I remember talking to someone about the growth management laws and the way they were written. If one looks at the past growth pattern, there is, to a certain degree, natural progression. So, looking at it in the late eighties, growth was occurring in a pattern that followed, for the most part, these attributes. 1. Demand. 2. Developed facilities (cost to much to bring them in or develop them). 3. Areas where it is easiest to develop and there is a lack of environmental constraints. When the plan came it, it just drew lines around areas and zoned them for certain uses, and then based the future growth patterns of what was possible, not what was feasible. When I pointed out that many of these areas were skipped over or undeveloped because of any one of the previous reasons, I was told that demand would over ride those factors. The cost or economics of developing something was not considered. And for them, there is no reason to consider that. They do not have to deal with it. So often government lives in a bubble, only viewing their portion or goal. What ever is needed to get to that goal is proposed. If no one pushes back, then that is what is implemented. Regardless of the cost or consequences.