In addition to the forementioned...
The paper blames Smart Growth for burdening those with modest income - but what it didn't emphasize is that such a policy only burdens them only if they chose to live in/owning large houses. The benefits of large houses, however is never justified, other than the use of flowery rhetoric as "...single-family, detached, suburban-style housing on lots large enough to ensure some measure of privacy and easy access to green grass and nature's blessings.", while ignoring the infrastructural and transportation savings by implementation of densified housing, which in this paper, is equated to "neighborhood crowding". And needless to say, there was absolutely NO mentioning of the social cost of suburbanism as is.
The paper also lays blame on density being a factor against racial integration, particularly, by pointing out a higher rate of house ownership by blacks in sprawled areas. However, it never pointed out 1. the mechanism by which those blacks move from high to lower density areas, 2. the nature of those high density areas (inner city neighbourhoods with low income/rents, perhaps?) and 3. the percentage of blacks in high-density new developments. There is also the problem of equating home ownership to progress, without any sort of rational debate on the merit of such, under the guise of "the American Dream"
So what we basically have here, in the paper, is a rant drawing from limited statistics, and using them without an understanding of the underlying sociological conditions. It was being intellectually ignorant (and indeed, dishonest) about the benefits of high density developments (and its' subsequents savings), while promoting unproven, qualitative advantages of suburbanism, but ignoring destructive influences of which has been categorized and illustrated with a far larger number of studies (and indeed, experiments) over the years.
My critique? Worthless.
GB