Susan Holik, you're dead-on about 2050. Depressing, isn't it? I would add that the kind of sprawl that folks like Pat Neal seem to be itching to build is essentially incapable of paying for its own infrastructure costs. It's too low-density, hence too many feet of new road, sewer pipe, etc. per taxpaying resident (all of which has to be maintained over time once it's there). This is why the developer community has been so adamant about changes to 2050 that amount to a subsidy for them: they cannot make a profit building single-family subdivisions without (implicit or explicit) taxpayer subsidies. The math pencils out better with infill, but the obstacles there are greater regulatory burdens, NIMBY property owners, and, I sense, an outdated mindset among the developers themselves that sprawl subdivisions where you're completely dependent on your car to get anywhere of interest are the future and the city is the past. How 1980s of them. Never mind that actual, nationwide market trends show the opposite.