Land-use regulation failed because political actors wrongly equated it with antipollution lawmaking

Evidence

Though the antienvironmental backlash was important, the reform effort of the early 1970s also suffered from a kind of immaturity. The supporters of land-use legislation underestimated the complexity of the task. To many environmentalists, the misuse of land was “just another form of pollution,” and a federal land-use bill seemed the obvious next step after the passage of the two great antipollution acts. But that assumption was flawed: The problem of land use was quite different from the problem of pollution. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 980

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Land-use problems resisted the technological fixes that made pollution law politically feasible — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 983; Land-use bill advocates failed to supply concrete evidence of sprawl’s environmental costs — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 985; Evidence-based advocacy fails when the political configuration is unready for it — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 9030

Broader Connections

• Land-use bill advocates failed to supply concrete evidence of sprawl’s environmental costs #expands (0.78) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 985
• Evidence-based advocacy fails when the political configuration is unready for it #qualifies (0.75) — , The Rod and the Child, 9030