Let me back into this from a conservative perspective. The author of the article does appear to be a bit hysterical, but there is a inkling of truthful concerns therein.
I have read the Senate Bill and have read Summaries of the Growthing Smart Guidebook. I have not read the 2000 page document.
In my opinion the Bill is a good ole fashioned government spending bill. Essentially, the US Gov would dole out money to to local governments for planning initiatives who meet a set of state and federal criteria (can you say carrot and stick?). The criteria is based on nice smart growth catch phrases like "sustainable development" and "social equity." Ie., you can have the money, but you must first do x, y, and z.
And of course it is the x, y, and, z that we all enjoy debating these Cyburbia forums.
There is notdoubt that the bill is a Top Down approach to planning. That in and of itself is anethema to conservative's, especially conservative planners. The great former speaker of the House, Thomas (Tip) O'Neil said "All politics is local." So is planning.
I think we all can agree that the smart growth, sustainable development, new urbanist movements of today, do chip away at formerly held and cherished 5th amendment rights. And the folks at APA are leading the way.
It is the slippery slope that we fear most. Today, the reg's may say I have to do a tree survey, tomorrow is may say I must save 70% of the trees. Today I can build a residential development with both traditional and suburban street patterns. Tomorrow, i must build only rectilinear blocks.
So in the end the biggest concern may be that maybe its ok for the town, city or county and its citizens to dicate the above. But when the federal Government or State gov. does, it becomes a huge problem.