Sustainability’s reception is dependent upon its presentation. While academics may be reaching the consensus that pursuing sustainability requires at least a triple-bottom-line approach, in practice, planners, legislators and other leaders often choose an approach that best suits their needs. In north central Texas, this has in recent years meant an approach with a focus on fiscal matters. Whatever the pro-market flavour of sustainability practice in north central Texas, elements of the conservative base have resented its pursuit. Because planners and legislators in north central Texas have muddled their concept of sustainability with jargon, conflated it with other causes and failed clearly to justify its pursuit, elements of the conservative base have interpreted sustainability as an externally motivated, threatening agenda. This paper presents eight points for planners and other leaders to consider when framing sustainability in conservative contexts for the purpose of finding for positive dialogue and outcomes.
BlaisP. (2011) Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy, and Urban Sprawl. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
5.
BurbyR. J. (2003) Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), pp. 33–49.
6.
CampbellS. (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), pp. 296–312.
DyllickT.HockertsK. (2002) Beyond the business case for sustainability, Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), pp. 130–141.
11.
EscobarA. (1998) Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements, Journal of Political Ecology, 5 pp. 53–82.
FischelW. A. (1999) Does the American way of zoning cause the suburbs of metropolitan areas to be too spread out?, in: AltshulerA.MorrillW.WolmanH.MitchellF.. (Eds) Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America, pp. 151–191. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14.
FlintA. (2006) This Land: The Battle over Sprawl and the Future of America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
ForesterJ. (1982) Planning in the face of power, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(1), pp. 67–80.
HurleyP. T.WalkerP. A. (2004) Whose vision? Conspiracy theory and land-use planning in Nevada County, California, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 1529–1547.
24.
InnesJ. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), pp. 183–189.
25.
JohnsonB. J.GravesM. (2011) Keeping it real: what planning can learn from reality TV, Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3), pp. 214–231.
NorgaardK. M. (2011) Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
37.
NorgaardR. (1988) Sustainable development: a co-evolutionary view, Futures, December, pp. 606–620.
38.
NRDC (National Resource Defense Council) (n.d.) Picturing smart growth: visions for sustainable communities across America (www.nrdc.org/smartgrowth/visions/; accessed December 2011).
39.
OsherC. N. (2010) Bike agenda spins cities toward UN control, Maes warns, Denver Post, 4August, p. A-01.
SkocpolT.WilliamsonV. (2012) The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
Small and Knust, Inc. (1980) California Local Government and CEQA, 1979: a report submitted to the Assembly Committee on rules. Small and Knust, Inc., San Diego.
49.
StaleyS. (2000) Reforming the zoning laws, in: ShawJ. S.UttR. D. (Eds) A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions, pp. 61–75. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation and the Political Economy Research Center.
50.
StaleyS.ScarlettL. (1997) Market oriented planning: principles and tools. Policy Study No. 236, Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, CA, November.
51.
StephensJ. (2011) SB 375 draws ire of Tea Party, California Planning & Development Report, 26August (www.cp-dr.com/node/3011; accessed December 2011).
52.
Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma (2008) Concerned citizens of Santa Rosa against redevelopment law abuse. Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa, Case No. SCV-239183.
53.
Supreme Court of California (1972) Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors of Mono County. 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 (104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049).
54.
Supreme Court of the United States (2005) Kelo v. New London. 545 US 469.
UN GAOR (United Nations General Assembly Official Records) (1992) Agenda 21: programme of action for sustainable development. 46th Session, Agenda Item 21, UN DocA/Conf.151/26.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
WeinsteinB. L.ClowerT. L. (2004) An overview of the Dallas–Fort Worth area’s long-term water and transportation needs. Digital Library, University of North Texas (http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30398/m1/1/; accessed December 2011).
61.
WheelerD. L. (2012) Inside the clash over climate change: social scientists try to break the impasse, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(36), pp. A1, A12–A14.
62.
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (2012) Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in March 2012 (http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Climate-Beliefs-March-2012/;accessed September 2012).
63.
YoungM. E. (2012) When bigger isn’t better: expansion takes its toll, Dallas Morning News, 6February, p. A01.
