I have a couple of non-related to each other observations and comments.
First, in the Kelo decision about eminent domain, the Supreme Court was interpreting the law under which the suit was filed. They ruled the way they did because that's how most of them understood the law in that place at that time. It is worth noting that they tempered the decision by more or less advising all entities that existing laws could be changed to prevent further taking of private property for resale on the premise of providing "public good" in the form of increased taxes, jobs, etc. Ohio and many other states are working to reform their laws to more specifically define the circumstances under which property may be taken.
Regarding population -- the U.S. currently has a negative birth to death ratio. We are producing kids at a smaller rate than people are dying. We are, however, seeing a large influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, resulting in a population that is growing despite the low birth rate.
HOWEVER, the major cause for the destruction of open space is the growing tendency to want to claim title to a fairly large chunk of land which will not be farmed, just "improved" or domesticated in one way or another. Most efforts at controlling sprawl have to do with keeping the people and their yards, pavement, sewage, and so forth clustered near the towns and cities where the various services such as water and sewer, police and fire, etc. can be more efficiently provided. Such efforts are often brought by people who already have their own chunk of ground and want to keep the area around them free from further development.
There is a large number of people who currently own farms whose retirement plan has always been to sell the farm and use that money to live out their lives. When the time comes to quit farming, especially if the kids have seen that farming is an awful lot of work for relatively little income compared to many other careers, the place is sold to whomever is willing and able to pay the most for it. Most often, this is a developer instead of another farmer. You can't blame the farmer for taking the best price.
Surprizingly, quite a few lifetime farmers end their careers with less than a love for the place that represented unending hours of work for most of their time here on Earth. Not all landowners look at their land with love and respect. To many, it's just another investment to be sold when the time and price are right, no matter what the buyer plans to do with it.
Therein lies the conflict. The person moving out to the country has this romanticized idea that all the folks not living in the city feel about the land and open space as he does. He doesn't grasp the notion that some country people don't feel any emotional attachment to their land or their farming career and are therefore quite willing to sell to the highest bidder or do whatever will generate the biggest short term profit, regardless of what happens to the land.
How many of you hate the appearance of cell towers? Yet, if you could rent the cell company a couple of acres for $1500 per month for the next 30 years or so, would you turn it down because you don't like the towers sticking up and ruining the horizon and night sky?
