Fact 1: Between now and 2030, this region can expect $33.3 billion in federal and state dollars for its infrastructure -- highways, transit, water and sewer facilities and the like.

Fact 2: In our multicounty region, between 1982 and 1997, nearly half as much land (43 percent) was built on, paved or otherwise developed as in the entire two centuries before -- while the population was declining by 8 percent

Big question: Will these billions be spent on more urban sprawl? Or will they be channeled into "smart growth" -- that is, slowing the pace of sprawl to achieve greater social equity, environmental quality and economic prosperity?

		Clarke Thomas is a Post-Gazette senior editor. (clt34@pitt.edu).

For instance, a major key to "smart growth" is keying on the development of water and sewer lines, knowing they are crucial to any kind of development in suburbia, whether housing, shopping centers or industrial parks. Developers won't go into greenfields unless they are assured of water and sewer hookups. The idea of "smart growth" is to strike a balance between the no-growth some people advocate and the headlong, anything-goes that had made the Pittsburgh area "one of the worst sprawling places in the country."

That latter critique from Bruce Katz of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution may seem hard to accept when one drives around our 10-county region with its many wooded areas. But if you regard sprawl not as congestion but as inefficient use of land, we haven't performed well at all. We've continued to suburbanize with consequent highway congestion and environmental damage, forsaking the county seat towns and the mill towns with good housing and other infrastructure to spare.

Some will propose that the answer is regional government. But my guess is that the battle over streamlining the multitude of municipalities (130 in Allegheny County alone), let alone over cutting across county boundaries, will be a long time coming, if ever. To come to the point, I believe there is a hope, unearthed by Sustainable Pittsburgh, and centering around that $33.3 billion honeypot.

Or, more specifically, around the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, which will make the decisions about how to spend that money during the next three decades. Should the SPC adopt "smart growth" principles, it could make all the difference, according to Sustainable Pittsburgh, a citizens organization dedicated to building public support for "smart growth" principles through forums, lectures, publications and lobbying.

There's a catch, however, to its SPC recommendation. And that is the makeup of the SPC board, which includes county commissioners from 10 counties and the city of Pittsburgh plus members appointed by those leaders. At present, the 55-member board is like the U.S. Senate in having nothing to do with representation according to population. Under the present SPC makeup, everything is up for grabs as county commissioners vie with each other for development to help their individual tax bases. With a built-in temptation for log-rolling, "what's good for the region as a whole" often gets lost.

And that's log-rolling specifically over federal and state infrastructure money coming to the region. You see, under federal guidelines, the SPC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for this 10-county region. And under federal law, every MPO is in charge of dispensing all federal funds for highways, public transit and, crucially, water and sewer lines.

Who could change the makeup to give greater weight to the population centers? Catch-22: Apparently that power lies in the hands of the SPC board itself. That goes back to the formation in 1962 by the commissioners of six counties -- Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland -- of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission.

After the passage in 1973 of the federal act establishing MPOs, that agency was designated as the MPO for this region, concentrating on transportation. Later, economic development was added to its role, the name was changed, and Fayette, Greene, Indiana and Lawrence eventually came on board.

At first glance, some might feel it would be just as hard to redistrict the board to include "regional" commissioners as to consolidate our many boroughs and townships. But the beauty of this approach would be that people could maintain their own municipalities -- local police and all. Quite as important, people who have moved to suburbia for its bucolic beauty would be more protected than they now are against heedless sprawl around them.

Among many anti-sprawl suggestions in Sustainable Pittsburgh's "Southwestern Pennsylvania Citizens' Vision for Smart Growth" report, are these: "Assure that for every one acre of land developed, one acre is permanently protected from development." And "Prohibit Tax Increment Financing in any rural setting; it was created for redevelopment of blighted urban areas, not greenfields."

Regional government? Consolidation of municipalities? Fine. But if those routes aren't feasible, how about this way to tame the serpent sprawling in the garden: Alter the SPC board to include those who can think in regional terms to achieve smart growth through that $33.3 billion inflow.