I have a question about Clinton's Energy policy which I wanted to pose to planners.
Her plan (unlike Richardson's, Obama's and Edwards') fails to explicity use the term "smart growth", instead describing something that sounds like "smart growth".
Will the failure to explicitly use the term, which has an established literature and set of criteria, impair the ability to evaluate projects and to determine whether a project receives funding?
I also notice that instead of requiring or setting preferences in funding for "smart growth" she says she wants to "encourage". Am I being too cynical, or is this fantastically vague and unlikely to change current development patterns?
Please use descriptive thread titles in the professional sub-forums. Thanks and carry on. ~Gedunker