the

meetings, and other activities" aimed

term "smart growth" does not appear in the

to be an "antidote to sprawl";

· $363,395 to the International City/

grant description. Other smart-growth-

related grants may lack that or similar

County Management Association to

terms and so were not found by searches of

create a smart-growth network;

· $237,250 to Grow Smart Rhode Island

the database.

Even if all of these programs are not

to promote "sustainable development"

directly funded by EPA, many of the part-

in the Ocean State;

· $175,000 to 1000 Friends of Oregon

ner organizations have received EPA funds

for other projects. Some partners, such as

to create a National Growth Manage-

the American Farmland Trust, Conser-

ment Leadership Project (a Smart

Even if all of

vation Fund, Natural Resources Defense

Growth Network partner) to promote

these programs

Council, and Trust for Public Lands, have

smart-growth in other parts of the

are not directly

only a passing interest in smart growth.

country;

· $165,000 to the Congress on New

Since they have collectively received more

funded by EPA,

than $2 million in grants from EPA for

Urbanism for workshops and confer-

many of the part-

other work in the past three years, they may

ences on smart growth; and

· $155,000 to the Urban Land Institute

have joined the network in part to stay in

ner organizations

EPA's good graces and possibly to be eligi-

for a national conference on smart

have received

ble to get EPA grants to expand into smart

growth;

· $50,000 to the National Governors'

EPA funds for

growth. Likewise, the National Association

of Counties represents officials whose sub-

Association to "help states develop

other projects.

urban and rural constituents tend to

smart-growth strategies";

· $35,000 to the Center for Watershed

oppose smart growth. The association gets

over $550,000 per year in grants from EPA,

Protection to develop smart-growth

which could easily motivate it to overlook

zoning codes;

· $30,000 to the Coalition for Utah's

the views of its constituents.

Future to support Envision Utah's

community workshops and to pro-

EPA Grants Distort

mote similar initiatives in "communi-

Planning

ties across the country";

· $20,000 to the Local Governments

Council for a conference on smart

EPA's combination of funding and sup-

growth; and

port to state governments, local govern-

· $10,000 to the Urban Land Institute to

ments, and nonprofits has had a powerful

effect in many places. For example, Envision

promote smart growth in a portion of

Utah is a smart-growth program promoted

Washington, D.C.

9