/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Under the slightly overblown headline “Smart-Growth Policy Splits Environmentalists,” The New York Times gets at the challenge green groups face when they support walkable urban development. The Sierra Club backed a (successful) Berkeley ballot measure for a downtown development plan centered around transit stops.

Here’s a local chapter chairman:

“It’s controversial in the club,” Mr. Lewandowski said. “We’ve got longtime club members who see efforts to promote density as colluding with developers. That’s not true; we haven’t gotten paid a dime. Others are against living in an urban environment.”

Mr. Lewandowski said that one member, who is upset about the organization’s support of smart-growth development, threatened to remove the club from her will.

“You have colliding views within the movement,” he said, “and I think it’s healthy that we’re having this dialogue.”

Nature lovers and smart-growth types should be a natural alliance for the simple reason that people living in walk/bike/transit-friendly urban neighborhoods aren’t sprawling out into forests, wetlands, or farmlands. Props to the Sierra Club for educating its members on this.